The Podium Vol 7 Ed 2

All opinions and ideas expressed in The Podium are the personal opinions and convictions of featured student writers and are not necessarily the opinions of The Podium staff, the Belmont Hill History Department, or the Belmont Hill School.

Published by the Belmont Hill School

350 Prospect Street Belmont, MA 02478

Printed by Belmont Printing Co. Designed in Adobe InDesign

Letter from the Staff

Dear Reader,

We are incredibly excited to share Volume VII - Edition II with you. This edition of The Podium features several outstanding student works on history, current events and school issues. In Edition II, we have brought back the History on the Hill section and added a new historical film review to complement our regular selection of opinion pieces, research papers, and miscellaneous essays.

As always, our op-ed competition yielded fantastic student works. The three winners were Luca Mezzanote ‘23, Aaron Stanger ‘24, and Jake Kornmehl ‘24. We truly appreciate all of the students who submitted their op-eds to The Podium. Also in Edition II are several research papers nominated by the Belmont Hill History Department. Included are Cooper Nelson’s Monaco American History Prize-Winning The Plane That Almost Ate Seattle, and papers from Nate Voss ‘24 and Hayden Okurowski ‘25.

Along with student submissions, in this edition Ezra Lee teaches us about BH life in 1923 and Cole Sparks reviews the film Dunkirk. Edition II features miscellaneous essays from exchange student Ben Anderson, who discusses politics in South Africa and the United States, EditorIn-Chief Sam Atalla, who shares his views on nuclear disarmament, and Max Wagner, who talks about primary elections. We would like to thank Mr. Harvey for his leadership and dedication to The Podium. And of course, thank you for taking the time to crack open this enlightening edition of The Podium.

The Podium

History on the Hill 7

Belmont Hill Life in 1923 Ezra Lee ‘25 8 Opinion Pieces 10

Expansion of Interest Luca Mezzanote ‘23 11

The Doomed Fate of Bipartisanship in American Poilitics Aaron Stanger ‘24 12

Why Tech Companies Should Start Muzzling Hate Jake Kornmehl ‘24 14

Research Papers 16

The Plane That Almost Ate Seattle

Cooper Nelson ‘23 17 The Institution Nate Voss ‘24 38

How China’s Over-Reliance on Coal Will Affect Its Role in the 21st Century Hayden Okurowski ‘25 45

Historical Film Review 53

Dunkirk Review Cole Sparks ‘24 54

Data Analysis 56

Inflation and Student Loan Forgiveness

Max Wagner ‘23 Ernest Lai ‘25 Wesley Zhu ‘25 57

Miscellaneous Essays 60

Political Polarization Ben Anderson 61

Necessary Strides for Nuclear Disarmament Sam Atalla ‘23 64

The Fading Utility of the Primary Election Max Wagner ‘23 66

Credits:

• Photography on front cover by Sam Atalla ‘23

Nominations

For Research Papers and Essays

Op-Eds

The Greatest Responsibility of The 21st Century Lev Tolkoff ‘24

The Practicality of a J-Term at Belmont Hill Kevin Weldon ‘24 Middle East & China

Internal Migrant Workers and China Adam Shaff ‘25

20th Century World History

Change Over Time In Zionist Land Aquisition And Development In Palestine Scott Black ‘24

Thank you to the History Department for their assistance in identifying strong essays and papers. Their dedication to The Podium is vital to the success of the final publication.

HISTORY ON THE HILL

Belmont Hill Life in 1923

Ezra Lee ‘25

As Belmont Hill celebrates its centennial, the centennial logo everywhere around campus, many people are wondering just what life was like for the Belmont Hill boy 100 years ago. In this article of History On The Hill, you will learn exactly what life was like for the Belmont Hill student 100 years ago. From old songs, the first letter from Belmont Hill’s headmaster, and Roger F. Duncan’s book on Belmont Hill’s history, this article will walk through life at Belmont Hill 100 years ago.

The first and most noticeable difference between now and 100 years ago was the size of the school; both in terms of physical size of the campus and the people that kept Belmont Hill running. Made up of a faculty of just ten, it’s hard to imagine how only ten people, regardless how hard they worked (which was extremely hard) could form such an amazing school environment. Today, Belmont Hill has a faculty seven times that size with 17 buildings on 37 acres. In 1923, Belmont Hill’s fundamental statement went “Working together is its fundamental idea - of men with God, of men with prophets, leaders, and teachers, of men with one another, of men’s intelligence with the forces of nature. It teaches only such uses of authority as are necessary to secure the cooperation of several or many people to one

end; and the discipline it advocates is training in development of cooperative goodwill.” While there have definitely been changes to Belmont Hill’s current mission statement, it is clear that Belmont Hill’s core values as a school have not significantly changed.

In 1924, Belmont Hill’s first edition of The Sextant, the student yearbook, was published, documenting what life was like for the Belmont Hill student at the time. Beginning with a note from Belmont Hill’s first headmaster, R. Heber Howe, Jr. saying

“Dear Boys: I appreciate very much being asked to contribute to the first publication of the School. However, I feel that a school paper belongs to the boys, and that they should in all except rare occasions be the only contributors. All I need to say to you is that, thanks to the untiring efforts of all those connected with the administration and the hearty cooperation of the boys, we have made a start this year on which we can build the future with confidence. We must not forget that a school’s work and its reputation is not confined to any one year’s achievement. The School’s future depends on the continuance of the spirit of helpful cooperation among us all. If we have established such a spirit as a school tradition we have placed a vital and enduring

cornerstone in the School’s foundation.”

Following Belmont Hill’s headmasters note, the six buildings that made up Belmont Hill, the Shaler House, the Bolles House; a portable school-house; an open-air structure familiarly called “The Cage”; and a service cottage were discussed. To finish up the yearbook, the students put in the Belmont Hill song which went as follows:

Belmont Hill School, best-of all School, In our hearts you are forever first; We will always treasure all days Spent upon the Hill with you. Dear Alma Mater, we’ll follow after Your colors bright, and ever fight For Red and Blue!

In the evening, see the gleaming Of the cheery lights that beam upon the Hill, While the wind blows round the windows, But the Old Man can’t get in; For if he bellows, our jolly fellows Will sing a song to speed along Old Mister Wind!

In the morning, at the dawning, See the sunbeams dancing oh, so merrily!

On the chill air, on the Hill where Stands the School that we adore. So here’s to Belmont, to dear old Belmont We’ll all be true to Red and Blue Forevermore!

(Sung to the tune of the Italian melody, Jovinetta)

In 1983, a writer by the name of Roger F. Duncan wrote a book about the history of Belmont Hill between the years 1923-1983 in where he states in his introduction: “A school has an organic life of its own, apart from including the lives of all those who touch it. Until the morning of September 26, 1923, Belmont Hill School was unborn, merely a group of buildings, a collection of papers, a bank account, and a conception in the minds of its incorporators, Headmaster, faculty, and prospective students. By recess time on that morning, it was a school. The personality and attitudes of Dr. Howe, the personality and attitude of each teacher in each of the first classes, the responses of each student, even the way in which the secretary answered the telephone, began to establish the character of the newborn school.”

Today, the school has changed a great deal, and for many people, the change is so significant that the school now would be unrecognizable to a student that graduated from the class of 1927, however, enrooted in the community, be it through dress code or the school spirit, is an energy that students at Belmont Hill 100 years ago carried.

OPINION PIECES

Expansion of Interest

Luca Mezzanote ‘23

It must be acknowledged that Belmont Hill, while preparing its students for the future with a slew of rigorous academic programs, fails to incorporate many special interests that students may have. It is common that the first experience one may have with courses in fields such as finance or engineering come in college. This lack of preparation can leave students with very little idea of what they want to study and eventually have a career in. The addition of a J-term to the Belmont Hill curriculum would allow students to pursue potential interests while still at Belmont Hill instead of solely being bound by the course options.

While the current course structure does have some variety, specifically in senior year with courses like economics leading the charge in the list of courses not traditional to the curriculum in any other years, there is a blaring lack of opportunities to study areas of interest. Having two weeks to intensely study a certain subject has the obvious advantage of having a chance to look into things that aren’t in the curriculum but also it can serve as a test period so in college no one ends up taking a course out of curiosity and learning that they hate the subject.

The advantages of a J-term in the realm of college are quite apparent as it can be helpful to understand what one is interested in when

making decisions on where to apply, and then what course to choose once at school. The potential downside of the J-term is missing out on two weeks of classes; however, this issue can easily be combated. By making classes 45 minutes instead of 40 on short block days and simply lengthening the day by 30 minutes, the roughly 33 hours lost are easily replaced in a way that is not too intrusive on sports.

This term would be especially beneficial to the third formers who traditionally don’t have the opportunity to customize their schedule. It serves as a break in the monotony and allows kids to start formulating their future early. While not entirely necessary it does no harm to know what one wants to study and have a career in before applying to college.

The benefits of a J-term are numerous: Expansion of interest, planning of the future, and a break from the monotony of mandatory courses. While the loss of class time must be acknowledged, as previously mentioned, it can be combated by lengthening the academic day 30 minutes. How can increased academic opportunities possibly be seen as a negative? The J-term would enhance the Belmont Hill experience and better set up its students for the future.

The Doomed Fate of Bipartisanship in American Politics

Aaron Stanger ‘24

In 2022, political party lines have never been so clearly defined. While every Republican seems to push for the same agenda on every issue, every Democratic argues the exact opposite. Of course, this wasn’t always the case; over the last 200 years America’s political landscape has changed dramatically.. But since the early days of the country, party politics has developed, changed, and grown into what it is today: a gridlock of the federal government and a populace starkly divided between two sides. Looking into the next presidential and congressional elections, bipartisanship will not develop as a way to combat this stalemate.

In the electoral college, presidential elections are regulated based on individual states, especially swing states. But the vast majority of states have a clearly defined status: Massachusetts is a Democrat state while Texas is a Republican state. Therefore, these states attract a certain person, and thus, the majority grows and grows until the state is overwhelmingly one sided. For example, Massachusetts has shifted from what was 50-50 split in the

1900s to a clearly defined democratic state in 2022. And so, Massachusetts internal legislation and policy reflects those of the left: high taxes to support spending programs like healthcare and immigration programs. This legislation creates a self reinforcing cycle. In turn, this polarization will result in an increase in individual states power, as the only way to achieve a party’s goals will be on a small scale, state level.

Moreover, voters, due to technology and the internet, have become more polarized than ever. Social media pages are crafted to fit the news algorithmically geared to keep them on the app and more sided. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc, are all geared to creating a “unique” experience that keeps you on the app. In reality, users are fed a stream of one sided information. As they view more of one side, the app receives this feedback and offers more, and more polarizing, viewpoints. By failing to acknowledge other opinions, voters get hooked and drawn to the extreme lefts and rights. In this vastly growing technological

landscape, this trend will only persist, and voters themselves will be unable to find bipartisanship among themselves.

However, in times of dire need, the bipartisanship in congress has stepped up to provide aid (such as the pandemic relief). But, these displays of collaboration are merely temporary flukes resulting from emergencies; they also do not target some of the real issues, like healthcare, gun laws, and free speech, that truely split Republicans and Democrats. Yes, it looks great when our nation comes together to support Ukraine or sanction other blatantly obvious human rights abuses around the globe. When it comes to making real progress on breaking down the political lines between Americans, true progress must be made to fix the root of the problem: that most politicians have sold themselves to one firm set of beliefs. Even if America was divided on every issue, the fact that the same people are divided on every problem leaves little room for discussion, compromise, or even acknowledgement. The future of American political parties at the voter, state, and congressional level, is a grim, self reinforcing cycle that will leave no room for bipartisanship in the coming decades.

Why Tech Corporations Should Start Muzzling Hate

Jake Kornmehl ‘24

Currently, tech companies are classified as platforms rather than publishers and, therefore, are not legally responsible for the content posted. However, many observers believe they should be held responsible for what is posted since placement could be interpreted as an endorsement for those ideas. Therefore, these companies should be held accountable for what they choose to allow on their feeds.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act outlines that tech companies may participate in “good samaritan moderation” in order to conserve a safe environment on their platforms without worrying about being sued for inhibiting free speech. Although the word “moderation” introduces subjectivity into the law, there is still no reason why large tech companies should allow accounts with a large followings to post racist, hateful, or antisemetic content. The Supreme Court has recently decided to take up the cases Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh which

puts the validity of Section 230 in question. The Gonzalez case alleges Google “recommended ISIS videos to users” and “was critical to the growth and activity of ISIS” and is thus legally accountable. The Taamneh case seeks to hold Twitter, Facebook and YouTube liable for a terrorist attack in Turkey.

Unfortunately, this idea of subjective moderation has created a grey area allowing large tech companies to outlaw even moderate political posts that disagree with the view of their platforms. The technology companies are expected to balance freedom of speech with the filtering of hateful content that could be emotionally damaging to viewers or incite violent acts.

Republican politicians across America believe that section 230 has allowed companies to “muzzle” conservative voices, while democrats argue that the law allows the spread of false information. Although this dichotomy is

a consequence of large tech companies being able to “moderate” the information on their platforms, it does not excuse Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook from maintaining a certain amount of safety on their platforms. With a record increase of young people on social media in 2023, it is vital that we create an environment where the rising generation can learn about current events without being exposed to or manipulated by hate speech. Hate groups have become more prominent and widespread throughout the world in part due to the fact that these extremist groups can impose their views on impressionable young people through the internet. A recent 2022 study from the ADL that surveyed youths ages 13-17 found that 65% of marginalized groups experienced harassment with LGBTQ+ respondents more likely at 66% vs. 38% for non-LGBTQ respondents. Asia American harassment increased significantly from 21% in 2021 to 39% in 2022. Women (14%) were harassed nearly three times as often as men (5%) and Jewish respondents attributed harassment to their religion (37%) compared to non-Jews (14%). Harassment was most common on Facebook (68%) followed by Instagram (26%) then Twitter (23%). Sadly, 47% of young people in this survey experienced some form of harassment on these social media platforms.

In order to hinder the growth of organizations such as the KKK (Ku Klux Klan), NSM (National Socialist Movement) and Q’Anon, these influential tech companies must be held responsible for the content on their platforms. Without clear tangible guidelines in the law, large tech socialmedia corporations will easily be able to find loopholes in order to maximize profits. Congress would be less likely to regulate tech companies if they defined clear consequences for violation of hate speech and harassment guidelines, regularly evaluated and publicly reported accurate statistics on hate speech on their platform and quickly removed it, work with communities targeted by harassment to modify algorithms, and provide data to academic researchers for critical analysis with the goal of better understanding and therefore increasing the likelihood of mitigating online hate.

Yes, freedom of speech is an integral part of the American identity. But, these tech companies have the power to either allow the spread of extreme political views and terrorist ideology or prevent it. With important issues such as global warming or the Ukraine crisis already plaguing our lives, politicians should do everything in their power to promote a safer, more moderate environment. With that in mind, politicians should indeed make sure that large tech corporations are held accountable for what information they make available to the public.

RESEARCH PAPERS

The Plane That Almost Ate Seattle:

The Motivations Behind America’s Failed Supersonic Transport Program

Monaco Prize-winner 2022 | AP United States History

Cooper Nelson ‘23

Introduction

On the crisp morning of October 14th, 1947, a Boeing B-29 bomber took off from a dry lakebed in the Mojave Desert in California. The bomber’s payload was US Air Force Captain Chuck Yeager and his Bell X-1 aircraft, nicknamed “Glamorous Glennis” for Yeager’s wife (Figure 1). The experimental X-1, with its bullet-like contours, was designed to be the first plane to transcend the speed of sound. Little more than a blood-orange aluminum can strapped to a rocket engine, the X-1 was the evolution of numerous failed military attempts to fly faster than sound. The risk of failure was severe, and multiple pilots had perished trying to do what Yeager would attempt. At an altitude of 23,000 feet, the B-29 dropped the X-1, which rapidly climbed, before beginning a slow descent during which history would be made.1

With a thunderous boom that startled onlookers, the X-1 reached a top speed of Mach 1.06, or around 700 miles per hour.2

In that moment, Yeager had become the fastest man alive, and safe supersonic flight, long thought impossible, was proven to be attainable. With this achievement, the first era of aviation came to a close, and the supersonic age began. In this discovery, a new realm of possibilities was unlocked, equivalent to the steam engine or the first Mesolithic canoe.

As one sensationalist author described this advancement, “Supersonic speed is the newest, fastest, most dramatic expression of an innate craving of men– to move quickly about the world.”3 Logically, people began to wonder how soon this remarkable innovation could be experienced by the common man.

The answer came in 1963, when John F. Kennedy announced at the Air Force Academy the US’s intention to develop and build a commercial supersonic transport (SST).4 Because this undertaking was too expensive for any aircraft manufacturer to finance alone, the federal government promised to pay the majority of the development and production costs.5 After a design competition, Boeing’s model 2707 was selected in 1964 to be built into two prototypes.6 The budget was set at $1 billion, and development commenced soon after. However, the program experienced several cost overruns and delays, as well as questions surrounding its environmental impact. Political opposition grew, and in March 1971, further funding for the program failed to make its way through Congress, and the supersonic transport never made it past the design phase.

The effects of the cancellation on Boeing

were disastrous. Already in a difficult spot due to massive borrowing to finance the development of its 747, Boeing was forced to lay off thousands of additional workers after the SST was canceled. Boeing’s commercial workforce decreased from around 80,000 in 1968 to as low as 20,000 in the months following the Congressional votes.7 The economic ruin and subsequent mass workforce exodus imposed on Seattle gave the SST the moniker “the plane that almost ate Seattle.”8

ubiquitous nationwide anti-SST movement began to take shape, ignited by a small group of scientists and economists. Gaining support from the environmentalist movement, the SST’s opponents grew in number and in influence, spawning a widespread and farreaching media smear campaign. Ultimately, the SST, created to compete with European and Russian equivalents, failed because its opponents were more vocal than its supporters, and by attacking the project’s imperfections, they were able to turn the tide of public and political opinion against the program.

Origins of the SST

The SST program failed because politicians, influenced by a national anti-SST movement and clear public opinion, voted against further funding due to the plane’s economic and technological infeasibility, as well as its environmental flaws. By the late 1960s, evidence started to pile up against the continuation of the program. Several reports and appraisals into the program’s feasibility came back negative, and dissent to the program’s continuation arose in Congress. Technological issues such as the sonic boom delayed the program and ballooned its budget. Questions emerged surrounding its economic viability, as airlines were hesitant to get involved and politicians feared the government would never recover its investment. Responding to these issues, a

The SST Program, first surmised by President Kennedy in 1962, was initiated primarily in response to the European Concorde and the Russian TU-144. The Concorde, a joint British-French endeavor, threatened American dominance in commercial aviation manufacturing. Furthermore, the project was justified as a means through which the economy as a whole and the ailing economic industry could be enhanced.

The Concorde

In November 1962, the British and French governments formally announced their collaboration on the Concorde program, a jointly funded and developed commercial Supersonic Transport.9 The program was the first of its kind and hoped to leverage the research and manufacturing capabilities of both countries. Built by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and French Sud Aviation (later Aerospatiale), the Concorde was designed to carry 100 passengers at up to twice the speed of sound.10

Figure 1:103 Bell X-1 “Glamorous Glennis”

The motivations behind the Concorde program’s initiation were primarily political rather than technological. An inquiry report designed to assess the validity of the Concorde program was delivered to the British Parliament in 1965.11 Its author, an industrialist named Lord Edwin Plowden, defended the Concorde on the basis that it would boost the UK’s economy in several ways. These included defense, foreign policy, and trade balances.12 He concluded that it was necessary to fund the Concorde not because an SST was required, but to support the faltering European aircraft industry.13

After the end of World War 2 and the dawn of the jet age, Europe had fallen critically behind in the commercial aircraft industry. The British had surpassed the jet threshold first, unveiling the de Havilland Comet in 1952. However, the plane proved a commercial failure after a series of disastrous crashes caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by poorly engineered rectangular windows. Confidence in the plane’s safety plummeted, and it was grounded in 1954.14 In the years following, 80% of the commercial aircraft market went to American stalwarts such as the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, leaving the European manufacturers to compete against superior aircraft.15 British aircraft exports in 1955, standing at a value of 55 million pounds, were dwarfed by American exports, totaling 260 million pounds the same year.16

The Plowden report stressed that it was necessary to support the air transport industry with SST funding that would both benefit the national economy and heal the weakened industry. It would improve poor trade balance

statistics, increase employment and output in the aviation industry, and position the UK and France as world leaders in aerospace technology. By building the Concorde, Europe hoped to leapfrog American aviation domination by entering the supersonic market first, and, as French President Charles De Gaulle put it, challenge “America’s colonization of the skies.”17 Notably, very few Concorde proponents argued that supersonic travel was necessary; rather, it was a means to accomplish other ends. This theme is paralleled in the defense of the American SST, drawing harsh criticism from the program’s opponents.

The Concorde was perceived as a threat to the US aviation industry because it was intended to increase Europe’s share in the world market. The predicted implications of a successful, monopolistic Concorde program on the United States were catastrophic. FAA director Najeeb Halaby warned that it would force the US to “relinquish world civil transport leadership,” and cost as many as 50,000 jobs.18 In a report to President Kennedy, he even warned that the inconceivable could come to fruition: someday, the President could by flying on a foreign aircraft.19 Additionally, in 1962, the Soviet Union confirmed that it was commencing development on its own Supersonic Transport, the Tupolev TU-144, labeled “Concordski” by derisive Americans.20 This announcement factored into rising Cold War tensions between the US and the Soviet Union and strengthened the case for an American SST. The entrance of the second world hegemon into the supersonic race caused the issue to transcend mere economics; America was now at war with its

diametric enemy for control of the industry.

Foreign competition became the primary factor influencing the American SST decision. The Project Horizon report, issued by the FAA Task Force on National Aviation goals in 1961, recommended that the US must “maintain its position as the world’s leading developer and builder of all categories of aircraft.” The authors argued that maintaining industry superiority would benefit national security, economic growth, and even promote world peace. It seemed to American politicians in the tense Cold War climate that strengthening the aviation industry was necessary. President Kennedy himself was reported to have an “obsessive desire not to have America fall behind in any phase of aerospace technology.”21

The obvious and most pressing way to strengthen the industry came to be supersonic flight. Since no American manufacturer was financially capable of funding this project, it seemed a natural choice for federal support despite the technological shortcomings and inherent risk associated with the plane’s development. Avoiding European industry domination (and even the thought of Russian domination) proved reason enough for government sponsorship of the program.

After the Tupolev announcement, fears of Russian commercial aviation strength also factored into the decision to accelerate the SST program. The Soviet Union’s post-WW2 technological prowess astonished the world. In 1949, they tested an atomic bomb years earlier than thought possible, sending the western world into a frenzy.23 In 1957, they sent two satellites and a dog into space,

brandishing their aerospace achievements to the west.24 These innovations scared the US, as the thought of relinquishing superiority in even one domain of the multifaceted Cold War brought shivers to nationalist American politicians. This fear is evident in the congressional passing of the National Defense Education Act in 1958, which was signed in the wake of the Sputnik launches. This law promoted and allocated funds toward research and education in STEM fields, and was intended to breed a new generation of engineers and scientific thinkers that could restore America’s extolled technological leadership. Evidence of Russia’s technological abilities led Halaby to state that “the Russians have the capability for fielding a Mach 2 transport anytime they want to.”25

Furthermore, confidence in the success of the Concorde program in America was declining. The UK’s newly formed Labour government planned a thorough appraisal of the practicality and economic prospects of the Concorde amid calls for its dissolution in 1964.26 The Concorde was plagued with design setbacks, hundreds of millions in budget hikes, and political opposition that placed doubts on its future.27 Additionally, an American study by Department of Defense economist Stephen Enke evaluated the Concorde’s economic prospects. Enke reported that the Concorde had little chance of success due to its narrow market niche resulting from its limited route potential and high seat-mile costs.28 These factors combined raised doubts about the successes of the Concorde amongst Americans. Thus, the unpalatable possibility that the Europeans could fail while the aerospace savants in

the Soviet Union might succeed began to pervade the politics behind the American SST decision. While many American economists found European domination of the supersonic niche unfathomable, Russian domination was unanimously agreed upon to be unacceptable. Doubts about the Concorde furthered arguments that an American SST was needed solely to prevent the Russians from monopolizing the commercial air industry.

On June 4th, 1963, leading American Airline Pan American, led by fervent SST supporter Juan Trippe, announced its intention to purchase six Concordes for its international fleet.29 The very next day, President Kennedy announced the inception of the American SST program.30 The proximity of these events suggests that the Concorde was the foremost impetus for the American program (Figure 2). World Bank Chairman Eugene Black summarized this motivation well, asserting:

“It’s too bad we have to build the damn things. But the Concorde forced us to. We certainly can’t sit here and turn over the market to the British and the French – from the standpoint of prestige to our industry.”31

The threat of the Concorde and the Soviet TU-144 proved to be the defining factor in the American SST decision. While economic, social, and technological arguments factored into the initial SST debate, it was ultimately the threat of foreign industry dominance that compelled President Kennedy to fund the American SST.

Economic Benefits

In addition to the menace of foreign supersonics, the American project was also justified as a nationally productive means of economic intervention. In 1967, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the aviation manufacturing industry contributed 3.7% of the country’s non-agricultural workers and 3.8% of the GDP.32 In addition, aviation’s ties to the tourism and travel industries, as well as its prevalence in the raw materials market, mean that stimuli within the aviation industry have implications that reverberate throughout the economy.33 Before the SST was devised, the Kennedy administration identified the aviation industry as a potential route to instill federal dollars into the private sector to improve the national economy.34 Since the SST would have required thousands of workers, private subsidies, and a substantial amount of material resources, its existence would have had far-reaching benefits spanning multiple economic sectors.

The SST also would have energized an aviation industry that was struggling in the wake of waning peacetime military aircraft investment. Prior to the SST, nearly all commercial aircraft ventures were offshoots of federally funded military research. Typically, the defense department would fund research into technology with military applications, and then the manufacturers could use that knowledge, including airframe prototypes, to bring commercial products to market. An example was the prominent Boeing 707, which was built off the Dash-80 prototype for the Air Force KC-135 tanker.35 However, in peacetime after the Korean War, military spending in general and specifically in

aviation diminished, aggravated by President Eisenhower’s Policy of Boldness and military budget cuts.36 Cold War military spending also progressively favored missile development, leaving aircraft manufactures without funding for new initiatives. Aircraft corporations in the late ’50s and early ’60s were strapped for cash, and as one historian put it, cognizant of the danger “that the impetus for technological advance would be lost.”37 In response to this threat, the SST could have revitalized the afflicted aircraft manufacturing industry.

Figure 2104: “Congress” by Etta Hulme, appearing in the Fort Worth Star Telegram in the early 1960s

The SST’s Demise

In the late 1960s, a growing movement amongst American politicians rose against the SST. It culminated in a March 1971 decision in the Senate to cancel funding for the program, after over a billion dollars and a decade of

work had already been poured in. However, many of the motivations for the program’s inception persisted. The Concorde and Tupolev programs were nearing completion, and the economic implications of a foreigndominated industry remained strong. The SST was voted down despite its initial motivations because of a nationally potent opposition movement that objected to the SST’s technological, economic, and environmental flaws.

Technological Barriers

SST scientists established early on that for the plane to be economically viable, the issue of a sonic boom would have to be solved. Sonic booms occur when an object is traveling faster than the speed of sound. Supersonic aircraft create a pressure shockwave that manifests in a deafening boom that anyone under the plane’s path can hear. In a report commissioned by President Kennedy into the SST’s feasibility, World Bank Chairman Eugene Black confessed that “unless solutions to [the sonic boom] is found, the entire program could fail to become commercially feasible.”38 Included in the FAA’s initial design constraints of the aircraft were provisions requiring that the aircraft maintain reasonable noise levels around airports, and manage the issue of the sonic boom.39 However, when Boeing discovered that there was no simple or cost-effective solution to these issues, they successfully lobbied to have those constraints removed in their 1965 contract.40 This constituted an admission that Boeing would not address the issue, and in the design process, it was clear that they ignored it. This departure from Black’s warning represents

how design flaws, combined with failures to acknowledge early red flags, precipitated the demise of the program.

The magnitude of the disruptiveness of sonic booms was not fully understood until 1965, when the FAA conducted tests over Oklahoma City.41 The tests were conducted using Air Force fighter jets, which produced considerably weaker booms than a larger plane would be expected to create. Pilots flew the jets at regular intervals over the city, and the FAA warned residents beforehand as to when they could expect the booms to occur. They found that while most people found the booms acceptable, a growing fraction of people (27%) found the booms intolerable.42 Additionally, there were thousands of formal damage complaints filed by Oklahoma City residents, most of whom claimed that windows had been shattered by the disruptive thunderclaps.43 Since the magnitude of a sonic boom is directly proportional to the size

design and testing of a Supersonic Transport. Because of these findings, little to no research was done into creating a quieter and more acceptable airplane. Those in charge of the program felt that the sonic boom would not prove to be an issue in the long run. In a world where supersonic flights were seen as the future, there was a pervading attitude amongst scientists and technocrats that these booms were unavoidable byproducts of advancement and would come to be accepted. When pressured on the sonic boom issue, newly appointed SST program head General Jewell Maxwell responded with, “I’ll bet you’ll find that babies are sleeping through them [sonic booms].”45 SST proponents advocated that the booms did not need to be eradicated, rather, they would have to be accepted. They felt that it was a necessary price to pay for progress; forward innovation inevitably had its drawbacks. However, this outlook did not account for the fact that a single supersonic transcontinental flight would boom upwards of 5 million people, and due to its forecasted size and speed, would be excruciatingly loud.46 By ignoring rather than addressing or even acknowledging the issue, Boeing and the FAA advanced a project with a known vulnerability, setting the stage for the program to fail.

and speed of the moving object creating it, it stands to reason that the SST’s sonic booms would have been deafening.

The FAA, looking for evidence to corroborate their view that the sonic boom would not be an issue, used the Oklahoma data to reinforce the idea that people would come to live with sonic booms.44 They determined that there was nothing in the data that precluded the

Additionally, as the project progressed, it became clear that the restraints placed on the program to make the aircraft commercially competitive made it technologically infeasible. The 1963 Black and Osborne report recommended that the US pursue an aircraft superior to the Concorde in both speed and size.47 The Concorde program was already two to three years ahead in its development.

Black stated that “a superior aircraft which is available within two to three years of the first ‘Concorde’ deliveries would still be able to capture the bulk of the world market.”48

Purely out of economic necessity, the United States was forced to pursue an aircraft that was both faster and of higher capacity (Figure 3) to account for the timetable difference between the SST and the Concorde. However, the assessment made in the report assumed that a superior aircraft would be developed in a similar timeframe to the Concorde – the Americans were behind by two years at the onset of the program – and did not consider the technological breakthroughs required to build a plane capable of flying at Mach 2.7 (2000+ mph).

a comparatively expensive material and required new machinery and techniques to work with. The SST’s General Electric engines, which were the most powerful jet engines ever constructed, needed to survive the rigors of industry safety testing. The plane needed to be able to withstand meteorological forces resulting from high-altitude flying.50 Engine emissions needed to be studied to identify any adverse effects on the ozone layer, through which the SST would be flying.51

The SST would need to have tolerable airport noise levels and be able to operate without any tailor-made airport infrastructure such as gates or runways. Each of these constraints, many of which were contradictory in nature, resulted in an engineering mountain that became costly and time-consuming to overcome.

The myriad challenges resulting from the necessity of exceeding the design parameters for the Concorde resulted in delays, cost overruns, and ultimately an incomplete aircraft by the time the project was canceled. Unlike the Concorde, titanium needed to be used for the fuselage instead of aluminum, as aluminum couldn’t stand up to the immense heat generated at speed.49 Titanium was

One development that proved particularly damaging to the SST’s prospects was Boeing’s proposed swing-wing design. To be commercially viable, an SST would need to be aerodynamically efficient both at runway speeds and above Mach 2. Boeing, whose bid was chosen to build the SST, elected for a swing-wing mechanism to change the shape of the wing for optimal aerodynamic efficiency covering a wide range of speeds (Figure 4). It was intended to allow the plane to take off and land “like a conventional jet, yet still… cover three miles in five seconds.”52 However, this part of the design process proved especially difficult to master. Due to the intricacy of the swing mechanism, and the added weight of the bulky machinery, the design was scrapped late in the 1960s.53 This setback caused a yearlong delay and resulted in price increases and stagnation in popular support for the aircraft. In all, by the time the Concorde made its first

Figure 3105: The Boeing 2707 in the background, with the Concorde and Tupolev TU-144 in the foreground

flight in 1969, Boeing was back at the drawing board after abandoning its design. Work had not even begun on a prototype, and America was insurmountably behind in the supersonic race. The failure to produce a technically viable design in a reasonable timeframe contributed to the uncertainty behind the program, leading to its demise.

Economic Challenges

Perhaps even more challenging than the technological obstacles were the economic roadblocks to the SST’s completion, both for an industry that wasn’t ready for the plane and the government that had to foot an extremely risky bill. First, the federal government’s costs far exceeded initial estimations. In 1963, Congress determined that a total of $1 billion would be required to finance the development and construction of the first two companies.54

Due to the manufacturers’ inability to contribute, Congress originally agreed to a 75:25 financing ratio, in which the engine and airframe manufacturers would be responsible for a minority of their costs.55 However, it soon became clear that this arrangement was unsustainable for the manufacturers. Understanding the technological cliff that had to be climbed to ensure an eventual profit, the manufacturers shied away from the costsharing agreement.56 As historian and aviation researcher T.A. Heppenheimer put it, “This was their way of declaring that the SST looked like a fine way to lose money.”57

There was no evidence that the sonic boom issue was solvable, and there were only educated guesses regarding the sales potential for this type of aircraft. Due to these concerns, the congressional funding bill was

amended to a 90:10 ratio, putting nearly the entire burden of financing this gargantuan undertaking on the taxpayer.58 As the program progressed, experiencing setback after setback, cost estimations ballooned to $4.5 Billion.59

The magnitude of funding required was more than Congress could justify, and they rejected a further $134 million dollar appropriation in 1971, effectively killing the SST program.60

Figure 4106: Boeing 2707 swing wing design

The $4.5 billion cost estimate was viewed as a gamble that was unlikely to pay off. The hefty sum was originally justified through a royalty program that would recoup the taxpayers’ investment through a sales tax on the plane.61 Beginning with the 101st sale, a royalty would be attached to the sale price of each aircraft that would reimburse all or part of the initial investment.62 However, it was estimated that these revenues would not materialize until at least 1980, due to repeated manufacturing

and development delays.63 Furthermore, the success of the investment relied entirely on the success of the aircraft. By 1970, it was apparent that failure to address the sonic boom issue would severely limit the SST’s route potential due to worldwide bans on overland supersonic flying, which cut sales estimates by more than half.64 Despite these restrictions, hundreds of aircraft would still need to enter service for the principal sum to be recovered. In addition, mammoth fuel consumption and seat-mile costs further clouded the profitability prospects of the SST. costs, not a single aircraft was every sold internationally (the Concorde’s only operators, British Air and Air France, were both partially state-owned as well), indicative of a far smaller market than initially speculated.66 Without any sales, the rest of the $2 billion dollar development cost had to be underwritten by the British and French treasuries.67 A similar fate would likely have befallen the Boeing SST had it moved forward to production. Given

the magnitude of investment required and the considerable uncertainty of the program, the slim chances for success contributed to antiSST sentiment in Congress and the eventual rejection of funding in 1971.

The financial impact of the SST program on the commercial aviation industry also contributed to the cancellation of funding due to high prices and fears of monopolization. The SST was initially slated to be sold at $30 million, compared to $12 million for the Concorde and under $10 million for the subsonic jets of the era, such as the Boeing 707.68 These predictions that sum.69 This transition required drastically higher levels of capital from airlines, putting them in a difficult position where they needed more money than they had. By forcing the supersonic jets on airlines, some feared that they were rushing airlines into buying planes that they couldn’t afford. The airlines would have to stomach the debt and buy the jets out of necessity, and any that couldn’t afford them would be outcompeted as the industry

transitioned into the supersonic age. While some airlines, namely Pan American, were interested in purchasing SSTs, most did not want to make the financial commitment until the plane’s economics were proven, further adding to the uncertainty surrounding the program.

In addition, some worried that government involvement in the production of the SST would lead to monopolization amongst manufacturers. While the FAA accepted bids from multiple manufacturers in a design competition initiated by Lyndon Johnson in 1966, only Boeing and General Electric (GE) were contracted to develop the SST.70 This left other participating manufacturers, such as Lockheed, without the financial resources to stay competitive. Considering no company could fund SST development on its own, any manufacturer not involved in the federal program would soon become insolvent as the supersonics took over the majority of market demand. These fears were legitimate, as evidenced by the merger of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and Douglas Aircraft Company into McDonnell Douglas in 1967, partially due to fears of Boeing and BAC/ Aerospatiale market domination.

The Anti-SST Movement

In response to the economic and technological concerns, as well as political antagonism and environmentalist worries, a nationwide anti-SST campaign began to take shape in the late 1960s. At the helm of this movement in Congress was Senator William Proxmire (Figure 5). A witty and charismatic Democrat from Wisconsin, he was known for allowing public opinion to influence his

actions and for staunchly opposing wasteful government spending.71 Well-known for his frugality, he legislated the same way he lived his life: with efficient spending and thrift. His principal argument against the SST was that it constituted wasteful spending on an extravagance without any tangible benefits. By 1971, barely half of the country had traveled on a plane of any kind, and supersonics seemed to most an unnecessary and far-reaching step that would benefit very few.72

Beyond that, the predicted high price of supersonic flight tickets meant that only the wealthy would ever experience faster travel, raising questions about who benefited from the SST. Proxmire also decried the potential 4-billion-dollar investment for accomplishing nothing aside from a two and a half hour travel time between New York and Europe for the top one percent.73 George Hilton, who served as chairman of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society task force on transportation, felt that the program existed so that the taxpayer could “subsidize the travel habits of the highincome classes.” 74 Proxmire mirrored this idea in a Senate floor speech by stating that the only people who benefit from the program were

“the high-powered international businessmen, the impatient jet set playboys and the like.” 75 Proxmire’s populist views gained traction amongst the voting public, the majority of whom were not part of that sky faring minority. Unsurprisingly, congressional constituent mail during this period was majority anti-SST, further shaping lawmakers’ views surrounding the SST.76

When viewed in the context of President Johnson’s Great Society reforms, which pledged similarly sized sums towards poverty alleviation, the SST was seen as a white elephant.77 Senator Robert Kennedy, an ally of Proxmire, summarized this point well in a 1968 speech during an appropriation vote: “Three hours ago, the administration was in favor of cutting $198 million from the poverty program which would have provided jobs. Now it is supporting this kind of legislation… We are faced with a $29 billion dollar deficit. We are spending approximately $30 billion a year in Vietnam. We have internal problems in our own country and they are not improving. We should not build a supersonic plane so that one percent of the population can get to Paris in four hours while so many of our people are in such desperate need.” 78

It was impossible to justify hundreds of millions in spending on the shaky economics and premise of the SST when similar sums were being cut from poverty programs. The view of the SST as a wasteful institution devoted to the needs of the elite took hold, leading to increased allegiance to Proxmire’s camp.

Additionally, technical reports on the SST’s feasibility were publicized, and most did not assess the program’s prospects favorably. When President Nixon entered office, he commenced a number of these reviews to determine if he would continue the program. One report, conducted by a task force that Nixon put together, investigated the SST’s cost, environmental hazards, and effects on

trade balance. The report’s conclusions were overwhelmingly negative and determined that the aircraft would not have nearly as great of a positive impact on society as previously thought. Nixon also commissioned a member of his Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Richard Garwin, to do an independent feasibility study. This report recommended that the President terminate the program and withdraw all federal dollars. To the dismay of several Senators, Nixon decided to move the program forward despite these findings.79

Figure 4107: Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin), an ardent SST adversary

As congressional opposition to the SST grew, a consortium of scientists and environmentalists contributed to the program’s demise through extensive lobbying and a widespread media presence. Leading the charge was an unlikely Harvard University physicist named Dr. William A. Shurcliff. Alarmed by reports of the effects of the sonic boom, he founded the Citizens’ League Against the Sonic Boom

(CLASB) in 1967.80 The CLASB aimed to flip Congress against the SST through lobbying and to change public opinion by exposing the program’s less favorable details. Prior to 1967, nearly all SST information, including the critical appraisals and reports, were kept hidden within the administration and the FAA.81 Suspecting that critical information was being suppressed, Shurcliff investigated and published his SST and Sonic Boom Handbook, which attempted to expose technical information on the SST, including the results of the sonic boom trials (which were not nearly as complimentary to the program as the FAA claimed them to be).82 The handbook sold over 100,000 copies to the public in the years leading up to 1971, demonstrating the influence Shucrliff’s efforts had on the American public.83

Shurcliff’s primary grievance was the disruptiveness of the sonic boom. He claimed in the New York Times in 1967 that a fleet of SSTs flying over land would cause $1 million in damages every day through soundrelated incidents, and that the government was pursuing sound pollution in an era of environmental awareness.84 He foresaw a future in which hourly disruptive booms were a regular and even accepted occurrence, and his activism struck a chord with others in the scientific community.85 His league grew to over a thousand members by late 1967, and about a quarter of them were members of the scientific community. Shurcliff’s organization was unsuccessful in fomenting legislative change in the late 1960s but did succeed in uniting a network of outspoken critics in opposition to the SST. Using the media as a tool, which was overwhelmingly supportive of the anti-SST movement, Shurcliff, Proxmire,

and others slowly began to shift public opinion against the continuation of the program.86

After President Nixon’s election, the CLASB united with the strengthening environmentalist faction in American politics, resulting in an even more potent national anti-SST movement. During the 1960s, the environmental movement exploded in prevalence, commonly thought to begin with the 1962 release of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, a novel that denounced pesticide usage.87 A national bestseller, the novel prompted widespread outcry and nationwide recognition for the environmentalist cause. The Sierra Club, a conservation group originally founded in 1892 by John Muir, experienced successes during the ’50s and ’60s, preventing the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon and lobbying for the passage of the Wilderness Act, which protected public lands from commercial development.88 By 1970, polling organizations found that three-quarters of Americans found air and water pollution serious, up from one quarter five years earlier.89 Environmentalists then saw further successes during the Nixon administration with the celebration of the first Earth Day in 1970 and the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency.90 Environmentalist organizations and politicians, through use of the media, were able to influence public opinion to necessitate legislative progress towards conservation. During this time, the environmentalists not only grew in numbers, reach, and capability, but also became a large enough faction that politicians pandered to their sympathies, as evidenced by the Nixon Administration’s actions. The environmentalists became politically disadvantageous to ignore, and

their support became both sought-after and even essential for American legislators.

The SST program became swept up in the environmentalist movement due to intensifying anxiety surrounding the sonic boom and concerns about the aircraft’s impact on the ozone layer. Due to the SST’s relatively high flight ceiling of around 60,000 feet, an atmospheric scientist named Conway Leovy charged that the water vapor and nitrogen expelled by a fleet of SSTs could weaken the ozone layer over time, through a chemical process called Wet Photolysis.91 His assertion had some scientific merit and was welcomed in Congress by the anti-SST wing.92 In addition to the threat posed by a weakened ozone layer, environmentalists objected to the sonic boom’s adverse effects on people and ecosystems. An offshoot of the Sierra Club named Friends of the Earth joined with the CLASB to advocate against the SST.93 Uniting their efforts and resources, the groups furthered their cause through sponsored newspaper ads and editorials, as well as mass dissemination of Shurcliff’s Handbook. The movement grew, and by March 1970, a coalition was formed that added the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and several other organizations spanning multiple sectors and regions of American society.94

The Coalition, with its extensive power and influence, united the national environmental movement in opposition to the SST. Support for the program became difficult to justify in the face of national dissent.

The Coalition’s lobbying, based in its environmentalist roots, became a defining factor behind the cancellation of funding in

March 1971. The media became the Coalition’s most effective tool in spreading their views. Throughout 1970 and ’71, the public was subjected to incessant newspaper editorials that viciously attacked the program for its many risks and deficiencies.95 An editorial in the New York Times, published two days before the ill-fated vote, summarized these arguments plainly:

“There is no urgent human need to be met by the SST. Commercial airlines are in no financial position to purchase these planes. Construction of the planes is an extraordinarily wasteful way to ease unemployment. Congress wishes to appropriate these large sums, there are many social needs that deserve priority. The cost of the SST in money, noise and environmental risk excessively high. Every argument points toward the Senate voting once again to refuse funds for this project.”96

In the face of an overwhelmingly pessimistic public, legislative support for the SST withered away in the months leading up to March 1971. Since public opinion favored cancellation, lawmakers risked their electability by advocating for the program, and ultimately, the appropriation failed to move through Congress twice, in March and again in May 1971. Without any public funding, Boeing’s leadership quickly terminated the program amidst speculation about the company’s future. Ultimately, the motivations that led to the project’s termination had existed all along. The difference between congressional appropriation votes taken a decade apart was the public voice. In 1961, the SST in the planning

stage was understood only by those at the highest level of government and industry; by 1970, the entire country felt that they were “entitled to challenge the technocrats.”97

In retrospect, the greatest weapon used against the SST was public opinion. The project certainly had its shortcomings, and they were well known amongst the SST’s leaders from the beginning. However, the SST was, from its onset, a bureaucratic initiative, endorsed only by Boeing and GE and a small group of select operatives within the executive branch. These actors made a very limited effort to appeal to the people, because their validation was not initially required for the program to take flight.

On the other hand, SST opponents such as Shurcliff “generated enough scare stories to convince the public that the SST was the worst thing to afflict the world since the bubonic plague.”98 Their arguments struck a chord in the vacuum left by the SST supporters’ relative silence and the FAA’s lack of transparency. It appeared that most Americans didn’t seem to care about the national origin of the planes that they may or may not be flying on in the coming decades. In the end, the people, inspired by the countercultural mood in the air, challenged the establishment’s authority, and in doing so, struck down the most monumental undertaking in the history of the commercial aviation industry.

Conclusion

The American SST program, initiated in response to the threat of foreign supersonics, failed due to its economic and technological infeasibilities being promulgated nationally by

the anti-SST activists. The sonic boom issue had no apparent solution, and the commercial aviation industry was not prepared to adopt the costly aircraft. As the Citizen’s League and the Coalition spread disparaging information on the SST through the media, public opinion shifted against continuation. With a political incentive to vote down the project, Congress in 1971 elected not to provide further funding for the program, terminating hopes of an American SST once and for all.

In evaluating the failure of the American Supersonic Transport Program, it is vital to understand its purpose. Specifically, the program was not designed for the purpose of building a supersonic jet. There was never a necessity for faster travel, nor in many cases was there even a want for it. Historian David Lawrence believed that introducing an SST to the market was only the third most important goal of the program, behind boosting the economy by intervening in the private sector and supporting the aircraft industry in the presence of a foreign threat.99 The FAA’s Project Horizon Report, which outlined the US’s aviation goals for the 1960s, put building an SST at goal #14, behind maintaining world aviation leadership and supplementing foreign policy initiatives.100 The SST was, at its core, nothing more than an inefficient means to other ends. It was a vehicle that some reasonably argued

furthered American political and economic goals, but itself had little merit or need. SST opponents such as Proxmire were quick to point out how supporters never championed the speed of the plane, further diluting the aircraft’s justifications.

In pursuing its political goals, the government sank a billion dollars into a program that seemed “contrary to the perceived needs of the public in general and the airline industry in particular.”101 Its proponents ignored the risks, brushed aside early warning signs and unfavorable reports, and concealed disparaging information from the public. At no point in the program’s timeline, save perhaps the very beginning, did its funding make sense. As a French congressman stated about the Concorde (a comparatively reasonable project), “By all normal decision-making systems,

future of the industry; it was a necessary but risky plot to further American corporate and political interests. Catastrophic failure was understood as a possibility, but the threat against American manufacturing was grave.

When viewed critically, it was a project that was doomed from the start. It was pursued for political motivations, without the consent of the people, when almost every sign and technical appraisal pointed to its eventual demise. It is an example of the dangerous intersection between technology and politics, where nonsensical initiatives are taken, and market forces are ignored. It was a program that Wall Street was too scared to fund, pursued out of fear by public figures swept up in Cold War nationalist fervor.

The SST came to symbolize both progress elitism, both interventionist socialism and corrupt

The SST can be viewed in multiple ways. When seen generously, it was a noble attempt to protect American industry, but it was blindsided by miscalculations regarding its market niche, the sonic boom, and the threat posed by the Concorde. It failed because circumstances changed, and new information was discovered in its decade-long lifespan.

When evaluated more pragmatically, the SST was a gamble. It was a calculated bet on the

corporatocracy. both by initial unity and national conflict, by engineering triumphs and devastating setbacks. It was a project that some argue should never have taken place; the SST was a product of political hubris and a government blinded by international competition. After a decade, a billion taxpayer dollars had been thrown away, tens of thousands of aviation jobs had been lost, and the imaginations of enthusiasts and dreamers nationwide were shattered, all over a foreign threat that failed to materialize.

Endnotes

1 Smithsonian Institute, “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glennis,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, accessed May 18, 2022, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-ob jects/bell-x-1/nasm_A19510007000.

2 Ibid

3 A. Herron, Cobra in the Sky: The Supersonic Transport (New York: Crowell-Collier Press, 1968), 13.

4 Tom A. Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” in The Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972 (Washington: Smith sonian Inst. Press, 2002), 307, accessed December 24, 2021, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf.

5 Evert Clark, “U.S.- Backed Bonds for Jet Pro posed,” The New York Times (New York City), May 24, 1965, late City edition accessed Decem ber 27, 2021, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/ timesmachine/1965/05/24/101549847.pdf?pdf_redi rect=true&ip=0.

6 Clive Irving, Wide-body: The Triumph of the 747 (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993), 186.

7 Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 303

8Russ Banham, Higher: 100 Years of Boeing (San Fran cisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015), 197.

9David S. Lawrence, “The Initial Decision to Build the

Supersonic Transport,” The American Journal of Eco nomics and Sociology 30, no. 4 (October 1971): 405, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485505.

10T. Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Concorde,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last modified September 15, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/technology/Con corde.

11Lawrence, “The Initial,” 407

12Ibid

13Ibid

14Lewis Johnman and Frances M.B. Lynch, “The Road to Concorde: Franco-British Relations and the Supersonic Project,” Contemporary European History 11, no. 2 (May 2002): 231, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081830.

15Herron, Cobra in the Sky, 107

16Johnman and Lynch, “The Road,” 234

17Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,”306 Mel Hor witch, “The Role of the Concorde Threat in the U.S. SST Program” (working paper, MIT Alfred P. Sloane School of Management, Cambridge, MA, May 1982), 4

19Ibid

20Robert J. Serling, Legend and Legacy (New York, N.Y.:

St. Martin’s, 1992), 267-268

21United States Federal Aviation Agency, Report of the Task Force on National Aviation Goals (Project Hori zon), 10, accessed December 31, 2021, https://edan. si.edu/transcription/pdf_files/32931.pdf.

22Serling, Legend and Legacy, 268

23David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen, The American Pageant, 17th ed. (Boston, MA: Cengage, 2020), 832

24Ibid, 868

25Paul Martin, “U.S. Air Chief Urges Supersonic Trans port,” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), Sep tember 17, 1962, 20, https://www.proquest.com/ docview/168188025/FE7C7DDE75844D86PQ/4?ac countid=35147.

26Horwitch, “The Role,” 9 27Ibid 28Ibid

29Lawrence, “The Initial,” 405 30Ibid

31George Lardner, Jr, “Supersonic Scandal,” New Repub lic 158, no. 11 (March 16, 1968): 17, PDF.

32U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics 1967 : Bulletin of the Unit ed States Bureau of Labor Statistics, by W. Willard Wirtz and Arthur M. Ross, report no. 1555, 56, August 3, 1967, accessed May 21, 2022, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/ handbook-labor-statistics-4025/handbook-labor-sta tistics-1967-498301.

33Lawrence, “The Initial,” 406 34Ibid

35Edward C. Wells, “The Boeing Jet Transport,” National Defense Transportation Journal 12, no. 2 (March/April 1956): 38, accessed February 27, 2022, https://www. jstor.org/stable/44098971.

36Lawrence, “The Initial,” 403-404, Kennedy and Cohen, The American, 865-866.

37Joshua Rosenbloom, “The Politics of the American SST Programme: Origin, Opposition and Termination,” Social Studies of Science 11, no. 4 (November 1981): 405, https://www.jstor.org/stable/284775.

38Eugene R. Black and Stanley J. Osborne, Report on the Supersonic Transport Program, December 1963, Naval War College Library, Newport, RI.

39Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,”15 40Ibid

41Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 407 42Ibid

43Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 309 44Ibid

45Don Dwiggins, The SST: Here It Comes, Ready or Not (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), 75-76.

46Why the SST Took a Nosedive,” The Washington Post (Washington, DC), July 21, 1982, accessed December 13, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ lifestyle/1982/07/21/why-the-sst-took-a-nosedive/eb 2f66ec-d672-49ef-beb1-d125dd90c721/.

47Black and Osborne, Report on the Supersonic. 48Ibid

49R.L. Bisplinghoff, “The Supersonic Transport,” Scientific American 210, no. 6 (June 1964): 30, accessed February 27, 2022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24931523.

50George A. Steiner, “Costs, Needs and Prospects of SST,” Challenge 12, no. 9 (June 1964) 28 https://www. jstor.org/stable/40718853.

51Ibid

52Serling, Legend and Legacy, 272-273 Richard Hallion, NASA’s Contributions to Aeronautics (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Ad ministration, 2010), 592, accessed February 5, 2022, https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/482997main_ 53 Contribu tionsVolume2.pdf.

54Steiner, “Costs, Needs,” 29

55Ibid

56Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 307

57Ibid

58“U.S. Reappraising Program for Supersonic Airliner,” The New York Times (New York City), March 12, 1964, late City edition, 28, accessed December 24, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/12/archives/us-re appraising-program-for-supersonic-airliner.html.

59Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,”13

60Lawrence, “The Initial,” 403

61Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 14

62Ibid

63Ibid

64Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 406

65Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276

66Britannica, “Concorde.”

67Ibid

68Steiner, “Costs, Needs,” 29

69113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967). Accessed December 30, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bound-congres sional-record/1967/05/31/senate-section?s=1&r=374.

70Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 13

71U.S. Congress, “William Proxmire: A Featured ,” Unit ed States Senate, accessed May 14, 2022, https://www. senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Prox mireWilliam.htm.

72Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 317

73113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967)

74Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 16

75113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967).

76Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276.

77Geoffrey Thomas, “The Supersonic Airliner That Turned into a White Elephant,” Airline Ratings, last modified March 16, 2022, accessed May 20, 2022, https://www.airlineratings.com/news/supersonic-air liner-turned-white-elephant/.

78Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 16.

79Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 412.

Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276

80Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 408

81Ibid

82Ibid, 409

83Joel Primack and Frank Von Hippel, Advice and Dis sent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York City: Basic Books, 1974), 16, PDF.

84“League against the Sonic Boom Works to Stop Building of High-Speed Jets,” The New York Times (New York City), June 18, 1967, 60, accessed May 15, 2022, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma chine/1967/06/18/issue.html.

85Ibid

86Linda J. Greenhouse, “Protest Blossoms as Sonic Booms,” The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, MA), Sep tember 26, 1967, accessed May 18, 2022, https://www. thecrimson.com/article/1967/9/26/protest-blossomsas-sonic-booms-psix/.

87PBS, “The Modern Environmental Movement,” Amer ican Experience, accessed May 15, 2022, https:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/ earth-days-modern-environmental-movement/.

88Sierra Club, “Historical Accomplishments,” Sierra Club, accessed May 15, 2022, https://www.sierraclub.org/ac complishments#:~:text=1890s%20The%20Sierra%20 Club%20is,boundaries%20of%20Yosemite%20Nation al%20Park.

89Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 311

90Sierra Club, “Historical Accomplishments,” Sierra Club. 91Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 314. 92Ibid

93Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 413. 94Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 313. 95Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276.

96“The Cost of the SST,” The New York Times (New York City), May 18, 1971, Editorials, 38, accessed December 13, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/ar chives/the-cost-of-the-sst.html.

97 “Why the SST Took,” Washington Post

98Serling, Legend and Legacy, 275.

99Lawrence, “The Initial,” 411.

100United States Federal Aviation Agency, Report of the Task Force, 57.

101Lawrence, “The Initial,” 411

102E.W. Kenworthy, “Frenchman Finds SST’S Costs Soar,” The New York Times (New York City), March 14, 1971, 21, accessed December 29, 2021, https://www.nytimes. com/1971/03/14/archives/frenchman-finds-ssts-costssoar-servan-schreiber-cables-views-to.html.

103Smithsonian Institute, “Bell X-1 Glamorous,” Smithso nian National Air and Space Museum.

104Etta Hulme, “Congress,” cartoon, Fort Worth Star-Tele gram (Fort Worth, TX), accessed May 14, 2022, https:// libraries.uta.edu/ettahulme/image/20114989.

105Thomas, “The Supersonic,” Airline Ratings.

106“Boeing 2707 Swing Wing: Clearance to Stabilizer,” Airliners.net, accessed May 21, 2022, https://www.air liners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774639.

107U.S. Congress, “William Proxmire,” United States Sen ate.

Primary Sources

Bisplinghoff, R.L. “The Supersonic Transport.” Scientif ic American 210, no. 6 (June 1964): 25-35. Ac cessed February 27, 2022. https://www.jstor. org/stable/24931523.

Black, Eugene R., and Stanley J. Osborne. Report on the Supersonic Transport Program. December 1963. Naval War College Library, Newport, RI. Requested by President Kennedy, Delivered to President Johnson

Clark, Evert. “U.S.- Backed Bonds for Jet Proposed.”

The New York Times (New York City), May 24, 1965, late City edition, 31. Accessed December 27, 2021. https:// timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma chine/1965/05/24/101549847.pdf?pdf_ redirect=true&ip=0.

113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967). Accessed Decem ber 30, 2021. https://www.con gress.gov/bound-congressional-re cord/1967/05/31/senate-section?s=1&r=374.

Dwiggins, Don. The SST: Here It Comes, Ready or Not. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969.

Greenhouse, Linda J. “Protest Blossoms as Sonic Booms.” The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, MA), September 26, 1967. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.thecrimson.com/arti cle/1967/9/26/protest-blossoms-as-sonicbooms-psix/.

Herron, Edward A. Cobra in the Sky: The Supersonic Transport. New York: Crowell-Collier Press, 1968.

Kenworthy, E.W. “Frenchman Finds SST’S Costs Soar.”

The New York Times (New York City), March 14, 1971, 21. Accessed December 29, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/14/ar chives/frenchman-finds-ssts-costs-soar-ser van-schreiber-cables-views-to.html.

Lardner, George, Jr. “Supersonic Scandal.” New Republic 158, no. 11 (March 16, 1968): 13-17. PDF.

Lawrence, David S. “The Initial Decision to Build the Supersonic Transport.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 30, no. 4 (October 1971): 403-12. https://www.jstor. org/ stable/3485505.

Martin, Paul. “U.S. Air Chief Urges Supersonic Trans port.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), September 17, 1962, 20. https://www. proquest.com/docview/168188025/FE7C7D DE75844D86PQ/4?accountid=35147.

The New York Times (New York City). “The Cost of the SST.” May 18, 1971, Editorials, 38. Ac cessed December 13, 2021. https:// www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/archives/thecost-of-the-sst.html.

The New York Times (New York City). “League against the Sonic Boom Works to Stop Building of High-Speed Jets.” June 18, 1967, 60. Accessed May 15, 2022. https://timesmachine.nytimes. com/timesmachine/1967/06/18/issue.html.

The New York Times (New York City). “U.S. Reap praising Program for Supersonic Airliner.” March 12, 1964, late City edition, 28. Accessed December 24, 2021. https://www.nytimes. com/1964/03/12/archives/us-reapprais ing-pro gram-for-supersonic-airliner.html.

Steiner, George A. “Costs, Needs and Prospects of SST.” Challenge 12, no. 9 (June 1964): 28-30. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/40718853.

United States Federal Aviation Agency. Report of the Task Force on National Aviation Goals (Proj ect Horizon). September 1961. Accessed De cember 31, 2021. https://edan.si.edu/transcrip tion/pdf_files/32931.pdf. From the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Archives

U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Handbook of Labor Statistics 1967 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. By W. Willard Wirtz and Arthur M. Ross. Report no. 1555. August 3, 1967. Accessed May 21, 2022. https://fraser.stlouisfed. org/title/handbook-labor-statistics-4025/ handbook-labor-statistics-1967-498301.

Wells, Edward C. “The Boeing Jet Transport.” National Defense Transportation Journal 12, no.2 (March/April 1956): 38-39. Accessed February 27, 2022.https://www.jstor.org sta ble/44098971.

Secondary Sources

Banham, Russ. Higher: 100 Years of Boeing. San Fran cisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Concorde.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Last modified Sep tember 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/ technology/Concorde.

Hallion, Richard. NASA’s Contributions to Aeronau tics. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Aeronau tics and Space Administration, 2010. Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.nasa. gov/pdf/482997main_ContributionsVolume2. pdf.

Heppenheimer, Tom A. “Aerospace Recession.” In The Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972, 291-327. Washington: Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2002. Ac cessed December 24, 2021. https://history. nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf.

Horwitch, Mel. “The Role of the Concorde Threat in the U.S. SST Program.” Working paper, MIT Alf red P. Sloane School of Management, Cam bridge, MA, May 1982.

Irving, Clive. Wide-body: The Triumph of the 747. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993.

Johnman, Lewis, and Frances M.B. Lynch. “The Road to Concorde: Franco-British Relations and the Supersonic Project.” Contemporary European History 11, no. 2 (May 2002): 229-52. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/20081830.

Kennedy, David M., and Lizabeth Cohen. The Ameri can Pageant. 17th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage, 2020.

PBS. “The Modern Environmental Movement.” Amer ican Experience. Accessed May 15, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe

rience/features/earth-days-modern-environ mental-movement/.

Primack, Joel, and Frank Von Hippel. Advice and Dis sent: Scientists in the Political Arena. New York City: Basic Books, 1974. PDF.

Rosenbloom, Joshua. “The Politics of the American SST Programme: Origin, Opposition and Ter mination.” Social Studies of Science 11, no. 4 (November 1981): 401-23. https://www.jstor. org/stable/284775.

Serling, Robert J. Legend and Legacy. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s, 1992.

Sierra Club. “Historical Accomplishments.” Sierra Club. Accessed May 15, 2022. https://www.sierra club.org/accomplishments#:~:text=1890s%20 The%20Sierra%20Club%20is,boundaries%20 of%20Yosemite%20National%20Park.

Smithsonian Institute. “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glen nis.”Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Accessed May 18, 2022.https:// airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/bell-x-1/ nasm_A19510007000.

Thomas, Geoffrey. “The Supersonic Airliner That Turned into a White Elephant.” Airline Ratings. Last modified March 16, 2022. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://www.airlineratings.com/ news/supersonic-airliner-turned-white-ele phant/.

U.S. Congress. “William Proxmire: A Featured Biog raphy.” United States Senate. Accessed May 14, 2022. https://www.senate.gov/senators/Feat uredBios/Featured_Bio_ProxmireWilliam.htm.

The Washington Post (Washington, DC). “Why the SST Took a Nosedive.” July 21, 1982. Ac cessed December 13, 2021. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/archive/life style/1982/07/21/why-the-sst-took-a-nose dive/eb2f66ec- d672-49ef-beb1d125dd90c721/.

The Institution

20th Century World History

Nate Voss ‘24

In 1933, Hitler removed all constitutional protections for individuals and minorities. In 1934, his government allowed for imprisonment without trial or review from the courts. By 1935, concentration camps had already cropped up in Germany.1 Three years later, in 1938, Hitler won Time’s Person of the Year award for economic reforms. The year after, he invaded Poland. Hitler and the Nazis wanted as complete control over Poland as he did Germany, and concentration camps proved to be an important tool. Camps flourished across greater Germany, evolving from prison camps to death machines.2 Horrendous, indescriminate killings were not unique to Nazi Germany, and brutality and violence were not novel ideas to Authoritarian regimes. Even genocide had happened in the past.3 So what made the Nazis special? The structure of the concentration camp system in Nazi Germany enabled its scale and brutality. Early, locally-rooted concentartion camps provided inspiration for Nazi officials who created a

national system, while these later camps continued to rely on localities’ participation. A national camp structure revolutionized the original system, creating a large-scale, efficient killing machine. At the same time, organization at the camp level facilitated suppression of prisoners and improved conditions for camp personnel which further enabled largescale, brutal executions. While concentration camps were part of a nationalized system for the last decade of the Nazi regime, before that point they were all local institutions.4 Most cropped up in 1933 as a response to the mass arrests of so-called “political enemies,” of the party, or anyone who showed a sign of resistance (estimates of their numbers range between 30,000 and 10,000 prisoners).5 At their peak, there were around one hundred localized camps in Germany. Local officials established camps on an as-need basis in ballrooms, unused industrial buildings, and, in one documented case, the deck of a barge.6

These concentration camps were founded and staffed locally, with guards hailing from a combination of the SS, SA, and local police. At this point, no national coalition was possible, as the Nazi party was still in the process of consolidation of power, and did not yet have complete control over the government.7 After just one year, in 1934, concentration camps started to lose support around the nation. Many camps had already closed, and even within the Nazi party, certain officials supported the shutdown of the system and the mass release of prisoners. These officials believed that Germany’s system of courts and prisons would be enough to control the population.8

However, Himmler, recently appointed head of the Gestapa in Prussia, Germany’s largest state, saw promise in these camps to suppress the population. By late 1933, most Prussian concentration camps were staffed by SS officers, although local directors still ran the camps.9 These local camps would serve as templates for later, nationalized camps, once complete Nazi control was established in Germany.10 In this way, local camps served as the inspiration and template for later camps, and without them, the concentration camp system would have never existed.

In addition to providing inspiration for later camps, early, localized camps, instilled terror into the population, allowing for a faster Nazi assention to power. After Adolf Hitler was brought to power in 1933, he banned the German Communist Party, and invoked a German policy called “protective custody,” which allowed arrest without trial (a law which was originally meant to detain people for their

own protection), to authorize the internment of all communists and political enemies into concentration camps.11 The purpose of these early camps was to “reeducate” resisting civillians, which always involved imprisonment and often involved torture. The policy was successful at instilling terror into the nation and preventing resistance to Nazi rule.12

The final local facet of concentration camps was that of complacency. Early purges of political opponents, and the constant threat of the concentration camp prevented many from speaking up. In addition, the Nazis did an excellent job of making examples of highprofile dissidents, while not harming the average civilian, as long as that average civilian was a straight, non-Jewish, white, non-disabled person.13 In one case, they tortured Cologne’s leading Social Democrat (Social Democrats were one of the Nazi party’s main rivals) by forcing him to drink a mixture of castor oil and urine.14 Hitler also ameliorated conditions for many German citizens during the early years of his tenure, making it easy for the ordinary person to overlook the horrors taking place in concentration camps.15 An additional factor in the promotion of local complacency was Nazi Germany’s laws. “Malicious gossip,” was banned, which included talking negatively about Nazis or Hitler. “Hateful speech” against any Nazi leaders carried the death penalty. Actions that went against state policy such as sheltering Jews could also lead to execution. So did writing, speaking, or distributing leaflets advocating for the return of democracy, or the alteration of the constitution in any way.16 These laws meant that one could be sent to concentration camps without trial, using

Protective Custody laws, or one could be put on trial, resulting in possible execution, for any resistance to the Nazi regime. By making the consequences clear and not harming the average civilian, Nazi Germany prevented any local resistance against concentration camps. Overall, the early local concentration camps served to inspire later camps, helped

survive and thrive under Nazi rule.18 Himmler’s IKL gave the camp system new life and allowed for the massive scale and efficiency of the developed system. In 1934, Himmler, currently in control of the SS of Prussia, granted the SS a monopoly over Protective Custody arrests, allowing them full control over imprisonment without trial. He also staffed Prussian concentration camps entirely with SS soldiers, creating a direct pipeline from Protective Custody arrests to concentration camps.19 Himmler also revamped the camps themselves. He created an entirely new camp at Dachau, a city in Prussia, which is often regarded as the first true concentration camp. Staffed by SS with an SS commandant, the camp murdered four Jewish civilians within a day. Dachau was also the first camp to use work as a method of torture, rather than an economic tool.20 At this point in 1934, camps were neither national, nor did they single out Jews as primary prisoners, although Jews were targeted for torture and murder when they were imprisoned at the camp.21

Hitler rise to power, and kept average citizens complacent all of which played an essential role in facilitaing the violence that took place in Nazi Germany.

While local camps played an important role early in the Nazi era, by 1934, the majority had closed, and it looked like the concentration camp system would die off.17 It was Himmler creating the national concentration camp inspectorate (IKL) that allowed camps to

Between 1934 and 1936, Himmler tasked a subordinate with dissolving and combining camps to create a unified Prussian system, with all new camps based off of the Dachau system. Himmler created the IKL to oversee this process, and to be the umbrella organization centralizing the continued oversight and management of the entire system.22 With the centralization of the Prussian camp system, Himmler also ordered the standardization of conditions within all concentration camps which included labor for the purpose of torture. This standardization of conditions created terrible violence throughout Prussia camps. In addition to torturing the prisoners,

this forced labor was used to further expand concentration camps and enrich the Prussian SS.23 Crucially, in 1936, Hitler appointed Himmler as the chief of German police, which allowed Himmler to bring his Prussian model of concentration camps to a national scale, basing all further camps on Dachau. These new camps were primed for the mass arrests

around six to eight weeks.26 In addition, the labor crises of 1942 coincided with a famine, leading to prisoners working more for less food, as the national standards for concentration camps were altered to accommodate for the general population’s increased food needs.27 Also, in the captured Polish territory, Nazis began to build a new type of camp -

of so-called “asocials,” in Germany during 1937 and 1938, which were mostly Jews. The arrests of asocials kicked off the routine imprisonment and killing of Jews that lasted through to the end of the war.24

The final expansion of the national camp system was kicked off through the 1939 invasion of Poland. Once conquered, Hitler desired the same overarching control over the new territory as he had in mainland Germany. To Himmler, the way to achieve this goal was concentration camps.25 In Poland, he continued with his policy of “Vernichtung durch Arbeit,” or extermination through labor. Using the same national standard conditions that had been present since Dachau, the life expectancy of a prisoner was somewhere

death camps. These camps served the sole purpose of exterminating prisoners through gas chambers. With the nationalization of the camp system came nation-wide railroads which were used to deliver loads of prisoners to camps with gas chambers, where they would be immediately killed, or forced into labor if they looked fit enough.28 All in all, the nationalization of the concentration camp system rescued it out of its slow death, led to enforced, terrible conditions, a tremendous increase in scale, and the evolution of death camps. These developments all increased the extreme brutality of the Holocaust.

Local compliance and national standardization of camps would do little, though, without the effective control of prisoners. This is where the

camp-level organization of the concentration camp system came in. The primary goals of camps were to kill prisoners and maintain order. Both of these tasks required the docility of prisoners and the sanity of guards. To lower the weight resting on each staff member, concentration camps were divided into different departments, with different branches within each department.29 This arrangement left each staff member to do a small, seemingly inconsequential job. For instance, the medical department of concentration camps were in charge of the Zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate prisoners. If a staff member were to simply pack Zyklon B cartridges, it is easy to feel removed from the killing. The rationalization is that it’s not your fault that those canisters would be dropped into the gas chambers. Camp leaders also utilized other techniques to lessen the detrimental effects of camp life on guards’ mental health. For instance, once canisters were dropped into the gas chambers, motorcycles were often revved outside to mask the noises of the screams coming from within the chambers.30

The same intent of maintaining the guards’ ability to cope with their jobs was seen with the separation of womens’ camps and mens’ camps, No men were to guard women. This led to the training of thousands of female guards, who were deployed to camps across the country and even held positions of responsibility.31

Staff accountability was further reduced via the use of Kapos - prisoners that were given extra rations, clothing, or the promise of freedom in order to lead groups of prisoners.32 These Kapos were often picked for their violent and

selfish nature, and could be even more brutal than the guards themselves. Kapos would carry out many of the beatings and killings in concentration camps. If a prisoner offended a Kapo, it was the equivalent of a death sentence.33 In this way, Kapos also served to keep prisoners docile by ruling with an iron fist.34

Further measures to keep prisoners quiet centered on the manipulation of their hope. Enough hope of survival was provided to the prisoners that they would not risk their lives to revolt, but not enough was given that they might be unruly.35 Various methods were used to manipulate hope. For instance, all death camp gas chambers were fitted with shower heads, and towels were handed out upon entry. Eliezer Gruenbaum, a Jewish Kapo at Birkenau, recounts hearing the hope that these amenities provided. He explained that most going into the gas chambers knew what lay ahead, “But the sight of the undressing room with its mirrors and the distribution of towels and soap kindled hope in them. This hope caused them to undress without resisting, to enter the gas chamber without resisting. Each one thought: ‘Perhaps?’”36

A similar type of hope was used to calm down camps that were close to revolt. Guards would tell the prisoners fake stories about how Germany was losing the war, causing prisoners to hope that they might live until the end of the war, which stopped them from revolting.37 While hope was used to manipulate prisoners, camp conditions were simultaneously kept bad in part to prevent an insurrection. Emaciated prisoners would stand no chance against the guards, even in large numbers.38 Reducing

food also served to ferment prisoner-prisoner violence. Starving prisoners would steal bread from other prisoners, creating conflict that prevented prisoners from rising up against their oppressors.39 Overall, the camp-level organization of the concentration camp system galvanized the effective elimination of prisoners, by keeping guard accountability low and creating a more docile prison through the departmentalization of camps, manipulating the hope of prisoners, and maintaining terrible prison conditions.

The Holocaust is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. The Nazi’s concentration camps evolved systematically to be an institution of violent ethnic cleansing, the scale and brutality of which had never yet been been seen in our world. However, it was not bred by an inherent evilness of Germans, nor by the cunning of a single malicious leader. An entire nation was manipulated to stay complacent during a genocide, by supression of the general population, a brutally efficient national structure, and the careful manipulation of hope and conditions within camps. By studying the structure of concentration camps, we can isolate the first steps that enable such violence, namely the abolition of peoples’ rights, and the prohibition of dissent.

Frighteningly, these enabling factors have been developing throughout our modern world. Recently, Russia passed a law that bans negative speech against the military and criminalizes “fake news,” a piece of legislature eerily similar to the Nazis’ “malicious gossip” law. China, too, has been suppressing personal rights for years, and even has its own concentration camps which promote the

Nazi ideals of “reeducation.” By recognizing these developments as possible paths towards genocide rather than isolated incidents, we can begin to take action, and maybe even prevent our worst hour of history from repeating itself.

Endnotes

1Henry J. Gwiazda II. “The Nazi Racial War: Concentration Camps in the New Order.” The Polish Review 61, no. 3 (2016): 59-84.

2Ibid

3Theodore Abel. “The Sociology of Concentration Camps.” Social Forces 30, no. 2 (December 1951): 15055.

4Birkbeck University of London. “Camp System.” The Nazi Concentration Camps. Accessed May 12, 2022. http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/themes/camp-system. html.

5Geoffrey P. Megargee, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945: Early Camps, Youth Camps, and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.

6Ibid

7Ibid

8Birkbeck University of London, Camp System

9Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos

10Ibid

11Ibid

12Gwiazda, Nazi Racial War, 59-84

13Richard J. Evans, “Coercion and Consent in Nazi Germany.” The British Academy, 2007, 53-81. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/ documents/2036/pba151p053.pdf.

14Ibid

15Ibid

16Ibid

17Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos

18Birkbeck University of London, Camp System

19Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos

20Ibid

21Ibid

23Ibid

24Ibid

25Gwiazda, Nazi Racial War, 59-84

26Ibid

27Ibid

28Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

29Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. “The Organizational Structure of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.” Auschwitz.org. Accessed May 23, 2022. https:// www.auschwitz.org/en/history/the-ss-garrison/theorganizational-structure-of-auschwitz-concentrationcamp/.

30“The Gas Chambers.” Education Institute of Scotland. Last modified February 3, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.eis.org.uk/Auschwitz/ Holocaustpart12.

31Wieviorka, Annette, and Jeanne Armstrong. “Women and the post-war Nazi trials.” Clio, no. 39 (2014): 14651. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/26238723?seq=1.

32Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.

33Galia Glasner-Heled, and Dan Bar-On. “Displaced: The Memoir of Eliezer Gruenbaum, Kapo at Birkenau— Translation and Commentary.” Shofar 27, no. 2 (Winter 2009): 1-23.

34Ibid

35Ibid

36Ibid

37Ibid

38Ibid

39Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Bibliography:

Abel, Theodore. “The Sociology of Concentration Camps.” Social Forces 30, no. 2 (December 1951): 15055.

and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.

Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. “The organizational structure of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.” Auschwitz-Birkenau. Accessed April 24, 2022. https:// www.auschwitz.org/en/history/the-ss-garrison/theorganizational-structure-of-auschwitz-concentrationcamp/.

Birkbeck University of London. “Camp System.” The Nazi Concentration Camps. Accessed May 12, 2022. http:// www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/themes/camp-system.html.

Evans, Richard J. “Coercion and Consent in Nazi Germany.” The British Academy, 2007, 53-81. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/ documents/2036/pba151p053.pdf.

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

“The Gas Chambers.” Education Institute of Scotland. Last modified February 3, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.eis.org.uk/Auschwitz/Holocaustpart12.

Glasner-Heled, Galia, and Dan Bar-On. “Displaced: The Memoir of Eliezer Gruenbaum, Kapo at Birkenau— Translation and Commentary.” Shofar 27, no. 2 (Winter 2009): 1-23.

Gwiazda, Henry J. II. “The Nazi Racial War: Concentration Camps in the New Order.” The Polish Review 61, no. 3 (2016): 59-84.

Megargee, Geoffrey P. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945: Early Camps, Youth Camps,

Wieviorka, Annette, and Jeanne Armstrong. “Women and the post-war Nazi trials.” Clio, no. 39 (2014): 14651. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/26238723?seq=1.

How China’s Over-Reliance on Coal Will Affect its Role in the 21st Century

Middle East and China

Hayden Okurowski ‘25

According to Kenneth Lieberthal, Senior director at the National Security Councils Asia desk under Pres. Bill Clinton, “The Chinese wouldn’t put it this way themselves, but in their hearts, I think they believe that the 21st century is China’s century.” This statement conveys President Xi’s strategic vision for China to surpass the United States and become the next great superpower of the 21st century. Specifically, China has the objectives to become the global leader in its economy, military, technology, and foreign policy. China has also pledged to be a world leader in climate change and renewable energy. On October 29, 2021, two days before the start of COP26, Xi and China confirmed their commitment to the terms of the Paris Agreement by promising to reach peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve net zero emissions before 2060.1 With China being the world leader in carbon emissions, China’s dependence on coal as its largest source of energy must be addressed

as part of a new energy policy if China is to be successful in meeting its environmental goals. In this regard, China’s challenge is how to address its ongoing power shortages and maintain economic growth while continuing to meet its international obligations to lower carbon emissions. How China addresses this challenge will need to be solved at both national and provincial levels if China wishes to succeed in making the 21st century China’s century. China’s most pressing energy and environmental challenge is that despite China’s pledge to reduce carbon emissions, its current energy infrastructure is still dependent on coal. China is dependent on coal primarily due to its enormous economic growth and the fact that coal is cheap and available in China.2 From 1990 to 2019, China’s coal consumption nearly quadrupled from 527 metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) to 1,951 Mtoe. In 2019, coal made up 57.7 percent of China’s energy use.

Since 2011, China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined. China’s industrial sector is by far the largest consumer of coal.3 Internally, China’s continued dependence on coal highlights the struggle between China’s need to grow its economy with cheap and readily available coal power and the country’s broad desire to lower CO2 emissions. This has put China’s stated national environmental objectives and policies in direct conflict with its provincial energy requirements.4 China has historically struggled with environmental enforcement at the local level when pressured; provincial governments have prioritized economic development over the environment.5 Economic development in China is governed by the National Development and Reform Commission (NRDC), while the Energy policies are governed by the National Energy Administration (NEA) and Environmental policies are led by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP). The lack of integration between these three organizations and the policies they create have been demonstrated since 2015. In 2015, China passed the Environmental Protection Law, which was the nation’s first major environmental reform legislation of the last two decades. The law put stricter punishment and laws on polluters. As part of the Environmental Protection Law, China committed to a future Five-Year Plan that would directly address cuts to carbon emissions and showed a more dedicated commitment to environmental protection.6 However, since 2015, China has remained vague in how they will accomplish stated environmental goals and actions have been often contradictory to pledges made to protect the environment. For example, China has pledged to raise its

power generation from solar and wind plants to 11 percent of total power consumption and cut coal production to below 56 percent of total energy consumption.7, 8 Nonetheless, in the post-pandemic economic surge, China’s energy demands have increased. Supply could not meet demand in the spring of 2021 and 11 provinces experienced significant power outages.9 China’s increased demands for power were met with demands for increased coal consumption by the China Electricity Council. On July 30, 2021, some within the Politburo even argued the crisis in the provinces was because many local governments were too aggressive with their attempts to reduce emissions and limit coal consumption.10 The reality is that China’s economy and energy sector currently remains dependent on coal. China is still growing its coal industry and is currently the world leader in building new coal power plants. In 2020, China brought close to 50 gigawatts of coal fired power plants online, which is over 3 times the total of the rest of the world combined. As of 2021, a total of 247 gigawatts of coal power is now in planning and development.11

Due to China’s massive continued increased investment in the use of fossil fuels, many internationally question the validity of China’s claims to reach peak emissions by 2030.12 China’s national solution to this problem is complex. In theory, the Chinese policy process should be able to develop a strategic balance between the economy, power production and the environment because the CCP is diffused throughout the local, provincial, and national government. In reality, China’s energy, economic, and environmental policies follow a pattern of “fragmented authoritarianism”

as outlined by Lieberthal.13 Fragmented authoritarianism maintains that despite the centralized power of the CCP, delegation of decision making and responsibility move downward to local levels of government; in addition, power also moves horizontally between state ministries that often have competing ideals and responsibilities. The issue of fragmented authoritarianism has plagued China’s interaction of environmental, economic, and energy policies. More specifically, China has historically struggled with environmental enforcement at the local level when pressured; provincial governments have prioritized economic development over the environment.14 Without reform, this problem is likely to continue. The solution may lie with Xi Jinping who leads with an emphasis on centralized authoritarianism and can increase the power of the central authority over provincial independence. Xi can accomplish this through a series of future Five Year Plans with a long-term strategic approach that focuses on unifying the balance of China’s national needs for development, energy, and the environment. The task of making the switch to carbon neutral energy sources will not be easy, but the place to start is in Northwest China, where wind and solar renewable energy are abundant. The Northwest also has a longstanding tradition of cooperation between provinces and the electrical sector. With success in the Northwest, Xi can bring a coordinated model of economic, energy, and environmental policies to the rest of China.15 In doing so, Xi can make a national commitment to coordinate coal retirement initiatives over time and not disrupt the economy and the availability of power.

China’s motivation to pursue an immediate path to net-zero carbon emission extends beyond purely environmental issues. To mitigate the security risks of fossil fuels, China must quickly transition to carbon neutral resources. While China is the largest consumer of energy, each year only a fraction of its energy comes domestically. Over 70% of its oil and 40% of its gas usage are imported.16 Although China is self-reliant with its production of coal, it over relies on its number one environmental polluter. This puts China into a vulnerable position due to regional instability, political sanctions, and foreign disputes, which could cause China to drastically worsen an already ongoing energy crisis. So, if China can transition to a cleaner form of energy, they will become self-sufficient while helping the environment. China’s switch to renewable energy would also benefit its global geopolitics. China would be able to expand its military presence in regions for the purpose of energy security and protection of domestically produced renewable energy.17 And, with China being a large superpower on the global stage, the country would have the potential to influence smaller countries to become energy efficient. China also must use its environmental movement to create “soft power” and mitigate political tensions to improve its image and prove that China is truthful in its goals to become carbon neutral.18

As China has been viewed as an antagonist on the world stage in the past years, China must prove its willingness to collaborate with the rest of the world. China may do this by completing the promises set out by the 2021 Paris Agreement, which will set China as a world leader in environmental change. By taking a leadership role and committing

to addressing the challenges, it will create opportunities for China to build trust among nations and grow its political influence.

Despite China’s pledge to reduce carbon emissions, its most pressing energy and environmental challenge is that their current energy infrastructure is still dependent on coal. Internally, China’s continued dependence on coal highlights the struggle between China’s need to grow its economy with cheap and readily available coal power and the country’s broad desire to lower CO2 emissions. The lack of integration between China’s economic development, energy, and environmental policies have been demonstrated since the start of the 21st century. In 2015, China passed the Environmental Protection Law, which was the nation’s first major environmental reform legislation of the last two decades. However, since 2015, China has remained vague in how they will accomplish stated environmental goals and actions have been often contradictory to pledges made to protect the environment. This is highlighted by the fact that as of 2021, a total of 247 gigawatts of coal power has been used in planning and development. Due to China’s massive continued increased investment in the use of fossil fuels, many internationally question the validity of China’s claims to

reach peak emissions by 2030. China’s inability to reconcile economic development, energy, and environmental policy is in part due to “fragmented authoritarianism.” Without reform, this problem is likely to continue. The solution may lie with Xi Jinping, who must now place new emphasis on increasing the power of central authority over provincial independence. This can only be achieved on a series of future Five Year Plans with a long-term strategic approach in which Xi can focus on unifying the balance of China’s national needs with the needs of the provinces. China’s motivation to pursue an immediate path to net-zero carbon emission goes beyond purely environmental issues and extends into security risks related to energy independence. Furthermore, China must also use its environmental movement to mitigate political tensions and improve its image to the international community by demonstrating it is truthful in its goals to become carbon neutral. By taking a leadership role and committing to addressing their environmental challenges, China creates an opportunity to build trust among nations and grow its political influence as a leader in the environmental movement. Doing so would be an important step in making the 21st century China’s century.

Endnotes

1 Chua, Amy. “China Ascendant.” In Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall, 287. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

2Jiang, Zemin. Research on Energy Issues in China. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2010.

3Center for Strategic and International Studies. ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Footprint Changing? 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/.

4Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale Environment 360, March 24, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.

5Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies.” The Conversation, September 12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-tolead-on-climate-change-as-the-us-rolls-back-itspolicies-114897

6Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Xiaowei Xuan. “National Circumstances.” In Titans of the Climate: Explaining Policy Process in the United States and China. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2019.

7Xu, Muyu. “China to bring solar and wind power generation to 11% of total electricity use in 2021.” Reuters, April 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainablebusiness/china-bring-solar-wind-power-generation11-total-electricity-use-2021-2021-04-19/.

8Xu, Muyu A. “China to cut coal use share below 56% in 2021.” Reuters, April 22, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.reuters. com/world/china/china-cut-coal-use-share below-56-2021-2021-04-22/.

9Baiyu, Gao. “Will recent power shortages slow China’s

progress to carbon neutrality?” China Dialogue, November 3, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// chinadialogue.net/en/energy/will-recent-powershortages-slow-chinas-progress-to-carbon-neutrality/. 10Cheng, Evelyn. “China has ‘no other choice’ but to rely on coal power for now, official says.” Sustainable Future, April 29, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/climate-china-hasno-other-choice-but-to-rely-on-coal-power-for-now. html.

11Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale Environment 360, March 24, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.

12Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research & Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/ Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20 to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20 20210318%20en.pdf.

13The College of Staten Island’s Modern China Studies Group. “China Rises Companion--Political Governance and Fragmented Authoritarianism.” New York Times. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://archive.nytimes. com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-about. html.

14Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies.” The Conversation, September 12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-tolead-on-climate-change-as-the-us-rolls-back-itspolicies-114897

15Road Map for Power Sector Transition and Coal Generation Retirement in Northwest China. N.P.: Regulatory Assistance Project, 2021.

16Center for Strategic and International Studies.

ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Footprint Changing? 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/.

17Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research & Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/ Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20 to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20 20210318%20en.pdf.

18Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research & Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/ Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20 to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20 20210318%20en.pdf.

Bibliography:

Baiyu, Gao. “Will recent power shortages slow China’s progress to carbon neutrality?” China Dialogue, November 3, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/willrecent-power-shortages-slow-chinasprogress-to-carbon-neutrality/.

Center for Strategic and International Studies. ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Footprint Changing? 2019. Accessed January 9,2022.https://chinapower.csis.org/energyfootprint/.

Cheng, Evelyn. “China has ‘no other choice’ but to rely on coal power for now, official says.” Sustainable Future, April 29, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www. cnbc.com/2021/04/29/climate-china-has-noother-choice-but-to-rely-on-coal-power-fornow.html.

Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall, 287. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

The College of Staten Island’s Modern China Studies Group. “China Rises Companion--Political Governance and Fragmented Authoritarianism.” New York Times. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://archive.nytimes.com/ www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-chinaabout.html.

Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Xiaowei Xuan. “National Circumstances.” In Titans of the Climate: Explaining Policy Process in the United States and China. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2019.

Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies.” The Conversation,September 12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https:// theconversation.com/china-is-positionedto-lead-on-climate-change-as-theus-rolls-back-its-policies-114897.

Gallagher, Kelly Sims, Fang Zhang, Robbie Orvis, Jeffrey Rissman, and Qiang Liu. “Assessing the Policy Gaps for Achieving China’s Climate Targets in the Paris Agreement.” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (March 26, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038s41467-019-09159-0.

Huang, Yanzhong. Toxic Politics: China’s Environmental Health Crisis and Its Challenge to the Chinese State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Chua, Amy. “China Ascendant.” In Day of Empire: How

Hubbard, Paul. “Fragmented authoritarianism and state ownership.” East Asia Forum, January 23, 2017. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.eastasiaforum. org/2017/01/23/fragmented-authoritarianismand-state-ownership/.

Jiang, Zemin. Research on Energy Issues in China. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2010.

Weng, Wenjuan, Ronqin Zhao, and Xiaowei Chuai. “China’s pathway to a low carbon economy.” Carbon Balance Management 14, no. 14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-019-0130-z.

NDRC vows heavier punishment on profiteering on coal to stabilize prices. October 29, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://en.ndrc.gov. cn/news/mediarusources/202110/ t20211029_1302407.html.

Paybarah, Azi. “China Says It Won’t Build New Coal Plants Abroad. What Does That Mean?” New York Times, September 22, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/09/22/world/asia/chinacoal.html.

Reale, Hannah. “The Long Arm of SASAC.” The Wire China, February 7, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.thewirechina. com/2021/02/07/the-long-arm-of-sasac/.

Road Map for Power Sector Transition and Coal Generation Retirement in Northwest China. N.p.: Regulatory Assistance Project, 2021. Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale Environment 360, March 24, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.

Xie, Haiyu. “China’s Oil Security in the Context of Energy Revolution: Changes in Risks and the Hedging Mechanism.” American Journal of Industrial Business Management 11 (September 18, 2021). https://www.scirp.org/ journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=112030.

Xu, Muyu. “China to bring solar and wind power generation to 11% of total electricity use in 2021.” Reuters, April 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.reuters. com/business/sustainable-business/ china-bring-solar-wind-power-generation-11total-electricity-use-2021-2021-04-19/.

Xu, Muyu A. “China to cut coal use share below 56% in 2021.” Reuters, April 22, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www. reuters.com/world/china/china-cut-coal-useshare-below-56-2021-2021-04-22/.

Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research & Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/ China%20-%20Path%20to%20%E2%80%98NetZero%E2%80%99%20%2020210318%20en.pdf.

HISTORICAL FILM REIVEW

Dunkirk Reivew

Cole Sparks ‘24

In May 1940, World War Two was underway as Germany advanced in France. On the beaches of Dunkirk (a port town in France), German forces have trapped Allied troops, who wait for evacuation. Over four hundred thousand allied troops are trapped, as the only way out is by sea. As they wait for ships to come for evacuation, the German forces are bombing the allies. This dire situation leads the British Navy to try to get every single operational boat they have in an attempt to mass evacuate. It’s every man for themselves, as the British get first dibs on the transport ships. This remarkable story is experienced through four different lenses in Christopher Nolan’s 2017 film Dunkirk

The films follows the path of four differing members of the British armed forces: a British Commander, a soldier trapped on the beach, two British air force pilots, and a group of civilians who are part of the evacuation effort. British Commander Bolton, who is the top British officer on the

beach, is worried that the soldiers on the beach are sitting ducks, and he makes it his goal to bring back as many soldiers as possible. The Royal Air Force Spitfires are locked in dog fights with German planes, trying to protect their soldiers on the beach while also having to frequently refuel. Tommy tries to evacuate the beach by helping an injured soldier, but the boat he tries to get on is bombed by German forces. Mr. Dawson, his son, and his friend are on a small boat in an effort to evacuate some British troops.

As historical movies go, Dunkirk is pretty good. It gets the main events right so that there aren’t any glaring holes in the movie. Christopher Nolan, the director, focuses heavily on the experience of the people living through Dunkirk, and this makes the movie hit closer to home. To this effect, he showcases the terror of being sitting ducks as if the viewer could imagine laying on a beach as planes and artillery rained down death. He also shows

many shell-shocked and mentally broken down soldiers, a harsh reality of war. Another accuracy of Dunkirk was the focus on airplane fuel. The Royal Air Force wasn’t able to work

to the best of its abilities because of the plane’s range, as planes had to conserve fuel and could only help for an hour before having to refuel. According to survivor’s stories, most of them never saw any RAF planes above them because they were only there for a short period of time before leaving again. Lastly, the part about the British being evacuated first and then the French was very accurate. The policy was that because it was British ships who were evacuating, they got off first. This led to many fights between Allied forces, with men desperate to be evacuated hopelessly trying to board the ship.

As for inaccuracies in Dunkirk, they are few. Most characters were made up, but based on a real life counterpart. For example, Captain William Tennant is who Commander Bolton is inspired by. Tennant was instrumental in the Dunkirk evacuation, planning of D-Day, and fighting the Japanese Navy. There is also no mention of African or Indian fighters, both of whom were key in delaying the German Attack. The Royal Indian Army Service Corps was important on the beaches of Dunkirk, but also in North Africa and the Middle East, something that would’ve been good to mention as they were major in World War Two. Because of its quality historical accuracy and its jam-packed action, Dunkirk is a mustwatch.

DATA ANALYSIS

Student Loan Forgiveness and Inflation

Max Wagner ‘23, Ernest Lai ‘25, Wesley Zhu ‘25

During his term, President Biden has faced various problems, ranging from global pandemics to human rights. Among those was the continued battle against education costs, which have been steadily rising over the years. Inflation has also been an issue with large effects on the nation. In the past year, American inflation rates have skyrocketed to 8.2% in 2022 (Statista). For this edition of The Podium, we decided to ask Belmont Hill about their stance on Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which aids millions of Americans who have been affected by

government will cancel up to $20,000 of student loans debt per person. The proposal has been mired in controversies so we asked the Belmont Hill community about their views on the plan. The first question evaluated the school’s general stance towards the student loan forgiveness bill, gauging how many people supported the plan in the form of a yes or no question. The result was split down the middle, with about 45% of respondents

college borrowing following the pandemic and on the high rates of inflation currently being felt in the United States.

Earlier this year, President Biden announced the creation of a program in which the federal

supporting the plan, and 45% opposing it. The remaining 10% largely responded with “unaware” or “unsure”. These results were similar to the polling results of American voters, where the results were virtually equal for each side. In addition, when asked if they saw rising educational expenses as a major problem of society, a strong majority of 75% of respondents voted “yes”, while a little over

20% voted “no”. The fact that nearly 75% of respondents saw educational expenses as a major problem, but only 45% supported Biden’s student loan forgiveness bill, could suggest that though educational costs are acknowledged as an issue, people at Belmont Hill do not think Biden’s plan handles it well. This theory could be further confirmed as almost 15% of the BH community was very dissatisfied with Biden’s handling of the financial situation as a whole, but less than 3% were very satisfied. However, it is worth noting that when the entire chart is taken into account, the collective percent of people who voted “satisfied” or “very satisfied” was roughly the same as those who voted “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”, both around 30%; The majority (41%) of people stayed neutral. Overall, this section of the poll helped illustrate Belmont Hill’s overall views towards Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

The second section of our Fall 2022 Podium Poll focused on President Biden, the American economy, and inflation. Of responses, 76% of survey participants had heard of President Biden’s student loan relief plan, and of those,

49% of respondents supported the plan, while 45% opposed it. However, 74% of respondents did believe that rising costs of education and student loan amounts were a major problem for society, while only 21% disagreed. Unsurprisingly, of those who support Biden’s plan, 92% believe the costs of education are a major issue, while only 55% of those who oppose it believe the same. 61% of respondents believed that the plan will in fact drive up inflation, most of whom oppose the plan. On the other hand, 39% of those who support the plan believe it will not drive up inflation, as compared to 35% who believe it will. Of the respondents, 41% said they were overall neutral in terms of satisfaction with Biden’s handling of the US financial system, while 42% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, and 16% said they were satisfied or very satisfied. 96% of respondents stated that they have heard of inflation and its rise in the US and the rest of the world. On a scale of 1-5, respondents rated inflation at an average of 4.17 in importance as a problem for the US and the world at large. No students rated it as an importance of under 3 out of 5, and 88% of respondents rated it at

least a 4 out of 5.

This survey has helped us to better understand Belmont Hill’s views on two of the biggest political issues facing America in 2022. Both educational costs and inflation are a deep economic burden for most Americans and solutions to both are necessary. The federal government’s approach on both of these issues has been heavily scrutinized and we wanted to hear from Belmont Hill students and teachers. Both inflation and educational expenses are big issues that likely will not go away any time soon.

MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS

Political Polarization

Ben Anderson

Looking at Boston, and indeed parts of America, from an outsider’s perspective presents some interesting observations. As a South African, I can only watch on in slight envy as I admire the modern infrastructure, the high levels of employment, the safe streets, and the pristine parks. It’s clear America leads the free world in many of these areas and, judging by the apparently high levels of national pride amongst the American populace, it’s clear they know this just as well as outsiders like me do. But America also leads the world in other areas, ones that they are perhaps less proud of. Over the past 10 years America has gone from being a beacon of democracy to an example of what not to do with regards to party politics and polarization. Never fear though, my dear Bostonians, for just as your country plunges into the depths of polarization, South Africa (and indeed many other nations in the free world that you lead) are right behind you, for worse, or for very much worse. I believe we need to learn from the examples in this country, and my home country, to find the solutions our democracies need in order to deliver the great democratic system effectively for everyone.

If we want to forge a way forward from polarised politics, we need to pinpoint what polarization actually looks like in democratic societies nowadays. polarization itself is merely a stark divide in opinions between two political entities. It can occur on any number

of fault lines and in any number of discussions and is essentially when politicians - and thus the populations of people backing thembecome incredibly divided on a number of topics to the point where their disagreement becomes hostile and is a general hindrance to the effective functioning of democracy and government. This is almost always caused by political parties creating divide along cultural, religious, and racial lines. Sometimes, political parties may actively try to cause this divide, using violent rhetoric against one group to attract support from another. In America, we saw Trump do this originally by openly attacking immigrants in order to stoke fears around them and gain votes in states where immigration was a hot button issue. More recently we’ve seen certain republicans trying to villainize ‘woke’ individuals and democrats trying to paint ‘MAGA supporters’ in the same negative light. Whether these portrayals are accurate or not is based on your perspective, but either way, the manner in which these comments and attacks on opposing groups are made has been incredibly divisive and encourages this high level of polarization that we see in modern day America. But political parties do not always stoke divide intentionally, sometimes their very nature becomes a catalyst for polarization. I’ve seen this in South Africa, where our leading party, the African National Congress (or ANC), has become incredibly associated with rural and township voters despite not openly campaigning as a

Ben Anderson is an exchange student from Bishops Diocesan College in Cape Town, South Africa

‘rural’ party. The Democratic Alliance (or DA); however, gains a large majority of its votes from a whiter and more urban demographic. Whilst neither of these parties actively campaign for these groups’ support (in fact the DA often tries to shed its reputation of being a ‘white party’) people of different backgrounds still end up getting divided by their presence.

Across nations around the globe, political polarization occurs and occurs for different reasons, sometimes it is instigated actively by campaigners, other times it is a mere byproduct of a country’s culture and history. Whether it’s the North and South divide in the UK, the rural and urban split in America and France or the Racial divide in South Africa, political polarization poses significant threats to any democracy. The foremost harm that it often causes is the lack of accountability that political polarization encourages. If democrats know they can keep getting elected by bringing up the same old talking points around attacking republicans (and republicans vice versa), then it’s likely they’ll be less effective at delivering real change and more effective at presenting appealing talking points. In South Africa, the ANC knows that if they keep appealing to their rural base by talking about how they freed the country from Apartheid they will keep winning elections, thus, they have no real incentive to actually deliver on policy. This issue is essentially caused by the fact that political polarization creates incredibly loyal voters and therefore pretty lazy ruling parties. If people are committed to voting for a certain political party just because they’ve always voted that way, or because they’re convinced that the other guys are either communists or fascists ready to burn the country down, then whoever they elect doesn’t have to govern

even vaguely well, they just have to appear better than the alternative. In America, this looks like republicans and democrats not delivering on promises and getting away with it merely by calling the other side extreme or violent. In South Africa, the DA gains votes merely by saying they aren’t as corrupt as the ANC and the ANC gains votes by saying the DA is only a party for white people. It’s in these situations of mass polarization and party mudslinging, where elections essentially get decided by the minimal amount of people who are willing to change their mind (swing voters) and democracy begins to fail. Governments and representatives get elected not to serve a country, but to serve a certain voter base. Elections are meant to be a core pillar of democracy; under an era of polarization they’ve become a core reason countries lose stability in the first place

Another issue with political polarization is how it cultivates a parliamentary environment of hostility as opposed to cooperation. As I have said, polarization pushes politicians to appeal to their loyal voter core above all else. What this means is that extreme politics becomes more favourable. Suddenly there becomes no need for candidates to appeal to a diverse base if their standard base is always loyal. Candidates become elected purely because they went heavy on a certain agenda which they know will appeal to their voters. Trumpian populism exhibited this in its extreme rhetoric, far left politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders often show it in their policies and this could also be seen in the ANC with the personality cult, which was built around our former president, Jacob Zuma, to appeal to voters in his home province, KwaZulu-Natal. In these cases it meant that politicians became

less compromising once elected because they only needed to deliver for their specific bases. In parliaments where divide is so stark that members cannot reach across the aisle; compromise becomes rare and key choices cannot be made. It is tough to pass bipartisan proposals when you think the other guys are racists or traitors. Elected officials ought not be spewing the current level of vitriol that they do at their opposition because their duty is not to win elections, it is to serve people (and not just the ones who voted for them).

Modern day political polarization has hindered western democracies and their political processes. The fact that China’s one-party system and Russia’s autocracy are appearing as more effective leadership systems even though they are literally abusive dictatorships is concerning. Democracy at its best is the best way to govern a country, but when we allow it to fall into polarization then we lose many of its strongest benefits: co-operation, embracement of a variety of ideas and a system which works for the many, not the few. Above all the macroscale harms polarization has on countries like the US and South Africa, we need to remember the effect it has on the ground. Politics like never before have begun to divide families, workspaces, and friends. People begin to form echo chambers around themselves based on who they hang out with because they consume media and rhetoric which tells them that anyone with a different political opinion is ‘problematic’ or ‘toxic’. The most tangible harm that political polarization inflicts is its ability to change our perception of other people to the point where we cannot bear interacting with them.

But surely, you might say, amidst all this

doom and gloom there must be some form of solution? I believe there are many: we could reform our election processes, limit the influence of people who spread divisive rhetoric on social media or start platforms and movements aimed at dismantling these polarising portrayals of the other side. But, these solutions are complex to implement and are not guaranteed to be effective. South Africa, the UK and the US all have completely different political systems and censorship laws, and yet in all of them there is a high level of political polarization. The issue does not lie in politics or even in the politicians, the issue lies in the ballot box. Change in democracy starts with the voter, and it starts with the voter making decisions not based on narrative or previous opinions but based on the actual facts around a candidate. America gets the chance to change something every 2 years (my country only gets that chance every 5), and the next opportunity to do that for some of you is just around the corner. I would encourage everyone with the chance to vote in the upcoming midterms (and indeed in any election you encounter in the future) to get out and vote, and to vote not for the person you always have, or for the person who is the least bad according to Fox News or CNN, but according to the real issues. America has the incredible privilege of having very public political campaigns. Whether it’s watching a debate for an hour, reading through a candidate’s website or checking someone’s voting record: make an effort to do more than just make your decisions based on a talk show or what seems to be the most popular thing. When we vote for politicians who actually work for us, we hold those who try to divide us accountable. This November America’s most important choice is not red or blue, it is efficiency or dysfunction.

Necessary Strides for Nuclear Disarmament

Sam Atalla ‘23

It’s no surprise that nuclear disarmament efforts have fallen short, but the United States cannot expect other countries to strive for peace if we cannot take a leadership role in reducing - if not eliminating - global nuclear weapons stockpiles.

At the height of the Cold War in 1986, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had nearly 65,000 nuclear weapons combined. Over the following decades, both countries agreed to reduce their arsenals to avert the possibility of an apocalyptic altercation and to benefit their strained economies. Now in 2022, the United States and Russia each own around 5,000 nuclear weapons, comprising 90% of the world’s overall reserves.

While disarmament treaties have solidified some gains on paper, they have yet to do so in practice. For example, the 1968 United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”) requires the P-5 (permanent five) nucleararmed states — U.S., Russia, U.K., France, and China — to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at their total elimination. But the pace has been slow. In addition, the bilateral 2011 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) between the US and Russia placed important limits on nuclear missiles, launchers, and

warheads. However, the agreement has been largely derailed by the Ukraine war. Although the significant reduction of readily available nuclear weapons is evidence that disarmament is possible, these efforts are not nearly enough.

The United States is currently planning on spending $1.5 trillion over the coming decades to replace and upgrade all of its nuclear weapons, directly contradicting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why is the U.S. rebuilding its nuclear weapons and delivery systems? There is no plausible reason for the US to allocate this amount of funding toward the large-scale development of more nuclear weapons. Instead of squandering taxpayer dollars, the US should take a global leadership role and advocate for reducing nuclear weapons with an eye toward abolition.

Nuclear deterrence, the principle that states have the right to use nuclear weapons in selfdefense against aggressive attacks, should not be a policy relied upon for national security. Will mutually assured destruction save humankind from destroying itself? Probably not. Russia has already declared that it will use nuclear weapons to defend itself or its territory. In September 2022, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, made it clear that “those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them” and that he would use “all available means to protect Russia and our people.” In a recent conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir Putin also warned that U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove that “you don’t need to attack the major cities in order to win.” Meanwhile, with tensions escalating,

U.S. President Joe Biden has said that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” could spiral out of control if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Furthermore, the chances of miscalculation are too high. While it may seem harmless for the US to maintain our current nuclear stockpiles, just one mistake could cause a global catastrophe. Several instances have already occurred over the last 60 years where nuclear war nearly became a reality due to careless misinterpretations and avoidable blunders. For example, in 1995, Russian President Boris Yeltsin mistook a scientific probe investigating the northern lights in Norway as an imminent attack against Russia and nearly launched a nuclear counterattack.

Can the U.S. help guide the world away from a cataclysmic nuclear abyss? Yes, and we should serve as a model by working with the other eight nuclear-armed states to avoid escalating the brewing nuclear arms race. China, for example, currently owns approximately 350 nuclear weapons and plans to increase its stockpile to 1,000 by 2030. China is taking these steps to develop its nuclear deterrence capacity and catch up with the U.S. and Russia. If the U.S. focused on further reducing its nuclear weapons, however, China would be less motivated to develop new weapons of mass destruction at such rapid rates. By signing

the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which 91 countries have already ratified, the U.S. can work to help ensure that no new nuclear weapons are built and that all stockpiles are ultimately abolished.

Instead of developing more nuclear weapons, the US should allocate funding towards nurturing and preserving humankind and life on planet earth.

UN SecretaryGeneral Antonio Guterres told delegates at the Environmental Summit in Egypt (COP27), “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.” Rather than producing more destructive nuclear weapons, we can work to spread peace between nations and address the damage we have already done to the environment.

Nuclear disarmament is no simple task and won’t magically happen overnight. But the process can be started by individuals advocating at the local or national level by talking to their legislators. We can express our support for bills aimed at the prohibition of nuclear weapons, a crucial task that should be taken more seriously by all - especially by our so called leaders, who need to take more responsibility for addressing existential threats to humankind and for protecting the collective health, safety, and well-being of the people they represent.

The Fading Utility of the Primary Election

Max Wagner ‘23

The history of elections in America is long, convoluted, and at points somewhat illogical. Before the creation of the primary, candidates were simply chosen by parties, taking electoral power from the people. The first presidential primary election was implemented in North Dakota in 1912, followed by the other states, replacing the existing system of party leadership simply choosing the representatives from each party. This was indisputably a positive change for our country, as it provided more power to the people, but was an imperfect change due to the inherent problems with the primary election process. These problems persist today. Despite its noble intentions, the primary system has been twisted into a system of filtering out political moderates, a group that could otherwise have a profound positive impact on our nation.

These problems are no small factor in today’s political climate. Even disregarding the tendency for radical candidates to carry primaries due to only one side of the political spectrum voting, candidates are simply discouraged from running because they don’t believe they can prevail against better-known members of their party. Thus, the primary election has become not a system in place

to guarantee voting rights to the people, but rather an outdated tradition that weeds out some of the candidates who we need most.

The problem with the primary election is that, ultimately, it never leads to a candidate who will be more universally well-liked to be elected, if they otherwise wouldn’t be. For instance, many candidates who could wholly win the moderate vote, and even some votes from across the aisle, you could still lose your primary, as other candidates from your party, who would certainly win less of the electoral college, could still defeat you by being farther to the extreme.

So what then is the alternative plan? I believe that ranked-choice voting could provide a solution for the nation. It is low in drawbacks, the only one essentially being that people don’t care to take the few minutes it takes to understand the system. If an open ballot including all candidates who run was presented, instead of the winners of each individual primary, people could rank their votes, and the most nationally well-liked candidate would win the presidency each time, instead of the winner being decided by the primary of whichever political party found itself in a more powerful position that year.

History | Current Events