BMS Modern History 2022

Issue No.7 May 2022

MODERN HISTORY THE

Beauty Queen?

Will the real Cleopatra step forward... inside...

WWII and the Kray twins

Consumerism in the 80s

The end of Apartheid

American Civil War

Contents

THEMODERNHISTORY

WWII and the Kray twins

4 6

Consumerism in the 80s

Genghis Khan

10

7

Realpolitik

8

War on Terror

11

12

Fidel Castro

The end of Apartheid

Imperial Japanese Navy

14

Bedford Modern School is part of the Harpur Trust: a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England: Company Number: 3475202 Registered Office: Pilgrim Centre, Brickhill Drive, Bedford, MK41 7PZ. Registered Charity Number: 1066861.

Design by: The Answer Machine

2

THEMODERNHISTORY

16

Women’s Renaissance

American Civil War

15 Josip Broz ‘Tito’

20 18

Was Cleopatra beautiful?

Welcome

to the latest edition of The Modern History, Bedford Modern School’s student led History magazine. Under normal circumstances, this editorial would be written by a student, but like much else in the last two years, this edition is slightly unusual in that it combines the work of two year groups: the classes of 2020 and 2022. At the point of the first lock down due to the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, the Year 13 History students had completed their articles and we were just at the point of editing and designing the issue. However, as public exams were cancelled and school moved online we found ourselves thrown into a very different world and unfortunately the 2020 edition was never published. The continuing challenges for education caused by the pandemic in the following academic year meant that the magazine had to be abandoned completely, but I am pleased to say that this year the magazine has flown once more. I would like to thank the two editors of the 2022 edition, Pierre Botha and Tom Lavis for their hard work and efficiency in co-ordinating and proof-reading the articles.

I would also like to thank all the contributors for taking the time to write their articles and share their areas of interest. As you will see, BMS students continue to explore the subject well beyond the confines of the curriculum and you will be able to read articles on subjects as diverse as Genghis Khan, the Krays and the women of the Renaissance. I hope you will find them both enjoyable and thought provoking.

Sarah Wright Head of History April 2022

3

THEMODERNHISTORY

How did the Second World War facilitate the Kray twins to reign over the London Underworld?

By Carrie Whittaker

Ronald and Reginald Kray were identical twins, who ruled the London underworld as a double gangster act during the 1960s. Born ten minutes apart on 24th October 1933, the twins grew to terrorise the streets of East London together, using fraud, protection rackets, the control of 33 drinking and gambling clubs and violent assault. They were eventually jailed for a minimum of thirty years for the murders of George Cornell and Jack McVitie on 8th March 1969. The twins’ notoriety has not wavered since their reign of terror over 50 years ago, with Professor Laurie Taylor suggesting that ‘what was special about the Krays is simply that they were twins’.

Yet, as individuals, what was it that made Ronnie and Reggie such violent criminals? Was it the devastating impact the Second World War had on their childhood that made them so reckless?

The Second World War impacted Ronnie and Reggie personally in two ways; their father’s absence due to him constantly being on the run, as a result of his bunk from the army, and their calling up for National Service. National Service was introduced in 1947 as peacetime conscription in order to protect, occupy and re-establish British influence in the post-war world. In this way, National Service came as a direct result of the Second World War, thus its influence on the twins was facilitated by it. The twins were conscripted to the Royal Fusiliers in May 1952, and John Pearson argues that it was their time in the army that taught the twins organizational, leadership, and weaponry skills. Similarly, their time on the run from the army during their tumultuous two-year service taught them how tough they really were, and that they needed an enemy in order to operate with maximum ferocity. Thus, their relationship with the army enabled the Krays to take over the East End with the ruthlessness as shown in Spring 1964, for example, Ronnie, nicknamed The Colonel, executed and organised ‘military style operations’ from the Firm’s (the gang’s) headquarters at their family home at 178 Vallance Road. This gives evidence that the Second World War held facilitated the twins’ later activity.

National Service also helped the twins’ criminal life in the form of Richard ‘Dickie’ Morgan, a Mile End thief who John Pearson identifies as the ‘first of an invaluable set of criminal acquaintances the army

4

would introduce to the twins’. The friendship found between the Krays and Morgan can be seen as acting as a catalyst for the twins’ character defining behaviour, evidenced by their escape from National Service with Morgan’s help. It can be argued that this meeting was purely coincidental, however, without the Second World War and consequent National Service, would the Twins’ and Morgan’s paths have crossed? Had the twins not met Morgan, would their lives have taken a different turn? Therefore, it can be seen that National Service had an undeniable influence on the twins’ lives: the training from the Royal Fusiliers proved to regiment the twins, while the acquaintance of Dickie Morgan both refined their later criminal career.

Another way the outbreak of the Second World War influenced the twins personally was the absence of their father during much of their childhood. Charles Kray was conscripted in 1939, yet ‘didn’t fancy being in the army’ and so bunked, resulting in being on the run for 12 years. Police officers would come knocking at the Kray Household, looking for Charles, and Charlie Kray (the twins older brother) remembers this being the root for the twins’ hate for police men, ‘soon they started seeing the coppers’ uniform as The Enemy’.

This complicated relationship with authority thus came as a result of the Second World War, as had Charles not been conscripted, police men would not intrude on the family home, thus the Second

world War again can be seen as a facilitator in the twins becoming outlaws. Furthermore, as a result of Charles’ absence, there was no fatherly authority in the Kray household, and consequently, their mother Violet provided the discipline for the twins. In this way it can be argued that the outbreak of the Second World War shook the Krays’ young home life, with the twins a product of their childhood where a virtually single mother brought them up in desperate poverty. In addition, the area where the Krays lived at 178 Vallance Road, was known as ‘deserter’s corner’ due to so many residents deserting or ignoring their service in the army. Therefore, the Second World War had an impact on the twins’ home life, resulting in a twisted perception of authority that manifested itself in their outlaw mentality.

The Second World War also affected the twins in a more general sense, via the flattening of their East End during the Blitz, and the lack of policing as a result of conscription. During the Second World War, the Germans particularly targeted the East End of London due to it being home to the dockyards, where one third of Britain’s overseas production passed through. The aim of attacking the docks was to damage to the supply chain which would seriously damage the national economy and war effort.

Furthermore, the high population density of the East End meant a single air strike could also seriously damage the houses around the

factories, causing great civilian casualties, thus demoralising the population. Bethnal Green (where the Krays lived) alone was targeted with 80 tonnes of bombs during the Blitz, destroying 10 thousand homes ‘beyond repair’. As Charlie Kray suggests, the rubble of the East End after the devastation of the war, combined with the relaxation of wartime controls, allowed teenagers to roam the streets, resulting in street fights: the East End streets had become a breeding ground for violence. Thus the Second World War again can be seen as facilitating the emergence of the Kray twins’ violent behaviour.

Furthermore, the twins have been likened as embodying the ‘Spirit of the Blitz’: working together and running their own lives without interference from any officialdom.

This idea supports the suggestion that the Second World War left remnants of its society-shaking wrath that ultimately shaped the Kray twins’ criminal career.

THEMODERNHISTORY

As my grandfather Geoffrey Adams, a Metropolitan Police Constable in the East End during the Krays’ operation, remembers; after the war, houses were left derelict; with little effort to repair, hence inhabitants were moved to high rise flat blocks, which made communities very difficult to police. Furthermore, during the war retired policemen, reservists and the Special Constabulary were recruited as full time policemen. Of the 43,000 regular police officers in 1944, 17,000 were War Reserve Police Special Constables, and 385 officers were female. This was necessary to combat the reduction in men due to conscription and volunteering for the war effort, but resulted in increased duties and longer time of service. Mr Adams remarks that despite the police force increasing in size after the war, the methods of policing were too far behind the criminals. Professor Laurie Taylor suggests that what consolidated the ‘sinister turn to organized crime’ from the historical tradition of petty crimes in the East End was the Second World War as crime had become a money-making industry that required a leader; the Krays would rise to the challenge.

...the East End streets had become a breeding ground for violence

In conclusion, therefore, it can be argued that the Second World War was an required factor for the Kray twins’ later criminal career. The extent of National Service’s influence can be seen throughout their operation, via the meticulous organization of their criminal activities.

Furthermore, the facilitation from the lack of policing amongst the poor streets of Bethnal Green can be seen as an influential factor in the twins’ early life, yet this is not a comprehensive explanation, as many other children had the same deprived childhood in the East End. In addition, the impact of their father’s absence was in this case due to the Second World War, however, even if war had not broken out, Charles may have not been around much due to his profession as a pesterer. Therefore, the Second World War influenced the Kray twins’ criminal tendencies to some extent, yet it was not the exclusive factor in producing the reigning kings of the London Underworld.

5

THEMODERNHISTORY

Consumerism and its impact on American Society in the 1980s

By Jared Smith

The extravagance and pomp of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration set the tone of the 1980s as a decade of spending and materialism. The event's $11 million worth of ritual and pageantry signaled to the nation that big spending was back in style.

In an attempt to counter the recessions of the 1970s that had lingered into the early 1980s, Reagan drastically reduced top personal income taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent and embarked on a program of reducing the size of government, cutting welfare programs and reducing federal regulations.

Despite many liberals condemning Reagan’s application of ‘supplyside’ economic theory; the idea that if the wealthy are allowed to retain more of their income, they will invest more capital into the economy, by 1983, the economy had rebounded and was growing at a colossal rate. Between 1982 and 1989, 18.7 million jobs were created, with US per capita income reaching $11,727 by 1985, making the lives of everyday Americans far more prosperous, due to the ‘trickle down’ of wealth from the rich to the poor.

With a booming economy and growing incomes, American consumers had a desire to spend and with thousands of malls, supermarkets, and restaurants to visit, everything needed for a good life appeared to be for sale, prompting a resurgence of consumerism that was reminiscent of the Eisenhower years in the 1950s. Between 1982 and 1989, Americans spent $30 trillion on consumer goods and materialism and consumerism were once again ingrained in popular culture.

Madonna’s 1985 hit ‘Material Girl’, which sang ‘We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl’, served as the anthem for American shoppers as shopping became the most popular leisure activity. Surveys showed that Americans were spending more time in malls than anywhere else expect their home, job, or school.

By 1985, there were more than twenty-six thousand shopping centres in the country, with total annual purchases at shopping centres reaching $1 trillion. The 1980s also saw a home shopping boom as Americans fed their consumer impulses with purchases

6

from mail order catalogues and new TV shopping channels such as Home Shopping Network. The home shopping industry grew from $1 million in 1982 to $1.4 billion by 1989, partly due to the accessibility of cheap credit. By the mid-1980s, the average credit card holder carried seven cards, with over 125 million Mastercard and Visa credit cards in use, leading many Americans to believe they were living the American Dream as they could order whatever goods they desired.

Perhaps the biggest impact of economic growth during the 1980s was the emergence of a group that were later viewed to be synonymous with 1980s consumerism; the ‘yuppies’. The young, urban professionals of the 1980s were seen by many as an embodiment of the neoliberal ideas of Reagan’s politics; the ‘yuppies’ were materialistic, focused on their careers and had little concern for social justice or indeed much sympathy for the poor. During the 1980s, the ‘boomers’, the millions born between 1946 and 1964 during the so called ‘baby boom’, were entering the professional world. By 1984, there were estimated to be 4 million yuppies in the United States and their behaviours had a significant impact upon society.

Yuppies placed huge emphasis on the importance of appearance, living by the motto ‘dress for success’. They were frequently seen wearing designer suits, Rolex watches and would attempt to achieve perfect bodies. Health clubs, capitalising on yuppies’ interests in their appearance, offered personal trainers, aerobics classes and high-tech, computerised equipment. Many health clubs also contained fresh juice bars, satisfying yuppies’ desire for natural foods and nutrition.

While yuppies have been criticised for their vanity, perhaps more than any other group in 1980s society, with novels such as Bret Easton Ellis’ 1991 novel American Psycho presenting the group as living lives of shameless excess and valuing only the material, yuppies must be viewed as products of a society that was becoming far more superficial, as people sought to demonstrate their wealth in their clothing and appearance. Many men dressed in what was described as a ‘preppy style’, reflecting the clothes traditionally worn by students in Eastern Preparatory Schools, including turtlenecks, navy blue blazers and tennis sweaters. The style suggested wealth by echoing the leisure activities of the rich such as sailing, golf and tennis. There was also an explosion of logos, as clothing from ’Ralph Lauren’ or ‘Lacoste’ become one of the many status symbols Americans used to show off their wealth. Many professional woman also found that to prove their competence in a male dominated professional world, they had to have a perfect image, leading businesswomen to become immersed in body improvement from aerobics classes to surgical changes.

Although some American youth did attempt to resist consumer culture in their clothing, wearing old jeans, oversized clothes, and thrift-shop overcoats to purposely look as though they couldn’t afford to spend money on clothes, this fashion was eventually assimilated into the consumer world. American designers incorporated the fashion of ragged, and worn looking clothes into their collections and fashions that had emerged in opposition to the use of clothes to emulate wealth, became yet another sign of it. Acid washed jeans sold for just as much, if not more than new looking jeans, demonstrating the dominance of consumer culture in American society.

By 1984, there were estimated to be 4 million yuppies in the United States However, it must also be noted that despite the booming economy of the 1980s, the consumer society also significantly increased the inequality of wealth in America.

During the 1980s, the number of homeless Americans grew dramatically, and shabbily dressed men and women roaming the streets became a frequent sight in many major cities. Estimates have put the numbers of homeless during the 1980s as anywhere between three hundred thousand and three million but most statistics agree that the number of homeless individuals grew in the decade by almost 25% each year. Although there is a great deal of debate as to what caused this most serious social problem of the decade, many believed the economic and social policies of President Reagan were the main reason for the crisis.

They blamed cuts in social programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children for pushing many into positions where they were unable to pay rents and condemned the dramatic cuts in federal subsidization to low-income housing, thus showing that the consumer boom of the 1980s was not without a darker side.

THEMODERNHISTORY

Genghis Khan Tyrant or Innovator?

By Aaron Smith

Despite the popular image of Genghis Khan as one of the most cruel and ruthless leaders that ever existed; a man who pillaged and massacred his way across both Asia and Europe to form the second largest empire of all time, he should also be considered as a visionary who introduced a modern style of control which set a precedent for hundreds of years to come. To put it bluntly, you know you’ve done something right when almost 800 years after your death people still refer to you as the “Supreme Ruler” rather than your real name, in his case Temujin.

Yet what exactly did he do to achieve this label as an innovator?

Well, to start with he made both adultery and torture illegal under any circumstance in his great Code of Laws, known as the Yassa.

This is something that in itself deserves praise but becomes even more ground-breaking in the context of Mongol culture, where kidnapping and torture were everyday ways of acquiring new wives and extracting information.

To this end, Genghis Khan brought stability and rights to all people in his empire, having witnessed the horrors of torture inflicted on his own men by rival clans when uniting the steppes of modern-day Mongolia.

Even more incredibly however, living in a time of unprecedented religious strife and persecution on a continental scale, Genghis Khan did the unthinkable, setting up an institution and laws that allowed not only complete religious freedom within the entire Mongol Empire, but also exempted religious leaders from taxation and public service.

Furthermore, he even went as far to initiate the first ever recorded religious debate between Christian, Muslim and Buddhist representatives, while he himself was a Shamanist. Keep in mind at this exact time Christian Crusades into the Middle East, specifically to reclaim the Holy Land from Islamic control, were underway, and even today in this region religious intolerance is the cause of thousands of needless deaths. Yet

over 700 years ago Genghis Khan removed this issue entirely, showing a tolerant nature that’s often overlooked in history.

Equally surprising was his favourable view of women, raising their standing in society in a way rarely seen up until that point. Therefore, while women in Persia and China suffered oppressive control and little freedom, Mongol women were fighting on horseback and influencing important decisions.

Genghis Khan even went as far as to give widows’ their husbands’ inheritance and title as head of the family upon their death, which further fostered the attitude of focusing more on ability rather than sex, race or religion as demonstrated.

However, while this admiration towards women can be highlighted as an innovation for the time, his tyrannical barbarism is also reflected with respect to women through his rampant raping and pillaging. The extent of this is indicated by the fact that around one in every 200 men alive today are related to Genghis Khan, an obviously overwhelming amount, and one that increases drastically in terms of statistics if you’re from Central Asia. In this regard, it’s very easy to see why Genghis Khan has traditionally been labelled as so evil, with 8% of men in central Asia able to trace their ancestry back to him due to the sheer volume of women he claimed.

It’s also worth noting that in building such an immense empire, it is estimated that he killed a total of 40 million people, almost 10% of the world’s total population at the time.

In addition to doing this, he also destroyed years of culture through his pillaging of libraries, books, literature and hospitals, bringing several ancient dynasties to ruin.

Yet, while this obviously serves as evidence for his tyrannical rule, in the context of the time its impact is somewhat lessened. Yes, even for the standards of the day bloodshed on this level was immense and unforeseen, but this level of destruction and eradication was only seen to be used against those who directly chose to disrespect or insult the Khan himself, with quite the opposite being witnessed with many others. For example, in the Code of Laws Genghis Khan specifically forbade the looting and pillaging of any town or city, with the penalty of death, without direct permission from the army’s general. This shows that while his ruthless attitude was

without question, it was only brought to light when pushed for tactical reasons and to create fear and propaganda that would spread, not out of an insane fervour to make people suffer as seen with figures like Joseph Stalin.

In summary, the Mongol empire at its peak covered 12 million contiguous square miles, an area as large as Africa, while for comparison, the Roman Empire was about half the size of the continental USA. To achieve this it shows Genghis Khan to be an innovator in at least some regard, achieving far more than any other civilisation prior or since in just his lifetime. He allowed freedom of religion and speech, banned torture, adultery and gave women more rights, yet in doing this he also slaughtered millions of innocents and destroyed years of culture and heritage. For this reason it is fair to say one could therefore not occur without the other, as to make such monumental changes and innovations, huge levels of sacrifice were needed.

He allowed freedom of religion and speech, banned torture, adultery and gave women more rights, yet in doing this he also slaughtered millions of innocents

7

THEMODERNHISTORY

A brief overview of

Bush’s War on Terror and the issues that have arisen from it

. By Jess Read

The War on Terror was launched by President George Bush and his Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, as a direct result of the terror attacks on American soil on September 11th 2001. Its aim was primarily to protect the United States and its citizens from any future attacks, and also to encourage the rest of the world to join the fight against terrorism.

Escalation of the programme was intense, for example by starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America used its military to essentially eliminate the direct threat of terrorism in the short-term, but also created many problems in the long-term. Without any rehabilitation programmes, those affected by the War on Terror were left without any communities to turn to and as a result, many fell into extremist groups, with more animosity towards America and the West.

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7th 2001, when American troops invaded the country, to drive the Taliban out of power, and release Al-Qaeda from a safe base of operations there. The Taliban are Sunni Muslims, meaning they believe in and practice a specific branch of Islam. During the Afghanistan Civil War (1992 - 1996) the Taliban were a militia, seeking government power, which they got with their conquest of Kabul. The Taliban established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in September 1996, moving the capital to Kandahar in the south.

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban strongly enforced Sharia law, which led to the massacre and brutal treatment of numerous Afghan civilians, with women being treated especially badly. Furthermore, fertile farmland was destroyed causing

8

further suffering. Al-Qaeda are a militant Salafist Islamist group, meaning they are also Sunni Muslims, but with more reformist views and actions. Al-Qaeda were formed in 1988, and were partially supplied with weapons by the Americans who were fighting alongside them with Iran, Pakistan and China against the Soviets, who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

As a result, it could be argued that America, not seeing the extent of the brutality that Al-Qaeda used, caused many more significant issues with them because of their now increased firepower. The development of the group came a year before the end of the SovietAfghan War, and the start of the Afghan Civil War, and suggests that potentially their aid wasn’t strictly necessary, showing that the American military was too quick to action, rather than thoroughly weighing up the situation, and realising how influential the weapons could be to a smaller group. After September 11th 2001, the USA believed that the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda especially due to their shared ideology and offered Mullah Omar the opportunity to give up Bin Laden and his associates. Omar requested to turn the Al-Qaeda’s leaders over to a neutral power for trial, but together the UK and USA didn’t allow this and it sparked the American invasion of Afghanistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom was the official name the Americans gave to the War on Terror. It mainly referred to the Afghanistan War although there were other operations under it, such as OEFPhilippines and OEF-Trans Sahara. It was announced by Donald Rumsfeld on September 25th 2001, launched jointly with the UK, and lasted until 2014, after which any US operations, involving either combat or non-combat, came under the name Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, which began under President Obama and continued until the American withdrawal in 2021. As a result, the Afghanistan war was the longest war in American history and by 2018 had resulted in 147,000 deaths, including American and Afghan troops, but significantly, 26% of those killed in the Afghan War were civilians.

OEF-Philippines (2009-2015) and OEF-Trans Sahara, or Operation Juniper Shield, (2007-today) were both paramilitary operations which advised governments on how to use their own covert military forces to capture or kill the leaders of terrorist organisations, such as AlQaeda and Abu Sayyaf, a different branch of active Sunni Islam. These became among the most effective operations in The War on Terror, especially OEF-Philippines thanks to the involvement of the

CIA’s Special Activities Division. The fact that Operation Juniper Shield is still ongoing shows that although there have been continuous bloody conflicts, there is still no victor, and thus there must be a continuing renewal of men on both sides. This raises the obvious question: Was military action ever going to completely eliminate any threats from terrorist groups? The answer realistically, is no. Despite the conflicts in Iran, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Africa, none of these places have now become completely conflict free, and still battle with extremist groups on a larger scale than the rest of the world. As a result of this, the War on Terror can be seen to be more of a ‘defence mechanism’ by the Americans to avoid attacks on their soil, and to act as a show of force against the terrorist organisations which directly harmed them, rather than something intended to fully end international terrorism forever.

THEMODERNHISTORY

If President Bush’s main aim in beginning the War on Terror was to end terrorism for ever, then he surely would have had some kind of intentions or plans to rehabilitate the forgotten and destroyed areas left in the wake of wars. The number of communities destroyed by conflicts in the Middle East and Africa left many with vengeful feelings towards America and even the Western World as a whole, because of involvement from NATO members, such as the UK. This forced people to find a new belonging in new communities with similar views or opinions to their own; and made them easy targets for radicalisation.

Not only were leaders and members of the extremist groups killed, but they were also captured, and detained in Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is a Naval Base in Cuba, with multiple detention camps within it. The Secretary of Defence at the time, Donald Rumsfeld stated that the camp was established ‘to detain extraordinarily dangerous people, to interrogate detainees in an optimal setting, and to prosecute detainees for war crimes’. In reality, it was used to detain enemy combatants, or people of interest – many of whom were innocent of any of the crimes they were accused of by the US government. In 2010, Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to the Secretary of State (2001-2005) made a statement in an affidavit that top US officials, including the President and Rumsfeld knew that the majority of people being held in Guantanamo Bay were innocent.

They said that those people should be kept there for reasons of ‘political expedience’. Of the 779 people imprisoned across its history, it is reported that no more than 24 had viable links to Al-Qaeda as of 2005. This naturally sparked much outrage both in America and the wider world and led to Obama’s attempts to shut the Camp entirely, which were subsequently stopped by the military generals running the detention centre. The only consequence of Obama’s action was to reduce the number of prisoners to 41 with the others being transferred to other correctional facilities in the US.

In his statement to the press, Rumsfeld used the phrase ‘interrogate detainees’, but in order to interrogate these people, they were tortured for information. This was often unsuccessful because of the number of innocent people in the camp. When Rumsfeld said ‘an optimal setting’ he probably meant to say ‘terrible conditions’. The most comfortable of the detention camps, which was discovered by the press in 2013, was special because it had beds with mattresses and showers.

Guantanamo Bay clearly violated (and violates) many international laws and Human Rights, from detaining minors to actively holding innocent people. Amnesty International and the United Nations ordered the closure of the prison camp in 2006, because of its violations of the Geneva Convention, but were just as unsuccessful as Obama was after them. Guantanamo Bay left its prisoners in physical and mental pain from the mistreatment of them, and its existence could be seen to be more fuel for the fire for extremist groups who want to retaliate against Americans who have treated them so badly.

Across the first 7 years of the continuing War on Terror, there were large numbers of deaths on both sides, seemingly reducing the threat of terrorism, but the reality is: there will always be people with harmful intent, and because of this, Bush’s approach was potentially more harmful than successful. Bush created vacuums in people’s lives where their communities had once been, and although these people were now greatly reduced in numbers, their technologies have improved and they have drawn more people into their groups, even internationally, as recent events in Syria have shown. Bush’s short term ability to capture and kill members and leaders of significant terrorist organisations was certainly successful, and many of these groups are now nearly non-existent, but they have been replaced by new groups looking for the same things. If Bush had had a better plan for ‘after-care’ for these communities then maybe we would be more protected now.

Rehabilitation is something that was (and still is) significantly overlooked in the War on Terror, and could be the key to ending atrocities like 9/11 permanently.

...the Afghanistan war was the longest war in American history and by 2018 had resulted in 147,000 deaths

9

THEMODERNHISTORY

Realpolitik: The tool of Statesmen?

By Caleb Avis

Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck and President Richard Nixon have very different reputations both at home and abroad. However, the two famous men share a fundamental philosophy that of political pragmatism, also known as Realpolitik.

Realpolitik was coined by the German writer and politician Ludwig Von Rochau in recognition of the failure of the 1848 Spring of Nations to bring about lasting political change across much of Europe. Rochau’s belief that the “Law of the Strong” is still the governing principle of political life even if it has been proven to be unjust - is reflected in the actions of both Bismarck and Nixon, with both leaders often failing to adhere to a clear ideology and instead using unashamed pragmatism to achieve their ends. If it were not for their respective levels of success, it would be curious that History looks upon the two with such differing perspectives. It is pertinent, therefore, to ask the question: is a Statesman defined by their principles and ideals, or by their successes and achievements?

Realpolitik is often viewed solely as a theory of international relations, but despite this some of the most significant examples of the practice come in the domestic theatre. Nixon’s rise to power within the Republican Party was as a darling of the right-wing - his membership of the McCarthyite House Un-American Activities Committee precipitating his eventual selection as Eisenhower’s running mate, considered as a firm right-wing choice to balance the ticket of the more moderate Eisenhower. Thus, it is a paradox that one of his most important VicePresidential roles was the shepherding of the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His supposed conservative ideology is complicated further by the raft of environmental legislation (including a Clean Air Act and the creation of the EPA) during his Presidency that was more aligned with the Anti-War protestors that he attacked than with his own party members. Nixon combined these surprisingly liberal policy positions with a fierce opposition to the Roe v. Wade ruling and clampdowns on Civil Rights and anti-war protests. Viewed from a distance the pattern soon becomes clear - Nixon’s domestic policy priorities were whatever best fit with the national mood - priorities which enabled him to maintain

10

popularity until his Presidency’s abrupt end. For example, the Environmental legislation came at the same time as a growth in public concern about the environment from 1% calling it their main concern to 25% between 1969 and 1971. If Nixon’s career had not ended in such dishonour, he may well have been remembered as a popular President, very much in tune with the average American.

Bismarck’s domestic legacy is held in a much higher regard, having created the world’s first welfare state, successfully created a new nation, and adeptly maintained either popular or royal support for well over 25 years. Ultimately, Bismarck’s approach to domestic rule was the same - working with both liberals and conservatives, Catholics, and Protestants in order to maintain and increase his hold on power. The most prominent example of this is his ending of his 7 yearlong Kulturkampf (culture war) against the Roman Catholic Church, in order to work with the Catholic Centre Party against the growing socialist movement.

Bismarck fought off the growing power of the socialists by both outlawing socialist groups and literature, and creating a state pension and illness insurance adopting the principles of his sworn enemies to preserve the power of the upper classes. He was even willing to threaten resignation time and time again purely to secure the cooperation of Kaiser Wilhelm I with his every demand. Thus, in domestic policy Bismarck clearly acted in the same way as Nixon blind to ideology and willing to maintain power and achieve his goals by any means necessary.

It is in foreign affairs, however, where the pragmatic approaches of both men are of the highest fame.

Neither Nixon or Bismarck shied away from death, intrigue, or war if it meant advancing their, or their country’s interests. With Nixon there is no better example than Operation Condor. With his explicit blessing, the CIA aided and abetted the dictators of the Southern Cone in crushing democratic opposition all in the name of maintaining the American advantage over the Communists in the Western Hemisphere. Thus, in order to maintain American influence over what were essentially minor nations, Nixon was prepared to be complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of activists and protestors. In this theatre Bismarck showed even more cunning, and even less inhibition. The Chancellor on multiple occasions threatened the entire of Central Europe with economic ruin by threatening to dissolve the Zollverein customs union - simply to ensure Prussian Supremacy. Beyond this Bismarck even deliberately orchestrated wars with Denmark, Austria, and France all with the singular purpose of expanding Prussian hegemony and creating a united Germany. The parallel between the men is once again clear - when it came to foreign affairs, no amount of lost lives would hold them back from their goals. Both Nixon and Bismarck also used similar methods of diplomacy to maintain their nations’ power: Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy with the PRC forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and eventually resulted in both Communist powers pressuring the North Vietnamese into the Paris Peace Accords, whilst Bismarck used the Dual-Alliance with Austria to scare the Russians into friendlier relations, leaving France isolated and Germany safe from invasion until the end of his premiership.

It is often overlooked, but it is safe to say that the legendary German Chancellor even fell from power in a similar manner to the infamous Nixon - forced to resign in disgrace.

Just as Nixon’s nefarious activities in the Watergate affair (itself an attempt to maintain power) forced

him to jump before he was pushed, Bismarck’s politicking of the worker’s rights issue resulted in his forced resignation following his loss of the support of Kaiser Wilhelm II. By revealing his desire to provoke a socialist uprising as a pretence for a clampdown, Bismarck’s Realpolitik became simply too distasteful for his employer - not too dissimilar from fallout from the Watergate affair something caused by the same fundamentally pragmatic philosophy.

Ultimately there are some crucial differences between Bismarck and Nixon - not least in longevity and success. However the parallels between them, and the philosophy they unwittingly shared make it impossible not to pose the question: If Nixon had lived in Bismarck’s age of controlled press and deference to the ruling classes, would the two be remembered in the same light?

- Masters of Statesmanship, prepared to go to any lengths to secure the success of their nation and themselves. It is entirely possible that Nixon’s conceited nature would’ve overwhelmed such a legacy - but the question will be left forever unanswered. What is certain, however, is that the practice of Realpolitik has powerful results: either creating a reputation of political excellence and mighty leadership that will last for centuries, or leaving a once respected name in ruins - forever tarnished as that of a crook. Thus, the initial pertinent question is answered by an examination of these two legendary men: A Statesman is most certainly defined by their achievements and successes, not by their principles or ideals.

Nixon’s domestic policy priorities were whatever best fit with the national mood

THEMODERNHISTORY

Fidel Castro

A progressive revolutionary or a ruthless dictator?

By George Tyler

Fidel Castro was a Cuban revolutionary who served as leader of Cuba from 1959 until 2008.

Castro became the leader of Cuba shortly after he successfully led the 26th July Movement alongside his brother Raul and fellow revolutionary, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara against the military dictatorship of President Fulgencio Batista on the 31st December 1958. Ideologically a MarxistLeninist and Cuban nationalist, his leadership of Cuba involved its transformation into a one-party communist state that involved many socialist and cultural reforms.

Castro is widely regarded as one of the most polarizing and controversial figures of the 20th century. Some suggest he was a champion of socialism, antiimperialism and societal reforms, earning him recognition and admiration on the world stage while others focus on his authoritarian regime that restricted the individual rights of Cubans. However, there is no question over the significant impact Castro had on many important figures, groups and societal movements of the 20th century.

A crucial moment in understanding Fidel Castro was his attendance at the UN General Assembly in New York City in September 1960. This event set the tone for Castro’s regime in Cuba and placed Castro on the world stage, emphasising his credentials as an influential social revolutionary.

Castro chose to stay at the Hotel Teresa in Harlem, which was under the ownership of Love B. Woods, an African American businessman.

Castro stayed at the hotel to express his solidarity with the poor African American population living in Harlem and hoped to shed a light on the significant racial discrimination prevalent in the

United States. Furthermore, Castro hosted a steak dinner for 12 African American hotel staff after he was refused an invitation to President Eisenhower’s dinner with the Southern and Central American delegations, demonstrating his commitment to racial equality.

Castro also met with social and political luminaries during his stay including Malcolm X. In his speech to the General Assembly, Castro spoke for four and a half hours, a record that is held to this day. He denounced colonialism, defended his revolution and attacked the USA for their ‘imperialistic’ approach to the countries of Southern and Central America. Alongside this rhetoric, he promoted ideas of universal disarmament and continued to emphasise that Cuba would always be on the side of the just, reiterating his strong stance against warmongering, exploitation and colonialism. From this we form a perception of Castro as a social revolutionary committed to equality, denouncing the deeds of the most powerful countries in the world and standing up for the newly independent countries of the developing world.

Another of Castro’s legacies was his ‘Medical Internationalism’ programme that exported medical aid and services to 158 countries across the globe. Castro set up many humanitarian programmes to provide healthcare for developing countries in Latin America. These included the Comprehensive Health Programme which provides basic medical coverage to developing countries and the Operació Milagro (Operation Miracle) that has provided free eye surgery to 3.9 million people in 34 countries. The Henry Reeve Brigade has sent medical personnel in response to natural disasters and disease outbreaks in countries, most recently to the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa in 2014. Fidel Castro’s humanitarian legacy has been

continued by his successors and continues to be a fundamental part of Cuba’s legacy.

Under Castro’s leadership, Cuba experienced several socialist reforms that improved the equality of its citizens and the quality of their lives. Before Castro took power in 1959 40% of Cubans were illiterate but by 1962 Castro’s literacy campaign had almost eradicated illiteracy and Cuba’s literacy rate was 96%, one of the highest in the world and it remains one of the highest to this day. Since the 1959 revolution, Castro’s improvements to healthcare have seen Cuba’s life expectancy rival that of the western powers of the USA and UK. This is testament to Castro’s efforts to improve the lives of Cuban citizens and improve their access to high standards of education and healthcare.

However, it should not be ignored that Castro ruled with an iron fist and denied the Cuban population many human rights that should be guaranteed in a country with such progressive societal reforms. Since Castro took leadership of Cuba, Cuban law has limited its citizens’ freedom of expression and association as well as restricting the press. There is also sufficient evidence to suggest that the Cuban government under Castro and to this day still commits human rights abuses most notably arbitrary imprisonment and unfair trials. They also rely on arbitrary detentions to harass and intimidate critics, activists and political opponents. In 2003, there was a crackdown of Cuban dissidents under Castro’s government known as the ‘Black Spring’. The Cuban government arrested 75 citizens including 29 journalists for allegedly acting as agents of the USA and accepting aid from the US government.

Castro’s leadership of Cuba has left a totalitarian regime that greatly restricts its citizen's civil liberties and creates dissatisfaction with the

population to this day as seen by the recent protests in Cuba that began on the 11th July 2021.

Castro provided his country with societal reforms that greatly benefitted their way of life. I would argue this was only capable with an authoritarian regime that allowed Castro to pursue any course of action. Democratic processes could have potentially restricted his goals. However, there is no doubt that these improvements have come at the cost of political freedom. It depends on whether you value political freedom or an improved way of life. Castro should be praised for his improvements to Cuban lives as it was a far better option than the equally oppressive regime of the previous Cuban leader.

Fidel Castro is a deeply interesting and divisive figure in history that can be applauded for his improvements to education, healthcare and equality in Cuba but criticised for his abuse of civil liberties and political freedom.

Amnesty International described Castro as "a progressive but deeply flawed leader” highlighting that he should be "applauded" for his regime's "substantial improvements" to healthcare and education but criticised for its "ruthless suppression of freedom of expression”. World leaders across the world have commended Castro for his efforts. Canadian President Justin Trudeau regarded him as a ‘remarkable leader’ and Nelson Mandela was inspired by Castro’s leadership and would go on to award him the highest civilian honour bestowed upon foreigners in South Africa, the Order of Good Hope. However, there are still those that look down on his regime like Cuban American politician Marco Rubio referring to him as an ‘evil, murderous dictator.

Fidel Castro is a leader that will prove to be incredibly divisive for decades to come.

11

THEMODERNHISTORY

How doctrine doomed the Imperial Japanese Navy

By Thomas Lavis

In 1890, Captain Alfred T Mahan of the US Navy published his seminal work; ‘the influence of sea power upon history 16601783. This work was based on his teachings at the Naval War College and argued that the secret of all the great empires of history, was control of the sea, and that a navy’s primary purpose was to be strong enough to destroy an enemy navy.

The work garnered attention globally, the German Kaiser with his imperial ambitions, endeavouring to commit it to memory, the British using it as inspiration and justification for the start of a new naval construction orgy, and fresh calls for foreign territorial expansion being prompted in America. Most influenced of all however, were the Japanese.

By 1890, Japan possessed a formidable navy. Fearful of an over reliance on British shipbuilding and expertise the Japanese had in 1885, hired French naval engineer Émile Bertin to oversee the construction of a number of cruisers of various sizes, and to ensure the Japanese did not miss out on the lessons being learnt and propagated by the new ‘Juene École’ (which introduced the possible offensive capabilities of a larger number of smaller ships, and for Japan, heralded the introduction of the torpedo into its collective military conscience).

The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had just completed ordering a series of superlative armoured cruisers from Britain when Mahan’s work was published and read at the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy. Naval planners paid particular attention to the idea of engaging the enemy in a single decisive battle, which would grant control of the sea with all its

12

multitude of benefits, their spin on this becoming the doctrine of ‘Kantai Kessen’ (“naval fleet decisive battle”). This had a distinct effect on naval procurement, with the IJN adding 6 British built predreadnaughts to a fleet that by the start of the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), could be placed firmly in the realms of regional power status. The decisive engagement of this war, the battle of Tsushima, seemingly vindicated this approach, the Russian Black Sea fleet (renamed to the 2nd pacific squadron) losing over 120,000 tons of shipping to around 400 tons of loss to the outnumbered Japanese, the Russians unable to muster enough strength to threaten Japan again.

Tsushima would provide the final significant stage of development of Japanese naval doctrine, the lesson learned that future naval conflicts would be decided by big guns aboard big ships (the smaller guns present in the battle rendered useless due to their short range).

The introduction of aircraft carriers and submarines to effective service in the First World War initially did little to change this approach, however a new type of conflict within Japan had sprung up which was to plague their armed forces for the next decades.

Led by Admiral Yamamoto, a growing lobby had emerged which demanded that the aircraft carrier replace the battleship as the primary offensive unit of fleets, and thus as the primary recipient of funding. However correct and farsighted these arguments may have been, the Japanese General Staff was dominated by conservatives such as Admiral Osami Nagano, with a decisive battle doctrine centred around a fleet of battleships remaining the standard upon the entry of Japan to the Second World War.

THEMODERNHISTORY

Whilst to the Japanese, the doctrine was vindicated by the ‘successful’ strike on Pearl Harbour which sank and disabled 8 battleships (and multiple smaller ships), leaving the Japanese battle fleet unchallenged in the Pacific, the attack had a number of flawed objectives. The attack epitomised in practice what the Navy had been planning for years, aiming to stop the US fleet interfering in the Southern Japanese expansion, buy the IJN time before it was overwhelmed by the extent of US shipbuilding authorised by the Vinson Walsh Act (the largest naval procurement project in the country’s history), to destroy what the Japanese regarded as the collection of America’s most powerful ships (battleship row), and finally, to demoralise the US enough that she would enter into negotiations. This underestimated the fighting resolve of the US, the might of American industry with its ability to repair or replace ships at an astronomical rate, and crucially, the value of the battleship.

The attack on Pearl Harbour centred around the idea of a short war, leaving port industry intact, striking the fleet when it was docked (the crews of ships mostly being rescued from the water), and failing to sink the 3 aircraft carriers of the US Pacific Fleet, which were at the time on fleet manoeuvres, and whilst the Japanese had succeeded in completing most of their aims, they were far from winning the war. This is evidence of a more endemic problem with the decisive battle doctrine; the assumption that having received a single resounding blow, the enemy will be beaten which, whilst coherent with 1940s Japanese imperial chauvinism and xenophobia, was not grounded in reality.

Japan entered 1942 full of hubris, believing the US navy to be unable to withstand a full fleet engagement, and with rock bottom morale. A series of hit and run attacks by the US navy (which included the famous ‘Doolittle raid’ on Japan), baited an overconfident Admiral Yamamoto into an attempt to secure such a decisive fleet engagement with the US Navy. The seas around the island of Midway were chosen for the battle, and Japan’s fate was sealed.

Meaning for his carriers to weaken the US fleet and force them to rush other ships in for its defence, Yamamoto dispersed his fleet widely, intending to allow his battleships to eliminate the weakened remnants. Thus, the Japanese fleet lacked the concentrated firepower it needed to repel US airstrikes, the Battle of Midway signalling the end of Japanese naval dominance in the pacific, with the loss of their most potent weapons – 4 superb fleet carriers.

Whilst the reliance on the guns of battleships, and the doctrine of Kantai Kessen was prudent at the time of its creation, the Japanese admiralty’s failure to adapt to changing technological re-alities, and inability to recognise America’s will to fight past a defeat led directly to the fall of the Japanese Navy and Empire in September 1945.

This is evidence of a more endemic problem with the decisive battle doctrine;

the assumption that having received a single resounding blow, the enemy will be beaten

13

THEMODERNHISTORY

The end of Apartheid A more united or divided South Africa?

By Pierre Botha

The significance of the ending of Apartheid on South Africa can never be understated.

South Africa had its first democratic election on 27th April 1994, and when Nelson Mandela was sworn in as the first Black President of South Africa on Tuesday 10th May 1994 it signified one of the most important events in the history of South Africa, bringing with it the hope to change and build the country. In the words of Nelson Mandela during his inaugural speech:

"We shall build a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall without any fear in their hearts, assured of the inalienable right to human dignity, a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world."

However, 25 years later it is debatable if the end of Apartheid has led to more unity or greater divide within the country.

On one level there is a sense that South Africa is now more united than it had been before the end of Apartheid. If you go into any bar, restaurant, shop or cinema, race really isn’t an issue. The popular “Rainbow Nation” metaphor has come to symbolize the hopes of both South Africans and the international community, of various ethnic and racial groups living together in a new united and democratic country. New national symbols for example the new South African flag have played a big role in creating a common South African identity and sense of one nation.

Sport has also played a part to bring about unity. First, there was South Africa’s rugby world cup win in 1995. Taking place shortly after the historic 1994 elections it truly brought the nation together. 23 years later, in 2018, Siya Kolisi was appointed the first black captain of the Springbok Rugby team. Kolisi eventually led the South African Rugby team to victory in the 2019 Rugby World Cup Final against England.

Furthermore, post-Apartheid, South Africa has become much more cosmopolitan with South African companies having a global presence as well as multinational companies setting up offices in South Africa, attracting foreigners to live and work there.

However, in reality, this perceived unity covers up some uncomfortable truths. The World Bank reported in March 2021 that

14

South Africa was among the world’s most unequal countries. Inequality has only worsened since Apartheid formally ended. Black education remains at a very low level and unemployment has hit thirty-three per cent—the highest rate in South African history, and one of the highest in the world. Almost twothirds of those under thirty-five are jobless. It has been reported that only 1% of white South Africans are living in poverty, however, a staggering 64.2% of black South Africans are living in poverty.

In terms of housing, white South Africans mostly live in gated communities with permanent security and large houses. However, the majority of black South Africans still live in big informal settlements or “townships” such as Khayelitsha located near Cape Town or Soweto in Johannesburg. Khayelitsha alone has a population of over 1.8 million.

Townships have hardly any basic facilities and only limited access to schools. Consequently, many children end up working to afford food and so limiting their access to any form of education. Through this, a clear divide and inequality have remained.

To further complicate the situation in South Africa, in July 2021 the country witnessed the worst violence since the end of the Apartheid era, sparked by the imprisonment of former President Jacob Zuma. More than three hundred and thirty people died over a week of escalating tensions.

Forty thousand businesses including stores, banks, factories, and post offices were vandalised or burned; damage to the economy was estimated in the billions of dollars.

President Cyril Ramaphosa himself

has referred to it as a ‘catastrophic’ time for the South African economy in general and business in particular. Even before this unrest, the economy was deep into a recession. Despite its vast natural resources, from gold and diamonds to titanium and uranium, South Africa still suffers electricity blackouts. All of this is leading to further political and financial divisiveness within the country.

In my view, Apartheid had to end and the first democratic election in 1994 was a truly historic day.

However, unfortunately, the end of Apartheid did not bring about the end to the racial and economic divide within the country.

There is no easy solution to bring about unity in South Africa and it will only be possible if all South Africans work together to bring about a more integrated and tolerant nation. Hopefully, the words of Nelson Mandela will one day ring true:

"Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom. Of course, the task will not be easy. But not to do this would be a crime against humanity, against which I ask all humanity now to rise up."

THEMODERNHISTORY

Was there a women’s Renaissance?

Exploring the lost figures of a changing culture ‘Don’t be born a woman in Florence if you want your own way’.

The words of Nannina de’ Medici, the sister of the famed Lorenzo de’ Medici, reflecting on the society of an era that we often remember for its vast and dynamic change. The Renaissance is characterised by a number of changes in art, science, and culture, including the development of the study of humanism, the dawn of capitalism, and the development of modern states. However, drawing on a common perception of historical progress fails to account for many people who may not have experienced much change at all.

With male artists and writers at the head of the charge into a new era, should historians categorise this as the only worthwhile angle to take when analysing the period? Was it only men who led the way, or did women too, benefit from the changing cultural landscape?

Many of us are familiar with the Renaissance, a period spanning from the later medieval period c. 1300 to the beginning of the enlightenment in the latter part of the 17th century. However, regardless of how broad our knowledge of the time is, almost everyone is aware of some of the names that changed the face of art and literature such as Leonarda Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli. A common theme subsequently emerges amongst them: they are all individuals who embodied the archetype of a Renaissance man. It is not often (or ever) that we hear of a Renaissance woman. Certainly before I began researching this topic, my mind drew somewhat of a blank when I tried to think of a single one. While Lorenzo de’ Medici was taught Latin, Greek, and how to be an effective ruler and leader of culture, his sister was forced to bitterly reflect on the opportunities she would never have.

In 1971, with her landmark essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” the art his-torian Linda Nochlin seemed to suggest that it is only when you purposely look for forgotten female contemporaries to Michelangelo or

Poussin that you have a chance of finding any at all. While some European women were painting, drawing, and sketching, they were doing so in far lesser numbers than the men who generally received an adequate enough education to do so. Female artists faced institutional obstacles to their development that outweighed any individu-al gift. They had no admission to life drawing lessons, no apprenticeships, almost no way to pat-ronage, no easy access to tools and materials, no prizes, no recognition, and therefore no historical legacy that can be compared to their male counterparts.

Unsurprisingly, women’s experience in the Renaissance was dependent upon their economic and political status which usually decided whether they had anything in the way of an education or not. The smaller number of elite women in court societies, who could inherit wealth and a measure of power, received classical educations, and so contributed to literature and became patrons of the arts. On the other hand, those who didn’t receive any such thing, those being the vast majority, simply didn’t have the ability to make an impact on the artistic scene. In the oppressively patriarchal Republic of Florence, the exclusion of women from public life and spaces, combined with an obsession with controlling their actions could make them virtual prisoners in their own houses. A French traveller in 1610 marvelled that Florentine women “see the world only from the small openings in their windows.” Of course it is no surprise that the church remained predominant in shaping the image of women, and that these images were often negative too.

However there is no doubt that the Renaissance paved the way for some female advancement. The rise in women’s literacy is attested by historians’ knowledge of women who formed letter-writing networks.

Furthermore, in England, Isabella Whitney became the first woman to support herself by selling her own poetry. Moreover, it is likely that bourgeois women in Europe benefited materially from the emergence of capitalism and colonialism. Perhaps these European women had a Renaissance, but they are, of course, a select few.

Only one woman gets an entire chapter dedicated to her in Giorgio Vasari’s The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, the sixteenth century text that established a canon of Renaissance art. That is Properzia de’ Rossi, a sculptor from Bologna.

However she is not the only woman mentioned in the book, Florentine artist Plautilla Nelli’s is another, whose Last Super has recently been restored to its astonishing full form, featuring a twenty-one by six-and-ahalf-foot canvas of remarkable painting and challenging composition. Vasari even wrote of Plautilla Neilli that “there were so many of her paintings in the houses of gentlemen in Florence, it would be tedious to mention them all.”

One of the most remarkable figures mentioned is Sofonisba Anguissola, a portraitist at the court of Philip II of Spain who is one of the only female figures to achieve such success without having family connections to the art world. What makes these women so remarkable is how they were able to teach themselves skills that their male counterparts were taught for years, often by the most skilled tutors.

A number of Italian women also wrote prose and poetry in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, and it is where we begin to see emerging figures like Vittoria Colonna. However, her prominence as a writer and poet is in part due to her friendship with the artist Michelangelo. Others included Veronica Gambara, who exchanged poems with Colonna, Laura Cereta, who argued for a woman’s right to education, and Cassandra Fedele, who gave a formal oration when the Queen of Poland visited Venice in 1556. Of course Colonna was a member of an important Roman baronial family, while Gambara was part of the Brescian nobility, and while some literary endeavours exceeded the bounds of nobility, it’s quite clear that those of more worthy literary note come from those who had access to a literary education to do so.

By Charlotte Clancy

These women also played significant roles as patrons, most famously Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, who was one of the many Renaissance consorts who found themselves running states and households during their husbands’ absences in the Italian Wars of 1494-1559.

Wartime upheaval may have been a factor in the flourishing of women’s writing in the 1530s and 40s, and bears striking parallels to the fluctuation of women in the workplace during the First and Second World Wars.

The Renaissance is not a time renowned for its vast social as well as cultural change, neither for its promotion of female as well as male artists. However, while certain aspects of the Italian Renaissance were overwhelmingly male, some women carved out space for themselves in its wider cultural sphere. Geographically of course, these opportunities are confined mainly to Italy, or to other parts of Western Europe, which were most affected during this time.

If the sexism of the Renaissance landscape was structural, then the solution too, will have to be so.

Raising a few lesser-known women to the canon of old masters may not be enough. A feminist art history has begun to emerge in some museums across the world. In 1972, the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore presented the exhibition “Old Mistresses”, while further exhibitions have brought the talent of the likes of Artemisa Gentileschi, Elisabetta Sirani and Giovanna Garzoni to the fore.

While the Renaissance was not a time of immense progress for the lives of women, it is important to recognise the achievements of these lesser-known figures of a cultural revolution, for there was a remarkable selection of women who overcame social barriers to become professional artists before the age of revolutions. These women were clearly successful when they received that rarest of things for a woman at the time, an art education.

...the Renaissance paved the way for some female advancement

15

THEMODERNHISTORY

Was the American Civil War inevitable?

By Matthew Brewer

The American Civil War saw four years of conflict between the abolitionist, northern states of the Union and the retentionist, southern states of the Confederacy. While this period saw great technological innovation (the first battle between ironclads at Hampton Roads and the first military emphasis on railroads), and revered engagements such as the Siege of Nashville in 1862 and Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, the devastating war cost 750,000 lives. Whilst it may have been fought by the Union at least for moral reasons, it remains a stain on the American ideals of freedom and liberty. To decide whether or not this conflict was inevitable we must look back to the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and US domestic and foreign policy in the early 19th century.

The Declaration of Independence is arguably the single most important document in the history of the United States of America, setting out the idea that the 13 colonies were not part of an empire, but in fact their own independent states, collectively known as the United States of America. In the declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following phrase which would ignite the fuse for the controversy that surrounded slavery for almost 100 years:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

16

While written with good intentions it, like most of the constitution, was written with purposeful vagueness.

What does it mean, “all men?”

Slaves back then were considered property - so can they also be men? If they are men, then doesn’t that mean they can’t be slaves?

These were the problems that faced presidents for years to come, and many were not keen to upset the delicate balance of free and slave states. This issue was mostly contained until one presidency.

Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United States, largely considered America’s first populist President and a veteran of the War of 1812, got the ball rolling for westward expansion. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 saw tribes evicted from the land east of the Mississippi river that had been gained under the Louisiana purchase of 1803, where America bought huge amount of land in the west from Napoleon. As a result of Jackson’s expansion, more and more states joined the union - each one threatening the balance of power between free and slave states. For, if there were to be more of one than the other, then they would have control over Congress and be able to force their ideologies on the other half of society. This idea of American

expansion soon became known as “Manifest Destiny” and due to the influence Jackson’s politics had on future presidents like James Polk, it brought about constant expansion through the first half of the 19th century with states like Texas joining after the Mexican American War of 1846-1848.

As new states continued to be admitted to the Union, several crises soon emerged. California joined the Union as a free state in September 1850 and tipped the balance in the favour of the free states. As a result, the president at the time, Millard Fillmore, introduced the Compromise of 1850 to Congress which included the highly controversial Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This allowed bounty hunters to go across the Missouri Compromise Line, a border denoting a point which slavery could not extend beyond, to recapture any escaped slaves.

Fillmore lost favour with the Whig party and subsequently lost the nomination to run for a second term. But this was merely the beginning.

THEMODERNHISTORY

Iin 1854, there were plans for a transcontinental railroad to be constructed, part of which was to run through Kansas which was above the Missouri Compromise Line. Democrat President Franklin Pierce passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which let the people in Kansas vote on whether slavery was to be allowed or not, and it descended into an all-out massacre known as Bleeding Kansas with hundreds of politically motivated killings. The violence even spread to the Senate floor, with Democrat Preston Brooks assaulting abolitionist Republican senator Charles Sumner, whom he seriously injured by beating him with his cane. Proslavery supporters then sent senator Brooks a choice of replacement canes as their way of support.

The nation was clearly at boiling point, but it would take one more president to seal America’s fate, Democrat James Buchanan, 15th President of the United States, whose indecisiveness and lack of leadership brought civil war upon America. Tensions were already high at this point, and more controversy would soon erupt. The Dred Scott case held before the Supreme Court concluded that a slave could never be free, as the property rights of the owners had to be respected, as set out by the constitution. Buchanan found out the decision before it was officially announced, and some accounts suggest he attempted to sway the decision against Scott, as he felt it would end the troubles. Two more free states (Minnesota and Oregon) were admitted as was Kansas, which was finally admitted in 1861 after years of violence. This meant that the slave states were now heavily outnumbered. With an ongoing economic crisis as a result of the Panic of 1857, the Democrats lost the midterms a year later and lost their majority in the House, rendering Buchanan’s government powerless.

One by one, the Southern states began to secede and break away from the Union. Meanwhile, the attack by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter in 1861 officially started the Civil War - leading to years of violence and division.

Ultimately, it is fair to argue that questions about America’s structure existed from the very beginning.

The constitution helped to light this fuse, the founding fathers, by attempting to keep it vague, failing to address such explosive topics as slavery and States Rights, thus leaving America unprepared for the rapid change brought about by the Louisiana Purchase and westward expansion. Presidents after Jackson continued to kick the can down the road, hoping they could survive their presidencies with their credibility intact. This was until 1861 when the American Civil war began. On his deathbed Buchanan famously remarked, “history will vindicate my memory”, something that is yet to happen.

But while it is easy to criticize the bad decision making of Buchanan, Jackson and the rest, it is clear that the American Civil War was inevitable from the start; the constitution unable to prevent an armed struggle over such a heartfelt ideological issue as slavery. Where it is easy to lament the loss of life, however, the American Civil War undoubtedly resulted in good with the abhorrent practise of slavery finally coming to an end.

...the American Civil War undoubtedly resulted in good with the abhorrent practise of slavery finally coming to an end

17

THEMODERNHISTORY

Why must Cleopatra be beautiful?

An example of ancient political misogyny

By Libby Thompson and Dr Boa

Depictions of Egypt’s last pharaoh in modern media – played by actresses such as Theda Bara (1917), Claudette Colbert (1934), Vivien Leigh (1945), and Elizabeth Taylor (1963) all seem to prioritise her beauty. This is understandable, as the myth survives that she was ‘the most beautiful woman in human history’; however contemporary accounts suggest the contrary and further, reveal that the sensationalism of Cleopatra’s appearance most likely, was a political move against her. This begs the question; in our modern world, why does our impression of Cleopatra’s reported beauty surpass that of her political intelligence? Does society equate the appearance of a woman to her power?

In discussing this, it is important to recognise the assets that contributed to Cleopatra’s rule in the Ancient Hellenic Mediterranean. She was well educated in mathematics, philosophy, oratory and astronomy – later, Egyptian sources would describe her as a leader who ‘elevated the ranks of scholars and enjoyed their company’ – as well as speaking as many as a dozen languages. In addition to this, she used her propaganda to accentuate an image of strength, minting coins with a masculine visage of her face. Statues and busts that survive of her show her youth and beauty, but also stress her links to Hellenic and Egyptian rule. They maintain her legitimacy as ruler, a view missing from Roman

18

accounts. Despite this, Roman accounts are important in understanding Cleopatra’s presentation, as it was Octavian’s propaganda – later first Roman emperor, Augustus - that painted her as a temptress, while competing against rival politician Mark Antony for power in Rome.

Antony had become intimately involved with Cleopatra in 41bc while staying in the city of Tarsus, near modern-day Turkey. The pair first met in Rome several years prior, where she had been the young mistress of his mentor Julius Caesar.

The relationship saw Antony turn his back on Roman standards: neglecting his duties in Rome to visit Cleopatra in Egypt, even asking to be buried there, and indulging in

the lavish ways of the East that the largely xenophobic Romans demonised. This public betrayal of Rome was worsened by his adultery. Antony was married to Octavia – Octavian’s sister, whom Greek moral philosopher Plutarch said that Cleopatra was ‘neither in youthfulness or in beauty’ her superior – who had been presented by her brother as the ideal Roman woman. Thus, Antony was seen to be disrespecting a personified Rome.

THEMODERNHISTORY

...this impression of her beauty persists even two thousand years later The affair between Mark Antony and Cleopatra was met with outrage from Rome, who viewed the East as a foreign threat. This gave Octavian the upper hand in his long-standing propaganda war against Antony, through which he eventually took Rome.

Contemporary accounts from Romans such as the poet Horace refer to her a the ‘mad queen’.

Around a century later, Pliny the Elder, who denounced Cleopatra as ‘Regina Meretrix’ (a ‘harlot queen’) was still part of a slander campaign against the couple.

Statements like this, wherein Cleopatra was reduced to a beautiful but unstable seductress who had cast an Eastern spell on Antony, not only contributed to Mark Antony’s emasculation and the presentation of Cleopatra as a frightening and dangerous foreigner, but also consciously denied the most influential female sovereign of the Ancient East recognition of her political strength and power.

So, why has this presentation of Cleopatra persevered throughout posterity? It seems history so badly wants Cleopatra to be merely beautiful. It is no mistake then, that this impression of her beauty persists even two thousand years later: it seems inconceivable for Rome, the most powerful force of the ancient world, to be intimidated by anything else - from a woman no less. The strongest surviving record of her, that of Octavian’s, delt with her imposing threat by purposely discrediting her as a vapid, scheming harlot rather than one of the most powerful female figures in the Ancient World – and this is the portrayal of her that our society has inherited. From this she has been sexualised and misrepresented in modern media, and it is through these depictions that the potency of political misogyny is revealed: In 30bc, Cleopatra, facing defeat to Octavian at the Battle of Actium, committed suicide; 1860 years later, the focus of Reginald Arthur’s famous painting ‘The Death of Cleopatra, or “The Stroke of Death” (1892) is not the poisonous asp curled around her hand, nor her

pained expression, but her accentuated figure underneath sheer fabric that dominates the scene. Here, an unpleasant death is completely miscommunicated in order to appeal to the contemporary eye, and her vulnerability in the painting completely aligns with how Octavian would have her portrayed.

Modern perceptions of Cleopatra epitomise her beauty – and it seems this is also true for modernday women. A survey of the US population returned that more than a third of Americans said that physical attractiveness is what society most values in women. It entails that society may equate the appearance of a woman to her power. So, although ancient Rome is initially responsible for reducing Cleopatra to her appearance, we are guilty of maintaining it. Evidently, it is time to dismantle false narratives and reframe how we view historical women in power such as Cleopatra – and, perhaps, revaluate how we value women today as a result.

19

THEMODERNHISTORY

Marshal Josip Broz ‘Tito’ How one man stood up to the Soviets If you were to ask anyone to list the most imposing and defiant leaders from throughout history, the answers you may receive would almost certainly be limited. Amongst those mentioned would likely be names such as Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime leader, Boudicca, the ferocious Iceni rebel, or Alexander the Great, the military mastermind of Macedonia. Few, if any, would mention a Communist dictator from a country that doesn’t exist anymore, yet when the life story of one such man is presented, it’s hard to ignore his credentials.

Surviving assassination attempts from both Hitler and Stalin and having the ‘courage’ to resist the wishes of Moscow in order to push forward Yugoslavian interests, it’s hard to argue that Marshal Josip Broz ‘Tito’s’ leadership isn’t deserving of more respect.

He was born Josip Broz on 7th May 1892 in Kumrovec, Croatia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His political maturity occurred during World War I whilst fighting against Russia on the Eastern Front. Through his friendship with a Bolshevik, Broz became utterly enraptured with Communism, even participating in the ‘July Days’ protests and renouncing his affiliation to AustriaHungary, describing feelings of ‘excitement’ amongst himself and the other Croat Prisoners of War at the imminent prospect of revolution in their own country (having become completely disillusioned with the empire that had long ruled over them).

When Broz finally returned to Yugoslavia (the new Balkan state created after World War I) in October 1920, he joined the Communist Party, (‘KPJ’) and thrived in his new-found political role. After a brief stint in prison for possession of explosives, Josip Broz was promoted to national ‘KPJ’ leadership, where he adopted his distinctive pseudonym ‘Tito’. It was while Tito occupied this position that he first interacted with Stalin (although their relationship starting more positively than it would end).

Tito benefitted from Stalin’s purges

of political and military leaders within the USSR in 1937-38, with one such purge resulting in the execution of General Secretary of the ‘KPJ’ Milan Gorkić. Tito eagerly filled that void after special appointment from Moscow. The breakout of the Second World War and Axis invasion of Yugoslavia heralded Tito’s emergence as leader of the resistance movement. With Allied support, Tito’s resistance was so resolute that by 1943 they controlled much of Bosnia and were a continual thorn in the side of the Axis occupants. In 1944, Adolf Hitler ordered his most reliable henchman, Otto Skorzeny, to locate and assassinate Tito, and whilst Tito was found, he and his fighters were able to hold off and escape the SS troopers. Yugoslavia was completely liberated from Axis forces in May 1945, and due to the minimal involvement of Stalin’s Red Army in Yugoslavia, the influence of Moscow on the country’s internal affairs was limited. In November of that year, Tito took full control of the country, exiled the king, and declared Yugoslavia a republic.

Although nominally a republic, it is more accurate to describe Tito’s Yugoslavia as a dictatorship, the brutality of the first years of his reign clearly taking inspiration from Stalin’s purges. In July 1947, Tito refused the extension of American Marshall Aid to his country, along with other Eastern countries, obeying the ‘diktat’ from Moscow; the Kremlin feared Marshall Aid spreading US influence over the curtain. The TitoStalin relationship had, and never again would be as strong. Even the West viewed Tito as more a ‘Stalin of the Balkans’ than a strong, independent leader. This continued with the establishment of Cominform (Moscow’s answer to the Marshall Plan) in September 1947, with the Soviets openly touting Yugoslavia as the country the Eastern Bloc should emulate.

With seemingly firm approval from Moscow and the temerity to stand up to the West, the question is: what went wrong? The split from Moscow came for two major reasons, one ideological and one geopolitical.

The ideological rift came, on 18th March 1948, when the Soviet Union’s Foreign Policy Department filed a report accusing Yugoslavia of ignoring Marxist-Leninist principles through its failure to fully collectivise land. According to party guidelines, Tito was expected to appropriate

By Thomas Morris

(by force if necessary) farms and properties of small landowners to transform into new collective farms.

Tito’s approach saw farmers retaining ownership of much of their land and crops, a system Tito touted as an intermediatory step to full collectivisation and completely in line with Marxist-Leninist policy. This is the first example of Tito standing firm against the Soviets and supporting what he believed to be right, which angered Stalin, as all resistance to his authority tended to.

The geopolitical divide began when Tito began secret talks with Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha in February 1948, intending to establish a Yugoslavian military base in Albania. The hope was that a Yugoslavian military presence could protect Albania from the ‘monarchical fascists’ in neighbouring Greece, who were currently locked in Civil War against Greek Communists. This schism occurred because of Stalin’s misinterpretation of Tito’s actions; he viewed Yugoslav talks as a prelude to the incorporation of Albania into Yugoslavia, or at least an attempt to undermine his influence there.

Influence in the Mediterranean had long been a sticking point for Tito and Stalin, with Tito providing weapons to the Greek Communist Party (or DHE) in the winter of 1946, despite Soviet expectations requiring Cominform members to avoid the region. With this clear move by Tito to extend his influence, it was unsurprising that Stalin became suspicious of Yugoslavian troops being where they ‘didn’t belong’.

The final straw for Stalin came after Bulgarian Communist leader Georgi Dimitrov’s interview with the New York Times in January 1948, in which Dimitrov spoke of a larger Baltic federation including Greece.

This furthered Soviet fears that Tito’s endgame was to turn Yugoslavia into a regional superpower, tirelessly pursuing the annexation of Albania and Greece. This would have been a disaster for the Soviet Union’s power beyond the curtain, and they responded by summoning Tito’s deputy, Edvard Karldelj, to Moscow, where he was lectured by Stalin, and forced to sign a declaration stating Yugoslavia would have to consult the Soviet Union before conducting any major foreign policy. Predictably, Tito did not react favourably to this wrap on the knuckles, rejecting

Stalin’s suggestion of uniting with Bulgaria instead of Albania or Greece and increasing aid to the Greek Communists in February.

Finally, at a plenary session of the ‘League of Communists of Yugoslavia’, Tito announced that Yugoslavia would not in any way forgo their presence in, or influence over, Albania. These divisive actions prompted Stalin to write the first of many hostile letters to Tito, culminating in the Cominform communique on 24th June 1948, which expelled Yugoslavia from Cominform altogether.

The ideological grudge soon became a personal one, Stalin actively attempting to eliminate his Balkan rival. Levrentiy Beria, Stalin’s spy master, orchestrated 22 assassination attempts against Tito, none however, were successful.

Stalin’s death on 5th March 1953 finally ended them. Although Stalin’s death was officially attributed to a stroke, Slovenian historian Joze Pirjevec, in his book ‘Tito and his Comrades’, speculates that Stalin may have been poisoned by Potassium Cyanide, with the poisoning ordered by Tito as retaliation for Moscow’s attempts on his life. Pirjevec rightly claims that this would be the fulfilment of Tito’s most in-famous threat:

“Stalin; Stop sending people to kill me! We have already captured five of them, one with a bomb and another with a rifle ...If you do not stop sending killers, I will send one to Moscow, and I will not have to send another” The existence of this letter is disputed, but authentic or not, it captures the climate of tension and animosity between the two Communist giants, whose post-war priorities dominated Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, and certainly shows us the sense of defiance and individuality that led to Tito running his own country, his own way.