Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 8, 2021)

The Cromwellian Issue 8

November 2021

THE CROMWELLIANISSUE 8 NOVEMBER 2021

Together we are team history…

1

CONTENTS PAGE P3- opening remarks- Mr Pathak P4- Aethelflaed- Britain’s greatest leader? -Mr Pathak PP5-10- Should we continue to commemorate Winston Churchill?- Alfie Brinkley PP10-14- Should we continue to commemorate Winston Churchill?- Hannah Dowling PP15-16- Social media and its effects on modern politics- Ernest van Tuyll van Serooskerken PP17-18- To what extent was Brexit inevitable?- Elise Bury PP18-25- Common Perceptions of Common Women: An Anthropological Analysis of the Differing Perceptions, in a Variety of Sources, of the Role of Women in the British Isles, 800-1000.- Kit Morley-Jacob PP25-30- Does theatre have the same political and moral effect on society now as it had in the past?- Nick Scofield PP31-33- How does climate change affect politics?- Jemima White PP33-34- Deception and Democracy- Yuni Lee PP35-36- Historical Karens- Kit Morley-Jacob PP36-38- The prevalence of Police Brutality in African American Communities- Sofia Clark PP39-43- The Cyprus Dispute and its Origins- Barnes Oakley PP44-51- Total War: To what extent did the German population fight on after 1943 due to support for the Nazi Regime?- Thomas Tong PP 51-52- What are the implications of Brexit for the UK legal system?- George Clarke PP52-54- Wokeism- Fergus Latham

2

Editorial- a few opening remarks by Mr Pathak…

It is both a pleasure and a privilege to introduce the 2021 edition of The Cromwellian. As ever, I am full of admiration for the talent and dedication of our History and Politics students here at Felsted. Particularly noteworthy this year is the way in which our students have ranged far beyond the syllabus, digging for historical treasure in far-flung locations and contexts. The sheer variety of topics is astonishing, ranging from ancient Greek theatre to the Black Lives Matter Movement; from essays on current political development to undergraduate level expositions on life for Anglo-Saxon women or the reasons why the bulk of the German population carried on supporting the Nazi regime until 1945. I am particularly proud of the intellectual independence displayed by this year’s contributors who- whilst respecting the evidence- have had the courage to develop their own interpretations. For an illustration of this, look no further than Alfie B’s and Hannah D’s contrasting essays on Churchill; each of which presents compelling arguments in the balanced, judicious and coherent way that characterises the work of the best historians. As the world continues on its uncertain way, I am more convinced than ever that the next generation will need empathetic and nuanced historical and political judgement in order to be able to navigate the challenges ahead. I hope that you will agree that there is plenty of this kind of reasoned evaluation to be found in the pages of the 2021 Cromwellian. Enjoy!

3

Aethelflaed- Britain’s greatest leader?- Mr Pathak Arguably, it is hyperbole to argue that an Anglo-Saxon princess- about whose existence I was ignorant until 2015- was Britain’s greatest ever leader. She was certainly little known ( at least by Felsted’s Head of History! ) until Michael Wood’s brilliant BBC documentary brought her story to a wider audience. However, his thesis that Aethelflaed, the eldest child of Alfred the Great, was most responsible for carrying on her father’s legacy- the establishment of the first viable English state- is both persuasive and compelling.

He argues that via marriage into the Mercian royal family, she was able to instill Alfred’s political culture into a neighbouring satellite state. Following her husband’s death in 911, she ruled Mercia in her own right, an extremely unusual event in the early medieval period; and perhaps indicative of her political skill and charisma. In 917, she sent an army into the area of England controlled by the Vikings- the Danelaw- to begin its reconquest and to expand the borders of the embryonic English state. These are the bare outlines of a key figure about whom we know frustratingly little, due to the lack of weight given to her deeds in our main source for this period, The Anglo Saxon Chronicle. These gaps in the historical record may have been motivated by the patriarchal society of the day. In his new book, The Anglo-Saxons- A History of the Beginnings of England, the historian, Marc Morris, describes Anglo-Saxon society as deeply misogynistic; ‘the reality unfortunately seems to be that the status of women in… Anglo-Saxon England was no better than it was in later centuries.’

There is also the fact that Aethelflaed’s brother, King Edward, may not have wanted to give his sister the political and military credit that was her due. For example, a successful ambush of Viking troops near Wolverhampton in 910 is described by The Anglo Saxon Chronicle as a victory for Edward but according to Marc Morris, ‘as he was evidently not present, the laurels probably belonged to his sister.’

Thus, it may be that Aethelflaed’s name has been unfairly relegated to the margins of history.

It is often said that ‘History is written by the victors’ ( a cliché best avoided in UCAS personal statements! ) but like many a cliché, it contains a kernel of truth. Ultimately, the evidence to support Aethelfaled’s claim to be the greatest of our leaders is perhaps insufficient, but her life nevertheless raises fascinating questions about the nature of the historian’s craft. How many other leaders have been unfairly written out of our nation’s history because they were not an exact ‘fit’ for the conventions of the day? If that is the case, should the task of the historian be to read documents ‘against the grain’ in order that these marginalised figures are accorded the historical importance that they arguably deserve; or does this risk making the writing of history unhistorical, by using the standards of our own time to rewrite the past?

My own view is that throughout British history, women have always been far more than passive observers and thus, the history of our country becomes more balanced, nuanced and all-encompassing if we re-evaluate the merits of previously neglected leaders like Aethelflaed.

4

Alfie Brinkley Should we continue to commemorate Sir Winston Churchill?

Ever since the end of his first premiership in 1945, Sir Winston Churchill has been fondly remembered as a great wartime leader and national hero. In fact, Churchill is often labelled as one of the greatest Britons to have ever lived in this country as a result of his service to Britain and his many personal achievements beyond the realm of leadership - he had been a soldier stationed on the Western Front during the Great War, he guided, inspired and commanded the country through its darkest hours during the Second World War, helped to defend democracy by contributing to the defeat of Nazi Germany, carried out a succesful second term in office in the early 1950s and was a succcessful and inspiring writer and orator for much of his life. Many would agree that such achievements are worthy of ongoing recognition and gratitude. However, in more recent years and especially after the Black Lives Matter demonstrations that occurred in the summer of 2020, Churchill has been subject to increasing criticism as a result of his views on matters such as race, colonialism and imperialism that are now recognised as being unacceptable and discriminatory ideas. This article, however, will demonstrate that despite his holding such inappropriate views, Churchill should still be commemorated as thanks for his service and in recognition for his achievements but also as a reminder of the history of this country and how certain parts of British history should be learned from and not repeated.

Firstly, Sir Winston Churchill should certainly still be commemorated in recognition of his service as a soldier for Britain during the First World War. During the war, Churchill was made a Lieutenant Colonel and put in command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers before the battalion was stationed on the front line at Ploegsteert, Belgium, on 27th January 1916.

During their time on the front, Churchill and the battalion faced nearly constant shell-fire from the enemy but were still able to venture into no-man’s-land to take up forward positions in shell holes from which they could observe the enemy a few yards away, even when facing direct machine-gun fire. The battalion was also able to successfully defend the Ploegsteert area and the number of enemy offensives in the region was reduced during Churchill’s time at the front with his battalion. This demonstrates how Churchill and his battalion performed bravely and effectively in the Ploegsteert area, successfully defending their post and preventing enemy assaults despite suffering from direct artillery and machine-gun attack on a regular basis, and this service ought to be commemorated and appreciated just as the service of all who have fought in war for the country should be remembered. As a result,

5

Churchill should still be commemorated in order to recognise and remember his military service and bravery during the First World War. Furthermore, we should undoubtedly continue to commemorate Churchill today and in the future because he successfully led and guided the country to victory against the tyranny of Nazi Germany and the Axis powers during World War II. This is one of the strongest arguments that justify the national pride and commemoration associated with Churchill during the war, Churchill rallied the population in defiance of Hitler’s regime, uniting the country and boosting morale during some of the darkest hours of British history through his powerful and inspiring speeches and through his visits to different areas of the country, such as Plymouth, that had suffered bombing attacks from the Luftwaffe during the early years of the war. Without this inspirational leadership from Churchill, the war effort could have greatly suffered through a lack of morale and a lack of incentive to continue the fight against Nazi Germany - Britain may not have been able to continue fighting as she did without a united and inspired population that actually wanted to carry on the war effort, meaning that Churchill was vital for carrying Britain through the war and helping to secure the eventual Allied victory. As a result, Churchill should still be commemorated today because of his war-winning leadership.

As well as this overall contribution to keeping Britain going during the Second World War, Churchill played a key role in one of the most pivotal battles of the conflict - the Battle of Britain. Churchill was Minister for Defence as well as Prime Minister during the war, allowing him to oversee Fighter Command headquarters, inspect coastal defences or anti-air defences and make visits to Blitz victims. All of these actions allowed Churchill to inspect the efforts of Fighter Command during the battle, ensuring that the RAF and other defences were functioning efficiently and effectively against the Luftwaffe, whilst also providing a boost for morale which was needed to further strengthen and encourage the RAF pilots, who were absolutely crucial for protecting Britain from invasion, and the British population. Again, this demonstrates how important Churchill was for the British war effort through his successful guidance and inspiration to the RAF, other defensive bodies and civilians during the Battle of Britain - without this inspiration and oversight, the RAF may not have been able to thwart the Nazi plans for invasion as effectively as they did during the Battle of Britain. Therefore, we should certainly continue to commemorate Churchill in recognition of his inspirational efforts during the Battle of Britain that helped to keep Britain fighting in World War II. Churchill should also be commemorated today because of his role in organising another crucial battle during the Second World War. In 1943, Churchill attended the Tehran 6

Conference alongside President Roosevelt of the USA and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union in order to plan the next stages of the war in Europe against Nazi Germany. During this conference, Churchill helped to set out plans for a renewed Soviet offensive on the Eastern Front in order to distract Nazi Germany and draw their troops away from France in preparation for D-Day, the plans for which were also set out at Tehran. D-Day would see Allied forces successfully liberate France and the Low Countries before pushing into Germany itself, defeating Nazi Germany and securing victory in Europe for the Allied powers, making it one of the most important events of the entire conflict. Churchill’s efforts in planning and organising the invasions alongside the American and Soviet leadership were therefore instrumental in liberating Europe and securing an Allied victory in World War II. As a result, we should continue to commemorate Churchill in recognition of his role in planning D-Day and bringing an end to the Second World War. As well as this, Churchill should also be commemorated in order to appreciate his successes as a Prime Minister beyond his first premiership during World War II. Churchill served as Prime Minister for two terms, the first being from 1940-1945 - the successes of which have already been established - and the second term lasting from 1951-1955, when Churchill stepped down due to poor health. During this second term in office, Churchill and his government had many achievements, successfully meeting their target of building 300,000 houses per year whilst also maintaining the NHS that had been established by Attlee during his premiership before introducing further reforms to the country - in 1954, Churchill and his government passed the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, addressing the issue of slums in the UK and taking action to improve accommodation throughout the country, and the Mines and Quarries Act, which was essentially a precursor to the introduction of widespread health and safety regulation for the employed. These achievements helped to maintain the standard of living and healthcare established by Attlee and provide a greater quality of life for the people of the UK by providing new, better quality homes instead of slums, by keeping the NHS running instead of returning to the pre-war healthcare system and by doing more to keep workers safe in their jobs. As well as this, Churchill also worked to maintain the UK’s close relationship with the USA during his second premiership, working to encourage peace and freedom throughout the world threatened by the possibility of a nuclear conflict as the H-bomb and other weapons were developed. Therefore, Churchill should certainly be remembered for his work in his second premiership that aimed to improve the lives of people in post-war Britain and maintain peace during the Cold War. Finally, Churchill should certainly still be remembered and commemorated because of his wider achievements and contributions to the country beyond politics and military service.

7

Churchill was a keen historian during his life, writing reports and books on many historical events that contributed to the recording and studying of history in the UK. Churchill wrote reports on the Cuban War of Independence and the Siege of Malakand in British India before publishing his Malakand reports in a book, titled ‘The Story of the Malakand Field Force’. A second book was later published, with Churchill detailing his participation in the Mahdist War that was fought in Sudan. Furthermore, Churchill acted as a correspondent for The Morning Post, writing coverage of the Second Boer War and writing two more books about the conflict - ‘London to Ladysmith via Pretoria’ and ‘Ian Hamilton’s March’ - before going on to write six volumes each on the history of World War I and World War II. This clearly demonstrates how Churchill made a wide and significant contribution to the recording of British and worldwide history, whilst his earning a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 for ‘his mastery of of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values’ - many of Churchill’s wartime speeches had also been published - also demonstrates how effectively Churchill recorded historical events in great and effective detail. Therefore, Churchill should still be remembered and commemorated as a great historian and accomplished writer who has contributed plenty to British literature.

Despite Churchill’s widespread achievements and service to this country, some would still argue that the commemoration of Churchill ought to be ended as a result of his strong support for colonialism and the maintaining of the British Empire. Throughout his life, Churchill believed in the hierarchical system of social Darwinism, which was the idea that individuals and races were subject to Darwin’s laws of natural selection and that some races were therefore superior and stronger than others. Churchill believed that the British people were at the top of this hierarchy, therefore giving Britain a duty to colonise and dominate other peoples through the expansion of the British Empire in order to benefit the so-called ‘primitive’ races of other nations. Churchill even suggested that ‘great barbaric nations’ would ‘menace civilised nations’ if left to their own devices, again demonstrating his imperialist attitudes that suggested it was the purpose of great powers to colonise others.

Such views are, of course, unacceptable and are now widely recognised as supremacist ideals that encourage xenophobia and racism by making members of an individual race wrongly believe that they are superior to others and have a right to subjugate those they consider to be beneath them - as a result, more and more people would argue that Churchill should no longer be commemorated and celebrated because he encouraged such imperialist views. However, the wider context of the situation must be considered. Churchill was not alone in holding these views - many of his contemporaries shared similar ideas regarding colonialism and empire because these views were largely considered and taught to be acceptable in Churchill’s time. People like Churchill were not made aware that 8

colonialism and imperialism were problematic ideas that fuelled discrimination and supremacism; they were not made aware of the issues of racism stemming from the empire.

Therefore, it is unfair to demand a complete end to any and all commemoration of Churchill because of his imperialist views - Churchill held the common views of his time that are now recognised as unacceptable ideas. Churchill had no control over what was taught to be normal and acceptable in his time, so should not be ‘cancelled’ for holding such views. As a result, we should continue to remember and commemorate Churchill for his great services to the nation whilst also acknowledging that he held views we know to be inappropriate and using him as a reminder to abandon Britain’s past imperialism and the problematic, discriminatory ideas associated with it.

The racist and discriminatory views of Churchill, linked to his imperialism and colonialism, make up a similar argument put forward by those who argue that Churchill should no longer be commemorated. Churchill openly demonstrated his belief in racial supremacy, stating that ‘The Aryan stock is bound to triumph’ over all other races and arguing that no great wrong had been done to the indigenous peoples of America and Australia who had been colonised

by British settlers - Churchill instead believed that a stronger, ‘higher-grade’ race had simply come along and taken their rightful place over these indigenous races. Furthermore, Churchill widely opposed any form of self-rule for the black or indigenous peoples in the colonies, believing that the British race was superior and better suited for government. Such statements and beliefs clearly demonstrate that Churchill believed the white race was stronger, more capable and superior overall compared to others, meaning that Churchill certainly did hold racist views that we now recognise as being unacceptable and discriminatory. As a result, some would argue that Churchill should no longer be commemorated because of his racist ideas. However, as with his views on colonialism, the context of Churchill’s time shows that we can and should still commemorate Churchill. Again, as with his views on imperialism, there was no education or recognition regarding the racist nature of these beliefs because they were widely taught to be acceptable and normal views amongst Churchill’s Victorian generation and aristocratic environment. Churchill had no control over what was taught to be acceptable when he was raised, so it would be unfair to end any and all commemoration of Churchill as a result of his holding racist ideas, just as it would be unfair to end commemoration of him as a result of his views on colonialism and the British Empire. Therefore, we should still continue to commemorate Churchill but also recognise that his views on race are discriminatory and continue to discourage such views.

In conclusion, it is certain that we should continue to commemorate Sir Winston Churchill in the UK. Churchill led an incredibly successful life of service, fighting for us during the First 9

World War, leading us in the fight for freedom and democracy against Nazi Germany’s fascist regime and guiding us to victory through his inspiration to the population and the armed forces before going on to improve the quality of life for the British people during a second premiership. As well as this, Churchill helped to record many significant historical events, such as the two World Wars and the Second Boer War, through his written works, even earning a Nobel Prize for his contributions to literature. Churchill ought to be commemorated for these services and successes, especially for his World War II leadership that was instrumental in keeping Britain free and fighting before bringing about an Allied victory alongside the USA and other Allied nations, as an ongoing form of recognition and thanks from the country for his efforts. Some would argue instead that Churchill should be cast aside because of his views on race, colonialism and imperialism, but this argument is neither fair nor sensible when the context of Churchill’s time and generation in relation to the issues is considered - it does not make sense to hold someone born and raised in Victorian Britain to today’s standards and knowledge. Therefore, Churchill should certainly still be commemorated as a result of his services to the nation and successes throughout his life, whilst his unacceptable views can still be recognised and discouraged.

Hannah Dowling Should we continue to commemorate Sir Winston Churchill?

Winston Churchill holds the title of the most famous Prime Minister in English history; known for his cigar, charismatic attitude and of course his leadership during the Second World War. Churchill will always go down (for some) as the anti-fascist hero of the war period. To solidify this, in 2002, he was voted number one in the BBC’s poll of the Greatest Britons, depicting how this view is certainly not uncommon. However, from a list containing solely white people with only 12 women, I pose the question, are we whitewashing history?

Thus, my first point of intrigue into discovering the true answer to whether Winston Churchill is worthy of such a high regard, is the delegation of responsibility we put on his shoulders.

As to many, his leadership was the definitive reason to why we defeated Nazi Germany, for example as Max Hastings from the Daily Mail describes, “It was his inspiration that prevented Britain from joining the rest of Europe in surrendering to the might of Nazi Germany”. Before June 1941, it was the UK that was standing alone in Europe: Churchill’s fostering of the “special relationship” with the US helped bridge the divide between the Allies,

10

vitally causing the Soviets to then join the effort. In addition to this, his powerful rhetoric, formulated on the basis of his magnetic charisma is seen in his speeches. With the potency of lines such as: ‘we shall fight them on the beaches’, ’blood, sweat and tears’ and ‘their finest hour’, it depicts how Churchill’s character was a reflection of the people in Great Britain. Illustrating how their resilience and stubbornness to fight even when the odds were against them was what pushed Britain to stay in the war and eventually to come out of it victorious. Therefore, we can certainly conclude that Churchill was answerable for the conquest of Nazi Germany, but for the nation to truely uphold a person to represent as our “national hero”, it is impossible not include some hindsight into the matter.

The study of history undoubtedly should always be underpinned by ongoing challenge and scrutiny; thus is an attempt to present a counter argument and (if not controversial) exploration of the long held glorification of Churchill as a statesman. The Guardian's Kenneth Baker depicts that, “On [some] smaller issues he made some poor decisions,” but overall “...he got the big issues right.” Exhibiting my own personal view that Churchill triumphed greatly as a war time leader and lead to the downfall of Nazi-Germany, although his semi-fascist attitudes reflect why we, as a country should only retain a gratitude for his leadership and not praise or commemorate him as a hero of the nation.

My first recognition of the corroboration to why Churchill shouldn't be glorified is his support for eugenics, in other words his support of the sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the “feeble minded”. Ironically akin to an ideology demonstrated

by Hitler’s sterilization of 400,000 disabled people, Churchill’s most significant letter written embracing this ideology is deliberately left out of the official biography by Randolph Churchill for reasons of embarrassment. It is important to add that there is by no means any justification of my standpoint, comparing the demonstration of Hitler’s support for eugenics and Churchill’s approval of the process, since he never carried out anything as barbaric as the sterilization of 400,000. But the scrutiny of his alignment with that of Hitler is required to truly challenge the narrative of glorifying him.

Thus, continuing with the hindsight I provided, the phrase “feeble-minded” was to be defined as part of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913, of which Churchill had been one of the early drafters. The Act defined four grades of “Mental Defective” who could be confined for life, whose symptoms had to be present “from birth or from an early age.” Randolph Churchill, (Winston Churchill’s son) unsurprisingly has been accused of deliberately omitting his narrative volumes on the matter from the companion volumes, purely out of shame. If you were to look hard enough, you would be able to discover a letter from Churchill to Asquith, 11

written in December 1910, to which stated that “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.” This letter written by Churchill provides evidence that conveys a shocking inside to his darker side. I am positive that many of the British public would change their opinion about the commemoration for Churchill if his complete works and writing on eugenics was published to the masses. But in actual fact, these hidden ‘quirks’ of his are buried in a mirage of glorification. Uncovering the truth about Winston Churchill defines just how dangerous it is for society to commemorate a figure to this certain extent. Whilst we litter the nation with bronze memorabilia of a man who once inclined on killing people for the sake of their mental disability, we are upholding a message of hate to those of indifference: little to that of people we scorn over for their same values.

Not only was Churchill a supporter of eugenics, but his belief in the evidence of racial hierarchies is also an example I will demonstrate as my second point of argument. Many will be familiar with the vandalization of Churchill’s statue last Spring where the title was struck out and replaced with “was a racist” in black paint. A defacement that was followed by much uproar and disapproval from the public, many people asked ‘how can a man who defended democracy and equality from such evil be racist?’.

However, Wikipedia defines racism as “the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioural traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.” So with the following evidence provided, by definition Churchill was most definitely a racist. As previously touched on by Alfie Brinkley in his essay, “Churchill openly demonstrated his belief in racial supremacy”. A “demonstration” that ironically depicts a shared ideological commonality with Hitler, who in his time massacred 6 million Jews to achieve racial “purity” and to uphold what he called an Aryan “master race”.

Again, I am most definitely not denying Churchill was distinguishably and extremely far from these actions. There is certainly no compatible parallel to the carrying out of such a horrendous act of mass murder Hitler displayed during the Holocaust, but Churchill demonstrated no condemnation of “racial supremacy” either. Some of the British public aware of Churchill’s controversial stance on the supremacy of “The Aryan Stock” might align themselves with views of historian Richard Toye who states, "Churchill did think that white people were superior, [but] that didn't mean he necessarily thought it was OK to treat non-white people in an inhumane way." However, I would challenge this outlook on his beliefs, since it is somewhat contradictory according to Churchill’s own statements. Churchill, on record, described how he did not see any “great wrong [that] has been done to the Red 12

Indians of America or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race... has come in and taken its place.”: illlustrating how he regarded the vile act of genocide against approximately 20 million Native Americans and roughly 100,000 Aboriginal Australian men, women and children, as simply part of the inevitable march of progress. ‘Churchill’s Secret War’ describes how 3 million people died during the Bengal Famine in 1943, as a result of Churchill’s active neglect as he continued to export rice to Europe for the war effort. "[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage,". Whilst Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine stating that they “breed like rabbits”, depicting how any accounts to defend an element of innocence to Churchill’s belief in “racial supremacy” is utterly incredulous. Churchill was most definitely a racist. This conveys that there is no doubt that someone who has demonstrated and upheld these values can be justified in commemoration. Therefore the rhetoric that he was harmless in his beliefs is wrong, Churchill consistently demonstrated an insight for violence against “inferior races” and for people who say ‘He didn't mean to encourage treating non-white people in an inhumane way’ are proven incorrect from the evidence of the Bengal Famine and Churchill’s own words.

The new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (spurred from the acts of vandalization of Churchill’s statue) proposed a wide range of new police powers when it comes to protests.

This included the ability to impose “conditions” on any protest which is deemed to be disruptive to the local community and up to 10 years in prison for damaging memorials, such as statues. I am sure anybody can see the ludicrous nature of this situation: for writing a fact, by definition, on a statue is worth 10 years of incarceration as punishment. The extent to which we demonstrate the protection of Churchill’s character, in this case, almost reflects a North Korean approach to the commemoration of our leaders.

There is an abundance of evidence I could provide to prove why we should not commemorate Churchill such as his opposition to women’s suffrage: where he said “that no necessity is shown that only the most undesirable class of women are eager for the right that those women who discharge their duty to the state, viz marrying and giving birth to children are adequately represented by their husbands than that those who are unmarried can only claim a vote on the ground of property, which claim on democratic principles is inadmissible.”

But to finish on, an example can be made from Churchill’s treatment of Gandhi to elaborate further on why we should not uphold or commemorate him. Where he demonstrates how he felt “It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now 13

posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace,” (Churchill said of his anti-colonialist adversary in 1931). Churchill depicts through his colonialist eyes that a challenger to the British empire is someone worthy of defamation of their character, in the crudest sense. Only because Gandhi wanted freedom for his country was he attacked by Churchill. Nevertheless, some people may challenge this, for instance, Alfie Brinkley in his essay suggests that “People like Churchill were not made aware that colonialism and imperialism were problematic ideas”. This involves the argument some may propose: that Winston Churchill was simply “a man of his time” and his views on colonialism, race and other controversial topics were part of this context.

In rebuttal, I most definitely challenge this disposition, by proving that historian John Charmley, (akin to my stance) states that “Even to most Conservatives, let alone Liberals and Labour, Churchill's views on India between 1929 and 1939 were quite abhorrent.”

“Tories like Anthony Eden regarded Churchill with great mistrust during the 1930s because of his association with hard-line right-wingers in the party”, he says. "People sometimes question why on Earth did people not listen to Churchill's warnings about Hitler in the late 1930s," says Charmley, "to which the short answer is that he'd used exactly the same language about Gandhi in the early 1930s." The myth that Churchill was simply ‘a man of his time’ is greatly unveiled when including the fact that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (1935-37) was warned by cabinet ministers not to appoint Winston Churchill because of these views. Even his own secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery, said that he could see very little difference between Churchill’s attitudes and Adolf Hitler’s.

Undeniably, Churchill wrote some of the most outstanding prose in defence of freedom and democracy. But none of which were intended to include people of colour because of his belief in “racial supremacy”. But, ironically, his words have been used by Democrats and freedom-fighters all over the world, including by the colonies and ex-colonies the British empire once held. As Indian Politician, Shashi Tharoor notes: “Words, in the end, are all that Churchill admirers can point to. His actions are another matter altogether.” However, in some sense, his words are just as damaging, finalising the argument that the commemoration of Winston Churchill represents a form of approval over his barbaric ideologies, unfit for either the 20th or 21st century in the United Kingdom.

Ernest Van Tuyll van Serooskerken

14

Social media and its effects on modern politics In recent years, the political landscape has changed quite a bit. Social media and the internet in general has affected all aspects of modern life, in particular, politics. It is a powerful tool in political campaigns and politics in general and can sway people on their beliefs on particular issues.

Politicians, candidates and supporters on certain issues have recently used social media to voice their views on certain issues, organise and gain awareness for events (pre-covid). The political parties themselves have their own accounts on respective social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and, for older people, Facebook. Here are some of the main ways in which social media influences politics today.

Influencer perspective (The people who are heard) This generation is the first generation to have reached the voting age with access to social media and its wide array of resources, being able to have access to information for and against their certain beliefs. Outside the Felsted bubble, I'm sure many of us have access or even follow some ‘influencers’. They can shape views on brands, products and also political candidates. Influencers are not that new in the political landscape, however, their influence has increased drastically and their power due to social media can be wildcards when regarding elections. During the US presidential election, I'm sure everyone saw posts on their feed asking you to go vote, everyone from traditional influencers to celebrities, both unsolicited or paid, were using their influence over social media to speak out on the issues and voting in general. This proved to be effective as the voter turnout in the 2020 election had two out of three eligible voters cast a ballot. Another possible reason is that influencers are of a younger demographic and thus tend to swing left, this means that their fans also swing left. This can be argued as to why so many people voted for Joe Biden from the Democratic party rather than the Republican party.

Speed of sharing The sheer speed of which news is shared nowadays is thanks in no small part to social media. In the pre-information age when the internet was non-existent, the only way that people could receive the news was through TV news, public information films, or a newspaper. Social media and online news is a phenomenon that is active 24/7. This means that social media has taken political awareness to a whole new level with access to news at any point in time. Social media have made all these opinions easily accessible for you to argue about and fuel for your parents and grandparents to rant about the good old days when people were instead just beaten into submission or ignored and chocolate cost 5p. The speed of sharing means that these people get instant attention 24/7, and this can cause real harm to parties as they are affiliated with these extreme views and the lines between them are now too blurry for some people to see and parties with sensible views towards the middle are now associated with these extremists.

15

Interaction with politicians The only way in which you used to be able to meet, let alone converse with a major political candidate was to attend a live event. Even in the UK the only way to discuss issues with your local MP was either meet them in person, which in some cases is impossible due to scheduling issues, or, you had to write a letter and walk to a post office or mailbox to send it to them. The internet and social media have allowed us to make this annoyance of a task much easier as now all you need to do is simply send an email to them with your issues stated. This makes life a whole lot easier as you can now go and speak to your politicians and have your requests completely ignored online from the comfort of your own home.

Fake news Like everyone on the internet, fake news provides most of us here at Felsted with a good laugh at how utterly idiotic the headlines are, some recent ones are: ‘Fascinating Trend: More and More women are freezing their Kids until They’re Ready To Raise Them ‘, ‘Heartbreaking: The Jim Henson Company revealed That Jim Henson Was Only Dead for 10 Minutes Before Kermit The Frog started Eating Him’. or even simpler ones like ‘Planes forced to land at airports’, ‘Fish need water, Feds say’ and ‘’Diana alive hours before her death’.

However, it has affected politics and not necessarily in a good way. A study taken in by a think tank based in Washington found that six in ten people regularly use social media as a source for news. While it is not their main news source, it is a major one. As a result, the quality of the information received by people on their respective platforms is decreasing significantly. Though again many of them are stupid such as one based around QAnon, which described the former President Donald Trump as fighting a war against a group of elites involved in a satanic child sex trafficking ring led by Hillary Clinton which members included Oprah, Bill Clinton, Obama and other malevolent figures. This theory is a perfect example of fake news, however, it was still shared, posted and gathered many followers, this was likely due to sharing these bogus, fake and stupid articles online with friends causing a chain reaction. But when it comes to sharing them, age may be a factor as they found that only 10% of Americans shared fake news stories. However, the ones who did were more likely to be over 65 years old and this is the same in the UK. So, is your grandmother/grandfather sharing posts saying that Prince Charles is a vampire , Meghan Markle is a robot, that 5G causes coronavirus, that the world is run by a satanic cult that is headed up by the Sesame Street cast, Charlie D’amelio and other TikTok stars are talented by any means and other similarly ridiculous statements. If this is true ask yourself this, do you have the willpower to make the hard decisions in the future?

Elise Bury To what extent was Brexit inevitable?

David Cameron called the 2016 referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of 16

the European Union solely for party-management purposes. When he did, he unleashed a wave of controversy over whether we should remain in the EU. Were Britons consequently fooled by lies and false promises, or was it the best thing we ever did?

For most British people, the European project was a pragmatic question. We joined a common market to improve our trading prospects and bolster our unresponsive economy.

Yet in recent years, trust in the EU has been damaged by a series of issues—from the Eurozone’s problems to the refugee crisis. Politics soon responded. In the 2009 European Parliament elections, the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage’s outfit that advocated leaving the EU, came in second nationwide, and by 2014 it had topped the polls, beating both of Britain’s historically dominant parties, Conservative and Labour. Then, in 2016, 17.4 million people, 52 percent of the voting public, cast ballots to leave.

So this raises the question of why?

Britain, obviously, is an island nation. Is this the key to its arms-length attitude to Europe? Or is it that Britain was always the ‘awkward partner’ with the EU? In our past, Britain's main rivals were: Germany in the World Wars, Russia in the Cold War, and France through most of modern history. The scars of World War Two have moulded our relationship now, standing alone as the British Empire against Nazi Germany in 1940-41, informs a modern view of the UK as its own best friend. The European Coal and Steel Community was forged in 1951, Britain stood on the sidelines; and it declined an invitation to join the six founding nations of the European Economic Community in signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957. This contributed to the decision to join the EEC in 1961, only for entry to then be vetoed - twice - by French President Charles de Gaulle, creating an ‘awkward partner’ relationship. However, when they did join there was no immediate economic fillip - in fact strikes and power cuts continued, and rising oil prices caused double-digit inflation. In fact 70 percent of the EC budget was used to finance the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and because the UK had a small agricultural sector this meant that the UK gained few receipts under the EEC's redistributive policies. Margaret Thatcher corrected what was seen as an injustice, negotiating a permanent rebate for Britain on its EC contributions, because it received much less in agricultural subsidies than some other countries, notably France. This led to the UK being perceived as the awkward partner within the EU. The 1980s saw a growing divide between Britain and Brussels, where Jacques Delors had taken the helm at the European Commission and was steering towards a more federal Europe and a single currency. Mrs Thatcher was uncompromising. Her 1988 speech in Bruges, in which she rejected "a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels", has become a seminal text for Eurosceptics. Britain secured opt-outs from the single currency and the social chapter, but to the Maastricht treaty's critics it undermined the British tradition of the inviolable sovereignty of parliament. Occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not have to participate in certain policy areas. However the United Kingdom had four opt-outs in place before leaving the Union: the most of any EU member state, making it the least integrated member state. They opted out of the Schengen Agreement, Economic and Monetary Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Area of freedom, security and justice. Also the UK rebate (or UK correction) was a financial mechanism that reduced the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU budget, leading to the UK being seen as the ‘awkward partner’ in the EU. British governments of all flavours have sought exemptions from every major EU treaty for 25 years. Nick Clegg, then the leader of the Liberal Democrats who would later go on to become deputy prime minister, called in 2008 for a “real referendum” on membership, while Caroline Lucas, the former leader of the Green Party, in 2011 endorsed such a vote as a “vital opportunity, meaning even if the referendum hadn’t happened then, the problem wouldn’t have gone away. If anything, it would have festered.

17

However this could be countered by the fact that 1.5 million Britons have moved to Europe to live. Also although Germany, Russia and France have been Britain's main rivals in the past they have also, at important times, been allies. Other members of the EU - Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus - are also islands, and they do not object so much to handing powers to Brussels. In response to why Britain was rejected twice from the EU, Charles de Gaulle accused Britain of a "deep-seated hostility" towards the European project, and of being more interested in links with the US. Also Europe has not just been a place of conflict for Britain over the centuries. It was also a place of diplomatic agreement, trade, co-operation and through most of the second half of the 20th Century and the 21st.The Maastricht Treaty was signed by John Major in 1992. Which involved huge transfers of power to the new European Union. The UK had 47 years of membership of Europe, so if they were always the awkward partner wouldn't they have left sooner?

In conclusion I believe that Brexit was inevitable because Europe has always been “a toxic issue in British politics,” as stated by Professor Bogdanor, “not just because it caused division between parties but also deep divisions within the parties”. Also the signing of the Maastricht treaty transferred huge amounts of power to the EU, meaning that the UK could not make decisions to better benefit the citizens of the country without the EU being able to intervene, therefore decreasing sovereignty. I also believe that Charles de Gaulle was scarred by his wartime rows with Winston Churchill, when he was told by the British prime minister, “You must know that when we have to choose between Europe and the open seas, we will always be with the open seas.” Therein lies the heart of Brexit. When Britain sought to join the European Community, a precursor to the EU, in 1963, de Gaulle vetoed its application. Perhaps he was ultimately right to doubt Britain’s commitment.

Kit Morley Jacob Common Perceptions of Common Women: An Anthropological Analysis of the Differing Perceptions, in a Variety of Sources, of the Role of Women in the British Isles, 800-1000.

Robert Darnton raised the notion that “folktales…provide a rare opportunity to make contact with the illiterate masses who have disappeared into the past without leaving a trace.”1 In this instance, Darnton was referring to eighteenth century French peasants. The focus of this inquiry is situated significantly earlier in British history, making the voices left behind all the more faint. This ameliorates the importance of the sources which remain available to the modern historian. The nature of the sources which are available and the extent of their reliability is a question that has frequently been raised and disputed by historians. There is an element of impossibility when attempting to make use of medieval sources. Those “illiterate masses'' were able to leave few imprints on society. Only their material possessions and the folklore, passed on through the oral traditions of a pre-literate society, survive today.

Contained within these folkloric tales are the worldviews of the people of the time. Therefore, this paper will make use of folklore to ascertain the role of the common Anglo-Saxon woman.

It is essential that folklore is considered when trying to gain understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period because sources produced by the higher orders of society have formed the basis of our beliefs of the age, leaving an unrepresentative view behind. To gain a 1

Darnton, R. (1984). The Great Cat Massacre p18. New York. Basic Books.

18

deeper understanding of Anglo-Saxon life, we must endeavour to understand the feelings of the many who lived through it and folklore provides a window in their minds.

However, the reliability of folklore is a topic from which a great deal of debate has stemmed.

Robert Lowie stated, “I cannot attach to oral traditions any historical value whatsoever under any conditions whatsoever.”2 This clearly emphasizes scholarly opposition towards the use of folklore as a source of inquiry. One contributing factor to the dislike of folklore is that it was designed to be performed and not written. This leaves the historian attempting to delve into it in a dilemma because they cannot access a performance. Lowie preferred a rigid, factual history. This essay, on the contrary, would opine that history is about far more than precise dates and, from an anti-realist perspective, that the impact of a story holds as much weight as the event happening itself. Darnton himself offered a very thought-provoking response to such views stating, “By historical value, however, Lowie meant factual accuracy.”3 Also noting that, “world views cannot be chronicled in the manner of political events, but they are no less ‘real’.”4 Building on Darnton’s aforementioned ideas, “they”, the ideas and belief systems of those gone before us, are no less deserving of historical study. Yet, it must still be recognised that there is no perfect source. Folklore has its foibles in its factual accuracy and validity. Therefore, a variety of other sources must also be considered to paint the fullest picture possible. This essay will make use of some sources created by the higher orders of society to provide this balance. It can be argued that sources which have been created by the wealthy and educated elite offer insight into the lives of the privileged few, rendering them of little use to the social historian who desires to gain insight into the lives of the many.

However, it is important to note that not every source produced by the aristocracy is redundant for a historian desiring insight into the views of the lower orders. Laws, produced by the ruling elite to affect those below them in the social hierarchy, are useful. Therefore, as folkloric tales alone do not provide a firm enough foundation for historical fact, this study will make use of law codes to compare and contrast the views of the upper and lower strata of society to gain a holistic understanding of the Anglo-Saxon view of women.

It is important to clarify why a study is of importance. A frequent misconception surrounding anything under the umbrella of ‘gender’ is that it looks to ignore the role of men entirely and focus solely on women. This is a fallacy. Gender history looks to “demonstrate that women had a history, not only in a separate strand, but as an integral element of ‘mainstream’ history.”5 Therefore, a study of this kind is not about creating a separate history but about creating a fuller and more rich history. This is a necessary action to undertake because the views of those of the past disenfranchised women from their place in history. It is only since the twentieth century and the advent of the ‘isms’ that history has become more inclusive.

Moreover, the very nature of womanhood throughout history has been primarily situated in the private sphere. Thus making it important that an anthropological lens is made use of because women were frequently barred from high office where most surviving sources were produced. By investigating women “the whole realm of the private - as distinct from the public world of conventional history - is being brought within the scope of historical

2

Lowie’s remark is quoted in Darnton, R. (1984) The Great Cat Massacre p.19. New York. Basic Books.

3 Darnton, R. (1984). The Great Cat Massacre p19. New York. Basic Books.

4 Darnton, R. (1984). The Great Cat Massacre p23. New York. Basic Books.

5 Tosh, J. (2010). The Pursuit of History p276. Dorchester. Dorset Press.

19

understanding.”6 This is a tremendously exciting prospect because it enables us to access a more personal history, relating more closely with those who have gone before us.

One of the most enduring and legendary allegories in English history, Alfred and the cakes, provides the starting point for this study. Paul Kelly suggests that the Annals of St Neots, where the story is first found, was “put together in the late tenth century”7. This essay will be using the translation offered by Michael Wood8: “One day a certain peasant woman, wife of a cowherd, was making loaves, and the King (Alfred) was sitting by the fire tending his bow and arrows and other weapons. But when the poor woman saw that the loaves she had put over the fire were burning she ran up and took them off, scolding the invincible king and saying, ‘Look there man, you can see the loaves are burning and you’ve not turned them, though I’m sure you’d be the first to eat them nicely done!’ The miserable woman little thought that this was King Alfred who had fought so many wars against the pagans and won so many victories.”

Wood discusses the “point” of the story, writing that it is to show “the humiliating straits to which the great man had been reduced at the nadir of his fortune.”9 However, this source can be reinterpreted, revealing contemporary ideas of the common woman.

This essay will posit that it also gives us an insight into the home dynamics of those “illiterate masses”. If one is to read this tale against the grain then it is possible to delve into the motifs of the time. Within the kitchen, a “peasant woman” had authority over “the King”. This is significant because this king, Alfred the Great, was a hero of the era.

This is due to his status as the saviour of the kingdom after defeating the Danes in May 878 at the Battle of Edington. From this, it can be deduced that in the Anglo-Saxon household the woman was in charge of the kitchen, that was her sphere of influence.

An argument can be made that the “peasant woman” did not know that this man was Alfred the Great. They may cite the line, “The miserable woman little thought that this was King Alfred”, in evidence. However, this argument is faulty on two levels. First, it does not matter a great deal whether the woman knew that this was Alfred the Great because she did know that this was a man. The very fact that the woman was prepared to rebuke a man, whoever he may be, shows a shift in the expected male-female relationship of the Anglo-Saxon period. It alludes to the fact that the woman did not have to know who the man was because, whoever he was, she was in control within this environment. On the second level, we are told that Alfred was sat by the fire, tending “his bow and arrows and other weapons.” These weapons would have offered a significant marker of importance and wealth, making the actions of the “peasant woman” in the tale more remarkable. Richard Underwood reports that just 1% of

6

Tosh, J. (2010). The Pursuit of History p276. Dorchester. Dorset Press.

7

Kelly, P. (2018). The King Alfred Blog [online] Available at: https://king-alfred.com/wp/2019/02/01/cakes/#:~:text=It%20first%20appears%20in%20the,that %20took%20place%20after%20his [accessed 5th April 2021] 8 Wood, M. (2005). In Search of the Dark Ages, p.111. Bungay. BBC Books.

9 Wood, M. (2005). In Search of the Dark Ages, p.111. Bungay. BBC Books.

20

Anglo-Saxon graves contained arrow heads made of iron10. This rarity would have entailed expense which would have meant seniority. It is most likely that the “peasant woman” in the tale would have realised that this was a man of high social ranking yet she still rebuked him for not turning the loaves. This folkloric tale implies that women in the Anglo Saxon period held seniority over men, perhaps of any societal rank, within the domestic sphere of influence.

That women held authority and could influence wider matters within the domestic sphere is not isolated to one tale. The idea is prevalent across the British Isles. Another famous example comes from the Welsh folklore tale entitled Branwen Ferch Llyr.

Branwen is kept prisoner in the bakery for three years until she reared “a startling bird on the edge of her kneading trough. She taught it to speak and described her brother to the bird.” This bird then travels back to Wales to report the “punishments and disgrace which she was enduring.”11 Before long, a Welsh invasion force comes to liberate Branwen from the Irish. The story itself is far-fetched and clearly fantastical. However, it is often the case that anthropological studies arise from somewhat absurd events. As Carlo Ginzburg writes, “An investigation initially pivoting on an individual, moreover an apparently unusual one, ended by developing into a general hypothesis on the popular culture.”12 Ginzburg is referencing Domenico Scandella, a sixteenth century miller, with outspoken, alternative views on religion led to his execution by the Roman Inquisition.

Scandella provided Ginzburg with a window into the religious tendencies of normal people in the sixteenth century. This tale opens up a similar window into the views of womanhood in pre-Conquest Britain for myself. All seemed to be lost for Branwen, a prisoner in a foreign land, but in the kitchen, at her “kneading trough”, she was able to orchestrate her escape. This reaffirms the folkloric premise that in the domestic sphere women in the Anglo-Saxon era had agency.

Anglo-Saxon Women had little opportunity to advance themselves in the public sphere.

However, there were some who were able to break the shackles of the patriarchy and rise to positions of power within the Church, where the Anglo-Saxons held women in a higher regard. A popular idiomatic phrase was, “No woman is good unless she is a saint”13. This shows the contemporary view that devoutly religious women were deemed superior to ordinary women. Robert Darnton took a similar approach to verify the relative normality of the tormenting of cats in eighteenth century France. He identified idiomatic expressions such as: “as patient as a cat whose claws are being pulled out” and “as patient as a cat whose paws are being grilled”14. For these expressions to have meant anything, Darnton argues that events such as these must have taken place. These events did in fact take place, particularly at religious festivals, and therefore they could be used in colloquial language because people understood and could relate to the event. My argument will follow the same chain of reasoning. For 10

Underwood, R. (1999) Anglo Saxon Weapons and Warfare, p.26. Stroud. Tempus.

Branwen Ferch Llyr [online] Available at: http://www.mabinogi.net/branwen.htm [accessed 8th April 2021] 12 Ginzburg, C. (1980) The Cheese and the Worms, p.xi. Baltimore. The John Hopkins University Press.

11

13

Reese, L. (2021) Women in the Year 1000 http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/women1000.html [accessed 8th April 2021] 14 Darnton, R. (1984). The Great Cat Massacre p91. New York. Basic Books.

21

the phrase to have made sense, it must have been a widely accepted belief among the people of the Anglo-Saxon era.

The poem ‘Judith’ further demonstrates the perceived superiority of devout women.

This can be found in the “tenth ... century”15 Beowulf manuscript. In this tale, the tyrannical, Assyrian general Holofernes, as he often did, gets drunk and attempts to seduce Judith. She cunningly recognised that this created an opportunity for her to kill Holofernes. She allowed herself to be taken to his sleeping quarters. When Holofernes arrived he fell into a drunken sleep and Judith decapitated him. In doing so, she saved her city, Bethulia. This is particularly significant evidence because a meek, devoutly religious woman has fulfilled the role of the hero, or rather the heroine, in this piece of literature which is atypical of the time. It would have been a more standard operating procedure for a man of military prowess to lead a small army in a last stand against Holofernes. Therefore, it can be seen that in Christian influenced verse during the Anglo-Saxon era religious women were able to take on roles of similar significance to the highest ranking men.

Looking through a psychological lens, there may be an explanation for why devoutly religious women wielded more authority and held more esteemed positions in a society which generally promoted men. Julian Rotter's ‘Locus of Control’16 placed people along a spectrum ranging from a high internal locus of control, where you feel personally responsible for the actions you undertake, to a high external locus of control, where you feel that there are a lot of things which are out of your control. It could be argued that the reason the Anglo-Saxons were more accepting of religious women having authority is because they had a high external locus of control. This enabled them to ascribe the power the woman wielded to God, rather to the woman personally. Their patriarchal beliefs could remain intact because the woman had been given the power as a gift from God and had not achieved it on her own merit. This rationale could be verified by the repeating motif of the story of Judith which frequently reminds the reader that Holofernes was defeated by Judith because God was acting through her. For example, it says “God the Lord of heaven, who gave her the victory17” and Judith herself conceded that she “took his life, with God’s help.18” Therefore, there may have been more acceptance of the authority of religious women because the contemporary folk of the time could ascribe their successes to an external power, God. The Beowulf Manuscript19 itself also offers useful insights into the Anglo-Saxon image of women. This information can largely be ascertained through an analysis of Grendel’s mother. The classification of Grendel’s mother as a monster has been a topic of fervent historical debate in recent years. Kevin Kiernan argues that there is “plenty of evidence 15

Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.268.

Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

16 Rotter, J. (1954) Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. New York. Prentice Hall.

17 Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.270.

Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

18 Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.271.

Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

19 Gummere, F. (1910) Translation of the Beowulf Poem. Available at: http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/Beowulf.htm#1B [accessed 2nd June 2021]

22

for defending Grendel’s mother as a heroic figure.20” This is largely due to her motivations for engaging in battle with Beowulf, because she wants to be the avenger of her son. A longstanding feature of Germanic society was the engagement of individuals in blood feuds. Therefore, Grendel’s mother was fulfilling her familial duty rather than acting callously. This led Jane Chance to describe Grendel’s mother not as an “avenging monster” but rather as a “grieving mother”21. These revisionist interpretations of Grendel’s mother have led to enquiries surrounding the translation of the most damning condemnation of her. In line 1263 she is described as “ides, aglæcwif” (monster of women). This negative translation has been ingrained in Beowulf since Frederick Klaeber’s 1922 translation. However, there is ambiguity because when “aglæcwif” is used to describe Beowulf, Klaeber offers the translation of “warrior, hero” as opposed to “monster, demon, fiend” when describing Grendel’s mother22. Given that the author of Beowulf is anonymous, it is impossible for scholars to ascertain the true meaning “aglæcwif” in this context. This issue was highlighted by Doreen Gillam who opined that we can only understand the term to mean “supernatural” or “inhuman” and that we should not attribute any positive or negative connotations to the word23. This is due to the fact that “ides, aglæcwif” could equally be translated as warrior of women.

This alternative translation would imply that women gained respect and prestige if they were prepared to fight for their family as opposed to being condemned as devilish monsters. This is a challenge all historians face when attempting to make inroads into a culture with a different vernacular. A great deal of care must be taken when attempting to translate works of this kind as to avoid condemning the unworthy or praising those who are not praiseworthy. Therefore, Grendel’s mother’s pivotal role in the plot shows that in Germanic literature women were characterized by their love of their children and could earn respect within society.

What is particularly interesting to note is the lack of correlation between the sources of common folk and the sources produced by those at the higher end of society. The law, produced by the upper orders, demanded that treatment of Anglo-Saxon women be fiercely misogynistic. It is clearly demonstrated in King Alfred’s Law Code. Law code 7 stated that, “a woman may not take a vow without the consent of her husband.” This is blatantly sexist as it places any decision an Anglo-Saxon woman wants to take into the hands of her husband. Furthermore, Law Code 11 read as, “if he defiles a virgin, he shall do penance for three years … whether a child is born of her or not.” This should align with Law Code 14, “An adulterous woman shall do penance for seven years.24” However, this is clearly not the case. While a male adulterer was only required to do three years of penance, a female adulterer would be expected to do seven. This appears particularly unjust as Law Code 11 is specifically for sexual relations with a “virgin” which highlights the extent of the patriarchy within the Anglo-Saxon male female dynamic. Therefore, the upper orders of society clearly held different views of 20

Kiernan, K. (1984) “Grendel’s Heroic Mother”. In Geardagum: Essays on Old English Language and Literature 6, p13-33.

21 Chance, J. (1986) ‘Grendel’s Mother as Epic Anti-type of the Virgin and Queen’ Woman as Hero in Old English Literature. New York. Syracuse University Press.

22 Klaeber, F. (1950) Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Boston. Heath.

23 Gillam, D. (1961) The Use of the term ‘Aeglaeca’ in Beowulf at Lines 893 and 2592. Studia Germanica Gandensia 3, p.145-169.

24 The Law Codes of Alfred the Great. Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.266. Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

23

the role of women to those which are conveyed in the tales of the lower orders, which can be seen through their poor treatment in the law codes they produced.

The role of elitism in the treatment of Anglo-Saxon women is more nuanced in that, women of higher social status were given harsher penalties, as greater standards of behaviour were expected of them, but they were entitled to more compensation if they themselves were wronged. The Law Code of Alfred the Great offers historians insights into the way Anglo-Saxon women were governed. Law Code 25 orders that, “If a mother slays her child, if she commits homicide, she shall do penance for fifteen years, and never change except on Sundays.” This is elaborated on in Law Code 26 which reads as, “If a poor woman slays her child, she shall do penance for seven years.”25 The fact that the same crime has two different punishments, depending on whether the offender was a “mother” or simply a “poor mother”, shows that there was an element of ‘reverse elitism’ in the treatment of Anglo-Saxon women. However, in Law Code 11, which relates to the fines for seizing a woman by the breast, Subsection 5 it is said that, “If this is done to a woman of higher birth, the compensation to be paid shall be increased according to the wergeld.26” The entitlement of a woman of higher social status to greater recompense does show that the expected hierarchical system did exist among Anglo-Saxon women. In precis, it can be seen that the law both protected and punished women of higher classes more firmly. This is interesting to note because the tale of Alfred and the Cakes suggested a lack of hierarchy because a “peasant woman” was prepared to rebuke the King. Therefore, it is made abundantly clear that the upper orders were trying to instill a dual hierarchy: with men superior to women and a class system including both men and women.

The Anglo-Saxon period has been hailed as a “‘golden age’27” of gender dynamics.

This view would be supported by the common sources this essay has covered. The folkloric tales suggest that the autonomy and power of women in the domestic sphere pervaded through the British Isles. It appears that common folk held a more egalitarian view of gender. However, the upper orders of society would have fervently disagreed with this standpoint from the laws which they produced. To those of privilege, women were a valuable commodity. Mate postulated that, “The greater the wealth and status of the woman, the less the likelihood that she would exercise any freedom of choice.”28 Therefore, it was the logical next step to make this law so that women were unable to avoid the fate decided for them by men. This alludes to the fact that the male dominated nature of history was disseminated down as opposed to being a mutually accepted fact. The more traditional literature, found in Beowulf and the poem ‘Judith’, is more selective about which women can command the respect of others. It takes a middle ground between folklore and law. Germanic literature, as conveyed in Beowulf, demonstrates that women could play a significant role in family politics and be powerful. Christian influenced literature, as shown in the poem Judith, sheds light on 25

Law Codes 25 and 26. Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.267. Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

26 Law Code 11. Leyser, H. (1996). Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500, p.265. Bungay. Weidenfeld and Nicolson publishers.

27 Mate, M. (2008) Women in Medieval English Society, p.4. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

28 Mate, M. (2008) Women in Medieval English Society, p.98. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

24

the fact that women of religious devotion could be as powerful as any man.

Contemporary social commentators, the authors of these literary works, harmonised the equality of the lower orders and the misogyny of the upper orders to create works of this kind. For centuries only the opinions of the elite would have been made use of in historical enquiry. This would have left us with the elitist view that women were simply pawns in a man’s game. However, by engaging with these folkloric tales which were produced and passed on by those “illiterate masses” we have been able to gain a more complete understanding. The true nature of the role of the common Anglo-Saxon woman was one of “rough equality29”, vastly different to that conveyed in the works of the upper orders.

Nick Scofield Does theatre have the same political and moral effect on society now as it had in the past?

Theatre can be found throughout history, from Ancient Greece up until modern day but does theatre have the same effect on society now as it did all those years ago? This is the question that this report will try to answer. Theatre has influenced society politically, through political plays which focus on political figures or political actions which have caused negative effects but also morally, where it questions the audience’s morality. Theatre’s technique for impacting society has remained the same, although has been able to spread into different forms such as television to make up for its decline in audience in playhouses themselves. It seems that theatre has maintained its effectiveness by keeping with the times and adapting to maintain its social outreach. But during a global pandemic human life has had to adapt and change, how entire countries have been prevented from going out and engaging in activities we once took for granted. Such as businesses suffering and even closing down. 39 of the West End theatres have closed due to lack of audiences demonstrating that theatres are in Covid-19’s firing line and are struggling to survive with no live audiences and having to find creative ways to show their performances to theatre goers. With the threat that many theatres may find themselves unable to ever recover from the global pandemic and we may lose something that has been historically a vital part of our society.

The Political Impact of Theatre on Society The effect that theatre has on the political side of society seems to originate in Ancient Greece where theatre guided the formation of democracy. Ancient Greece is known for the philosophies and ideas that were conceived there around politics and society. With it being widely regarded that Greece, and especially Athens, was the origin of democracy. Therefore, it would be of no surprise that theatre affected political society in Ancient Greece in a large manner. In Ancient Greece, theatre and democracy were conceived around the same time.

There is a belief that it was theatre that helped influence the idea of democracy ‘ancient Athens’ annual theatre festival gave birth to democracy. Democracy began as theatre began, 29

Stenton, D. (1957) The English Woman in History. London. Allen and Unwin.

25

and Athenian democracy ended when its great theatre ended.’ 30These annual theatre festivals would bring together the four warring tribes of Athens for the sake of performance.

Through this, the Athenian consciousness changed and it took no longer than a generation for democracy in its simplest form to establish itself in Athens. It can therefore be said that Athenian society was greatly affected by theatre as it changed their entire political system by leading to the creation of democracy. What theatre provided the tribes of Athens with, was a common experience. The festivals brought the tribes together to share their performances and it was this common experience that created a more collective mindset and eventually the establishment of a society. From the society that was formed would come democracy.

Although the effect was different, the political influence that theatre had in Early Modern England was still apparent. Shakespeare’s plays would often be tailored to the taste of the monarch and with this his plays were promoted. His plays, although they were often complimentary of the monarch, sometimes had critical undertones of nobility and rarely, the monarchy. The change in the positive and critical imagery of the monarchy and nobility would affect the public perception of them and although the public perception was not a concern, theatre had the ability to rile up the public or calm them down. Shakespeare was less of a political writer and rather became immersed in removing the audience from reality.

It was rather Shakespeare's contemporary, Christopher Marlowe, who was more intrigued by political and moral theatre. Marlowe had a style of writing that was much more intense compared to Shakespeare and Marlowe was a lot more enthusiastic about the idea of heroes and villains. The idea of heroes and villains had an increased political impact on society because the idea of heroes against villains was established by the general public and would make villains out of the political nation31. During the reign of Charles I, plays which were known as masquerades were a frequent occurrence in the court of Charles. The masques would be put on in the Banqueting Hall; members of the royal court would be selected to play the characters of the play. Being a character in the play was a great privilege and placed them in the upper echelons of the court. This had a great effect on the political landscape as those selected were often favourites and if they refused to perform they would lose favour with Charles32. Overall, it can clearly be seen that theatre had a large political influence in swaying public opinion and creating heroes and villains of the political nation during Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre. It also changed the members of the court who had royal favour and more influence in the royal government.

Theatre in the 20th and 21st Century has maintained its political effect on society but has also extended its influence to politics and politicians. Many politicians are clearly influenced by theatre, even though it might not be initially apparent. The best orators in politics are extremely theatrical, using great public speaking skills and dramatising themselves with gestures and emphasizing certain words and changing their tone. All this is taken from theatre to appeal to their audience33. However, theatre tends to not focus on directly influencing politics but rather teaching the audience or opening their eyes to a particular issue. Companies such as Frantic Assembly and Paper Birds are focusing on issues such as rape and substance abuse. Theatre’s commentary on political affairs can often carry great 30

How Theatre Invented Democracy by Adam Leipzig October 29th 2010 published by Cultural Weekly 31 Marlowe and the Politics of Elizabethan Theatre, Simon Shepherd, JSTOR 32 Theatre Culture of Early Modern England, Melissa Thomas, cedacrest.com, 2009 33 Theatre, Performance and Society, Vikas Shah MBE, Thought Economics, May 2016

26

effect such as in 1953, where Arthur Miller released The Crucible, a politicised drama that revolves around Salem around the period of the witch trials. However, this is not what the play is truly about. The use of the witch trials is used as a historical comparison to the Red Scare, where socialists and communists were suffering prejudice in America during the post second world war society and during a time of increased hostility between America and Russia34. ‘It displays explicitly the American imperial manipulations and dears about the international communism’35 The Crucible attempts to wake people from their ignorant slumber in order to create a lasting political change during this period. Arthur Miller’s production is a poignant exclamation on the systematic problems in America throughout history and Arthur Miller uses his production to effect his audience in understanding events and is a keen appeal for the reconstruction of the American post-war juridical system. 36 It is also interesting to note that this message may have come across from the influence of Arthur Miller’s production as on December 2 1954, the Senate voted 67-22 to censure McCarthy which effectively eradicated his influence. This more educational approach has reduced the influence that theatre has had on politics although by teaching the audience about these issues, theatre is inadvertently affecting politics through allowing a greater understanding of issues that the government has to tackle and therefore the public can form better opinions on how the government is dealing with the problems. Overall, theatre still has a political effect on society. Although it is not as strong as it has been as theatre has moved away from directly targeting politics in performance. However, it still inadvertently affects it through educating the population and through the parody of major political figures.

The Moral Impact of Theatre on Society Theatre has consistently tried to pose questions to its audience to make them think about the larger picture. Performances will often do this through the experiences of the protagonist or by comparing a historic event to modern day issues. These techniques have grown into what is now known as morality theatre. The moral effects that theatre has on society is most often found in its ties with religion. In Ancient Greece the questions that were posed to the audience within a performance and the behaviours of the characters affected the attitudes and behaviours of the audience. Protagonists and antagonists have always been presented to society as good and bad as simple as black and white. It is a social expectation that the audience supports the protagonist, and many people are inspired by the actions of a hero or protagonist. It is the characters of a performance that change someone's view on whether something is good or bad. In Athenian theatre protagonists were used to convince their audience of changing their perspective on their morals. Often the antagonists were portrayed as sly older men, who would lie and steal. Therefore influencing the audience that lying and stealing was wrong. On the other hand the protagonist would display qualities that they wanted the audience to also display. Morality was heavily based on religious ideas during the time of the Ancient Greeks and therefore the protagonists were often religious figures or depictions of the Gods. The performances were used to keep the audience in line with religious ideas. Therefore, theatre had a major effect on Athenian morals as if it used 34

The Crucible, Arthur Miller, Dramatist Play Service, 1982 published, performed 1953

Khalid Sultan Thabet Abdu, Yahya Ali Mutaher Al-qadhi. The Socio-Political Repression in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. ALRJournal. 2021; 5(2): 113-119 35

Khalid Sultan Thabet Abdu, Yahya Ali Mutaher Al-qadhi. The Socio-Political Repression in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. ALRJournal. 2021; 5(2): 113-119 36

27

religious connotations and used protagonists and antagonists to establish a clear right and wrong.

Morality plays started to become more prevalent during medieval times and the Renaissance especially with writers like Marlowe who wrote morality plays such as Dr Faustus. Using Dr Faustus by Christopher Marlowe as an example we can see the clear connection between religion and morality. Marlowe poses questions over the morals of humans using the seven deadly sins, God and the Devil and good and evil angels. In the play Dr Faustus makes a Faustian deal, where he trades his soul in exchange for short term materialistic gains. Once the play reaches its conclusion, Faustus exclaims his deep regret for the deal he made and his foolishness for doing so. By linking Faustus with the devil, the deeply religious crowd would have seen Faustus as an example not to follow and therefore would have not followed his actions of selfishness. This selfishness was stated by Ramirez in 2014 saying that human beings have come to conceive of ideas as weapons that serve as aides in fulfilling human interests and desires.37 Religious plays were often used to convey a moral message because a large proportion of the population were illiterate38 and were unlikely to be able to read the Bible. Therefore performances with moral teachings were a suitable alternative, especially if they were linked to religion. There is no specific evidence which can judge whether or not these morality plays were effective; however they were popular. Morality plays would target specific Christian teachings much like Dr Faustus. Marlowe portrays Faustus as arrogant and a fool, he also treats his servant and other people with a distinct lack of respect. This most likely had the desired effect on the audience, not wanting to suffer in a similar manner to Faustus, and therefore modelling their own morals to be the opposite of those of Faustus. Overall, theatre would have had a major effect on morals in society in medieval England because of morality theatre which targeted specific morals within the audience for them to self criticize themselves over and decide whether or not to change themselves. The link of morality plays with religion provided theatre with a great effect on society because the deeply religious society would be influenced by the religious connotations of the piece. Providing theatre with the desired effect on society.

In the 20th and 21st century morality plays are frequently found. In the post-war era morality plays were extremely prevalent and effective due to the historical comparisons that were able to be made39. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible also takes a dive into human morality as it questions the society of Salem on the wrongful accusations of the use of witchcraft. Arthur Miller was Jewish and therefore a religious man and an observer of the Old Testament. Miller explores the morality through religion in The Crucible with John Proctor who while married, has sexual relations with Abigail which is a sin in the Old Testament under sexual transgression. ‘He [Arthur Miller] intends to elucidate how immoral, the mid twentieth century was. Therefore, he loans an event from the past to assert the continuity of the same social and political humiliation in the present.’40 The moral questions posed by Arthur Miller make 37

The Influence of Science and Religion on Medieval society: The Faustus-Frankenstein Connection

by Vonakani Mauleke, October 2016 38 Levels of Illiteracy in England, 1530-1730 by David Cressy 39

Community Development Journal volume forty-seven: 'Using participatory theatre in international community development' published by Oxford Community Press, January 2012 40

The Socio-Political Repression in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

28

the audience question their own actions and morality. In Miller’s plays, especially The Crucible, he tended to imply the initial human impulse is betrayal but once those betrayals are acknowledged by the less villainous, guilt takes over. However, a passive guilt with no change is worthless.41 The effectiveness of Miller’s morality plays are described by Ben Brantley as making us ‘look and listen, and feel the problems and pain of others as if they were our own’. However, as much as the writer is trying to convey a message to the audience there are questions on whether or not all performances convey it effectively as the audience may not be open to listening to what the writer wants them to hear.

How has the change in attendance affected Theatre’s effect on society Attendance helps theatre to convey its message and without a large audience theatre lacks its effectiveness. Ancient Greek performances were extremely popular with it being rare that a town did not have its own theatre. Theatres had extremely large areas for seating because of their popularity. The theatres would often be able to accommodate roughly eighteen thousand spectators. It was so popular due to the fact that it was extremely entertaining but also accessible for everyone in the city, town or village. The popularity of theatre meant that the effect it had on society was far greater than what it would have been if it was a rejected art. Performances had a huge impact because they had a massive attendance and therefore were viewed by lots of people who could spread the influence the performance had on them to other citizens. It is expected that theatre had a enormous effect on Ancient Greek society as that is the place where many regard theatre is born although it may have been understated as to how big the effect theatre had on Athenian society really was, but the combined political and moral influence of theatre clearly shows the large effect that theatre had.

Theatre had such a large effect on medieval and Renaissance society because of the popularity of the performances. Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre was extremely popular because of how accessible it was for all members of society. With the members of the lower class being able to watch from the pit for a one pence admission fee, it was extremely popular among the lower class as it was a pastime that they could afford. The middle class and upper class also enjoyed the theatre as they could pay to be seated away from the lower class and avoid their dirtiness while still being able to watch and in some cases, display themselves and their class. The popularity of theatre meant that it had a much larger effect on society as it reached all three tiers of society. While also achieving the support and promotion from the monarchy meant that it reached more of the upper classes of society and more playhouses were built. With theatre having a large demographic it was able to influence society much easier. Therefore, theatre had a great effect on medieval England and its society through morality plays.

However, the change can be seen in the 20th and 21st century in the popularity of theatre as members of the working class and lower middle class choose not to attend theatre and choose other options for entertainment instead. This change in demographic is partly due to the rising prices of attending theatre. It can also be attributed to the fact that high quality and well known productions are often performing on Broadway and the West End and very little elsewhere and therefore they have become difficult to access for those living at a significant 41

The Influence of Arthur Miller on American theatre and culture and the Global Implications of his plays by Susan C.W. Abbotson, Oxford Research Encyclopedias, December 2016

29

distance. The decline in the popularity of theatre can also be attributed to modern alternatives and the fact that they are, in most cases, more affordable and more accessible.

An average theatre ticket is around 23 GBP compared to 7.11 GBP for going to the cinema.

Overall, the decreasing lack of popularity of theatre means that the effect it has on society also decreases as it is not able to reach as large a proportion of the population as it would have previously. With many alternatives which are much more affordable it means that theatre has fallen out of preference with the public. Therefore, theatre only reaches a very limited audience when viewed in its genuine, live performance, form and therefore there has been a decrease in the effect that theatre has on society in the 21st century.

Conclusion Overall, theatre has continued to have an influence on society throughout many different time periods; from its very formation in Ancient Greece up until the present day in England. It has affected us politically and morally, and in some instances provided us with accounts from historical events. It had such a strong influence in Ancient Greece that it assisted with the foundation of democracy which would be regarded as modern day politics. It extended this political effect on society into medieval England, through strong favour in the royal government and even helping with the determination of royal favourites. It also influenced the public's opinions on the royal government through positive and negative undertones within the performance. Now we see politics being influenced through the performance of politicians themselves and their use of theatrical features to win over the crowd. However, does it carry the same effect on the political end of society? In Ancient Greece, theatre had a direct influence on politics, helping to establish the system of democracy and therefore had a major effect on society in regard to politics. In Early Modern England, theatre helped to establish favourites in court which could lead to changes in the government. In the 21st century these obviously large sources of influence that theatre had on politics have faded away in the background and now have very little influence, especially with the smaller audience that theatre now receives. Instead we see politicians using their theatrics to play to the audience and try to win themselves favour, which is a much more subtle influence that theatre plays on politics. Therefore it can be argued that theatre’s effect on society in the political manner has decreased and is no longer as large of an influence as it has been in the past. Theatre’s moral effect on society has also changed as during Athenian theatre and medieval England, morals were greatly influenced by religion, therefore religious figures were used in performances to convince the audience to change their morality for the better.

However, the religious elements of theatre have decreased as religion itself is no longer as widely supported as previously and therefore it does not carry the same effect. With theatre losing its large audience that it experienced in Athenian and medieval theatre it is no longer as effective as it cannot convey the messages that it is trying to because it is not reaching as wide a demographic as it did before. Therefore, as much as theatre has clearly maintained its political and moral effect on society, this effect has dramatically decreased due to the change in demographic caused by the cheaper and often more viable alternatives that technology has provided as entertainment over theatre. This leads to the conclusion that theatre does not have as much of an effect on society as it had in the past.

30

Jemima White How does climate change affect politics?

Today the world faces a variety of challenges, like centuries of systematic racism, economic inequality and poverty. Most of these do not at their fundamental core have anything to do with climate change; however, it can be argued that climate change heightens these problems. For example, extreme weather events hit the poorest hardest, with places becoming uninhabitable due to the change in conditions leading to people becoming environmental refugees and much more. With it being very unlikely a reduction of emissions to meet the demands of the 2015 Paris agreement is going to happen, it's very likely that we will see more consequences of climate change sooner than we think.

It is vital that global emissions are cut to make sure there is a future for generations to come and still core resources such as fossil fuels remain. The climate crisis is and will continue to cause devastating problems like the global temperature increase leading to drought and causing potential worldwide water shortages. Furthermore, it can invoke reduced agricultural yields which can lead to a whole multitude of problems including famine and income loss.

Additionally, climate change can lead to an increase in sea levels, which we already see the effects of worldwide and is just predicted to get worse. The rise in sea levels leads to the erosion of coastal areas and subsequently increases damaging flooding. These are just some of the many impacts climate change will have if emissions are not reduced. Already we are experiencing the significant impact of climate change worldwide. This climate change is even affecting politics globally through affecting voting and legislation, urban heat island effect and growing numbers of environmental refugees.

It's estimated that one billion people live less than 10 metres above current high tide levels, furthermore, it’s estimated around 216 million people live on land that will be below sea level in the next century; these one billion people are at a huge risk of extreme weather events and especially vulnerable to sea level rise. Climate change is causing many places to become unviable by causing food and water supplies to be scarce and an increase in storms and floods. We are already seeing changed rainfall patterns and sea levels rising. There is therefore an increase in extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and storms becoming more severe, and therefore many people are being forced to move from their homes and becoming environmental refugees.

This is evident in Tuvalu’s sinking islands. Tuvalu is home to only 11,000 people and this number is set to decrease over time, it has been hit hard by the effects of climate change with two of nine of Tuvalu's islands on the verge of being completely submerged and with the other 7 islands barely sitting above sea level. With scientists predicting Tuvalu to become inhabitable in the next 50 to 100 years, many Tuvaluans who can afford it have moved to neighbouring countries like New Zealand and Fiji as a future in Tuvalu doesn't seem viable anymore. Despite this many older residents are much resistant to move as they believe they will lose their identity and culture. Already 1 in 5 Tuvaluans have relocated, however it is not as simple as it seems. Many Tuvulauns who have moved have struggled with life not in Tuvalu with only half of legally immigrated adult Tuvaluans in New Zealand being employed.

And with New Zealand only allocating an annual 75 spots in its visa program for Pacific workers this shows how it is not even easy for Tuvaluans to try and relocate and life is a struggle for them in Tuvalu or elsewhere.

31

The example of Tuvalu furthermore shows how the effects of climate change are hitting the poorest countries the worst despite them not even being responsible for the large proportion of greenhouse gases being emitted.

However, climate refugees are still not considered refugees under the 1951 UN refugee convention and there is still considerable resistance to even defining or expanding political refugees to also include climate refugees. There is no “home” for climate migrants in the international community, both literally and figuratively. Although it is hard to define when refugees are migrating due to climate change and we do not know the motive of someone when they are migrating, therefore making it hard to define when someone is migrating due to climate change, it is also completely guesswork how many people are and will migrate due to climate change; predicting the flows of migrants is extremely complicated with also there being a lack of baseline data on this. And with this being reliant on the outcome of climate change, it's difficult to know how many people really are and will be displaced by climate change.

Climate change may even change the way people are voting and significantly impact the political world; with climate change becoming a much more relevant subject and people becoming more aware and knowledgeable about it and the consequences for the future if we do not slow it down. According to survey data from Pew Research 52% of American adults believe dealing with climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Having this as such a priority for the government could change who people usually vote for depending on environmental policy.

This may be evident in how in more recent years the UK Green Party's support has significantly increased. It had huge gains in recent mayoral elections making a net gain of 88 english council seats more than any other party; this raised their total to 151. With its main priorities to create a sustainable society and tackle climate change many more people are turning to third parties options like the Green Party.

However the Green Party's new support may not just be due to their prioritising environmental policy with many people feeling politically lost with there being less hope in major parties like Labour. This is evident in Labour's major losses in the mayoral elections so people are turning to parties like the Green Party as an alternative.

The urban heat island effect is that urban areas tend to be on average hotter in temperature than surrounding rural areas; this may be due to the increase of human activities in cities that cause the burning of fossil fuels, in addition the high concentration of pavements, buildings and other surfaces that retain and absorb heat. This higher temperature in densely populated cities can contribute to heat related illness and deaths which can add to the strain on health services in the city. This will have a worse effect for ethnic minorities as they are more likely to reside in cities. It can also have a toll on urban biodiversity with animals and plants may struggle in a heightened heat.

Climate change is also affecting legislation with governments implementing lots more environmental policies with many major oil and gas companies already preparing for a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and the UK government’s Climate Change 32

Act which commits the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net-zero) by 2050. Despite this, many big companies and businesses will oppose major legislation that demands fast action to tackle climate change. This might include things like carbon taxes or environmental regulations that require companies to limit the amount of emissions they release.

To conclude overall the climate crisis will be fatal if as a human race we do not act quickly, and it has an influence on so many things such as politics in lots of ways; although climate change doesn't have the biggest impact on politics it's likely it will have a bigger impact as we see more of the consequences of climate change in the future.

Yuni Lee DECEPTION AND DEMOCRACY Political campaigns in the offline world are strictly regulated to ensure proper democratic proceedings, but it seems online, the regulations have not quite caught up. Social media became an unregulated frontline of political warfare in today’s world. There has been a rude awakening to the power of the internet and data in our democratic processes such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which concerned breaching data protection laws by harvesting 87 million people’s data worldwide without their consent, predominantly to be used for political advertising. This form of manipulation in today’s democratic processes online was used in the form of personalised advertisements in the 2016 US election and in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

The scheme of highly specific targeting increases political engagement and is an incredibly effective political campaign, however it becomes a problem when the information is “fake news” or simply inaccurate. The lack of credibility and uncertainty of this information online is very widespread in our daily lives, however, the fact that we are not very much aware of these issues increases many risks especially, towards the citizen’s choice of the vote in the democratic process. It can also be considered that the deception of the politicians may consequently make the citizens feel indignant and betrayed.

Online targeting is highly appealing to politicians, as it has been demonstrated to be incredibly effective in election processes. The infringement on the democratic process through criminal data usage signals the immorality in today’s democratic process, and this deception has been increasing in the past years, according to the Electoral Commission shown by the doubling figure spent by the campaigners on the digital platform in 2017 election by 48% from 23.9% in the 2015 election. Violations of truthfulness strikes against the fundamental democratic value of representation and damages the norm of democracy.

33

The improper and criminal data usage is something that demonstrates the potential immorality of this campaign-style, however, it seems to have not stopped anyone.

Although there weren’t many actions taken by the government regarding this matter, it is evident that there have been some actions in implementing legislation after the undermining of democracy. Facebook introduced labelling political ads by claiming “Paid for by…” and rules have been tightened to some extent through introducing digital imprints and the presence of an ad library allowing anyone to access the spending on a particular advertisement and the viewers.

However, there are also some cases in which deception in democracy could be considered reasonable, which was intended “to preserve democratic institutions and the security of citizens”. One of these cases is the use of an unmarked police car that acts for traffic law enforcement and has been pre-authorized. This draws up a conflicting debate in terms of democratic objectives. There are also cases in which deception has been used with no authorization, however with significantly valid reasons which stem from dedication to democracy. This can be seen by Denis Healey’s pretence to support the nuclear programme in the Cold war in which his strategy allowed him to become the champion of the British “independent nuclear deterrent” said Nicholas Humphrey. Therefore this raises another question of where the legitimation of deception lies in democracy and perhaps the idea of prior consent.

Deception can be taken in various approaches in which in some situations there are democratic justifications to choose to deceive or not in the public which may challenge the morality and ethics of the politicians or democracy. In this aspect I am personally inclined to the argument, believing in re-evaluating the democratic deception taking into consideration the factors that are responsible for their overall intention. However, I believe deception lies in the media nowadays, which infringes the proper democratic procedure and should not be tolerated. Despite the efforts of the large online companies introducing new ways to ensure the safety of online politics, we must by this point recognise the potential of these large technological companies in persistently influencing the rules of our democracy.

34

Kit Morley-Jacob Historical Karens The newest slur on the block is the ‘Karen’. For those of you who are unfamiliar with meme culture, this is any person who loves to make a fuss about anything - “I would like to speak to your manager!” (‘Karen’). It has had a detrimental impact on the name itself. In 1965, it was the third most popular name in America and, in 2018, it was the 635th most popular name.

But are ‘Karens’ a new thing, a product of these times? Or have ‘Karens’ existed throughout history? Well, it is the thesis of this essay that ‘Karens’ can indeed be identified throughout history and this essay will discuss some of the ‘founding fathers’ of the ‘Karen-kind’.

In one of the most legendary and enduring tales of British history, that of Alfred and the Cakes, lies a ‘Karen’ story. One recognised trait of the ‘Karen’ is that they refuse to accept culpability for anything and this is true for this story which can be found in the Annals of St Neots (Vita S Neoti): “One day a certain peasant woman, wife of a cowherd, was making loaves and the king was sitting by the fire tending his bow and arrows and other weapons.

But when the poor woman saw that the loaves she had put over the fire were burning she ran up and took them off, scolding the invincible king and saying, ‘Look there man, you can see the loaves are burning and you’ve not turned them, though I’m sure you’d be the first to eat them nicely done!’ The miserable woman little thought that this was King Alfred who had fought so many wars against the pagans and won so many victories.”

One can only feel sympathy for Alfred the Great here, he had just been fighting the Danes as the last line of defence of the English nation and he’s been rebuked for not turning the loaves that he wasn’t even cooking! Only a ‘Karen’, that aforementioned “peasant woman”, could blame someone else for something that is clearly their fault.

Another historical ‘Karen’, who also serves as proof that men too can certainly be part of this ‘Karen-kind’, is William Rufus, who was King of England from 1087-1100. William of Malmesbury, a contemporary monk, records a tale that certainly qualifies William II for the title of being a ‘Karen’: “The cost of his clothes he liked to be immensely inflated, and spurned them if anyone reduced it. For instance, one morning when he was putting on some new shoes, he asked his valet what they had cost. ‘Three shillings,’ the man replied, at which the king flew into a rage. ‘You son of a whore!’ he cried, ‘since when has a king worn such trumpery shoes? Go and get me some that cost a mark of silver.’ The servant went off and returned with a much cheaper pair, pretending they had been bought at the price specified. ‘Why,’ said the king, ‘these are a good fit for the royal majesty.’”

It is William’s rage at something so minor and then his unprecedented appeasement after receiving even less expensive shoes that make him a ‘Karen’. One could compare it to frequent ‘Karen’ occurrences of the modern day where chips are sent back for

35

being too cold, only for those same chips to be returned to them where they are then deemed satisfactory.

The final ‘Karen’ story that will be looked at in this essay is James I of England. After the failure of the 1614 “Addled Parliament”, James is reported to have said, “I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have allowed such an institution to come into existence.” James’ dislike for Parliament aligns with another common ‘Karen’ characteristic - it’s either my way or the highway! A modern day parallel could be seen with a ‘Karen’ demanding that muffins be banned for snack breaks when everyone else loves them.

In conclusion, ‘Karens’ did not spawn into the world in the early 2000s with two unruly children, an inverted bob and a hunger to make the lives of those around them utterly miserable. In fact, it would appear that the ‘Karen-kind’ have existed throughout history; complaining, asking for the manager and blaming everyone else.

Sofia Clark The prevalence of Police Brutality in African American Communities.

In May of 2020 George Floyd, a young African-American man, was murdered by police during an arrest after a store clerk suspected he may have used a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis. The police officer responsible, Derek Chauvin, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, resulting in Floyds death. This murder and overt display of police brutality sparked international outrage and saw a series of ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests about police brutality towards minority groups. While George Floyd was not the first Black victim of police brutality, he was a catalyst that caused many Americans to begin questioning the repeated killings of unarmed young Black males.

Following Floyd’s murder, It became increasingly evident that the unarmed shootings of Black males were representative of the symptomatic results of continued historical institutionalised racist practices and the marginalisation of a group by others in American society. Studies revealed that excessive force was used more often by police officers when encountering Black males when compared to other groups. While there is no singular cause for this issue, the robust history of institutionalised systemic racism and the deeply-rooted beliefs of White superiority are the primary reasons that have led to these malpractices.

Domestic policing in the United States did not evolve into an organized institution until the 1830s and '40s when northern cities felt the need to implement a system to better control quickly growing populations. The first American police department was established in Boston in 1838 and the department targeted its harsh tactics on the recent European immigrants.

However, as African-Americans fled the horrors of the Jim Crow south, they became the victims of brutal and punitive policing in the northern cities where they sought refuge. The birth of modern American policing began in 1909, when August Vollmer became the chief of the police department in Berkeley, California. Vollmer refashioned American police into an American military. Vollmer and his peers adopted military-style tactics and weaponry to fight ‘a war against the enemies of society’, these ‘enemies’ being Black people, who the law 36

disproportionately marginalised. Vollmer-era police in the South enforced a new slave code: Jim Crow laws, which had been passed in the South beginning in the late 1870s and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1896. During this period of time, the amount of Black people being arrested increased significantly: Go reports that, in 1911, about 11% of people arrested were African-American; that number rose to 14.6% in 1917 and by the 1920s , a quarter of those arrested were African-Americans, who, at the time, represented just 7.4% of the population.

This rapid rise in African-American arrests is largely attributed to the criminalisation of Blackness, which directly caused an increase in police patrolling of Black neighbourhoods and the disproportionate arrests of Black people, which saw prosecutors indicting Black people disproportionately, juries finding Black people guilty excessively and judges giving Black people disproportionately long sentences. A consequence of this disproportionate conviction was social scientists observing this data, without considering the racist context, and concluding that as a matter of biology, Black people were disproportionately inclined to criminality. These conclusions furthered the Social Darwinism within American society and fuelled the rampant white supremacy. Ultimately, this scientifically false conclusion, which further criminalised Blackness, led to greater policing of Black communities by a white police force who strongly believed that Black people were more violent and corrupt by nature, was a key factor in the increase and normalisation of police brutality in the 21st century.

A further factor which fueled the undue and violent arrests of Black people was President Lyndon Johnson's declaration of the ‘war on crime’ through Johnson’s Great Society, which arguably was a war against the Black community. In 1965, Johnson asked Congress to pass the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, under which the federal government would supply local police with military-grade weapons, weapons that were being used in the war in Vietnam, which established a direct role for the federal government in local police operations, court systems, and state prisons. Elizabeth Hinton reports in “From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America,” the “frontline soldiers” in Johnson’s war on crime spent a disproportionate amount of time patrolling Black neighbourhoods and arresting Black people. Policymakers concluded from those differential arrest rates that Black people were prone to criminality, with the result that police spent even more of their time patrolling Black areas, which led to an even higher arrest rate. However, unlike in the past, the police department had access to military grade weaponry, enabling them to pose a significant threat and show excessive force to those being arrested; African Americans. This ultimately advanced police brutality as the police had a variety of methods to physically subdue those under arrest. Johnson’s Great Society ended when he asked Congress to pass the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which had the effect of diverting money from social programs to policing, an overt display of racism and targeting of Black communities. Furthermore, in 1968, Johnson’s new crime bill established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, within the Department of Justice, which disbursed federal funds to more than 80,000 crime-control projects. This significant increase in police funding has been carried out throughout American history, with crime-control and policing being valued over health, education and welfare. By 2016, eighteen states were spending more on prisons than on colleges and universities, with 40% of the US incarceration population being Black while only representing 13% of the US population. This disproportionate imprisonment continues to fuel the notion which suggests that Black people are more inclined to commit crimes, which was established in the early twentieth century, and is still a driving factor in police hostility towards Black communities.

37

In the decades following the end of the Civil Rights movement, some progress was made as new legislation sought to further regulate police forces and offer victims more expansive recourse. Federal laws such as Section 1983 of Chapter 21, of Title 42 of the US Code offered more ability for police officers to be legally punished for brutality. Meanwhile, the legal precedent established by the rulings in Supreme Court cases such as Tennessee v.

Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989) offered Constitutional protections and increased police regulation, respectively. However, the overall success of this progress is discredited by the case of Rodney King, which demonstrated the continuing issue of police brutality. In 1991, the unarmed King was severely beaten by members of the LAPD during his attempted arrest and was subsequently hospitalized. The subsequent acquittal of four of the involved officers resulted in Los Angeles descending into six days of riots. The aftermath of these protests brought hope to many African-Americans, as a turning point in American policing of Black communities in which comprehensive changes would be implemented.

However, due to the established prejudice and deeply rooted historical violence of the police to Black communities, no notable improvement was seen.

In the past two decades, the advent of social media and the formation of groups like Black Lives Matter have helped to highlight the continuation of police brutality and how law enforcement disproportionately targets African-Americans. These two forces have helped to raise significant national as well as global awareness about cases such as the deaths of Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Laquan McDonald, Botham Jean, and of course, George Floyd, all of whom were African-American men killed directly or indirectly by the police. Reports of police brutality have continued to permeate the American consciousness despite continuing attempts to reform the nation’s police forces. Efforts such as the introduction of more stringent training and body cameras have sought to make police forces more restrained and transparent, however their success and magnitude is largely contested.

In conclusion, through examining the last century of both policing and legislative actions towards the African-American community, police brutality can be seen as a continuing cycle of violence and death, a cycle which is continued by a failure to achieve comprehensive reform, and a cycle which will continue unless we strive to repair a broken system or fight to change it. Through the efforts of the Black Lives Matter movement, African-Americans fighting for their voices and struggles to be acknowledged by the government through protest and activism, and the increase of minority people in the American political and legal system, the systemic racism of legal enforcement can be challenged and reformed. However, in order to do this, the notion of white supremacy must be deconstructed, which is only achievable through education, and thus the United States must redistribute its funds from over-policing to education and welfare.

Barnes Oakley 38

The Cyprus Dispute and its Origins Cyprus is currently a divided island and peoples, experiencing an ongoing crisis known as the Cyprus dispute; the result of the conflicting cultures and desires of descendants of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the major ethnic groups of the island. This has caused a divide between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, which was made a reality following an invasion of the island by Turkey in 1974, which left the island in two zones of occupation: the Republic of Cyprus to the south consisting of the Greek Cypriots, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus consisting of Turkish Cypriots, with both holding different views of how the island should be governed. The Republic of Cyprus desires the reunification of the island, and view the Turkish occupation of the Northern part of the island as illegal, and the existing Turkish state illegitimate; however, following a ceasefire arranged by the UN, military conflict in Cyprus was temporarily resolved, with the only feasible chance for reunification of the island currently being through reunification talks rather than force. Before 1974, there were many calls among the Greek Cypriot population of Cyprus for enosis: the union of the island with Greece, similar to what had occurred in Crete, an unacceptable idea to Turkish Cypriots, as many Turkish Cretans had been forced from the island following its union with Greece, which they could not allow to occur in Cyprus. Rather, Turkish Cypriots favour an idea known as ‘taksim’, the creation of two separate states on the island for Turkish and Greek Cypriots respectively, as this would prevent the Turkish Cypriots potentially being forced from Cyprus.

This solution is similarly unacceptable to the Greek Cypriots, who make up an estimated 80% of the population of Cyprus and believe that the idea of taksim could threaten enosis.

There is also disagreement of how the island should be split, with Greek Cypriots particularly desiring the city of Famagusta, currently controlled by Turkish Cypriots, as it is the only deep water port on the island. As has been alluded to, this article will evaluate the causes and history of the Cyprus dispute, and evaluate possible solutions.

The History of Cyprus The initial inhabitants of Cyprus arrived in the form of Mycenaean Greeks towards the end of the Bronze Age, and during the period of Greek city states, Salamis was created in Cyprus.

The island’s hellenistic influence would be increased when it was conquered by Alexander the Great in 333 BC, becoming part of his Macedonian Empire, and following his death the island fell into the hands of the also hellenstic Ptolemaic Egypt. It became a part of the Roman Republic in 58 BC, and following the split of the Roman Empire in 395, it became a part of the newly formed Byzantine Empire, and from 395-1191 Cyprus developed a strong Greek-Christian culture that is prominent among the Greek Cypriots of the current day. In 1191, Cyprus was conquered by Richard I of England during the Third Crusade, and would be seen exchanging hands between monarchs of Cyprus until finally coming under Venetian control in 1489. However, under Venetian rule it was continuously raided by the new power in the Middle East: the Ottoman Empire, who in 1570 would capture the island with an army of 60,000, massacring many of the Greek and Armenian inhabitants who lived there. Prior to the Ottoman invasion, Cyprus had been controlled by a Latin elite, and the Greek-Christian culture had flourished and become deeply entrenched in the population of Cyprus which contained a significant Greek majority, with a large Armenian population. Whilst many previous rulers of Cyprus had been largely benevolent rulers not intent with changing the social structure of the island, the Ottoman Empire was different, abolishing the feudal system and replacing it with their own millet system, which made figures in the Greek Cypriot 39

Orthodox church leaders amongst their communities. Furthermore, following their annexation by the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus entered a 250 year period of economic decline, and their treatment was often harsh but was largely dependent on the attitude of the Sultan at the time. Throughout Ottoman rule, the majority in terms of population remained with Greek-Christian Cypriots over Turkish-Muslim Cypriots.

In 1821, the Greek war of independence broke out, and in 1828, the first Prime Minister of Greece, Ioannis Kapodistrias, called for union between Cyprus and Greece, the first instance of calls for enosis, and whilst minor uprisings occurred in Cyprus, nothing came of it and the island remained under Ottoman rule. Following the Congress of Berlin in 1878 Cyprus was handed over to British control whilst remaining de jure part of the Ottoman Empire, and it was formally annexed by Britain in November 1914 following the Ottomans’ decision to join WWI on the side of the Central Powers. In 1915, Britain offered the island to King Constantine of Greece in return for Greece joining WWI on the side of the allies, however, the pro-German Constantine refused, and Greece would only join WWI in 1917 following a series of events known as the ‘national schism.’ In 1923, Turkey relinquished its claims on Cyprus following the Treaty of Lausanne, and Cyprus became a crown colony in 1925.

Many Cypriots hoped that British rule would lead to enosis due to the close ties between Britain and Greece (who were both part of the Allies in both world wars). The policy of enosis was actively pursued by the Cypriot Orthodox Church who, following Ottoman rule, had become a key part of Cyprus’ administration, as many of their members had been trained on the Greek mainland. Some Greek Cypriots known as the EOKA began a guerilla campaign against British rule to put pressure on Britain to allow union with Greece. On the other hand, Turkish Cypriots favoured the continuation of British rule, as they resented the idea of a union with Greece, fearing they would be forced to leave in a similar fashion to Turkish Cretans following Crete’s union with Greece in 1913, and as such, they took the pro-partition stance of taksim. By the 1950s Greek union with Cyprus had become part of Greece’s national policy, whilst the leader of Turkey at the time, Menderes, claimed the island to be part of Anatolia (the peninsula on which Turkey is found), and he favoured the complete annexation of the island by Turkey. However, this policy soon changed after demographics showed that only 20% of the island’s inhabitants were Turkish, and policy was altered to favour a partition of the island. In January 1950, a referendum was organised among the Greek Cypriots by the Church of Cyprus (Greek Cypriots comprising 80.2% of the population at the time). Of those who participated, 96% favoured enosis with Greece which roughly translates to c.75% of the population of Cyprus.

The failures of the constitution of Cyprus Cyprus finally achieved independence on the 16th August 1960 following the Zurich and London agreements, however the state and its government suffered from severe limitations due to the restricting nature of the constitution, described by the UN mediator who helped devise it, Dr Galo Plaza as ‘a constitutional oddity.’ The constitution was one of the key reasons for the early failures of the Republic of Cyprus which would lead to its eventual split.

The constitution divided Cyprus into two communities: the Greek and Turkish Cypriots based on their ethnic origins, with the Greek Cypriots electing the president of the republic and Turkish Cypriots electing the vice president of the republic. There was also a Council of Ministers made up of ten ministers and a House of Representatives; under the constitution, 40

both of these institutions would be made up of 30% Turkish Cypriots despite them only comprising 18% of the population, and for the modification of either electoral or fiscal laws, a majority of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots was required rather than a simple majority which could easily be achieved by Greek Cypriots. Furthermore, the Turkish Cypriot vice-president was granted the right to veto any laws passed by either body. The result of this constitution was that it was effectively impossible for one community to pass laws without the other, and considering the animosity and disagreement between the two camps, few laws were passed, and Cyprus reached a point of crisis in 1963 when fiscal laws expired, and neither party could agree on new tax laws. Furthermore, there was resentment from the Greek Cypriots at the overrepresentation of Turkish Cypriots, and their significant influence in government despite comprising a much smaller part of the population, which they viewed as the reason for the failures of the Republic thus far. Finally and most crucially, the strongly pro-enosis Greek Cypriots could not achieve a union with Greece as it was simply vetoed or not passed by the Turkish Cypriots in the House of Representatives, leading to even more resentment. Eventually, the President of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios III asked his government for amendments to the constitution (the Akritas plan) to remove what he called ‘constitutional deadlocks’, however the vice-president and Turkish Cypriots in the Council of Ministers called this ‘unacceptable’ with vice-president Fazil Kucuk claiming the Republic of Cyprus now ceased to exist. Ultimately, this constitution was flawed as a result of the constitution being agreed upon by multiple different parties (UK, Greece, Turkey and both Cypriot Groups) with different aims in mind, and as such the nature of compromises made to both groups caused the resulting constitution to make governing the country in accordance to it impossible, and this served to greatly alienate the Greek Cypriots who as the majority ethnic group of the island by a significant margin felt they should make up the primary governments and believed the failure of the constitution was due to the Turkish Cypriot compromises.

The Coup of 1974 Following the failure of the Akritas plan, Cyprus experienced intercommunal violence with 500 Cypriots killed, and 25-30,000 Turkish Cypriots displaced. This was shortly followed by the decision of Turkish Cypriots to withdraw from government, along with the decision of many Turkish Cypriots to start living in enclaves. In response to this violence, Turkey threatened to invade the country, but stopped after receiving a telegram from Lyndon B Johnson, who stated they would not support Turkey if they did so in the face of a possible Soviet invasion. On the other hand, in Greece, the Prime Minister Paprandeau stated with Makarios that enosis should be the ‘ultimate aim’ of Greece and Cyprus, and King Constantine himself stated that he hoped Cyprus would have ‘a speedy union with its mother country.’ Along with their outspoken support for Cyprus, Greece sent 10,000 troops to Cyprus to counter any possible Turkish invasion. However, Greece soon found itself in political turmoil as a military Junta took power of the country in 1967, and by 1974 extreme pro-enosis military officer Dimitros Ioannides found himself in effective control of Greece. To achieve his desire of enosis, he favoured annexation of Cyprus rather than any diplomatic attempts, and so on 15th July 1974 he launched a coup in Cyprus to replace Makarios with Nikos Sampson, who was far more pro-enosis. Five days later, Turkey responded to the coup and invaded Cyprus on the 20th July stating the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960 as their justification for the coup. The treaty was signed during the London and Zurich Agreements, which stated that the guarantors of Cyprus as a last resort could take action to 41

restore Cyprus to the democratic, bicommunal state that had been agreed upon. However, the UN and all of the international community has since rejected this justification making this invasion of Cyprus illegal. The invasion itself progressed poorly for the Turks, who landed 6000 troops and could only capture a small amount of land near the northern city of Kyrenia, and just three days later a ceasefire was agreed. However, Turkey took advantage of the ceasefire, amassing 30,000 troops and invaded on the 14th August during the ceasefire. The invasion led to the displacement of c.150,000 Greek Cypriots, who made up the majority of Cypriots in the north, to the south, and c.50,000 Turkish Cypriots from the south to the north, and since the invasion the island has effectively been divided due to military occupation in the north composing 36% of the land in Cyprus.

Reunification discussions and issues of reunification After the Turkish invasion, Makarios was restored as President of Cyprus, whilst in the Turkish occupied north, Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas proclaimed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983. Once order had been restored in the Republic of Cyprus, an immediate focus was placed on reunification, particularly as under the Treaty of Guarantee which Turkey used as leverage, their intervention must be to restore a sovereign, unified Cyprus, and thus began the negotiations for reunification which would become known as the Cyprus dispute.

Prior to the coup their had been discussions on solving the intercommunal violence, with envoys from the UN and the US both recommending enosis as the most sensible course of action, however this never occurred due to the UN envoy claiming one could not recommend a course of action that caused a UN member to not exist, and because Greek Cypriots could not agree on concessions such as allowing Turkey a military base on the island.

The first major breakthrough in talks for reunification occurred in February 1977, where Denktas and Makarios agreed on a four point programme stating that any settlement in Cyprus would be based on a federation. The first major plan proposed was the ABC plan authored by America, Britain and Canada which proposed a ‘Bicommunal Bizonal Federation’ however, this plan was quickly rejected by the President of Cyprus.

A key issue which was brought up in such plans was how land would be split between Greek and Turkish Cypriot regions, and what ‘bicommuniality’ would entail. The issue of how land would be split was important as Greek Cypriots wanted prevailing influence over cities such as Famagusta, Cyprus’s only deep water port which had a large resort quarter that was predominantly run by Greek Cypriots. As for the matter of bicommuniality, Turkish Cypriots believed that each region of Cyprus would be exclusively Greek or Turkish, whilst Greek Cypriots wanted a less harsh approach with each region being predominantly Greek or Turkish, but not exclusively. Another key issue that arose was the return of property, especially prevalent among the Greek Cypriots who had been the majority property owners in the north, and as such many were still embittered about the loss of property which they feel under any settlement must be addressed. This point was furthered by a case in 1996 (Louzidou vs Turkey) in which the European Court of Human Rights declared that Turkey was illegally occupying north Cyprus, and illegally denying resident access to their property, stating that Louzidou, a Greek Cypriot who had lost land in the north following the invasion, 42

was entitled to $825,000 compensation. Another issue brought up by Greek Cypriots was the repatriation of Turkish settlers who had been encouraged by the government to settle in northern Cyprus.

Talks continued over the next few decades, and whilst some seemed to come close to succeeding, no plans were accepted by both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The leaders of each community would often refuse to negotiate in response to certain events, such as Northern Cyprus’ declaration of independence; the Republic of Cyprus’ acceptance into the EC, which North Cyprus had applied for earlier.

Cyprus was accepted into the EU in 2004, a significant event in negotiations, as it was believed this could catalyse negotiations since North Cyprus wasn’t accepted and as such would not enjoy any economic benefits experienced by the Republic of Cyprus. Following this, the largest event in reunification talks occurred: the Annan plan.

The Annan plan was proposed by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and proposed the creation of the United Cyprus Republic. It was the largest attempt at reunification discussions, as the plan was presented to the Republic of Cyprus and North Cyprus in the form of referendums for the populations. The plan tried to solve the problem of property by handing the desired port of Famagusta to Greek Cypriots as well as other territorial concessions. Despite general agreement over the proposed government in the plan, there were many other points of controversy. Any compensation claims made by citizens would have to be paid for by their own side, meaning Turkey would not have to pay any compensation for the illegal occupation. The plan also allowed for both Greece and Turkey to maintain a large military presence on the island, and did not address any repatriation of new Turkish settlers regarded by Greek Cypriots as illegal.Ultimately, the referendum was accepted by Turkish Cypriots with 65% in favour, however, it was strongly rejected by the Greek Cypriots with 75% against the plan, who were most offended by the failure in compensation for property.

However, despite the failure of the Annan plan and previous talks, it demonstrated that reunification is ‘touchable’ for Cyprus, with both Greek and Turkish Cypriots outspoken in claiming that the status quo is unacceptable. Both sides have also shown a greater tendency to compromise, particularly with public opinion in Cyprus strongly for a solution to the Cyprus dispute. Meanwhile, Greek Cypriots have been forced to accept that enosis is an impossibility in the imminent future until reunification has occurred and stability is restored to the Republic of Cyprus, whilst most Turkish Cypriots have abandoned the idea of Taksim in favour of a Bizonal Federation solution. As such, there is general agreement that the future of the island is bound to be ‘a bizonal, bi-communal federation’ as stated by then US Vice-President Joe Biden and Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildrim, and the future of Cyprus is hopeful due to not only a recent reconciliation between guarantors Greece and Turkey, but the resumption of reunification talks in 2021.

Thomas Tong

43

Total War: To what extent did the German population fight on after 1943 due to support for the Nazi Regime?

In Ian Kershaw’s The End, Kershaw sets out the question, why did ‘the German people not rise up against a regime so obviously taking them to perdition?’.42 Despite the hopelessly deteriorating military situation, the civilian population did not descend into revolution like it did in 1918. Order was kept in the streets, factories continued production despite allied bombing, and most people remained in line in the dying regime even by May 1945. Early historical interpretations after the war had thought to exonerate the civilian population from blame by claiming that ‘they were victims of a great illusion, one ruled by terror’43. Historians such as Hannah Arendt subscribed to this view. It was believed that the Nazi regime successfully hid the full extent of war atrocities from its population, and that oppressive tools like the Gestapo, and Kangaroo courts kept control through fear. However, this interpretation was later challenged by Kershaw and Robert Gellately for overlooking the obvious support the Nazi party had enjoyed for the majority of the war. Kershaw argues that only by 1945 was the population ruled by terror, and that beforehand, their active contribution to the war efforts was voluntary. Nonetheless, this does not explain why the population fought on even in the last few months, supporting the war effort to the end even when faith in the regime collapsed. This essay agrees with Kershaw on the fact that the German population remained loyal to Nazism until late 1944. However, instead of attributing the level of civilian compliance in 1945 to Party oppression, this essay argues that German civilian morale was sustained by factors not related with the regime. Some were swayed to keep fighting due to the inflated fears of allied policies and Soviet occupation; others were inspired by nationalistic sentiments of defending Germany. In such ways, most ordinary Germans found motivations unrelated with Nazism to fight on to the end of the war.

Though this essay argues that the German population no longer fought for the regime in the end, it is still apparent that a significant part of the population remained confident in the Party until the end of 1944 due to faith in Hitler. Historian Nicholas Stargardt and Robert Gellately have both commented on the extraordinary level of civilian belief in the party by 1944, as ‘irreversible erosion of trust was so gradual and partial’44. Hitler, and the Party were still viewed by many as capable of leading Germany out of the wartime crisis. An indication of the popularity of Hitler could be seen by the SD mood reports collected by state officials during the war. A report made in November of 1943 reported ‘ strengthening of trust in the Führer despite the setbacks on all fronts’45. The report also had shown that the German people did not blame Hitler for the military defeats, but rather they continued to think that the Fuhrer was ‘capable of mastering the present situation and future problems’46. The report finaly recorded a decline in faith of the party officials, confirming that trust in the Nazi regime was dropping gradually. Nevertheless, the inseparable association between the Nazi party and Hitler ultimately secured most German people’s loyalty to National Socialism. Trust in 42

Kershaw, Ian. 2011. The End: Germany 1944-1945. Penguin Books. Page 8.

Korst, Kevin. 2006. Nazism and the German People: A Historiography. Historia Volume 6.

44 Stargadt, Nicholas. 2011. Beyond ‘Consent’ or ‘Terror’: Wartime Crises in Nazi Germany. Historical Workshop Journal No72. Oxford University Press. Page 195.

45 Unknown author. 1943. SD Report to the Party Chancellery on "Basic Questions Regarding the Mood and Attitude of the German People. GHDI online archive. https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1585 46 Ibid.

43

44

Hitler could also be observed in the aftermath of the July Plot in 1944. The SD reports gathered in the immediate aftermath of the bomb plot saw an upsurge of ‘shock, dismay, anger and rage’ towards the generals who had participated in the failed coup d’etat, and there was also a collective consensus of relief among the people that Hitler had survived the bomb plot.47 Count Stauffenberg, the leader of the coup, understood perfectly well that ‘he would go down in German history as a traitor’ in the eyes of the people. 48 This show of overwhelming support for Hitler despite the ongoing disaster at Normandy and the irreversible collapse of Army Group Centre in the East illustrated the ability of the German people to direct their anger to the army, whilst retaining support for Hitler and the Nazi party.

In summary, the majority of German people remained loyal to Hitler until late 1944 due to the near mythical perception of his ability to lead Germany out of any crisis, even as the Party slowly lost popularity.

The adaptability of the regime also prevented a total collapse of morale despite repeated military defeats. From changes in its propaganda on vengeance, and adjustments to social benefits, the Nazi Party presented itself as capable defenders of the German people in the face of devastating bombing raids. The Nazi party firstly adapted its fiscal policies to placate the bombed population, and maintained popular support from 1942 to 1944. Stargardt points out the government remained ‘as the source of legitimate authority’.49 Even though insufficient numbers of shelters were available, the public trust in the regime did not plummet quickly from 1942 until early 1945. This could perhaps be explained by the series of improvisations local officials had made. For example, a system of ‘state pensions, welfare payments, supplements’ was instilled in the countryside to support host families who had to take in displaced city dwellers.50 The party then created ‘feeding programmes’ for children, as well as establishing a ‘Recovery home for mothers’ in 1943. 51 Meanwhile, by 1944, the Party welfare organisation, the NSV, had ‘60,000’ people working full time to help those suffering from homelessness.52 The collapse of morale was also prevented by successful German propaganda. German propagandists managed to offset the mood of pessimism with their promises of ‘vergeltung’- retributive justice that would punish the allies for their civilian bombing raids. In April 1943, Goebbels proclaimed in the party magazine Das Reich, that ‘By day and night we are working on the possibility of repaying the British terrorists in kind’.53 The German population had clung on to the party’s promise of supposed ‘wonder weapons’ tenaciously throughout 1943. An internal SD report in October 1943 reported that the majority of people believed the ability of the eventual vergeltung will not only cause the ‘halting of the terror raids’, but even ‘result in England being knocked out.’54 Goebbels’ masterful manipulation of the supposed potential for the upcoming V1 rockets undoubtedly gave the people an upsurge of confidence in the party throughout 1943, ensuring their continued loyalty in the first year of major military setbacks for Germany. The inflated 47

Kershaw. Page 31.

Kershaw. Page 30.

49 Stargardt. Page 195.

50 Stargardt. Page 195 51 Gregor, Neil. 2000. A Schicksalsgemeinscaft? Allied Bombing, Civilian Morale, and Social Dissolution in Nuremberg, 1942-1945. The Historical Journal Vol 43, No4. Cambridge University Press. Page 1064-1064.

52 Kershaw. Page 277.

53 Kirwin, Gerald. 1981. Waiting for Retaliation- A Study in Nazi Propaganda Behaviour and German Civilian Morale. Journal of Contemporary History Vol 16 No 3. Sage Publications. Page 566.

54 Kirwin. Page 573.

48

45

propaganda surrounding the vergeltung gave the association that its eventual deployment would rapidly lead to ‘the end of the war’, as noted by Gerald Kirwin; which proved to be a fantastic tool to maintain civilian morale with vague promises of a quick turn of fortune.55 Overall, this continuous faith in the regime despite years of heavy bombing was nothing short of remarkable. The ability of the government to retain control of the civilian population through propaganda and social welfare proved itself as a useful stop gap measure to maintain a high level of civilian support despite the constant pressure from increasingly destructive allied bombing raids.

However, this system of base support was arguably no longer sustained by 1945 once it became clear the war could not be won. The 1944 Winter offensive through the Ardennes had initially invigorated German morale, with Germany going on the long awaited offensive after a year of military calamity in all theatres of war. The OKW (High Command of the German Army in the West) reported a ‘very good mood’ among the population as news of the rapid offensive reached the population during Christmas 1944.56 Yet, the failure to achieve a decisive victory proved to be the final breaking point of civilian faith in the party.

Goebbels’ new year speech of 1945 failed to make much mention of the Ardennes front, and equally made no new promises of future offensives. Instead, he resorted to praising Hitler’s ‘determination on a great plan’, and empty claims of how the ‘new year will always find the German people and its leadership masters of the situation’.57 The sudden U-turn of German propaganda, from that of great certainty of victory, to relying on the faith of Hitler, was observed clearly by listeners of Goebbels’ speech. An SD report by March 1945 admitted openly that ‘The people have no confidence any longer in the leadership’.58 Meanwhile, the hopes installed in wonder weapons had already collapsed by mid 1944. The V1 rockets proved intensely disappointing for the German people, who had been given the grand expectation of a powerful weapon capable of ending the war. An SD report on the 6th June 1944 spoke of the beginning of a ‘crisis in confidence among a broad section of the population’, who felt manipulated by propaganda on the wonder weapons.59 With no more decisive wonder weapons or major offensives, ordinary Germans recognised the signs of imminent collapse as the Soviet Spring offensive rapidly captured vast swathes of territory.

No longer did they see Hitler as infallible, and no longer did they support the Nazi party. In summary, civilian support of the Nazi regime remained strong as late as December of 1944.

This was sustained by the perception of Hitler’s ability to overcome any adversities, and by the regime’s efforts to increase the level of living for those affected by bombing. Hitler’s own miraculous survival from the July plot also came as a major morale boost, powering the people with outrage to the army. Meanwhile, the promise of final victory, though abstract, was supported by propaganda on wonder weapons and promised offensives. However, it must be said that civilian trust in the party had finally collapsed by early 1945 once it became clear these promises were no longer capable of being fulfilled. Most Germans were no longer motivated by Hitler or the Party in the final five months of the war.

55

Kirwin. Page 575.

Kershaw. Page 159.

57 Goebbels, Joseph. 1945. The New Age Will Belong to Us. Translated by Calvin University https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb87.htm 58 Kershaw. Page 389.

59 Kirwin. Page 579.

56

46

This essay so far has argued that the German population no longer fought on in 1945 due to their support of the regime. Instead, they persevered through other factors, such as fears of Soviet retribution. This was especially the case in the East, where the encroaching Soviet forces edged closer to the German borders. The widely circulated tales of the Nemmersdorf massacre in October 1944 by the Nazi propagandists offered a grim warning of the savage Soviet reprisals to the civilian population. There was a general desire for the war to conclude as rapidly as possible to ensure the survival of the Eastern provinces. However, the stronger feeling of ‘the dreadful fear of a Soviet takeover’, gave the Germans in the East more motivation to continue supporting the war effort.60 Thus, it is clear that for those living in Eastern Germany, their continued compliance to the regime became increasingly motivated by concerns for their own well being. Yet, through the fear of an imminent invasion, German propagandists encouraged more civilian obedience and active participation in the defence of the Reich. The Party was able to use this fear to mobilise the citizens in the constructions of trenches and bunkers as a cheap way to bolster defences and local morale. These requests for digging volunteers were met with ‘enthusiasm by Patriotic locals’.61 The fears created by collapse of Army Group Centre rang an alarm bell for the Eastern citizens, who for the first time felt imminent danger in the war. An SD report cited how a ‘deep anxiety’ had shaken the Eastern Prussian populace, months before the Russians even reached there.62 Eventually, under Party leadership, the columns of disorganised soldiers were reorganised by energetic officers, and the reinforcement of local divisions created a welcoming sense of security for the weary Prussian people.63 Noble presents the organisation of the Party in Eastern regions as mostly devoid of any military value, their message of fighting to the end was ultimately not followed as seen through the mass exodus of the Prussian population by the end of the war.

Nevertheless, though the Nazi party was no longer popular, the German population in the East felt no alternatives other than fighting on due to the physical threat of Soviet occupation. The effective manipulation of civilian fears for Russian retribution offered the Eastern population a much needed catalyst for continued resistance so long as regional propagandists could maintain the image of stability.

On top of compliance through fears of Russia, the German population found their motivation through fierce nationalism in defence of the German heartland. Stargardt described how people did not have to ‘endorse Nazi values or ideals in any overt sense.’ when they supported the defence of Germany.64 This author agrees with Stargardt’s interpretation, since the looming threat of occupation puts pressure on all facets of society. In this sense, the population was no longer in their mind supporting the Nazi party, but a more chivalrous ideal of defending Germany. Nazi propaganda recognised this shifting trend in support, and began creating more slogans based on German history. In East Prussia, the Nazis appealed to German nationalism by highlighting their ‘Marchland mentality’- an idea that portrayed Prussia as the ‘Eastern outpost of Germandom’ against Slavic invaders 65. Meanwhile, the 1945 propaganda feature film Kolberg explored the siege of the city against Napoleon's 60

Kershaw. Page 122.

Noble, Alastair. 2006. The First Frontgau: East Prussia 1944. War in History Vol13. Sage Publications. Page 214.

62 Ibid. Page 204.

63 Ibid. Page 207.

64 Stargardt. Page 201.

65 Biddiscombe, Perry. 2004. "Freies Deutschland" Guerrilla Warfare in East Prussia, 1944-1945: A Contribution to the History of the German Resistance’. German Studies Review Vol 27, No1. Page 54.

61

47

forces, which reflected the message of an epic Germanic struggle against foreign invaders.66 The usage of media to exploit German culture extended also to radio. Goebbels delivered a radio speech on 28 February, proclaiming that Frederick the Great ‘had only known ‘death or victory’’ to encourage the population to sacrifice themselves for German honour. 67It should certainly be noted that as the popularity of the regime faded, German propaganda was forced to exploit the population’s deeper loyalties to Germany. As the enemies closed in on both sides, it became increasingly easy for even moderate members of society to answer to the call to arms to protect the fatherland. This was apparent in the high rate of workers who continued war production even in the last few months. In the MAN plant in Nuremberg, the rate of absenteeism remained remarkably low even by 1945, at a steady 6 percent.68 Therefore, the German people’s leaning towards nationalism helped to maintain enough support for the regime to fight on, even as faith in the Party continued to plummet.

Finally, the Western policies of unconditional surrender and the Morgenthau plan gave the population additional impetus to maintain war productions. America and Britain’s demand for unconditional surrender after the Casablanca Conference was born out of the desire to show their commitment to the Soviet Union. Yet, it only served to reinforce the willingness of the German population to fight on to the end since it lacked any guarantee on the future of Germany as an independent state. Historian Hanson Baldwin had criticised this policy in the 1950s as one of the ‘great mistakes of the war’, since it offered the population no incentives for challenging the regime for a ceasefire.69 Goebbels enthusiastically called this demand ‘world historical foolery of the first order’, and used it to justify Germany’s descent into total war through propaganda.70 It should be remembered that in 1918, the German government and its military had only chosen an early surrender due to belief in the false promises of Wilson’s fourteen points, and the United States’ supposed belief in ‘Self Determination’ for even the defeated states. Yet, with the unspecified demand for unconditional surrender, these vague terms had practically given the German people no guarantees on its future. As a result, a policy intended to break morale only served to strengthen determination to fight on. In November 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) of the Western armies recognised that stiffening German morale was due successful Nazi propaganda, which had convinced ‘every German that unconditional surrender means the complete devastation of Germany…’71 This view was believed by the German population in the armed forces.

General Franz Halder, the former chief of General Staff, and an initial participant of the anti-Hitler resistance movement, represented the views of the army when he wrote that ‘the same frightful fate awaited us with or without Hitler...the only thing to do was hold out until the end.’72 The final verdict on the effects of unconditional surrender could be summed up in Alan Dulles’ (Head of the OSS) report to Washington. He had been a vehement opponent to this policy, and pleaded with Roosevelt to specify its terms since Goebbels had twisted the 66

Goeschel, Christian. 2006. Suicide at the end of the Third Reich. Journal of Contemporary History Vol41, No1. Published by Sage Publications. Page 156.

67 Ibid. Page 157.

68 Gregor. Page 1068.

69 Luckhurst, Tim. 2014. An Unworkable Policy Which Encourages The Enemy To Fight To The Last Grasp. Taylor and Francis Online.

70 Fleming, Thomas. 2001. The Most Ruinous Allied Policy of the Second World War. History Today Vol 51 Issue 12.

71 Lerseth, Roger G. 2001. Unconditional Surrender: The Origins And Consequences Of A Wartime Policy. Boston University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Page 531.

72 Ibid. Page 528.

48

words of the allies ‘and made the people feel that the slogan means unconditional annihilation.’73 Overall, the poorly phrased demand for unconditional surrender extinguished the hopes of those in Germany who wished to sue for peace. Instead, the Germans were forced to fight on due to the misleading perception that the Western allies would give no quarter.

Kershaw has tried to argue against unconditional surrender being a focal point of German civilian resistance on the grounds that it was not significant enough by itself to be the ‘cause of the determination’ for ordinary Germans to fight on. 74 Kershaw’s argument did not include the added effect of the Morgenthau plan on German civilian morale. US secretary of the treasury Henry Morgenthau had devised a plan to destroy Germany’s ability to wage another war by removing its industrial capabilities and rendering the country back into an insignificant agrarian state. Clause number three envisaged post war Germany being divided ‘into two autonomous states independent states’ between the North and the South. 75 Meanwhile, valuable industrial zones like the Ruhr and the Saar would be handed over to allied countries. Finally, it threatened to completely remove Germany from their control of the economy for ‘at least twenty years.’76 The plan was leaked by the press in September 1944, and once again offered the German people with more justifications for fighting on. German press came up with titles such as ‘Roosevelt and Churchill Agree at Quebec to the Jewish Murder Plan’ to compel the message that the Western allies wished to destroy Germany as much as the Soviets.77 The Morgenthau plan was never adopted, but the original intent of the Western allies to weaken and punish Germany was unmistakable. Roosevelt wrote to the secretary of war in August 1944, that the Morgenthau plan was designed so ‘The German people as a whole must have it driven home for them that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy.’78 The combined damage caused by Western policies practically offered ordinary Germans no other alternatives other than fighting on to the end.

So harsh were the terms of allied policies, that even when Goebbels exaggerated them, it became more or less impossible to tell the difference between propaganda and actual Allied intent. Thus, this author disagrees with Kershaw’s argument that Western policies played little part in the fanatical resistance of the population in the final months of the war. Though support for the government no longer played a part for ordinary citizens, fears of the Western allies compelled them to keep fighting for their country.

To conclude, despite the series of military setbacks and heavy tolls of terror bombing, the German population remained as ardent supporters of the regime throughout 1943 to late 1944. The popularity of Hitler, and the work of the party to support bombed out civilians had managed to maintain the Nazi Party’s support. However, it is clear that the defeat of German forces in the Winter offensive of 1944 proved to be the final straw for the increasingly burdened civilian population. By 1945, very little trust in the Party was left after the promise of new wonder weapons and offensives were brought to an end by the sudden Soviet onslaught in Spring. Due to the regime’s loss of support, German propaganda shifted itself to 73

Ibid. Page 543.

Kershaw. Page 387.

75 Morgenthau, Henry. 1945. Germany is Our Problem. Harper and Brothers. page 3 76 Ibid.

77 Congress, United States Senate. 1967. Morgenthau Diary (Germany) Volume 1. US Government printing office.

78 Lerseth. Page 484.

74

49

exploit the fears of Bolshevism with tales of Soviet atrocities to inspire more civilian compliance. Goebbels also relied upon the nationalistic sensations of protecting Germany to rally the workers to continue production. Finally, German propaganda twisted the policies of the Western allies to exaggerate the supposed scale of catastrophe should the war end in a German defeat. This shift in tone of propaganda, from promising positive military development in the future, into stressing the dangers of allied occupation illustrates the extent of which the majority of people no longer believed in the Party. Yet, no matter their allegiance, the German people continued their war production. This essay’s argument has mostly aligned with the work of Ian Kershaw, especially on the fact that the German people supported the regime right up to the end of 1944. However, this essay disagrees with Kershaw on his view surrounding the importance of Western policies on German civilian determination, as well as the significance of other motivations that inspired people to fight on in the last months. Though misled by Nazi propaganda to the end, most German people fought on even as explicit support for Nazism collapsed.

Bibliography -Biddiscombe, Perry. 2004. "Freies Deutschland" Guerrilla Warfare in East Prussia, 1944-1945: A Contribution to the History of the German Resistance’. German Studies Review Vol 27, No1.

-Congress, United States Senate. 1967. Morgenthau Diary (Germany) Volume 1. US Government printing office.

-Fleming, Thomas. 2001. The Most Ruinous Allied Policy of the Second World War. History Today Vol 51 Issue 12.

-Goebbels, Joseph. 1945. The New Age Will Belong to Us. Translated by Calvin University https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb87.htm -Goeschel, Christian. 2006. Suicide at the end of the Third Reich. Journal of Contemporary History Vol41, No1. Published by Sage Publications.

-Gregor, Neil. 2000. A Schicksalsgemeinscaft? Allied Bombing, Civilian Morale, and Social Dissolution in Nuremberg, 1942-1945. The Historical Journal Vol 43, No4. Cambridge University Press -Kershaw, Ian. 2011. The End: Germany 1944-1945. Penguin Books.

-Kirwin, Gerald. 1981. Waiting for Retaliation- A Study in Nazi Propaganda Behaviour and German Civilian Morale. Journal of Contemporary History Vol 16 No 3. Sage Publications.

-Korst, Kevin. 2006. Nazism and the German People: A Historiography. Historia Volume 6.

-Lerseth, Roger G. 2001. Unconditional Surrender: The Origins And Consequences Of A Wartime Policy. Boston University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

-Luckhurst, Tim. 2014. An Unworkable Policy Which Encourages The Enemy To Fight To The Last Grasp. Taylor and Francis Online.

-Morgenthau, Henry. 1945. Germany is Our Problem. Harper and Brothers.

-Noble, Alastair. 2006. The First Frontgau: East Prussia 1944. War in History Vol13. Sage Publications.

-Stargadt, Nicholas. 2011. Beyond ‘Consent’ or ‘Terror’: Wartime Crises in Nazi Germany. Historical Workshop Journal No72. Oxford University Press.

50

-Unknown author. 1943. SD Report to the Party Chancellery on "Basic Questions Regarding the Mood and Attitude of the German People. GHDI online archive. https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1585

George Clarke What are the implications of Brexit for the UK legal system?

Most individual rights conferred by EU law in the UK concern cross-border matters such as: the right to free movement, the right to occupation and the right to trade and provide services. The European Council, the European Commision, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union were integral actors in creating a legislative model that not only carried out the implementation of these cross-border matters, but also in providing: important checks and balances, a vital forum for public proposals that can be debated and amended, as well as deliberative processes which are open to public engagement. Ensuring the coherence of EU legislation and providing an external, democratic governing body for EU member states, has led some experts to suggest that EU law and the actors that carry it out, establish the UK’s ‘external constitution’. Furthermore, some items of European Law have been directly implemented into the UK’s uncodified constitution. An important example of this is the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights in the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998. It can therefore be concluded that EU law not only moulds the way in which the EU interacts with other member states, it also influences the UK domestically. So, what are the implications of Britain's withdrawal from the EU for domestic law?

The first significant change of Brexit on the UK legal system, is the annulled influence of the actors that created a legislative model, adopted by the UK to set out its ‘external constitution’. Previously, the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted and enforced treaties and legislation and ensured the coherence of EU law as a legal system. Since leaving the EU, the CJEU has relinquished its responsibility as the ‘ultimate arbiter’ of all UK matters relating to EU law. The supremacy over UK domestic law, once held by the CJEU, will therefore transfer to the UK Supreme Court. The UK Supreme Court has also been granted specific powers to depart from ‘retained EU law’ and established EU precedents when they have applied tests to the decision, a procedure already in practice when deciding to depart from preexisting UK law. However, the CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction, for up to 8 years (as stipulated by the withdrawal act), in cases where the UK courts send preliminary references and submit questions to the CJEU concerning citizens’ rights in the UK. In other words, Brexit has transferred the responsibility once possessed by the CJEU, onto the Supreme Court, other than in matters where the CJEU’s expertise is called upon.

Another challenge faced because of Brexit, is the distinction between which pieces of EU legislation should be retained as UK domestic legislation, and the pieces of EU legislation that will no longer apply to the UK. Some types of EU legislation like Regulations and Decisions are directly applicable as law in EU member states. Meaning that no further action is required for that law's implementation into the member states domestic legislation. These

51

types of legislation were automatically enacted in the UK under section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972. There are also pieces of indirect legislation, such as Directions, which require statutory instruments to be passed in order for their implementation. An example of this is The Re-Use of Public Sector Information and Regulations Act 2015 which enacted the EU directive on the reuse of public sector information. EU legislation, both direct and indirect, that applied before the end of the transition period (31 December 2020) will be retained as domestic legislation known as ‘retained legislation’. Furthermore, Section 4 of the European Union Act 2018 stipulated that any remaining EU rights and obligations will continue to be recognised and available in domestic law. In summary, direct and indirect legislation formerly imposed by EU law will be transferred to the UK but take the form of ‘domestic legislation originating from the EU’.

The biggest area of concern with Brexit and the transfer of power from the EU legislative model to the UK’s parliament, judiciary and executive, is the location of the ECHR and the HRA. Due to the nature of the EU legislative model, ie. an intergovernmental legal system presiding over national governments, the European Convention of Human Rights has been guaranteed in the UK since its implementation. However, after the withdrawal, are citizens rights as guaranteed, or has its promise eroded since leaving the EU? At the time of writing, the ECHR is still incorporated into the HRA. However, the UK courts cannot protect the arbitrary demands of government and parliament if they wish to change the location and nature of the ECHR, or simply strike it from the UK’s uncodified constitution. In other words, the ECHR, as a component of the UK’s uncodified constitution, is subject to parliamentary sovereignty and can no longer be protected by the influence of the EU legislative model.

In conclusion, Brexit has posed a fundamental challenge to the domestic constitutional laws of the UK and the ‘external constitution’. Put simply, the bodies that created the legislative model from which the UK’s external constitution derived, no longer apply to the UK. Therefore, the external constitution of the UK, no longer exists. Direct and indirect laws from the EU still exist, but have been applied to the UK as domestic legislation. Furthermore, the preservation of the ECHR is now at parliament’s complete discretion; it is no longer protected by the EU’s influence. These significant changes show the implications of Brexit on UK law, especially the constitution and it will be interesting to see how the legal system of the UK survives on its own.

Fergus Latham Wokeism The term ‘Woke’ was added to the dictionary in 2017 and is defined as, to be awake to sensitive social issues such as racism. However, the term ’woke’ is a hot topic in the political world at the moment and is interpreted in many ways. Some people do see being woke as being sensitive to social issues; however, others use the word as an insult to people who they may believe are overly politically correct. For example, Boris Johnson was asked if he

52

felt that Joe Biden was ‘woke.’ Inevitably Johnson's reply was that there was nothing wrong with the term and did not mention Biden.

The term ‘woke’ used to simply be the past participle of ‘wake’. The word has since evolved to become an insult and a show of support to organisations such as Black Lives Matter at the same time. The term was first broken into mainstream language during the Black Lives Matter movement when the hashtag #stay woke was used to show support to the movement. Many took exception to this and instead used the word as an insult to people who they believe are overly politically correct. Such people who use the term as an insult believe that the world is now in a place where you are unable to have freedom of speech and say that they are worried to say anything due to it being branded as offensive or coming across the wrong way. An example of this was Tony Blair on Good Morning Britain, when asked by his former Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell about his use of language after he branded Campbell crazy. Blair replied, ‘I am afraid I am of an age where I am now terrified if I can talk about any of these subjects that I am going to say something that I should not say. It is a minefield on virtually everything. If you are of a certain generation, you are not sure what you can or what you can't say. Or whether you can make a joke about something you cannot make a joke, so I will leave it at that.' Campbell had taken offence to Blair calling him crazy as he had suffered from mental health issues. This shows how many now say that you are unable to make jokes anymore as if it is likely that you will offend someone.

There is a big split in society over this issue and I’m sure there has been and will be many debates over who is in the right and who's in the wrong here. Many will say that these people who are calling people ‘woke’ as an insult are a small minority. However many will say that people are getting fed up with how society is changing and becoming ‘woke.’ This can be shown as the Oscars viewing figures massively dropped from 24 million viewers last year to 10 million viewers this year. More people watched the final episode of the crime drama Line of Duty in the UK than Americans who watched the Oscars. Many have said this is because the awards have become ‘woke’ and the awards are now given to the most politically correct films rather than the best. This is just peoples opinion, however the viewing figures do suggest that the Oscars are doing something wrong. On the other hand the support for the Black Lives Matter movement has been shown across the globe. From Premier League footballers taking the knee to large companies donating money to the campaign and the millions that have protested around the world supporting the movement, the support has been very big. This is where there is currently a big gap in society between the people who will be described as ‘woke’ and the people that use the term ‘woke as an insult.

This political issue will be a hot topic for years to come and I doubt there will be an agreement reached between the two sections of society, however the term ‘woke’ is a very good example of how the world is evolving and how many people favour this and many don’t. It will be very interesting to see in years to come whether society continues to evolve, or whether people start to take a stance against people being what they describe as ‘woke.’

In my opinion the evidence shows that the world is evolving; as much as in many cases there was a need for change such as racism, I do believe that there is an issue in society that is causing people to be branded as discriminatory when it may not be the case. The introduction into the world of ‘wokeness’ could also be the death of the comedy industry due to many comedians such as Ricky Gervais who has attacked wokeism, who may be popular 53

due to their edgy and dark comedy which will offend some people. There is a fine line; however, I do believe that the world is going down a dangerous road where it could end up that a lot of harmless humour could be seen as rude and this would make the world a lot less enjoyable to live in. No one will ever agree that what one person will see as offensive others will see as a joke; therefore I believe this will be a long lasting problem.

54