CODEX Historiae - themanummer Vrede - zomer 2019

Historiae

codex

Jaargang 40 | Nummer 2 | 2019

Vrede

2

Redactioneel Dit jaar is het 100 jaar geleden dat het Verdrag van Versailles werd ondertekend: het verdrag dat een einde moest maken aan de Eerste Wereldoorlog, maar dat verstrekkende gevolgen zou hebben voor de beoogde vrede in de wereld. Meer over dit verdrag lees je overigens op pagina 12.

Over de hedendaagse vrede in de wereld raken we maar niet uitgepraat, lijkt het wel. We leven nu in de vredigste tijd die de mensheid ooit gekend heeft, zo vertelde hoogleraar psychologie Steven Pinker een aantal jaar geleden. Zijn redeneringen lees je op pagina 15. Maar het nieuws en de socialemediakanalen lijken een ander verhaal te vertellen: op veel plekken in de wereld is er helemaal geen sprake van vrede. Toch is het gebruik van geweld sinds het bestaan van onze soort drastisch afgenomen.

Prachtig nieuws, natuurlijk, maar dat betekent niet dat we genoegen moeten nemen met het geweld dat heden ten dage nog steeds ingezet wordt. Niet voor niets wordt er in Nederland zoveel waarde gehecht aan Dodenherdenking op 4 mei en Bevrijdingsdag op 5 mei. Hier is echter ieder jaar weer iets over te zeggen. Dit jaar werd er opnieuw ontdekt dat er op een herdenkingsmonument namen terecht zijn gekomen van mensen die niet met het verzet, maar juist met de Duitsers meevochten.* Op de Waalsdorpervlakte verliep de herdenking dit jaar gelukkig zonder ophef. Een van de vrijwilligers die de organisatie van deze herdenking op zich nemen, vertelt op pagina 21 waarom de herdenking voor hem zo belangrijk is. * Benieuwd naar het artikel hierover? Kijk dan even op codexhistoriae.nl/themas/vrede.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles. It was signed to end World War I, but it turned out to have farreaching consequences for the envisaged peace in the world.You can read more on the Treaty in the (Dutch) article on page 12.

There is a lot to say about contemporary peace.We now live in the most peaceful time humanity has ever known, as psychology professor Steven Pinker told us a few years ago. Read about his arguments on page 15. However, the news and social media seem to tell us otherwise: a lot of countries don’t know peace at all.Yet the spread of violence has decreased dramatically since the beginning of our species.

That’s good news, of course, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept the violence that is still used these days. In the Netherlands we value Dodenherdenking (Commemoration of the Dead) on the 4th of May and Bevrijdingsdag (Liberation Day) on the 5th of May, when we commemorate war victims and celebrate the liberation of the country after World War II. These commemorations unfortunately don’t always go by without a fuss. As the article on page 32 shows: peace is complicated.

Colofon Hoofdredactie Berith van Pelt Chief editor Redactie Daan Jansen Editors Emilia Salerno Jasmijn Groot Jedidja Stikkelorum Tijs Hopman

Vormgeving Daan Jansen Graphic design

Eindredactie Carlijn van Esch Copy editors Emma Kemp Laurens Kemp Lucas Smarius Gastschrijvers Matthijs van der Stoep Guest writers Tim de Wit Cover What is peace built on?

Jasmijn Groot

Mail voor meer informatie over abonneren, publiceren of adverteren naar info@codexhistoriae.nl.

Financieel mogelijk gemaakt door de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Amsterdam, mei 2019.

3

In dit nummer Actualiteiten Berith van Pelt

pagina 4

40 jaar CODEX De jaren 90: een decennium aan hervormingen Daan Jansen

pagina 6

Het Verdrag van Versailles Een terugblik 100 jaar later

pagina 12

The evolution of peace A look at The Better Angels of our Nature Laurens Kemp

pagina 15

Voor hen die het ultieme offer gaven voor onze vrede Herdenken op de Waalsdorpervlakte Berith van Pelt

pagina 21

German politics before and after World War 2 Review: Lions and Lambs Matthijs van der Stoep

pagina 24

A multifaceted idea The many symbols of peace Emilia Salerno

pagina 26

Monopolizing armageddon America’s monopoly on Uranium and the weapons of peace, 1942-1954 Daan Jansen

pagina 32

Tim de Wit

4

Actualiteiten Het Verdrag van Versailles in Museum Huis Doorn Dit jaar is het 100 jaar geleden dat het Verdrag van Versailles werd ondertekend.

Meer over dit Verdrag, dat formeel het einde van de Eerste Wereldoorlog betekende, vind je in het artikel op pagina 12. Op vrijdag 28 juni organiseert Museum Huis Doorn een bijeenkomst waarin het Verdrag van Versailles centraal staat. Sprekers zullen in gesprek gaan over de gevolgen van het verdrag op verschillende landen.

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles. William Orpen, 1919, Imperial War Museum, Londen.

5 Berith van Pelt

Het Koninklijk Nederlands Historisch Genootschap Ook het Koninklijk Nederlands Historisch Genootschap laat het 100-jarig jubileum van het Verdrag van Versailles niet ongemerkt voorbij gaan. Op 29 november vindt hun jaarcongres, met de titel De Vredesconferentie van Parijs (1919):Versailles en verder ‌, plaats. Geen zin om zo lang te wachten? Op 6 juni kun je al bij het Genootschap terecht om de documentaire Srebrenica Genocide: No Room for Denial te kijken, toegelicht door een gastspreker.

Buste van Wilhelm II von Hohenzollern in de tuin van Huis Doorn

Op de VU Het onderzoek aan de Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen staat niet stil. In elk nieuw nummer van CODEX vind je een overzicht van recent gepromoveerden aan deze faculteit van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

April 2019 Het virus der betrokkenheid: Het Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis in het krachtenveld van sociale geschiedenis, sociale bewegingen en collecties, 1935 – 1989 H.A. Sanders

Meer informatie over de actualiteiten?

Kijk op codexhistoriae.nl/themas/vrede

6

40 jaar codex Historiae De jaren 90: een decennium aan hervormingen

In het vorige nummer van codex Historiae heb ik de eerste tien jaar, van 1980 tot 1989, van de voorganger van codex besproken: Galapas. Dat decennium werd afgesloten met een aantal onzekerheden. Redactielid Günter Schaapveld geloofde dat Galapas nog amper gelezen werd, dat de redactie vooral voor zichzelf schreef en dat het blad toe was aan hervorming. Hij zag vier scenario’s voor zich: Galapas kon verder gaan zoals voorheen en riskeren in de vergetelheid te raken; het kon weer nauwer gaan samenwerken met studievereniging Merlijn;1 het kon uitbreiden en gaan schrijven voor de hele faculteit der letteren; of het kon worden opgeheven. Dat Galapas niet is opgeheven is overduidelijk – anders zou dit artikel noch het blad waarin het staat bestaan. Maar gedurende de jaren 90 zullen we zien dat Galapas de drie andere opties elk heeft geprobeerd.

Net als vorige keer ben ik naar onze universiteitsbibliotheek gegaan voor de exemplaren van Galapas die voor het onderzoek benodigd waren. In tegenstelling tot de jaren 80, waarvan de collectie uiterst gebrekkig is, is de collectie

Een selectie van voorpagina’s uit de jaren 90 geeft een idee van de veranderingen die Galapas is ondergaan. van de jaren 90 verrassend compleet.Vanaf 1993/94, oftewel jaargang 14, is er zelfs sprake van een complete collectie: er ontbreken geen nummers meer! Enerzijds is dit geweldig, omdat codex-historici er zeker van kunnen zijn dat er geen informatie over Galapas meer mist. Anderzijds betekent dit dat er veel meer materiaal te lezen is.Van een overzichtelijk tien exemplaren voor de jaren 80, is het aantal exemplaren gestegen naar 32 van de jaren 90. Daarnaast was het in de jaren 80 niet ongebruikelijk dat nummers slechts 16 pagina’s telden; daartegenin liep de dikte van de nummers gedurende de jaren 90 soms wel op tot 50 pagina’s.

1990-1993: Steady as she goes In de eerste drie jaar van de jaren 90 was er weinig verandering aan het format van Galapas. Het decennium opende met een editie van ongeveer 24 pagina’s, met een afbeelding van de Iraanse ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989)

7 Daan Jansen

en de woorden “gelukkig nieuw jaar” op de kaft. Gek, want dit nummer kwam uit in mei 1990. Dit blijkt te slaan op een artikel over Iraanse vluchtelingen in Nederland. In de islam wordt het nieuwjaar namelijk gevierd in de lente.2 Het artikel heeft eigenlijk vrij weinig historische achtergrond te bieden. Het is eerder een stuk over de ‘huidige’ (in 1990 dan) stand van zaken van Iraanse vluchtelingen. Dit is vrij typerend voor deze periode in de geschiedenis van Galapas.

De schrijvers schreven relatief vaak over actualiteiten – politieke ontwikkelingen binnen en buiten Nederland, met een bijzondere interesse in het net gevallen Oostblok, en ervaringen van studenten in het buitenland. Zo heeft redactielid Marco Strang geschreven over het uitbreken van de Eerste Golfoorlog en schreven redactieleden Jan-Jaap van den Berg en Roelof Bouwmanover het radicaliseren van het Vlaams Blok, een Vlaams nationalistische partij.3 Ook waren er artikelen van studenten die gewoon een gedachteproces wilden opschrijven, of een dag uit hun leven beschreven.

Gedurende de jaren 90 liep de dikte van de nummers soms wel op tot 50 pagina’s.

In de jaren 80 begon Galapas te experimenteren met vaste rubrieken, met name op de achterpagina die anders vaak leeg bleef. Nadat een paar namen gedurende 1990 waren uitgeprobeerd werd gekozen voor Spring maar achterop.

Deze rubriek leek sterk op ons huidige Actualiteiten.

Hij bood informatie over tentoonstellingen, lezingen en conferenties die de volgende maanden zouden plaatsvinden.

In bijna alle aspecten was Galapas in deze tijd vooral een studentenblad, een platform voor studenten (lees: vooral de redactie) om zich uit te drukken. In de meeste nummers kwam het grootste deel van de inhoud vanuit de redactie

zelf. Er was wel altijd minstens één artikel van buitenaf.

Een uitzondering hierop was het nummer van juni 1990.

Dit was één van de relatief zeldzame themanummers, in dit geval over studentenreizen. Hiervoor nodigde de redactie studenten uit om te schrijven over hun ervaringen in andere landen, van België tot Brazilië.4 Er werd vrij weinig expliciete moeite gedaan om de studenten bij Galapas te betrekken.

De studenten werden bijvoorbeeld niet gevraagd artikelen te leveren en er werd waarschijnlijk gewoon aangenomen dat men het blad las. Langzamerhand verdween de oude garde uit de redactie. Als laatste vertrok Annemarie Gehrels in 1993. Zij zat sinds 1989 in de redactie, en na haar vertrek gebeurde er iets interessants met het blad.

1993-1998: Hervorming Aan het begin van de 14e jaargang van Galapas, in het jaar 1993-94, werd de redactie aangevuld met jong bloed.

Galapas was onderhevig aan stevige hervormingen in de hoop dat het blad weer relevant zou worden en blijven.

In de vakantiespecial, nummer 0 van jaargang 14, kwam er naast een standaard stukje redactioneel, genaamd Van de redactie, ook een voorwoord.5 Voorheen was Van de redactie (toen genaamd Aan de lezer) een korte introductie tot het nummer; nu werd Van de redactie een plek om meer uitleg te geven over de inhoudsopgave, terwijl het voorwoord de vrije plek werd voor de redactie om iets te schrijven over het nummer. Ook kwamen er nieuwe rubrieken bij: De galerij verving Spring maar Achterop op de achterpagina en bood elke keer een historische afbeelding met een stukje uitleg. De functie van Spring maar achterop als plek voor aankondigingen ging naar een nieuwe rubriek, de agenda.

Alle nummers van Galapas uitgebracht in de jaren 90 in de collectie van de UB.

8

De drie logo’s die door Galapas werden gebruikt. het ‘nieuwe logo’ uit ’89 is uiteindelijk maar één keer gebruikt.

Deze hervormingen leken succes te hebben, gezien de advertenties die Galapas aantrok. Aan het begin van de jaren 90 waren deze van het ACC – de voorganger van de Griffioen, het cultureel centrum van de VU. Later kwam daar de Wereldwinkel op de VU bij, opnieuw een lokale adverteerder. Maar vanaf 1994 verschijnen er af en toe advertenties voor de Vereniging Natuurmonumenten en het keurmerk Max Havelaar – kennelijk zag de organisatie in dat Galapas aanzienlijk bereik had.6

Het gebruik van bronvermelding nam gedurende de jaren 90 steeds meer toe.

Gedurende deze periode werden de nummers geleidelijk steeds langer. Tegen 1997 was het helemaal niet ongebruikelijk om nummers van Galapas te hebben die wel 50 pagina’s lang waren. Opmerkelijk is dat er niet aanzienlijk meer artikelen waren, maar dat deze steeds langer werden.

Dit was vermoedelijk mogelijk doordat de redactie terugkeerde naar Julian als drukker. Aandachtige lezers zullen zich herinneren dat ik in de vorige episode van de geschiedenis van codex heb uitgelegd dat Galapas eerst bij Julian werd gedrukt en daarna door SRVU-off-set. Er waren twee grote verschillen tussen de drukkers: de eerste was dat Julian enkele A4’tjes drukte en ze in de marge samen niette, terwijl SRVU-off-set op A3-formaat drukte, die dubbelvouwde en in het midden niette – zoals de Repro VU dat tegenwoordig voor de codex ook doet. Het tweede verschil was dat SRVU-off-set niet in kleur kon drukken, terwijl Julian het voor- en achterblad op gekleurd papier kon zetten. Zo kreeg Galapas een kaft die alsnog monochroom was (niet zoals de prachtige kaften van nu), maar wel een kleurtje had en zo kon opvallen – iets waarmee de redactie behoorlijk gelukkig was.7 Wat nog meer opvalt is het sporadisch gebruik van bronvermeldingen. Wellicht hebben de lezers gemerkt dat wij sinds vorig nummer niet langer gebruik maken van de annotatiestijl APA, maar van eindnoten.8 Elk artikel is voorzien van een verantwoording zodat de lezer kan achterhalen waar de informatie vandaan komt. Uiterst handig als hij/zij geïnspireerd is om een soortgelijk onderzoek te doen. Helaas was dat in de vroege jaren van Galapas vrijwel nooit het geval. In de jaren 80 en 90 was er af en toe sprake van bronvermeldingen – soms

simpelweg met een bronnenlijst aan het eind, of een bericht dat de geraadpleegde literatuur opgevraagd kon worden bij de redactie.9 Af en toe waren er in artikelen voetnoten of eindnoten te vinden. Dit nam gedurende de jaren 90 steeds meer toe, tot vrijwel elk artikel voorzien was van een of andere verantwoording. Van een uniform verantwoordingsbeleid, zoals nu, was er geen sprake.

In maart 1994 werd er voor het eerst geëxperimenteerd met expliciete taakverdeling in de redactie. Naast gewoon redigeren werd Caspar Dullemond nu in het colofon ook aangeduid als eindredactie.10 Eindredacteuren kijken artikelen na op taal- en stijlfouten en zorgen dat ze goed leesbaar zijn. Zonder onze geweldige eindredactie zou dit artikel over de geschiedenis van codex een stuk slechter geschreven zijn. Het experiment in maart 1994 viel kennelijk tegen – de rol eindredactie verdween in het volgend nummer (juni). Pas in november 1996 zou de eindredactie weer terugkeren, aanvankelijkals maar één persoon, Robin de Bruin, maar al snel werd het standaard dat er twee eindredacteuren waren.11 Dit kwam goed van pas, want dit was de tijd waarin de nummers steeds dikker werden.

De redactie probeerde op verschillende manieren studenten geïnteresseerd te houden.

Hoe goed verantwoord of dik de nummers ook waren, Galapas bleef moeite hebben om zich te verbinden met de studenten en de faculteit. Dit probeerde de redactie op verschillende manieren te verhelpen. Zo tekende striptekenaar Dandy voor elk nummer van Galapas een paginavullend stripverhaal en werd elk nummer voorzien van een korte vooruitblik, Next time on Galapas, om de lezers geïnteresseerd te houden. Het septembernummer

9 Daan Jansen

van 1996 was geheel gericht op het helpen ‘inburgeren’ van eerstejaarsstudenten en was gevuld met artikelen van docenten, zodat de studenten al wat konden lezen over de onderzoeksgebieden van hun leermeesters.12 Ook werden de studenten aangespoord te interageren met de redactie.

Naast oproepen om te schrijven voor Galapas, bevatte het juninummer van 1994 een enquête met vragen over hoe studenten het blad lazen.13 Een speelsere poging is te vinden in het mei/juninummer van 1995, toen er een puzzel in Galapas werd gezet met een geldprijs voor diegene die de juiste oplossing had.14 Bovendien werd Galapas bereikbaarder dan ooit via de information superhighway met een emailadres: galapas@let.vu.nl. Dit emailadres werkt overigens nu nog! In 1998 werd er oproep gedaan om te schrijven voor een meganummer: een themanummer over het revolutiejaar 1848. Dit nummer werd inderdaad groot. Het had een recordomvang van 78 pagina’s, bevatte 17 artikelen en rubrieken en bijna evenveel bijdragen van buiten de redactie als daarbinnen.15 1999:Terugkeer naar Merlijn?

Na de zomer van 1998 was het stil bij Galapas. Normaal gesproken kwam ergens tussen september en december het eerste nummer van het academisch jaar uit, maar dit keer duurde het tot januari 1999. De reden hiervoor was een gebrek aan financiering. De faculteit had de subsidie voor Galapas ernstig gekort, zodat het bijna onmogelijk was voor het blad om te blijven bestaan.16 Hoewel hier geen bewijs voor is, heb ik het vermoeden dat de drukkosten van Galapas in het jaar 1997-1998 steeds hoger opliepen.

Gezamenlijk waren de nummers in dat jaar bijna 300 pagina’s dik en wellicht zorgden deze kosten ervoor dat het blad op de radar van het faculteitsbestuur kwam. Op het achterblad van het januarinummer werden een oproep gedaan tot doneren inclusief donatieformulier. De redactie had uitgerekend dat als elke lezer 6 gulden zou betalen, Galapas verder zou kunnen bestaan.

Galapas kwam te vallen onder een commissie van Merlijn en werd gefuseerd met het Merlijnnieuwsblad De Ronde Tafel.

Of de oproep tot doneren veel heeft uitgemaakt is te betwijfelen. Het voorblad van het daaropvolgend nummer gaf al aan dat het niet genoeg was: onder het (sinds het vorig nummer nieuwe) logo stond in een zwarte balk geschreven “Uitgegeven door de VSGVU Merlijn” waar voorheen “Orgaan van de vakgroep geschiedenis” had gestaan. Het redactioneel bevestigt dit: door de bezuinigingen werd Galapas gedwongen samen te werken met de studievereniging waar zij bijna 20 jaar eerder uit was ontstaan. Galapas kwam te vallen onder de commissie Geschriften en Valuta (GeVa) en werd gefuseerd met het

Merlijn nieuwsblad De Ronde Tafel. Voortaan was de eerste helft van Galapas zoals voorheen, terwijl de tweede helft voor De Ronde Tafel bestemd was. Deze samenwerking lijkt vooral te hebben gedraaid om het besparen van drukkosten voor De Ronde Tafel en Galapas. De twee stonden bijna geheel apart; De Ronde Tafel had zelfs een eigen paginanummering.

Veel invloed had de fusie met Merlijn dus niet op Galapas.

Jaargang 20, het academisch jaar 1999-2000, ging Galapas in met een vrijwel geheel nieuwe redactie. Acht leden hadden de redactie verlaten toen zij afstudeerden. Het volgend jaar ging de redactie verder met vijf leden. Voordat Wytze Rijpkema zijn positie als hoofdredacteur (een geheel nieuwe rol bij Galapas sinds de fusie met Merlijn) overdroeg aan Take Ligtering en vertrok in de zomer van 1999, schreef hij een artikel over het ontstaan van Galapas en haar relatie met Merlijn. Net als Annemarie Gehrels voor hem, dook hij de archieven in om de eerste Galapas te lezen. Hij ontdekte ook het artikel van Annemarie, die had geprobeerd te ontdekken waar de naam Galapas vandaan kwam.17 Wytze gaf toe dat de relatie tussen Merlijn en Galapas vaak niet geheel amicaal was, maar hij hoopte dat de fusie tussen de twee snel profijt zou brengen.18 In de jaren 90 zijn alle door Günter voorgestelde opties, op het opheffen na, geprobeerd. Eerst ging Galapas haar gang, toen probeerde het relevanter te worden door middel van grote hervormingen, en uiteindelijk kwam het terecht bij Merlijn. Nu, in de 21ste eeuw, weten wij dat codex Historiae onafhankelijk is van Merlijn. Maar hoe is dit gekomen? Heeft Galapas weer meer subsidie gekregen van de faculteit en koos het vervolgens voor onafhankelijkheid? Of wilde Merlijn van Galapas af? Deze vragen en meer zullen worden beantwoord in deel drie van 40 jaar codex Historiae.

10

Verantwoording

1 Voor meer informatie over de relatie tussen Merlijn en Galapas, zie: Daan Jansen, ’40 jaar Codex historiae. De eerste 10 jaar’ in: CODEX Historiae 40:1 (Amsterdam, 2019) 4-6.

2 Annemarie Gehrels, “Gelukkig nieuwjaar” in: Galapas 10:4 (Amsterdam, 1990) 15.

3 Marco Strang, “War in the Gulf” in: Galapas 11:2 (Amsterdam, 1991) 3-4; Jan-Jaap v.d. Berg & Roelof Bouwman, “Nooit meer oorlog, nooit meer Belgie” in: Galapas 12:2 (Amsterdam, 1991) 1-4.

4 Galapas 10:5 (Amsterdam, 1990).

5 Redactie, “Voorwoord” in: Galapas 14:0 (Amsterdam, 1993) 3.

6 Galapas 14:4 (Amsterdam, 1994) 6; 20.

7 Redactie, Voorwoord 14:0 8 American Psychological Association (APA) stijl is een annotatiestijl waarbij de auteur en jaar van uitgave in de lopende tekst wordt vermeld, in plaats van in een voetnoot.

De puzzel met prijsvraag was een anagramwedstrijd. De lezer is van harte welkom om ons de mailen met de oplossingen!

9 Rémon van Riemsdijk “Slavernij in het Caraibische gebied” in Galapas 12:2 (Amsterdam, 1991) 20.

10 Galapasredactie, ‘Colofon’ in: Galapas 14:2/3 (Amsterdam, 1994) 2.

11 Galapasredactie, ‘Colofon’ in: Galapas 17:2 (Amsterdam, 1996) 2; Galapasredactie, ‘Colofon’ in: Galapas 17:5 (Amsterdam, 1997) 2.

12 Galapasredactie, ‘voorwoord’ in: Galapas 17:1 (Amsterdam, 1996) 2.

13 Galapasredactie, ‘enquête’ in: Galapas 14:4 (Amsterdam, 1994) 12.

14 Jonah Kahn & Bas Roeleveld, ‘Anagram-wedstrijd’ in: Galapas 15:3 (Amsterdam, 1995) 25.

15 Galapas 18:4 (Amsterdam, 1998).

16 Galapasredactie, ”Redactioneel” in: Galapas 19:2 (Amsterdam, 1999) 2.

17 Voor meer informatie, zie Jansen, 40 jaar codex.

18 Wytze Rijpkema, “Redactioneel: Terug van weggeweest…” in: Galapas 19:2 (Amsterdam, 1999) p. 4-6.

11

CODEX Historiae zoekt Redacteuren - Gastschrijvers Editors - Guest writers 9/10 hoogleraren raden aan iets te publiceren in CODEX!* 9/10 professors recommend publishing in CODEX!*

Heb jij affiniteit met geschiedenis en houd je van schrijven? Dan zijn wij op zoek naar jou! Stuur een mailtje met daarin een korte motivatie en je cv naar info@codexhistoriae.nl en wie weet zie je jouw naam in ons nieuwe nummer verschijnen.

Wil je liever eenmalig iets publiceren? Dat kan ook! Regelmatig worden er artikelen gepubliceerd door studenten die een essay, paper of scriptie bewerkt hebben. Zo zijn er in dit nummer een essay en een boekreview verschenen. Je mag natuurlijk ook iets geheel nieuws schrijven als dat je meer aanspreekt! Heb je interesse? Stuur dan een mail naar info@codexhistoriae.nl met jouw (idee voor een) artikel en wie weet zie je het terug in het volgende nummer van CODEX Historiae!

Are you interested in history and do you love writing? Then we’re looking for you! Send a mail with a brief motivation and your CV to info@codexhistoriae.nl and perhaps you’ll see your name in our next issue!

Would you rather publish something just once? You can do that too! CODEX regularly publishes articles by students based on edited versions of their essays, papers or theses. An essay and a book review appeared in this issue. You can also write something completely new if you prefer!

Are you interested? Then you can send an email to info@codexhistoriae.nl with your (idea for an) article and perhaps your article will appear in the next issue of CODEX Historiae!

*Statistiek niet wetenschappelijk bewezen, maar het klopt wel! *Statistic is not scientifically proven, but it is true!

12

Het Verdrag van Versailles

Een terugblik 100 jaar later In 1919 lag een groot deel van Europa in puin. De meest extreme schade was geconcentreerd in de kronkelende, ongeveer 750 kilometer lange lijn van de Zwitserse grens tot het Kanaal, die tot November 1918 bekend had gestaan als het Westfront. Daarnaast moeten de verwoestingen in Oost-Europa, de Balkan, Noordoost-Italië, Mesopotamië, de Levant en koloniaal Afrika niet onderschat worden.

Circa 16 miljoen mensen waren in de periode 1914-1918 om het leven gekomen door geweervuur, bajonetten, artillerieregens, bombardementen door zeppelins en vliegtuigen, gifgas en verdrinking. Nog eens miljoenen anderen verloren weliswaar niet hun leven, maar vertoonden wel onuitwisbare fysieke en mentale sporen ten gevolge van de oorlog. Nieuwe conflicten laaiden alweer op, bijvoorbeeld in het door burgeroorlog en revolutie verscheurde Rusland, waar tussen 1917 en 1923 nog zo’n 12 miljoen slachtoffers zouden vallen.

Toch was er optimisme in de wereld van direct na de Eerste Wereldoorlog, wat misschien het beste gepersonifieerd werd door de Veertien Punten, het vredesvoorstel van de Amerikaanse president Woodrow Wilson (1856-1921). Hierin werden de hoofdpunten geformuleerd van een zogenaamde Peace without Victors, waarin een nieuwe liberale wereldorde zou ontstaan zonder wapenwedlopen (punt IV.), vrije handel tussen landen (punt III.) en op zee (punt II.) gevoerd zou kunnen worden en waarin diplomatie niet langer in het geheim bedreven zou worden tussen de machthebbers (punt I.). De verschillende volken van Europa die in de loop der eeuwen opgenomen waren in de rijken van de kaisers, tsaren en sultans zouden zelfbeschikkingsrecht krijgen en de strijdende naties zouden eerlijk en open met elkaar overleggen over hun territoriale claims. Ook zou een Volkenbond worden opgericht waarin de principes van de Veertien Punten

Europa in 1914. Bron: Wikimedia Commons

bewaakt zouden worden door een collectieve raad van wereldlanden.1 In november 1918 had kanselier Max von Baden van het verzwakte Duitse Rijk vredesvoorstellen gedaan aan de Entente in de veronderstelling dat er op basis van het manifest van de Amerikaanse president te praten viel, al dient hierbij wel opgemerkt te worden dat de Centrale Mogendheden begin 1918 de Veertien Punten – vlak nadat Wilson ze, in zijn eigen woorden, ter gelegenheid van het Verdrag van Brest-Litovsk tussen de Centrale Mogendheden en de Sovjet-Unie had voorgesteld – aanvankelijk hadden verworpen.

13 Tim de Wit

Van Veertien Punten naar ‘Diktat’ Toen kwam Versailles. In het paleis van de Zonnekoning, waar de Duitsers Frankrijk in 1870 hadden vernederd door uitgerekend daar het Duitse Keizerrijk uit te roepen, kwamen politici van de Entente (behalve Rusland) en de Centrale Mogendheden bijeen om deze nieuwe wereldorde te smeden. Wat eruit voortkwam was een serie verdragen die van de idealistische woorden van Wilson weinig over hadden gelaten. De verdragen van Versailles (met Duitsland), Saint-Germain (met het Oostenrijkse deel van het voormalige Habsburgse Imperium), Trianon (met Hongarije) en Sèvres (met het Ottomaanse Rijk) zorgden weliswaar voor de herrijzenis van het eeuwen eerder opgesplitste Polen, maar met de zelfbeschikking van de Duitsers, Oostenrijkers, Hongaren, Kroaten, Bosniërs, Turken en Arabieren die plots trouw moesten zweren aan andere overheden werd geen rekening gehouden.

Van een Peace without Victors ging men naar een Duitse schuldclausule, waarin het sabelgekletter van de Oostenrijkers, Russen en Fransen in 1914 genegeerd werd om Duitsland extra herstelbetalingen in de schoenen te schuiven. In het door Frankrijk heroverde Elzas-Lotharingen begon de overheid nu met het onderdrukken van het Elsässisch – de lokale, door Duitsland getolereerde taal – terwijl het Duitse Rijnland van Duitse troepen gevrijwaard werd om Duitsland een permanente strategische handicap ten opzichte van Frankrijk te geven – dit terwijl daar ondertussen Franse en Belgische troepen gestationeerd werden om herstelbetalingen af te dwingen. De Veertien Punten verwerden tot het ‘Diktat’ van Versailles.

Realiteit versus idealisme

Men kan zich afvragen of een verdrag op basis van de Veertien Punten überhaupt mogelijk was in 1919. De zelfbeschikking van de eerder genoemde volken was in de etnische lappendeken van het Europa van toen een heikele kwestie. 31% van de Hongaren bevond zich in 1920 buiten de grenzen van post-Trianon-Hongarije, maar zij leefden verspreid tussen de vele etniciteiten van de voormalige Donaumonarchie en werden nu opgenomen door Roemenië en het Koninkrijk der Serviërs, Kroaten en Slovenen.2 Gdańsk/Danzig is een bekend voorbeeld van een stad die geclaimd werd door zowel Polen als Duitsland, maar ook andere steden in het westen en noorden van Polen, waaronder Łódź, Poznań en Toruń, kenden aanzienlijke Duitse minderheden waarvan Hitler later claimde dat zij gediscrimineerd werden door de Poolse staat. In Polen als geheel leefden volgens de Poolse census van 1931 740.992 mensen die zichzelf als Duits beschouwden.3 Dit is nog relatief weinig in vergelijking met de meer dan 4 miljoen Oekraïners en 990.000 Witrussen die zich binnen de grenzen van Polen bevonden.4 Deze complexe realiteit werd nog eens bemoeilijkt door de keer op keer opstekende Amerikaanse neiging tot isolationisme. Hierdoor werd president Wilson, wiens gezondheid achteruit ging, gedwongen eenondergeschikte rol aan te nemen aan Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk. Deze beide landen, die van de in 1919 overgebleven leden van de Entente de meeste schade hadden opgelopen door de oorlog en daardoor de zwaarst wegende belangen hadden, hadden daarnaast ook nog eens tegenstrijdige belangen: Groot-Brittannië, dat in de nadagen van de oorlog economisch achteruit ging en weinig direct van Duitsland te vrezen had, legde de nadruk op herstelbetalingen.

Frankrijk, dat nu binnen een halve eeuw tweemaal

Europa in 1929. Het Rijnland is niet langer bezet door Franse en Belgische troepen na het tekenen van het Verdrag van Locarno.

Daarnaast heeft de Republiek Turkije de Ionische kust en OostThracië heroverd op de Grieken na de Grieks-Turkse oorlog van 1919-1921, heeft de Ierse Vrijstaat de onafhankelijkheid verworven als gevolg van de Ierse onafhankelijkheidsoorlog van 1919-1921 en heeft het Koninkrijk der Serviërs, Kroaten en Slovenen haar naam aangepast naar het Koninkrijk Joegoslavië. Los daarvan is dit de kaart van Europa die ontstond na de vredesverdragen van Parijs. Bron: Wikimedia Commons

14

Een spotprent door de Engelse tekenaar John Bernard Partridge uit 1904 over de Duitse reactie op het verbond tussen Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië dat in dat jaar ontstond. De Duitse keizer, Wilhelm II, wordt hier beschuldigd van oorlogszuchtig sabelgekletter – zie de sabel die onder diens overjas uitsteekt. Uiteindelijk was het echter Oostenrijk-Hongarije dat op 28 juli, 1914 de eerste oorlogsverklaring deed. Bron: Wikimedia Commons vernietigende oorlogen had gevoerd met Duitsland, wenste de dreiging aan haar oostgrens voorgoed impotent te maken.

Het resultaat was een combinatie van de wensen van beide mogendheden die relatief weinig beïnvloed werd door de betrekkelijk belangeloze Amerikanen. Daarnaast was Duitsland in 1917 zelf weinig genereus omgesprongen met de Russen: het Verdrag van Brest-Litovsk, dat aanvankelijk door de Bolsjewieken was afgedaan als te streng, werd afgedwongen met een hernieuwd Duits militair offensief waarna Lenin weinig andere keus had dan het verdrag te ratificeren. Was Wilson onder deze omstandigheden niet simpelweg een dromerige idealist die de wat nuchterder politici in de weg zat met hoogdravende retoriek?

Het gouden randje Tot nu toe was dit stuk ter gelegenheid van het Verdrag van Versailles voornamelijk een opsomming van de mislukkingen en gemiste kansen die deze afsluiting van de Eerste Wereldoorlog met zich meebracht. Toch kan men wel degelijk zeggen dat Versailles ook een beduidend positief effect heeft gehad: punt XIV. van Wilson’s Veertien Punten werd niet met voeten getreden. Er kwam inderdaad een Volkenbond, een ondergewaardeerd maar nuttig uitvloeisel van de Eerste Wereldoorlog. Zo valt er ondanks haar verzwakte positie door de weigering van het Amerikaanse congres om de Verenigde Staten eraan deel te laten nemen toch een aantal successen aan de Volkenbond toe te schrijven, zoals het vreedzame overleg tussen Zweden en Finland over de toekomst van de Ålandseilanden in 1921. De bevolking daar was geheel Zweedstalig en wenste zich aan te sluiten bij Zweden, maar Finland zag de eilanden als een integraal onderdeel van haar grondgebied. Bemiddeling van de Volkenbond wist toen een regeling in het leven te roepen dat de eilanden bij Finland zouden blijven onder voorwaarde dat de lokale Zweedse cultuur gerespecteerd zou worden.

Ook wist de bond in 1925 toenadering tussen Frankrijk en Duitsland te bemiddelen, wat zou leiden tot het Verdrag van Locarno, dat een aantal beperkingen van het Verdrag van Versailles ophief (zoals de bezetting van het Rijnland door Franse en Belgische troepen). Dat het Verdrag van Versailles onvermijdelijk tot de opkomst van Adolf Hitler en daarmee de Tweede Wereldoorlog leidde is dan ook een hardnekkige misvatting. Wie weet wat er door verder internationaal

overleg bereikt had kunnen worden naarmate de spanningen tussen de voormalige Entente en Centrale Mogendheden meer en meer tot het verleden gingen behoren en men het vertrouwen in de Volkenbond niet was verloren door haar machteloosheid tegenover het agressieve handelen van Italië in Ethiopië en Japan in Mantsjoerije? De zo vaak als nutteloos weggezette Volkenbond werd een van de grote gemiste kansen van de twintigste eeuw, maar dit lag niet vast toen deze in 1919 in het leven werd geroepen.

Verantwoording 1 Woodrow Wilson, “President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points” (8 januari, 1918), www.ourdocuments.gov, geciteerd op 22-04-2019.

2 Judit Navracsics, Gyula Sáry, Szilvia Bátyi en Csilla Varga, “Testing Linguistic Awareness Among Learners of Hungarian,” Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism: Studies in Honor of David Singleton, Mirosław Pawlak, Larissa Aronin eds. (Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2014), 113.

3 Richard Blanke, Orphans Of Versailles: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939, (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1993), 95.

4 Jerzy Kochanowski, “Gathering Poles into Poland: Forced Migration from Poland’s Former Eastern Territories,” Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, Philipp Ther, Ana Siljak eds. (Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001), 136.

15 Laurens Kemp

The evolution of peace A look at The better angels of our nature

In this issue of codex Historiae, we explore times and places of peace throughout history. Yet what we consider peace today is very different from how people understood it in the past. Of course, the meaning of the word remains the same: an absence of conflict, a state of tranquility. But how peaceful have human lives really been in the past? How do our lives compare to those of our close and distant human ancestors? These are a few of the questions Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology, sets out to answer in his 2011 book The Better Angels of our Nature.1 In this book, Pinker explores the knowledge and data of human societies ranging from our distant past to our present. He makes the case that not only do we live in the most peaceful era in all of human history, but that this is part of a trend of declining violence that can be traced back all the way to antiquity.

It is easy to get the impression that the modern world, with all its technological marvels, is far more violent than that of the primitive peoples of the past. Starting with the invention of the machine gun, modern warfare has tended towards increasingly efficient ways of killing large numbers of people, culminating in the drop of the atomic bomb.Yet, in contrast

to this, none of these highly lethal military technologies are a concern in our everyday lives – or at least in the lives of people in developed countries. Unlike during the Cold War, we do not fear an imminent nuclear holocaust, nor are large coalitions of nations waging war on each other as during the two world wars. In spite of the unprecedented deadliness of 20th century warfare, an examination of human history shows that today, our lives are more peaceful than ever.2 In this article, I want to give a short retelling of the peacefulness of human history as Pinker describes it. He goes into great detail in his book, examining evidence and theories exhaustively, and thus summarizing it requires me to omit and simplify a great deal. However, one can still get a fairly accurate view of Pinker’s thesis from this outline. It paints an optimistic picture: humanity’s collective efforts put our societies on the track to eliminate war entirely, perhaps

The global casualties of war from the 1940s to the 2000s.

16

“Mars and his children.� A depiction of a scene of medieval slaughter. From The Medieval Housebook, by Schloss Wolfegg, circa 1480. Adapted from Wikimedia Commons. not in our lifetimes, but at least in the foreseeable future. It is certainly an inspiring thought.

The advent of Homo sapiens The story begins about 75,000 years ago, when behaviourally modern humans were first known to exist.3 In this period, our species still consisted of roaming hunter-gatherers living off the land. As there are no written records of this time (aside from cave paintings) it is difficult to ascertain how these human ancestors of ours lived, as archeological evidence only tells an incomplete story. However, we do have some accounts of the lives of recent hunter-gatherers.

Pinker cites accounts written by European colonists of hunter-gatherer societies that survived until the age of colonization.4 On the surface their lives seemed idyllic.They spent a few hours a day, on average, foraging and hunting for food, leaving plenty of free time for things like crafting tools and weapons for hunting, childrearing, and socializing.5 In tropical regions, they depended partly on wild fruits and vegetables that grow and ripen in different times of year, which meant their diet was always varied and they got plenty of exercise. However, these benefits came at a high price: those who live as a part of nature, are also subject to the metaphorical law of the jungle. This meant high rates of violent death, both from personal conflicts and intertribal wars. Pinker shows that the archeological evidence and anthropological studies on existing tribes both point to this.6

An examination of human history shows that today, our lives are more peaceful than ever.

Studies on pre-modern tribes reveal that their rate of violence and murder is sky-high compared to that of modern societies.While they may not kill very many people on an absolute scale, compared to their population size it is quite extraordinary. For example, the Inuit, who live farther north than civilization cares to go, have a yearly murder rate of 100 per 100,000 people.7 By comparison, in the same year, the Yukon province of Canada, which borders Alaska, had a murder rate of 3.8 To explain this, Pinker points to the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) who, in his famous book Leviathan, describes three causes of quarrel: gain, safety and deterrence.9 We will see these three reasons return in very different levels of conflict, but here they are most prominent.

Those who live as a part of nature, are also subject to the metaphorical law of the jungle.

In tribal societies, rival tribes may attack and kill each other for competition over resources, such as territory that is rich in food, or women, which allow the men of the tribe to have more children.10 Of course, knowing this, one tribe may attack another pre-emptively if they fear that they may be attacked themselves. Finally, tribes may use violence to build a reputation to dissuade any would-be attackers from taking up arms against them. This is known as a Hobbesian trap11: while each tribe would be better off leaving each other in peace, the risk of any one tribe using violence for their own gain is threatening enough that all of them must use violence, if not out of greed, then for deterrence. In fact, it is not enough to just win battles: if one tribe attacks a rival tribe, they will want to exterminate every last man, or else they will risk someone coming back for revenge.

Furthermore, revenge plays a major role in settling personal conflicts between individuals.12 In the absence of a judicial system, theft, adultery, and slander are also likely to be settled with violent means. As a result, as much as 60% of men in these societies will die a violent death.13

17 Laurens Kemp

An example of a Gutenberg printing press. Photo by Patrice Audet on Pixabay.com.

The agricultural revolution It would take many centuries before human societies developed a codified judicial system. Along the way, they went through many upheavals.The first was the transition to agriculture. While many pre-state societies were sustained in some part by growing crops, it was not until 10,000 years ago when societies relying entirely on homegrown food emerged.14 Settling down in one place, growing food and keeping livestock provided the means to sustain a far larger number of people than nomadic hunting and gathering. This allowed some to specialize, producing excesses of a single good to trade with, and the places where people met for commerce would later evolve into cities.15 This development had a decidedly positive impact on the peacefulness of people’s lives.After all, if one’s neighbour is more useful alive than dead, one is far more likely to cooperate than mistrust and envy each other. At the time, this was merely a small step in the evolution of peace, but wherever Hobbes’s three causes of quarrel come up, the pacifying effect of trade will eventually show itself too.

The second upheaval, which was mostly concurrent with the first, was the organisation of society into states. While the populations of early agricultural societies grew rapidly, they were still bound together by shared tribal and cultural roots, and answered to a chieftain or some other kind of leader. However, with many hands working the farms, these chieftains could now afford to maintain a dedicated group of warriors to defend their people and their land, and perhaps wage war on their neighbours. In this respect, the basic dynamic of Hobbesian conflict did not change.The scale, however, did. With more resources at their disposal, the power of the chieftains had a tendency to snowball, and over time, large and powerful tribes swallowed up the lands of the smaller ones, growing even larger. This set the stage for the emergence of states.

No matter which point in history states and non-state societies existed, the states have been significantly and consistently more peaceful.

It took about 5,000 years for early agricultural societies to develop what could reasonably be called a state, with an undisputed leader who enforced order. This leader would levy taxes from his subjects, with which to fund the training and maintaining of an army and military strongholds, to protect themselves and their subjects.16 In the majority

of cases, these were despots who were the sole arbiter of justice in their domain, ordering executions, tortures, abductions and other cruel punishments on a whim.17 Yet in spite of this, Pinker’s examination of archeological sources and written records shows that the death rate by violence and warfare in these societies was half that of nonstate societies, or even lower.18 A cause of this was that even the most autocratic of despots had a selfish interest in preventing conflict among their subjects. If too many people get maimed or killed in internal disputes, the entire community’s productivity suffers, and this means less power and influence for the leader. As a result, a brutal crackdown on personal vendettas actually made violence less likely to break out in general.

In this whirlwind tour of early human history, I may have given the impression that the developments described here are the natural evolution of human society, but this is not the case. Some hunter-gatherer societies never transition to agriculture, such as the indigenous North Americans before being colonized by Europeans, and some states collapse, with its people breaking apart into smaller groups, with all the conflict that entails.19 Examples of this include the fall of the Roman empire, but also modern ‘failed states’ like Somalia, which, after the collapse of the government in the 1980s, split into factions (or tribes, as Pinker calls them) fighting for control of regions of the country in a civil war which continues well into the 21st century.20 This is not to say that the inhabitants of failed states necessarily abandon civilized ways, but in the absence of a central government that maintains order, they are forced to resort to banding together with their ‘tribe’ for safety. However, Pinker argues that no matter which point in history states and non-state societies existed, the states have been significantly and consistently more peaceful.21 In the rest of this article I will focus mainly on Pinker’s findings about European history, again because his book encompasses so much that I cannot summarize it all.

18

The rise of empathy While there have been many prosperous states throughout history, it is only in the last few centuries that the greatest strides towards peace were made. Yet it is not a change in our external circumstances that led up to this, as the other ways of pacification have progressed. Instead, it was a change in our inner lives, in our morals, and in our sense of empathy. Pinker demonstrates this by examining ancient literature like the Old Testament, Homeric epics and Arthurian legends. These are rife with tales of horrific slaughter, shockingly cruel torture, genocide, rape, slavery, and so on, both perpetrated and mandated by God, as well as the characters and groups the reader is supposed to identify with.22 Pinker sums these up comprehensively, but in the interest of brevity and good taste I will not repeat them. It is easy to compartmentalize these stories as historical fiction and not think about what they say about the morals and values of the people who wrote them, but the sheer ubiquity of these stories makes it obvious that these people’s inner lives were utterly morally depraved when compared to today’s standards.

By regularly seeing the world through other people’s eyes, and reading about their thoughts and feelings, the readers cultivated a strong sense of empathy.

It is not merely the civilizations of ages long past that stand in such stark contrast to contemporary values. Medieval Europeans showed a similar propensity to commit sadistic acts and revel in their cruelty. Any visitor to torture museums like the Amsterdam Dungeon will understand that the cruelty of medieval torturers was incomprehensible to modern minds. Yet these tortures were not just performed on the worst criminals in the darkest depths of the dungeon. Instead, they were public spectacles, drawing huge crowds that cheered for the painful death that was inflicted on the victims.23 These punishments were just as freely meted out to those accused of comparatively mild offences like heresy, theft or adultery as they were for murder or treason. The thirst for cruelty was not limited to their fellow man either: displays of animal cruelty such as cat-burning, fox-tossing and dogfights were considered

Gatherings of educated high society to engage in intellectually stimulating conversation and discussion, as depicted here, were known as literary salons.This scene shows “Reading of Voltaire’s L’Orphelin de la Chine, in the salon of Madame Geoffrin.” By Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier. Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.

normal and appropriate pastimes.24 Even as Europeans have become more empathetic toward human suffering, we still see remnants of recreational animal abuse in Spanish bullfights, where the matador slowly kills the bull by thrusting spears and swords into it until it collapses. Such a display is considered repulsive by modern moral standards.

It is hard to see how we have anything in common with the people who lived here just a few hundred years ago. How did our attitude to human suffering shift in such a relatively short time, when it had been the norm for thousands of years? Pinker suggests it may be in part because of secularisation. When Christianity was the dominant cultural force in Europe, society valued souls over lives.25 The prevailing attitude was ‘memento mori’, and life was treated as a transitional state on the way to eternity in either heaven or hell. With this in mind, people in places of power did not think twice about using the cruelest and most horrible punishments to deter crimes, even victimless crimes. However, this changed in the 18th century Reading Revolution.26 The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg (1400–1468) in 1439 made the Reading Revolution possible.

Over the course of the next century, the publishing industry exploded in size.27 Before this, people’s reading material was mainly limited to the Bible and the texts the church’s scribes disseminated, but afterward, book production became so cheap that basically anyone could publish their own writing. The most popular books were novels, many of which featured women of humble stature with lives full of emotion and drama. Pinker argues that the unprecedented popularity of these novels caused a notable change in people’s inner lives.28 By regularly seeing the world through other people’s eyes, and reading about their thoughts and feelings, the readers cultivated a strong sense of empathy.

Not only did they become more sensitive to other people’s suffering, but they also became more open to other beliefs and worldviews.

The Age of Reason Modern philosophers and scientists were in a perfect position to take advantage of the literacy boom. With

19 Laurens Kemp

a higher rate of literacy, thinkers were able to share and discuss their ideas with a broader audience, and from the 17th century onwards, huge volumes of letters were exchanged between eminent minds like Locke (1632–1704), Newton (1642–1727) and Voltaire (1694–1778).29 Although the church and the state took a dim view of unorthodox and revolutionary ideas, being afraid of losing their power and influence, the emerging globalization of the academic society was far too powerful to suppress.The pace at which books were published, translated and disseminated made any attempt at censoring them inadequate at best. Pinker singles out Amsterdam as a particularly influential city in this process.30 He names Spinoza (1632–1677), Descartes (1596–1650) and Locke as prominent thinkers who called Amsterdam home at one point in their lives. In the Dutch Golden Age, the city also housed a diverse range of denominations including Catholics, Protestants, Anabaptists, and Jews. There were many book publishers who were in the business of exporting books that were forbidden in other countries.31 All in all, Amsterdam was (as were cities in general) crucial in developing the modern worldview.

Pinker shows that many people still accepted war as a natural and rightful process of statecraft.

Another product of this age was political philosophy.

Once people started realizing that the status quo was not necessarily the best (or only) option for a society, and that kings and queens may not actually have a God-given right to rule, it naturally led people to imagine different ways of running the state.32 Thomas Hobbes, for example, was very

A satirical visualization of a map of Europe in 1877, illustrating the relationships between countries. By Fred W. Rose. Adapted from Cornell University Library. influential in this regard, and his famous work Leviathan is cited by Pinker throughout Better Angels. Although these political philosophers could not effect a change in government immediately, they put the idea into the public consciousness. The various crises in Europe in the following decades eventually spurred people to either overthrow the monarchies or strongly limit their power, which would not have been conceivable had the status quo remained unquestionably valid.

Although the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason were undoubtedly effective in cultivating a healthy skepticism towards accepted wisdom and a growing respect for human happiness and well-being, people still maintained a highly jingoistic attitude. Pinker shows that many people still accepted war as a natural and rightful process of statecraft.33 This was a view held by high-ranking military officers, wellrespected intellectuals, and the average commoner alike. It may or may not be surprising that these wars were fought for basically the same reasons as the small tribes I described at the beginning of this article, namely for gain, safety, and deterrence. Most nations felt the need to expand their borders as much as possible, not only for natural resources and valuable trade routes but also out of a sense of national pride. Even comparatively isolationist states needed to act aggressive from time to time to discourage their neighbours from attacking.34 This, of course, led to deep mutual mistrust and national grudges accumulated over the years. Tensions

20

in 19th century Europe were extremely high, and even the kings, kaisers and czars were starting to see the futility of war.Yet they still could not avert it.35 Fortunately, the trend of placing a higher value on human lives that started in the 17th century continued, and more and more voices spoke out against the barbarity and unacceptable costs of war.36 However, these sentiments were far from universal, and they were fiercely opposed by pro-war nationalists. Although multiple high-level initiatives were made to preserve peace between nations – examples being the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations – their successes were limited, and they could not stop the outbreak of global conflict. I do the events of the first half of the 20th century a great disservice by glossing over them here, but doing otherwise requires more pages than I have. Instead, I want to conclude this article with a few pertinent observations: in the decades following World War II, the Cold War ended without overt warfare between the two sides, the Soviet Union peacefully broke apart, and the Berlin Wall was broken down without bloodshed. It must be said that in comparison to the ceaseless feuding that plagued Europe in the past few centuries, the fact that war has ceased almost entirely is nothing short of miraculous.

And just like the interminable conflict that plagued our distant ancestors, mutually beneficial trade agreements have certainly played an important role, as they still do today. In present-day Europe, we consider our neighbouring countries our closest allies, rather than our most hated enemies.

The fact that war in Europe has ceased almost entirely is nothing short of miraculous.

Even this incomplete outline of Better Angels provides abundant reasons for optimism. The depth and breadth of Pinker’s writing is truly impressive and promotes a deeper understanding of both our species’ history and ourselves.

Even if contemporary events make it difficult for us to see that our future can be bright, remembering the great achievements of our ancestors, both distant and recent, is sure to make it easier. In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) wrote that “the state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is one of war.” He was certainly not alone to believe this. However, he also wrote that “there is slumbering in man an even greater moral disposition to become master of the evil principle in himself (which he cannot disclaim) and to hope the same from others.”37 I believe that the state of the present day indicates that this disposition is no longer slumbering, but wide awake.

References 1 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A history of violence and humanity (Penguin, 2011). ISBN: 978-0-14103464-5.

2 Ibid., p.36.

3 Ibid., p.49.

4 Ibid., p.54.

5 Ibid., p.68.

6 Ibid., p.59.

7 Ibid., p.67.

8 statcan.gc.ca; Retrieved 21-3-2019.

9 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), Chapter 13.

10 Pinker, Better Angels, p.56.

11 Ibid., p.41.

12 Ibid., p.67.

13 Ibid., p.59.

14 Ibid., p.49.

15 Ibid., p.50.

16 Ibid., p.50.

17 Ibid., p.69.

18 Ibid., p.59.

19 Ibid., p.50.

20 Al Jazeera, retrieved 5-4-2019. https://www.aljazeera. com/indepth/interactive/2018/06/armed-groups-somalia-180604110516975.html.

21 Pinker, Better Angels, p.64.

22 Ibid., p.4-13.

23 Ibid., p.159.

24 Ibid., p.174.

25 Ibid., p.172.

26 Ibid., p.210.

27 Ibid., p.207.

28 Ibid., p.212.

29 Ibid., p.214.

30 Ibid., p.215.

31 Ibid., p.215.

32 Ibid., p.192.

33 Ibid., p.291.

34 Ibid., p.196.

35 Facing History: Holocaust and Human Behavior.

Retrieved 8-4-2019. https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-3/last-ditch-effort-prevent-war.

36 Pinker, Better Angels, p.295.

37 Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795).

21 Berith van Pelt

Voor hen die het ultieme offer gaven voor onze vrede Herdenken op de Waalsdorpervlakte

Jaarlijks worden er tijdens de Nationale Dodenherdenking op 4 mei op verschillende plekken in Nederland herdenkingsdiensten gehouden. Zo ook op de Waalsdorpervlakte, een vlakte in de duinen bij Wassenaar en Den Haag. Het middelpunt van deze herdenking wordt gevormd door het monument en de Bourdonklok. Een herdenking zonder toespraken, gedichten en muziek. Een herdenking waar het gaat om het eerbetoon.

De Waalsdorpervlakte is niet toevallig een belangrijke herdenkingsplaats op 4 mei. Tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog deed deze vlakte dienst als fusilladeplaats.

Verzetsstrijders werden na hun arrestatie opgesloten in de Deutsches Untersuchungs- und Strafgefängnis in het Scheveningse huis van bewaring. Al snel werd de gevangenis bekend als het Oranjehotel.Vanuit de dodencellen, waarvan Doodencel 601 nu ingericht is als monument, werden de verzetsstrijders overgebracht naar de Waalsdorpervlakte waar zij door een vuurpeloton werden gefusilleerd. Op deze plaats vonden zeker 250 mensen de dood. Na de oorlog werden op dezelfde plaats zeven collaborateurs en oorlogsmisdadigers gefusilleerd.1

De eerste Dodenherdenking op de Waalsdorpervlakte in 1946. Bron: Erepeloton Waalsdorp.

In 1946 plaatsten oud-verzetsstrijders een monument op de Waalsdorpervlakte. Op 3 mei 1946 vond daar de eerste dodenherdenking in Nederland plaats. Het oorspronkelijke monument bestond uit vier houten kruizen, ter nagedachtenis aan de gevallen verzetsstrijders. Daarnaast werden ĂŠĂŠn van de vele fusilladeplaatsen en de plaats waar op 8 maart 1945 een groepsexecutie plaatsvond gemarkeerd met een houten kruis. De oorspronkelijke houten kruizen liggen inmiddels opgeslagen in het depot van het Haags Historisch Museum.Vier van de kruizen zullen te zien zijn in het nog te openen herinneringscentrum Oranjehotel.2 Het monument werd in 1949 uitgebreid met een betonnen muurtje met daarop de jaartallen 1940-1945.

In 1959 werd de klokkenstoel met de Bourdonklok

22

geplaatst. De gedenksteen die in 1975 werd geplaatst maakte het monument tot wat het vandaag nog steeds is. De klok speelt een belangrijke rol in de herdenking op de Waalsdorpervlakte, zoals toenmalig burgemeester Kolfschoten van Den Haag het in 1959 verwoordde: “De Waalsdorpervlakte heeft met deze klok een stem gekregen die in haar bronzen klank over stad en landschap kan vermanen en aansporen, van geslacht tot geslacht, dat de vrijheid een broos en bedreigd bezit kan zijn, dat offers eist tot in de dood”.3

Na verschillende rollen te hebben vervuld, staat hij dit jaar als erewacht naast het monument. “Ik mag tijdens het eerste luiden van de klok, het trompetsignaal, de twee minuten stilte en het Wilhelmus naast het monument staan.

Dat is zo indrukwekkend. We dragen uniformen zoals de binnenlandse strijdkrachten aan het eind van de oorlog droegen en houden wacht naast het monument zoals vanaf de eerste herdenking wordt gedaan. Dit is het ultieme eerbetoon.”

Jaarlijks wordt nu nog steeds de herdenking op de Waalsdorpervlakte georganiseerd door een groep vrijwilligers die de boodschap die door Kolfschoten werd verkondigd, uit willen dragen. Een van die vrijwilligers is Donald van Pelt, mijn vader. Ik vroeg hem waarom de herdenking voor hem zo belangrijk is.

Om 20.00 uur zijn vaak zelfs de vogels even stil “Vrede is een kostbaar begrip, dat niet iedereen kent. Onze vrede is niet vanzelfsprekend; we hebben dat aan mensen te danken die een groot offer brachten voor onze vrijheid.

Ik vind dat je daarbij stil moet staan. Voor je het weet ga je weer over tot de orde van de dag, maar we mogen niet uit het oog verliezen wat een paar malloten met een oorlog kunnen aanrichten. Met elke oorlog, niet alleen in 40-45.”

De Waalsdorpervlakte is voor Donald extra speciaal.

“De Waalsdorpervlakte staat symbool voor verzet en vechten voor vrijheid en vrede. De symboliek is hier anders dan op andere herdenkingsplekken.

De stilte, het luiden van de klok, de knisperende schelpjes onder de schoenen van de mensen die langs het monument lopen. Het heeft iets bijzonders om tijdens de stilte van de tocht toch de vogeltjes te horen fluiten. En of het toeval is weet ik niet, maar om 20.00 uur zijn vaak zelfs de vogels even stil.”

Veel mensen gaan wel naar een herdenkingsplaats toe of volgen de herdenking via radio of televisie, maar Donald koos ervoor een actieve rol te vervullen op de Waalsdorpervlakte op 4 mei. “Dat is het minste dat ik kan doen. Ik vind dat we veel tijd en energie moeten stoppen in de vrede en niet in oorlog voeren.

Als je de klok luidt of naast het monument staat, ben je zo bewust bezig met die gruwelijke oorlog. Een oorlog kent echt alleen verliezers, dat realiseer je je dan weer.”

Donald van Pelt in het uniform dat de vrijwilligers dragen tijdens de herdenking op 4 mei.

23 Berith van Pelt

Verantwoording 1 Nationaal ComitĂŠ 4 en 5 mei, Den Haag,Waalsdorpervlakte, geraadpleegd van https://www.4en5mei.nl/oorlogsmonumenten/monumenten_zoeken/oorlogsmonument/829/ den-haag%2C-waalsdorpervlakte op 30 april 2019.

2 Informatie verkregen van een van de leden van het Erepeloton Waalsdorp via een e-mail waarin zij reactie gaf op de eerste versie van het stuk die haar was toegestuurd.

3 Nationaal ComitĂŠ 4 en 5 mei, Den Haag,Waalsdorpervlakte, geraadpleegd van https://www.4en5mei.nl/oorlogsmonumenten/monumenten_zoeken/oorlogsmonument/829/ den-haag%2C-waalsdorpervlakte op 30 april 2019.

Advertentie

24

German politics before and after World War II: from polarization to consensus Review of Noah Benezra Strote, Lions and Lambs

Today Germany is one of the most stable democracies of Europe.This was far from the case in the period between the world wars. How did Germany attain this position after the fall of Nazi rule? In Lions and Lambs Noah Benezra Strote asks how the polarized political parties of interwar Germany managed to restore liberal democracy after World War II. Strote disputes the idea that, with the liberation of Western Germany, the United States introduced the country to liberal democracy. Strote is an American historian devoted to the history of modern European politics. In his book, Strote follows leading Christian-conservative and socialist intellectuals during the years of peace between the two World Wars and the years following the end of the Third Reich. Before World War II these two groups were strongly opposed to each other but after the horrendous experience of Nazi rule they stressed their communality.The title of the book refers to this reconciliation between former enemies by using the Biblical symbol of peace; in paradise, the lion and the lamb will live together.

Strote divides his narrative in two parts: conflict before the war and partnership after the war. In the first part, Strote shows the fundamental opposition between social democrats and conservative Christians, who also experienced conflict within their own ranks, especially the latter between Catholics and Protestants. In chronological order, Strote describes the issues that divided the German population to the core: the position of judges, how to

handle the economic crisis of 1929, the role of national and international idealism in education, and the collaboration with the Nazis. Strote emphasizes how Hitler’s rise was enabled by some Christian conservatives, who hoped that the Nazi leader would establish a Christian state that would be able to prevent a communist revolution. Eventually these Christians were let down by the Nazis, as they placed their ideology above religion. In the second part, both the social democrats and the Christian conservatives saw the need to find common ground to rebuild the country after the war.

The Protestant and Catholic politicians decided to work together in one party, promoting a social market economy, and the social democrats distanced themselves from the radical left. Both groups agreed that there were higher constitutional principles that should be the basis of the German state and should be defended by unelected judges.

Due to the consensus between the two popular moderate parties, West Germany, occupied by the Western powers, developed into a stable liberal democracy, in contrast to the East. Unfortunately, the last chapters that focus on the late 1950s and the 1960s, are less exciting and are not essential to the main argument of the author.

Strote’s approach represents a breakthrough in the academical thinking on the success of post-war Germany.

Strote emphasizes how fundamental ideological differences shaped the opposition within the country. This eventually led to the rise of the Nazi party, which tried to unify the

25 Matthijs van der Stoep

German nation. He also mentions how ideas of partnership helped West Germany to rise from the ashes. In this way Strote demonstrates that it was not primarily economic factors, like the Great Depression and American financial aid, that determined German history, as most historians tend to believe, but merely sociopolitical developments.

Aside from this, the chapters covering the first years of the NSDAP as a governing party are revealing. Strote describes the motives of politicians and intellectuals for collaborating with the Nazis and the debate over the future of the country that took place in these years. This period has mostly been colored by the following war, which means that, as Srote puts it,“Nazi leaders often misleadingly appear as agents of evil unfurling a secret plan, not as human beings responding to complex political pressures. Conversely, the victims of the regime (…) come across, tragic-ironically, as having realized too late the magnitude of a supposedly always existing threat”.1 Lions and Lambs is an essential work to understand the German politics of today: the dominant values in Germany, the broad base of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the many cabinets of the CDU with the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The public discontent and polarization that characterized Germany between the wars can be found in many European countries today. Only recently, the right-wing populist Alternative für Deutschland managed to become the third-largest party of the country, coming near to the CDU and the SPD by voicing the disillusionment of the German voters with the ruling elite.

In the coming years we will see if the post-war politics of consensus will endure.

Title: Lions and Lambs. Conflict in Weimar and the creation of postNazi Germany Author: Noah Benezra Strote ISBN: 978-0-300-21905-0 Hardcover Publisher:Yale University Press, New Haven & London Year: 2017 Pages: 372

References 1 Noah Benezra Strote, Lions and Lambs. Conflict in Weimar and the Creation of Post-Nazi Germany (New Haven and London 2017) 120.

26

A multifaceted idea The many symbols of peace

Peace is one of those ancestral concepts that lie at the very roots of humanity. Human history can be defined as a continuous struggle to find peace, meant in various ways.

One instinctively links the idea of peace to the absence of its opposite, war. However, peace entails a variety of meanings, which have to do not only with the lack of conflict or the results of it, but also with religion, psychology and art. The multifaceted nature of the concept of peace is already apparent in the words used for it in different cultures. The English term, just like its equivalent in some other European languages (pace, paz, paix), comes from the Latin word pax, the root of which is the same as pactum, ‘pact’. The word itself implies an agreement between two parties, such as two people, two nations, or humans and gods. In Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic, the words shalom and salaam imply the same type of agreement and newfound harmony, but also more than that. The verb form shalam is usually used in the context of making restitution, such as when a person is paid back by the one responsible for a loss or damage. The verb shalam, thus, literally means ‘to make whole or complete’ and, as a consequence, the noun shalom means ‘being in a state of wholeness’1. So a term originally used in economic contexts, ended up being a greeting to wish someone well-being and fortune. Another interesting word for peace, belonging to the Hindu culture, is shanti, a Sanskrit term that could be translated as ‘inner peace’, ‘tranquility’, ‘absence of any form of stress or perturbation’.

As such, it is also one of the core-concepts of Buddhism.2 As we will see, the idea of peace is linguistically as well as iconographically diverse. Over the course of history, many symbols and images have been created to represent the concept of peace. Each of them depicts a specific nuance of this concept, either related to politics, religion, social order or art preservation. In the following paragraphs we will go through some of these symbols and their history.

The dove and the olive branch Maybe the most classic image of peace is a white dove carrying an olive branch. These two elements were combined in early Christian representations. Originally, in Greco-Roman culture, peace was commonly symbolized

Fig 1: The back side of a denarius of Emperor Vespasian (9-79 AD) showing Pax, the goddess of peace, holding an olive branch (Roman Silver Coins 366).

only by the olive branch, the attribute of the goddess Eirene-Pax.3 It was used in works of literature to describe the cessation of hostilities as well as in works of art and on coins. For instance, the Roman writer Appian (95-165 AD) describes the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus (185129 BC) bearing an olive branch to an enemy city as a sign of truce.4 The same symbol was repeatedly used on imperial coins as a means of propaganda for the peace spread by the Roman government (fig. 1).

The concept of peace is rarely detached from that of war: the one cannot be without the other.

The association of the olive branch with the white dove as a symbol of peace occurred in early Christianity, not only as a consequence of artistic syncretism between Christian and pagan artistic languages, but as a direct reference to passages of the Old and New Testament. Core stories of the Christian belief were (and still are) the episodes of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 8:11) and the reading of Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16). In the Old Testament it is told how, after forty days of rain, Noah released a white dove and how this, after a while, came back to the ark carrying an olive branch in its beak. The bird had found a

27 Emilia Salerno

Fig. 2: On the left, Noah welcoming the dove carrying the olive branch in the ark; on the right, Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan. Paintings from the catacombs of Saint Marcellino and Peter. piece of dry land, meaning that the flood, as well as God’s rage against humanity, was over.The cosmos was now ready again for harmony and peace between God and humans.

The dove appears again as manifestation of God in the New Testament. When Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, according to the Scriptures, ‘the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form as a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”’.

The appearance of the dove here is not only a reference to the Old Testament, easily recognizable by a Judaic public, but also an identification of Jesus Christ as the one who warrants peace between God and humanity.

These two episodes were continuously represented in early Christian art, especially in catacombs and sepulchres, as a symbol of the deceased’s bond with the Christian church via baptism and as a wish for a peaceful rest. A beautiful example of this comes from the catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter (4th century AD), where both Noah with the dove and Jesus’ baptism are depicted in well-preserved wall paintings (fig. 2 and 2.1). Another example can be found in the catacomb of Callixtus (2nd-4th century AD), where the dove with the olive branch is placed beside the following inscription: Nicella virco dei qve vixit annos p m xxxv deposita xv kal maias bene merenti in pace, meaning “Nicella, God’s virgin, who lived for more or less 35 years.

[She was] placed [here] 15 days before the Kalends of May [17 April]. For the well deserving one in peace.”

It is thus not surprising that the dove carrying an olive branch is still to be found in almost every church and Christian organization in the world as one of the fundamental symbols of Christianity itself. Yet, these symbols, especially the olive branch, have been varyingly used also in political context, either to represent agreements between two parties or to depict the identity and intentions of a political organization. A perfect example of the latter is the flag of the United Nations (fig.3), the organization created in 1946

to maintain worldwide peace after World War II. The UN also uses the dove as symbol of the International Day of Peace (celebrated every 21st of September) (fig. 4). Another interesting example is the Great Seal of the United States (fig. 5), which was created after the 1776 Declaration of Independence and first publicly used in 1782. It is currently used in many documents and crests of the US government.5 The seal represents a bald eagle holding thirteen arrows in the right claw and thirteen olive branches with thirteen olives in the left one, symbolizing the thirteen original colonies. The eagle turns its head towards the olive branches, meaning that the colonies – and by extension the USA – have a preference for preserving peace, but are also ready for war if necessary, symbolized by the thirteen arrows. This is a clear example of how, even today, the concept of peace is rarely detached from that of war: the one cannot be conceived without the other.

Left, Fig. 3: Flag of the United Nations, with a world map surrounded by an olive branch.

Right, Fig. 4: Symbol of the International Day of Peace promoted by the UN with a blue dove carrying an olive branch.

28

Fig. 5: Great seal of the United States of America. (It’s pretty great) to copyright his creation, the ND symbol easily spread throughout the world and was used on many different occasions. It became particularly famous in the 1960’s, during the demonstrations in the USA against the Vietnam war.7 The peace movement was particularly active during those years and particularly prolific in the creation of impactful images.

Not only did Holtom’s symbol spread incredibly fast amongst pacifists. Protesters also managed to change the meaning of a 20-year-old sign: the socalled ‘V-sign’. The two-fingers-raised salute with the back of the hand towards the speaker (or signer) was renowned as a victory symbol at least since World War II.8 It was also used by President Richard Nixon at the end of the Vietnam War. But during the same period, protesters against this conflict, and more generally against any form of war, started to use the gesture while saying the word “peace”.This new fashion became so popular that the V-sign is better known today as a peace sign.

Symbols against war Over the course of history, a number of symbols has been created as propaganda against specific conflicts, but have later become symbols against any form of war.

The most famous of these is the symbol created by the British designer Gerald Holtom (1914-1985) over sixty years ago, as a representation of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), an organization born in the UK.6 It was the time of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, when a nuclear conflict was constantly feared. When in 1958 anti-nuclear campaigners marched from London’s Trafalgar Square to the weapons factory at Aldermaston, the CND asked for an image in order to have a deeper impact. Holtom’s creative process was quite original, as the three-line shape we all know was taken from the letters of the semaphore – or flag-signalling – alphabet, joining the N (for Nuclear) with the D (for Disarmament), placed within a circle symbolizing the Earth (fig. 6). Since Holtom refused

Equally famous is a creation by Aldo Capitini (1899-1968), an Italian pacifist and social philosopher. Inspired by the flags used in Britain for pacifist demonstrations, and with the help of some women of his hometown Perugia, Capitini created the renowned Peace Flag with the colours of the rainbow and the word “Pace” (Italian for peace) at its centre (fig. 7). In 1961, in a period of political tension, Capitini promoted a March for Peace, in order to awaken the public awareness against any form of war.9 The event was attended by thousands of people and was so successful that it has been repeated many times since 1961, most recently in 2011, 50 years after the first one. The rainbowcoloured stripes of the flag are referring to the rainbow

Fig. 6: Flag-signalling alphabet signs combined by Gerald Holtom to create his symbol of peace.

29 Emilia Salerno

Fig. 7: Aldo Capitini’s Flag of Peace (1961).

that, according to the Old Testament, appeared in the sky after the Flood, a token of the renewed peace across the earth and the sky as well as among people.

However dreadful the destruction of a national treasure might be, war normally has more tragic consequences.

There are other less known, but equally powerful symbols that deserve to be mentioned here, not only as symbols against war, but also as reminders of war’s terrible consequences. One such example is the Banner of Peace created by Russian painter, archaeologist and philosopher Nicholas Roerich (18741947). After years of activism in defense of artistic production, Roerich and his wife were forced to emigrate as a result of the events of the 1917 Revolution. From that moment, the couple traveled around the world, maintaining a deep involvement in art and art-related politics.10 In 1935, after a period of devastating wars and in

Fig. 8: Nicholas Roerich’s Banner of Peace (1935).

a time that was about to witness even more devastation, Roerich decided to start a project to protect cultural heritage from being used or destroyed for military purposes. In collaboration with the University of Paris, that had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize, Roerich prepared a draft of an international treaty to be submitted to the USA, where he spent some years, in order to defend pieces of art and monuments in case of conflict.11 The draft was immediately accepted and, on the 15th of April 1935, the so-called Roerich Pact was signed in Washington DC by representatives of the USA and twenty-one other governments of the Pan-American Union (better known today as the Organization of American States).12 The treaty proposed the use of a banner with three red dots in a circle (fig. 8), which worked according to the same principles of the Red Cross: in order to identify the monuments and institutions to be preserved from war destruction, this distinctive flag could be used.13 However dreadful the destruction of a national treasure might be, war normally has more tragic consequences, not always predictable nor limited in time. This was a lesson humanity had to learn, for instance, after the launch of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The

30

number of lives these bombs took even years after their explosion is staggering. Among these tragedies, the story of Sadako Sasaki, a Japanese girl hit by the bomb, has become famous worldwide. Sadako was only two years old when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. At first, she did not seem to have been affected. But after nine years, the consequences of the atomic radiations started appearing on her body: swellings on her neck and behind her ears and spots of purpura on her legs were the symptoms of acute malignant lymph gland leukaemia (also known as ‘atomic bomb disease’).14 Sadako died on the 25th of October 1955, at only 12 years old. Although thousands of children underwent the same fate, Sadako’s story has become known for a specific anecdote, involving the orizuru, or paper crane, a popular Japanese origami.

According to the anecdote, during her stay in the hospital in the last months of her life, Sadako started to create paper cranes so that once she folded one thousand of them, she could be granted a wish (so her father told her).15 After Sadako’s death, the orizuru not only became a symbol of her tragic story, but also a symbol for the promotion of world peace (fig. 9). In 2012, the American artist Sue DiCicco founded the Peace Crane Project, at the request of the United Nations International Day of Peace.

The aim of the project was to ‘guide the world’s youth towards a conversation about peace, community, harmony, and connectedness’.16 Participants (especially children) are invited to make their own paper crane and share it with someone in a different part of the world via social media.

The power of symbols There are numerous examples of how simple combinations of lines and colours can have a deeper impact than many words. The symbols we have seen so far have either acquired a specific meaning after years or even centuries of evolution, or have been created with a precise purpose, in order to convey messages and ideologies. Sometimes symbols that have their roots in a faraway past are reinvented for very different purposes. For instance, the rainbow, symbol of God’s peace with humanity after the Flood, has ended up signifying a more material concept of harmony, as the absence of war, in the flag created by Capitini. More recently, from the 1970’s the rainbow flag has also been used as symbol of LGBT social movements. The only difference with the peace flag described above is the absence of the word peace on the fabric and the colours’ different order.17 Similarly, a traditional hobby like origami has acquired a far more important meaning in the world, as the promotion and preservation of worldwide peace. An uncanny example of how symbols can evolve and assume an entirely different connotation can be found in one of the most hated images of the modern era: the swastika.

This symbol has its roots in prehistory and has been used by many cultures in a variety of contexts (mainly religious). It was and still is particularly relevant in Hinduist and Buddhist cultures as a symbol of peace, knowledge and cosmic balance (fig. 10).18 However, after being adopted by the Nazi party in the first half of the 20th century, this ancient and deeply meaningful symbol has become forever attached to the Nazi ideology and the horrors committed by its followers. The cultural disgust provoked by the swastika in the last half century has pushed Germany to propose its total ban within the European Union in 2007. This proposal was opposed by many Hinduist groups all over Europe, to whom the swastika has always been and still remains an important symbol of peace for their religion.19 Ultimately, it is people and communities that agree on the value given to specific signs, and the more these signs are employed in specific contexts, the more power they gain.

Thus, through time, symbols are given a precise meaning, which is however by no means fixed or unchangeable. This is exactly the power symbols have in human society: they can convey impactful messages, but they are always subject to people’s will, which can decide whether to maintain or utterly change the significance of specific images. As the

Fig. 9: Memorial statue representing Sadako Sasaki holding a paper crane.

Hiroshima, photo by Mauro Locati.

Fig. 10: Garh Ganesh Temple, Jaipur, India, showing a white flag with a red swastika.

31 Emilia Salerno

writer Diana Wynne Jones once said: ‘If you take myth and folklore, and these things that speak in symbols, they can be interpreted in so many ways that although the actual image is clear enough, the interpretation is infinitely blurred, a sort of enormous rainbow of every possible colour you could imagine’.20

References 1 Benner, Jeff. “Hebrew Word Definitions”. Ancient Hebrew Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_peace.html on 02-04-2019.

2 Kraft, Kenneth. Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Nonviolence. SUNY Press. 1992.

3 Daly, Kathleen N. and Rengel, Marian. Greek and Roman Mythology A to Z. Chelsea House. 2009. 50.

4 Appian of Alexandria. Historia Romana. 91-95.

5 Bureau of Public Affairs. “The Great Seal of the United States”. U.S. Department of State. July 2003. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27807.pdf on 02-04-2019.

6 Westcott, Kathryn. “World’s best-known protest symbol turns 50”. BBC News. 20 March 2008. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7292252.stm on 02-04-2019.

7 Mannella, Lorenzo. “Come nasce il simbolo della pace?”

Wired.it. 21 February 2014. Retrieved from https://www. wired.it/play/cultura/2014/02/21/nascita-simbolo-pace/ on 02-04-2019.

8 Cosgrove, Ben. “V for Victory: Celebrating a Gesture of Solidarity and Defiance”. Time. July, 4 2014. Retrieved from http://time.com/3880345/v-for-victory-a-gesture-of-solidarity-and-defiance/ on 01-04-2019.

9 Bossi, Nicola. “Aldo Capitini, la bandiera della Pace a Palazzo Priori“. Perugiatoday. 31 October 2011. Retrieved

from http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/bandiera-della-pace-di-aldo-capitini-a-palazzo-priori-perugia.html on 02-04-2019.

10 Drayer, Ruth A.. Nicholas and Helena Roerich: The Spiritual Journey of Two Great Artists and Peacemakers. Quest Books. 2014.

11 “Roerich Nominated for Peace Award”. New York Times. March 3, 1929. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/1929/03/03/archives/roerich-nominated-for-peaceaward-artist-and-scientist-named-with.html on 01-04-2019.

12 Treaty between the United States of America and the Other American Republics. Retrieved from http://www. roerich.org/roerich-pact.php 01-04-2019.

13 Ibid. Art. 3.

14 Preston, D.L., Kusumi, S, et al.: “Cancer incidence in atomic-bomb survivors. Part III: Leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, 1950-1987”. Radiation Research. 1994.

137: S68-97.

15 Coerr, Eleanor. Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes.

Putnam Juvenile. 1977.

16 Retrieved from https://sadakosasaki.com/peace-crane-project/ on 02-04-2019.

17 Greenbaum, Hilary. “Who Made That Rainbow Flag?”.

The New York Times, June 29 2011. Retrieved from https://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/who-madethat-rainbow-flag on 02-04-2019.

18 Mees, Bernard Thomas. The Science of the Swastika.

Central European University Press. 2008.

19 Staff. “Hindus opposing EU swastika ban”. BBC online.

17 January 2007. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/europe/6269627.stm on 02-04-2019.

20 Jones, Marie D., Flaxman, Larry.Viral Mythology: How the Truth of the Ancients was Encoded and Passed Down through Legend, Art, and Architecture. 2014. Ch. 4.

32

Monopolizing Armageddon

America’s monopoly on uranium and the weapons of peace, 1942-1953 Before the Second World War, uranium was considered a curiosity at best. Found primarily in Africa, the metal was frequently discarded in South African gold mines as a useless by-product, not worth selling. The related metal radium was far more interesting for its medical and scientific uses. One of the only commercial uses of uranium was a popular line of ceramics produced in the United States, which contained yellow uranium powder that would turn orange-red when heated.1 Less than 100 tons of uranium a year circulated around the world, with the vast majority coming from the Shinkolobwe mines in the Belgian Congo. When the world was plunged in the fires of war in the 1940s, both the United States and Britain became very interested in the metal. They found out that, using uranium, they could develop weapons that could unleash a level of devastation unparalleled in human history. After years of clandestine research, the weapon was finally ready for use in August of 1945, when two nuclear bombs were dropped on the Japanese industrial cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing an end to the Second World War. With this explosive finale to the war, the secret of the existence and effects of nuclear weapons was revealed, and uranium went from an almost useless by-product to one of the most heavily politicized materials in the world.

After the Second World War, the United States found itself in a unique position.The war had had terrible effects on the population and the industry of every world power involved, except the United States. It was in control of large tracts of land, with millions of healthy citizens and the largest, most advanced economy on Earth, and the only power possessing the know-how to create more nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the United States was poised to become the new cultural, economic and military hegemonic power in the world. As only the Soviet Union was considered a realistic rival to American world domination, the largest concern in American international politics following the Second World

War was for the Soviet Union to develop its own nuclear weapons.2 How could peace be preserved if more than one country had nuclear weapons? To keep the Soviet Union or, indeed, any other country from developing nuclear weapons, the United States attempted to keep uranium from falling in the hands of other governments. In this article, I will be examining how the United States tried to acquire and later maintain exclusive control of the global uranium trade over a period of twelve years: from 1942, when development of the nuclear bomb began under the Manhattan Project to 1954, in the aftermath of president Eisenhower’s (18901969) ‘atoms for peace’ speech, when the president argued for the necessity of cooperation and sharing of information and resources regarding nuclear technology.

Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element, giving it a massive amount of potential nuclear energy, which can be unleashed by firing neutrons at the atom’s core, destabilizing it and causing nuclear fission.

33 Daan Jansen

The Shinkolobwe mine, in the Belgian Congo.This mine was the main source of high-grade, cheaply processed uranium during the 1930s and ‘40s.

1942-1945: Secret Beginnings It was in Berlin, in 1938, that Otto Hahn sent ripples through the scientific community when he attempted to create artificial elements heavier than uranium by bombarding uranium with neutrons. The result was not, as he expected, a heavier element, but rather the splitting of the atom, resulting in two lighter elements and “200 million (electron-) volts� of energy being released.3 Realizing the potential for an energy production revolution, and the creation of devastating new weapons, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to president Roosevelt explaining this potential.

Einstein recommended the American government to get involved in nuclear research and help secure uranium for further development. He concluded this letter with a sinister note, explaining that Germany had stopped selling uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines, which would suggest the German government was using all the available uranium to develop its own nuclear programme.4 The letter helped pique the interest of the US government, which set up an advisory committee on uranium. Nuclear research was encouraged, but still proved to be slow. In 1942, the Manhattan Engineer District, from which the Manhattan Project derives its name, was formed by the US Army as the principle location for further nuclear research.The main limiting factor was the lack of uranium.5 Uranium was rarely mined in the United States.While there were deposits present, many were undiscovered at the time, and it was not financially viable to mine and enrich the low-grade deposits that were known. By a stroke of luck, it was discovered that the African Metals Company had 1200 tons of high-grade uranium from the Shinkolobwe

Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King, US president Roosevelt and UK prime minister Churchill at the Quebec Conference in August 1943, from where the CPC originated.

mines stored on Staten Island in New York. As it turned out, the presence of the uranium was already known by the State Department in 1940, which had since declined multiple offers to purchase the ore, not knowing that another element of the government was starved of the metal.6 Finally, in 1942 the entire store was bought up for use in the Manhattan Project.7 However, it was clear that this store would be nowhere near sufficient to fuel the research and development required to produce nuclear weapons.There were no other stores of high-grade uranium conveniently lying around in warehouses, waiting to be found, so the United States had to start looking abroad to secure uranium.They decided to cooperate with the British, their allies in the war, who also contributed expertise to the Manhattan Project. To this end, the Combined Policy Committee (CPC) was set up in 1943, with the purpose of coordinating the efforts of controlling uranium prospecting and mining worldwide. Britain carried the responsibility of finding and buying uranium from other countries and its dominions, except Canada, which was responsible for its own uranium mines, while the United States shared the costs in equal parts. It was agreed that for the duration of the Second World War, all uranium would be brought to the United States for use by the Manhattan Project, and the agreement would be renegotiated after cessation of hostilities.8 During the Second World War, the main concern of the CPC was to secure the uranium mined in the Shinkolobwe mines in the Belgian Congo. When Belgium was occupied, her

34

government fled to London and her sole colony remained in allied hands, allowing the CPC to negotiate deals with the Belgian government. Initially, the CPC was interested mostly in gaining enough uranium for the Manhattan Project.When reports came in of the German nuclear project, and with the ever-present concerns of the Soviet Union becoming the new enemy of America when Germany and Japan would be defeated, it became increasingly important to the CPC to control as much of the global trade as possible.9 Negotiations took until 1944, with Belgium trying to get as good a deal as it could. Unwilling to violate the sovereignty of an ally in the war, the CPC was forced to negotiate instead of simply seizing the colony. Another vital practical concern was the fact that the Belgian Congo was supposed to be a free trade zone, making exclusive sale of any good to any country illegal. Instead of a trade agreement, which would be illegal, or a political agreement, which could be vetoed by the democratic institutions as soon as the war concluded, it was decided that simply an “understanding” would suffice. Finally, the parties agreed that the CPC would have exclusive rights to uranium mined in Belgian Congo for 10 years after the delivery of the first 1500 tons of uranium, until 1956.The CPC would bear the costs of developing the Shinkolobwe mine for that duration.10 The CPC also committed to surveying as much of the world as possible for uranium and thorium deposits. Thorium, cheaper and more abundant than uranium, was theorised to function as a substitute to uranium.While the technology to do so would not be developed until 1960, the CPC feared that the Soviet Union might pursue it instead of uranium fission.11 The policy was to take all available uranium and thorium for the United States’ and Britain’s use and to deny it to any other countries. To this end, the CPC attempted to use either financial means or political pressure to secure uranium in Czechoslovakia, Portugal, Madagascar and Brazil and thorium in the Dutch East Indies, amongst other deposits.12 These efforts were exceptionally successful, with the Dutch and Brazilians agreeing to exclusively sell their thorium and uranium, respectively, to the United States and Britain. Furthermore, Sweden agreed not to export its uranium deposits, and the CPC obtainedthe majority of shares of the Portuguese Urgeirica uranium mine.13 As a result, by the end of 1945, the CPC nations controlled an estimated 97 percent of the world’s uranium ore production and 65 percent of thorium ore production.14 Yet, the Czechoslovakian and Madagascar mines eluded the CPC. The former was unavailable due to its occupation by Germany and later the Soviet Union, and the latter due to the rough relationship between de Gaulle’s France on one

US president Truman, UK prime minister Attlee and Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King in November 1945, preparing their joint statement regarding nuclear weapons.

side and Britain and the United States on the other, as well as the French interest in possibly developing its own nuclear weapons programme.15 1945-1949: An Uncertain Monopoly In August 1945, the results of the Manhattan Project were revealed to the world. After years of working in utmost secrecy, virtually everyone in the world with access to news heard of the nuclear bombs’ deployment over Japan and became aware of its existence. In November 1945, the president of the United States and the prime ministers of Canada and Britain issued a joint declaration, as the three countries who were involved in the Manhattan Project. In the declaration, the political leaders proclaimed a willingness to share the technology behind nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes, namely the production of energy, if international agreements could be made to prevent the creation of more nuclear weapons.16 They withheld the information that nuclear weapon production would continue in the United States until an international agreement could be made.

In both the public and political sphere, debates were held on whether to share the secrets of nuclear technology.

Some argued that the only viable way to maintain peace was granting control of the global uranium and thorium supplies to a supranational organisation.17 Several scientists involved in the Manhattan Project believed it to be inevitable that other countries would develop nuclear weapons and that the extensive secrecy surrounding the Project was setting a dangerous precedent; because America developed its nuclear bombs in secrecy, it would become normalized that such terrible weapons were developed in total secrecy all over the world, with no control over who did and did not have them.18 In late 1945, even the American secretary of war, Henry Lewis Stimson, was in favour of sharing nuclear technology with the Soviet Union, in the interest of preserving their alliance after the War. He faced too much opposition to make that plan a reality, however. Many believed the Soviet Union was untrustworthy because of its treaty with Nazi-Germany prior to being invaded in 1941.

Moreover, they thought it would take many years before

35 Daan Jansen

the underdeveloped Soviet Union could develop its own nuclear weapons programme.19 This last speculation proved false – it would only take four years for the Soviet Union to test its first nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile, post-war negotiations for territories became concerning for the United States. The Soviet Union expressed interest in taking over Italian Libya, which would place Belgian Congo in range of their airplanes. Since Belgium was a sovereign nation, the United States could not simply build up a military presence to prevent a Soviet seizure of the Shinkolobwe mine. During the negotiations leading up to the NATO defensive pact between the United States and its European allies, a special deal with Belgium was considered, which would allow it to direct shared troops and resources to Congo in case of an emergency.

While a promising idea, the United States did not want to make such an agreement with Belgium for fear of other countries also desiring similar promises of colonial defence. The United States agreed to fund Belgian efforts at improving Congolese defences in the early 1950s to alleviate the perceived threat. However, this turned out not to be necessary, as the Soviet Union seems to never have intended to invade or destroy the Shinkolobwe mine, especially after being refused control of Libya.20 The CPC, the unified efforts of the United States, Canada and Britain to control global uranium production, continued to function after the war. While in late 1945 the debate on whether to share nuclear technology with the Soviet Union went on, the CPC agreement was also starting to be renegotiated. The main source of high-grade uranium was still the Shinkolobwe mine in Belgian Congo, but concerns were beginning to mount that the deposits would soon run out.21 The negotiations were tense, to say the least. The United States was the only nuclear country at the time and the Americans required uranium to keep their reactors running, but also wanted to continue stockpiling as much uranium as possible in the United States to maintain their monopoly. Meanwhile, the British were frustrated that the agreement up until then had yielded virtually no uranium or technical advancements, such as nuclear energy, for the United Kingdom, while bearing half of the costs of the entire project. The agreement that was eventually reached allowed the United States to keep the uranium it had imported since the end of the war and the uranium captured in Europe, about 1450 tons of ore, while for the rest of the year, both Britain and the United States would receive 1350 tons of uranium each, and further shipments from Congo would alternate their destination between the United States and Britain.22

President Truman signing the Atomic Energy Act into law, transferring responsibility for uranium procurement in the United States from the military to a civilian institution.

Initially, this agreement worked well for both parties. The CPC continued to function, negotiating and renegotiating prospecting and trade agreements with Brazil, the newlyindependent India and Indonesia, South Africa and so on.23 However, by the end of 1946, a new law in America placed the management of nuclear technology in the hands of the civilian arm of the government, as opposed to the military, under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This new commission disagreed with much of what the military had been doing, especially allowing Britain to get an equal portion of the uranium produced in Congo when its nuclear programme was not yet ready to use that much, leaving tons of uranium unused. The AEC saw such a large stockpile of processed uranium so close to the Soviet Union as a major security threat. Moreover, the commission felt it was unfair that the British should be allowed to keep as much uranium as they did when the United States’ nuclear programme needed it more.24 The need for renegotiation was evident to both the British and Americans. Simply dissolving the CPC was not an option. While working together was no longer as mutually beneficial as it had been during the War, the vital deals with Belgium for the spoils of the Shinkolobwe mine were negotiated through the CPC. Dissolving the committee would require renegotiating the trade agreements.25 Since the Belgian government was no longer in exile and the country no longer occupied, not to mention the international demand for uranium higher than after the war, getting a deal as beneficial as the CPC had would be almost impossible for either the United States or Britain.

The renegotiation that took place in early 1948 led to the Modus Vivendi. For the first time, the United States openly discussed their actual uranium requirements, instead of simply emphasizing that they required all the uranium they could get their hands on. The requirements shocked the British, as the Americans had estimated a deficit between 4800 and 13000 tons of uranium, equivalent to “more than the total estimated ‘free world’ output up to 1952, and nearly

36

twice that figure for their planned expended programme.”26 A compromise was reached, scrapping the 1943 agreement that had given rise to the CPC while preserving the CPC itself. The British and Americans would continue to control the uranium trade within their own borders, and the deals with other countries, especially Belgium, would continue to exist via the CPC. The allocation of uranium and thorium would be continually negotiated within the committee to ensure both the British and American nuclear programmes had at least the minimum necessary uranium to function plus reasonable stockpiles.While technological cooperation was not guaranteed, the Modus Vivendi allowed for the possibility of sharing nuclear technology in limited areas.27 The treaty having been renegotiated, the United States definitively lost the monopoly on uranium trade it enjoyed during the Second World War. A year later, the Soviet Union managed to conduct their first nuclear test explosion, in secret, in the Kazakh SSR. 1949-1953:Towards Nuclear Proliferation By the early 1950s the prospecting agreements the CPC had made during the 1940s were starting to pay off.

Equipped with Geiger counters and funded by British and American investment, geologists throughout the British Commonwealth and the United States were starting to discover uranium deposits. Low-grade uranium ore became feasible for mining thanks to improved technology that made it easier and cheaper to mill the ore, and the mining of this was further incentivized by fears of the Soviet nuclear programme stimulating expenditure to build such mills lest the Soviet Union gain access to the ore. Significant deposits of uranium were discovered in Australia, Canada, India and the United States, while uranium was already known to exist in the South African gold mines in the 1930s but simply not exploited due to the lack of a market for low-grade uranium ore.28 The looming starvation of the American nuclear programme which had seemed so real in the late 1940s appeared a distant memory. Large investments still needed to be made in developing new mines and uranium mills, but the supply available to the CPC now seemed sufficient for the growing American nuclear sector. The CPC managed to negotiate an extension of the exclusive sale of uranium from the Congo with Belgium in exchange for raising the price per pound threefold. The CPC agreed to this demand, since the United States still wanted to maintain its monopoly and the British did not need further uranium imports, the uranium stores they had built up in 1947 being sufficient.29 Starting soon after the war, the United States offered considerable discovery premiums and guaranteed set prices for the discovery of uranium deposits on American soil.30 The goal was to stimulate private ventures in prospecting and mining, to prevent the image of a big government that sought to control all uranium in the world.31 The result was a boom reminiscent of earlier gold rushes. Thousands moved west in the hopes of getting rich quickly finding uranium deposits. Prospecting towns dotted the American West

in the 1940s and especially the 1950s. These towns were plagued with insufficient social and physical infrastructure, lacking medical centres, schools and paved roads.32 While the conditions in the towns were poor, the privatized prospecting and mining paid off for the government. By 1952 the United States produced 25 percent of the total national procurement of uranium, meaning three quarters of uranium was still imported. The government began making plans, which turned out to be overoptimistic, to stop relying on uranium imports by 1962.33 The need to import uranium to keep producing nuclear weapons and experimenting with nuclear power plants was becoming less extensive.

Simultaneously, the attempt to maintain a monopoly on uranium to prevent other powers from developing nuclear programmes was becoming increasingly questioned.

Through the CPC, the British had managed to successfully develop and test a nuclear weapon in 1952.The Soviet Union had done so three years earlier despite the CPC’s efforts.

France, too, had started prospecting for uranium soon after the war, both in the mainland and in colonies such as Gabon and Madagascar, seeking to develop nuclear weapons as well. The countrywould succeed in detonating a first test in Algeria in 1960.34 In addition, the increased competition in demand for uranium gave supplying countries a better bargaining position. As mentioned earlier, the Belgians managed to negotiate a higher price for further uranium exports and CPC investments into the construction of uranium processing mills. So too did Brazil, South Africa and India, among others.35 The United States’ monopoly was unable to stop the spread of nuclear technology and was starting to seem more expensive than it was worth.36 In 1953 Dwight Eisenhower became president of the United States. His presidency carried a shift in American policy regarding uranium trade, best exemplified in his ‘Atoms for Peace’ speech before the United Nations in late 1953.

Eisenhower acknowledged that it was no longer feasible for the United States to keep striving for a monopoly on both nuclear technology and nuclear materials. Instead, Eisenhower announced that the United States would begin proliferating nuclear technology and helping allied countries develop civilian nuclear programmes. Undoubtedly this move was made to ensure strong ties with Western Europe and to maintain the United States’ position as the leader of the free world, lest a country such as Britain or France share its nuclear secrets and make diplomatic gains to the United States’ expense. The intent was also to sway neutral countries, such as India, to America’s side during the deepening Cold War.37 By emphasizing the peaceful use of nuclear technology, Eisenhower also sought to take attention away from nuclear weapons, which were becoming ever more destructive with the American development of the hydrogen bomb, potentially a thousand times stronger than the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.38 The speech itself was full of promises of lasting peace and security, and even of nuclear disarmament and only using nuclear technology

37 Daan Jansen

for the purpose of producing energy.39 In practice, however, the United States did not disarm and it remained reluctant to share nuclear technology.40 Eventually its allies gained the technology to build nuclear reactors, but this generally was not accomplished before the 1960s.

In the end, all the efforts at monopolising uranium seems to have come to naught. Was the policy effective at all? We can speculate that perhaps the Soviet Union would have developed nuclear weapons even sooner, or that many more countries would have started a nuclear programme if the Americans and British hadn’t sought to control as much uranium and thorium as possible. The monstrous requirements of the American nuclear programme in the late 1940s probably would have slowed the American production of nuclear weapons, if it had not been fed by nearly all of the world’s available uranium. But perhaps the situation would not have ended up looking much different from how it does now, as countries such as France managed

US president Eisenhower delivering his Atoms for Peace speech to the United Nations on December 8th, 1953.

to develop their nuclear programme despite the United States continuing to dominate the market even after the ‘atoms for peace’ policy was implemented, indicating that where there is a will, there is a way. However, we should not forget that the United States, at this time, was a rising superpower, which only recently left its relative isolation from global politics to suddenly become the central figure on the world stage. While monopolizing the global uranium supply was perhaps unnecessary, it was certainly effective in cementing the United States as a global power to be reckoned with, and perhaps that was enough to consider the policy successful.

38

References 1 Gabrielle Hecht, Being nuclear. Africans in the global uranium trade (Cambridge, 2012) 59.

2 David Fig, Uranium Road. Questioning South Africa’s nuclear direction (Johannesburg, 2005) 37.

3 Letter from Leo Szilard addressed to Lewis Strauss, dated 25th of January 1939. Available via nuclearfiles.org.

Retrieved from http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/ correspondence/szilard-leo/corr_szilard_1939-01-25.htm on 30-4-2018.

4 Letter from Albert Einstein addressed to Franklin Roosevelt, dated 2nd of August 1939. Available via nuclearfiles.org. Retrieved from http://www.nuclearfiles.org/ menu/library/correspondence/einstein-albert/corr_einstein_1939-08-02.htm on 30-4-2018.

5 Jonathan E. Helmreich, Gathering rare ores. The diplomacy of uranium acquisition, 1943-1954 (Princeton, 1986) 4-5.

6 Thomas Borstelmann, Apartheid’s reluctant uncle. The United States and Soutern Africa in the early Cold War (New York, 1993) 44.

7 Ibidem, 6.

8 Margaret Gowing, Interdependence and deterrence. Britain and atomic energy 1945-1952 (Bristol, 1974) 352-354.

9 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 36-37.

10 Ibidem, 38.

11 Gowing, Interdependence, 357.

12 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 48.

13 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 68.

14 Gowing, Interdependence, 357.

15 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 69.

16 The declaration made by the American president and the British and Canadian prime ministers can be found at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/history/dec-truma-atlee-king_1945-11-15.htm, retrieved on 29-4-2018.

17 Edgar Turlington, ‘International control of the atomic bomb’, The American journal of international law vol. 40:1 (1946).

18 Letter from Vannevar Bush and James Conant addressed to Henry Stimson, dated 30th of September 1944. Available via nuclearfiles.org. Retrieved from http:// www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/bushconant/9.30.1944.pdf on 30-3-2018.

19 The arguments of both sides are represented in Anderson’s letter of advice to president Truman on the matter. Cf. Letter from Clinton Anderson addressed to Harry Truman, dated 25th of September 1945. Available via nuclearfiles.org. Retrieved from http://www.nuclearfiles. org/menu/library/correspondence/truman-harry/corr_truman_1945-09-25.htm on 30-3-2018.

20 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 217-224.

21 Gowing, Interdependence, 358.

22 Ibidem, 358-359.

23 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 158-190.

24 Gowing, Interdependence, 359; Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 118-123.

25 Gowing, Interdependence, 355.

26 Ibidem, 360.

27 For the text of the Modus Vivendi, cf. appendix 9 of Gowing, Interdependence, 266-272.

28 Esther Krumbholz and Frank Kressing, Uranium mining, atomic weapons testing, nuclear waste storage. A global survey (New York, 1992), especially 15, 20, 28, 48, 116 29 Gowing, Interdependence, 369-370.

30 Hecht, Being Nuclear, 60.

31 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 226.

32 Ralph Mann, ‘Reviewed Work:Yellowcake Towns: Uranium Mining Communities in the American West by Michael A. Amundson’, The journal of American history vol. 90:3 (2003) 1083.

33 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 226.

34 Krumbholz and Kressing, A global survey, 75, 81, 114, 118-122.

35 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 231-244, especially 239 and 241.

36 Ibidem, 226 37 Ibidem, 246.

38 John Krige, ‘Atoms for peace, scientific internationalism and scientific intelligence’, Osiris vol. 21:1 (2006) 162-163.

39 For a transcription of the speech, see: Dwight Eisenhower, Atoms for peace speech provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency at: https://www.iaea. org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech retrieved on 2-4-2018.

40 Helmreich, Gathering rare ores, 246.

39

codex Historiae

Thema: Zij/Hij Oktober 2019

In oktober verschijnt het nieuwe nummer van CODEX Historiae. Deze editie zal in het teken staan van het thema Zij/hij.

In dit themanummer kun je onder andere lezen over vrouwenemancipatie in Marokko, de laatste jaren van het Byzantijns rijk en klassieke androgene goden Blijf op de hoogte via onze socialmediakanalen of via onze website codexhistoriae.nl.

The next issue of CODEX Historiae will appear in October, and will be all about Her/ him.

In this issue, you can read about women’s emancipation in Marocco, the final years of the Byzantine Empire and classical androgynous gods.

Stay up to date through our social media channels or via our website codexhistoriae.nl.

40

codexhistoriae.nl