Historica Sapientia: The Hampton History Magazine 2023

HISTORICA SAPIENTIA: THE HAMPTON

HISTORY MAGAZINE

Welcome, dearest reader, to the inaugural issue of Historica Sapientia.

In such early youth, one can only hope it will live up to its name, tongue-in-cheek as it may be. What we offer you within, is a wide range of articles, varied in depth, breadth, and era; content spans from 65B.C. to the twenty-first century. Hence, we hope there is something for everyone.

Without being too shameless in my praise of my colleagues, I must draw your attention to the considerable volume of work which has been made manifest in this magazine. I must thank our creative and literary engines- our writers, without whom we would have nothing at all; my fellow editors, who have combed articles for split infinitives, made light syntactical alterations, and perhaps most challengingly, tried to fact-check areas on which our expertise was far from guaranteed. The dynamic duo who have made up our design team have put hours into adapting articles of all fonts and formats into what you shall see before you today, not a task without its ardour, but, as you shall see, well worth the work.

It would be a gross injustice to only offer gratitude to our student members- my deepest thanks go to Mr Roberts and Miss Bellingan, whose toil and expertise have proved to be immensely helpful at every level- foundation to apex.

On a personal note, I must say what a pleasure it has been to work to make Historica Sapientia- research, writing, and editing have all been a wonderful outlet through which to pursue my own historical interests, and gain insight into the interests of my (again, talented and capable) colleagues.As such, I would like to extend to you an invitation. If you are besotted with a particular period or area of study; if you feel that we have missed a possible goldmine in terms of subject matter; or if you would like to discover a passion within the field, you would find yourself very welcome in our ranks.

Indeed, new members would be greatly appreciated.As much as I would love to make this publication forever, one’s time remaining at Hampton is limited– most of our cohort is leaving in 2024, and we have already collected some alumni. While we tend to focus on the past, this magazine has a future, and that future could be shaped by you.

I have robbed you of quite enough of your time already, so I shall bid you adieu, and hope that you find this issue as enjoyable to read as it was to make.

Charles Blagden Editor, Historica Sapientia

Contents

¨ The Catilinarian Conspiracies of 65-63BC - Charles Blagden (Page 4)

¨ The Renaissance – Jacques Huet (Page 8)

¨ Why has modern-day Russia never been conquered? - Finlay Milner (Page 10)

¨ Brazil: ACountry of Coups - Harry Pritchard (Page 12)

¨ Politics, Religion, Terror: How decades of instability gave rise toAl-Qaeda and culminated in The 9/11Attacks - Theo Webb (Page 14)

¨ Rocket Propelled Planes of WWII - James Greenfield (Page 21)

¨ The antagonism between collective leadership and personal dictatorship in Russia in the last 100 years - FedorArkhipov (Page 22)

¨ Just following orders? Examining the role of Radio Free Europe in The Hungarian Revolution - Piers Marchant (Page 29)

¨ Marchamont Nedham: Aguide to surviving Civil War- Henry Bramall (Page 32)

¨ America’s Intentions to Boycott The 1936 Olympics - Hal Leman (Page 34)

¨ Catacombs of Paris - Freddie McIntosh (Page 36)

¨ The Gentleman’s Pirate: The Greatest Midlife Crisis ofAll Time - Monty Fletcher (Page 39)

¨ Walter Tull - Dan Cubbon (Page 41)

¨ Pitt, Politics and Patriotism: The impact and legacy of the French Revolution in Britain - Ollie Lycett (Page 42)

¨ Was the cultural influence the biggest impact of theAK-47 since its invention in 1947? -Aran Taheri Murphy (Page 46)

¨ Atatürk, Turkey’s benevolent dictator? - Finn Watton (Page 50)

¨ Portuguese Exploration to India - Jose Bouras Leao (Page 54)

The Catilinarian Conspiracies of 65-63BC

- Charles Blagden

Friends, Romans, countrymen; lend me your ears, to learn about one of the most significant threats to the Roman Republic in the first century BC (and trust me, there were plenty), and how it was thwarted by one of the best-known politicians and orators in history - Marcus Tullius Cicero.Aword of warning: the first few bits of this are a touch dense, but it gets far easier as you get through; good luck! Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves; some context may prove valuable. For three hundred years since it had expelled its last King in 509BC, Rome had been a Republic. No one man would hold absolute power, and when he did, it could only be for a maximum of six months, in times of great emergency. Instead, Rome was ruled by annually elected magistrates called consuls. In power for just a year, and with the ability to veto one another, they were the only individuals with the authority to raise an army. Legislative processes were controlled and voted on by the Roman Senate, comprised of members of noble families, some old, some new, with their seat in the Senate tenured once achieved. Senators were eager to advance their political careers as much as they could, up the rungs of the cursus honorum, the ‘course of honours’.

These were different the administrative and governmental roles in Rome, from quaestors, to aediles, to Praetors (in effect, everyone who’s anyone in a bureaucratic system, see the Glossary at the end for role descriptions), and finally to consuls, our aforementioned executive magistrates- the absolute culmination of a Senator’s career.After one’s term was finished, you had secured glory for your family for generations to come, and were given proconsular imperium (control as a governor, with authority of the Roman state) over a province of the Empire, going over there to govern, and to reap the rewards of doing so. Many proconsuls (the governors themselves) of the wealthy Macedonia and Greece returned after their terms with inexplicably heavy personal coffers- what a coincidence!

One such senator who desired the consulship in the mid-1st Century BC was one Lucius Sergius Catilina, often referred to as Catiline. Catiline traced his lineage back to the very founders of Rome, his first Roman ancestor having arrived withAeneas, Rome’s quasilegendary founder. Unfortunately, wealth falls faster than titles- many Senators were comparatively impoverished, being unable to conduct business since the lex Claudia (Claudian Law) of 218BC, they were only able to rely on the rent of their lands for money, which did not often make enough to cover the immense costs of bribery and political largesse (public spending and acts of generosity) to purchase support. The intricacies of this law are not relevant in an enduring sense, to this article, but it In 66BC, Catiline secured the patronage of one Marcus Licinius Crassus- later triumvir, (‘one of three’, in this context, one of three men with de facto control over Rome) someone who was owed money by half of Rome, and famed for saying that ‘no Roman could consider himself rich, unless he could raise and supply his own army’. Perhaps with such a strong financial backer, Catiline could secure the consulship, even if only as a puppet to a more influential man? Alas, it was not to be. As a propraetor (another type of regional governor), he had been accused of extortion, and was thus barred from standing for election. Eheu!

Our hero continues on, saddened and facing a charge of extortion. He is also alleged to have created a plot to kill the consuls of 65, but whether this was true can be called into question. Nonetheless, the consuls make it through their terms intact, and Catiline manages to bribe his way out of his extortion charge.Avaluable lesson to all: if ever in a pinch, try bribery. Moving on into the elections of 64, for the year 63 Catiline has not abandoned his consular ambitions, and runs as one of seven candidates, among whom are Cicero, andAntonius Hybrida, the two other most viable candidates. Julius Caesar and Crassus decide to sponsor Catiline and Hybrida for their elections, in order to keep Cicero out of office. ‘Why’, you might ask, ‘would they do that?’. This is largely due to Cicero’s position as a novus homo; a ‘new man.’Someone not born into the nobility, but raised into the Senatorial class by his actions, in Cicero’s case through an extraordinarily strong career as a barrister. The affront it would have been to the (even more) ancient houses of Rome for someone of ignoble stock to take the consulship was untenable. Surely, with the backing of possibly the most famous Roman ever, and a financial powerhouse, Catiline could have his dreams realised, and achieve the consulship- restoring to glory his impoverished family’s name, and with it, refill the coffers of the Sergii? True to form, he misses the mark, yet again. One could almost consider it a skill- many Romans of such esteemed stock could essentially have the consulship fall into their laps, simply by waiting for long enough, although the Sergii had not produced a consul for 300 years. Cicero had taken the day, topping the polls, with Antonius next, and Catiline trailing in third place.

Undeterred, he makes a third bid for the consulship, in spite of having now been unceremoniously ditched by Crassus. Say what you will about Catiline, the man is tenacious. His election campaign in the year 63BC runs on one main policy- novus tabulae, the general forgiving of debts. Understandably, this was immensely popular with groups of society who owed significant sums of money: farmers with mortgages on their farms, and rather interestingly, quite a few Senators. These senators had lived beyond their means, to such an extent that aid in financing their lifestyles and the debt incurred as such could drive them to support Crassus in the Senate, or Catiline at the booths. Promising, wouldn’t you say? Where the policy fails is in winning the votes of the Ordo Equester, the wealthy non-nobility, who had taken advantage of the vacuum created in trade by the aforementioned lex Claudia of 218, and as such become obscenely wealthy. What is there to do with such wealth, but lend it out in order to charge interest on it? The losses that the novus tabulae would incur for these wealthy creditors would be absolutely devastating. It was not all popular in the Senate either- Cicero, consul-incumbent, presiding over the election, called it tantamount to fraudulent debt evasion (devastating). To be perfectly frank, dear reader, I am running out of ways in which to tell you that Catiline fails to achieve the consulship. My lack of creativity cannot change history, and as in his every attempt to secure the consulship, he fails, not least due to Cicero’s condemnation of his primary vote-winning policy.

In theAutumn of 63, Catiline is fed up. ‘Sod it,’he thought (verbatim, I promise). He plans a coup de main with fellow ruined Senators, and some disgruntled veterans of the brutal and bloody civil war of the Eighties, hoping to march on Rome. This would not be the first time Rome was marched on by its own (that honour goes to Sulla, some of whose veterans were planning to do the same again), nor is it the most famous (of course being Caesar crossing the Rubicon, now common idiom), but it was still a worry and a threat which which the Republic must deal. To use an anachronistic term, there was a Judas in their midst. This informer had exposed the plan to Cicero, who swiftly declared a state of emergency, and added patrols of the vigiles, Rome’s urban police force around the city. Now, Catiline is apprehended and brought before the Senate, at which point Cicero delvers his first Catilinarian Oration (In Catilinam I). I shall not transcribe it here, but instead provide you with as concise a summary I can: Cicero eviscerates Catiline verbally, and Catiline is ostracised within the Senate house. Cicero, in his infinite respect for the Constitution, and not totally secure in his consulship as a novus homo, decides to leave Catiline at large, in order to procure more evidence. One concludes that this is because Cicero did not want to face accusations of overstretching the bounds of his power as consul- unlike other eminent politicians, his authority did not come from immense wealth, or an army more loyal to its general than the state, but the Roman constitution itself, and as such could not afford to bend or break it in any way. Catiline flees, of course, with a desire to rally various unhappy pockets of rebels behind him, and take Rome by force.

They say patience is a virtue, and the next stage of our story demonstrates that quite well. Catiline’s allies in Rome are impatient, as Catiline tries to convince people across Italy that their qualms and gripes are worth fighting and dying for. In waiting, his allies grow restless, and decide to reveal the truth of their plan to some Gallic envoys, hoping to gather support from their tribe. I’m sure you have realised, dear reader, that this story seems to repeat itself quite a bit: Catiline tries and fails to secure the consulship, Cicero berates Catiline, and now, Catiline’s plot is ruined by an informer for the second time too. The Gauls had told Cicero immediately, and the nobles who had sided with Catiline are tried in the Senate. This is particularly disastrous for them, since not only were they overtly guilty (one hears that this hurts your chances in court), but they were also being prosecuted by someone who had overcome regional and class-based prejudices to achieve the highest office in Rome, by dint of his skill as a barrister. Cicero sought capital punishment for these nobles, but was unsure whether it was legal to do so- they were not yet doing something worthy of capital punishment, though much of the Senate understood the draw of their executions. One Senator who spoke against the death penalty in this case was Caesar himself. Though not yet what he would be, he was a rising star within the Senate, and he made the case that the accused should be detained for life. Caesar had no great personal connection to them, it is more likely the case that he did not wish to return to the age of massacres and proscription lists (think of a state-sanctioned fatwa with monetary payout), out of which Rome had just escaped.Aprominent senator, and Caesar’s first political nemesis, Cato the Younger made the case in favour of execution, and ultimately won the day.

What happened next is best put by Max Cary, in his History of Rome; ‘While Catiline’s associates in Rome were engaged in cutting their own throats, his emissaries in Italy accomplished nothing more than to collect scattered groups of rebels.’Catiline’s efforts are leading to seemingly little, and so he resolves to do the honourable thing and flee. Unfortunately, he is halted by the army of Quintus Metellus Celer, a member of possibly the most powerful family in Rome, and is routed, fleeing again, but no longer on his own terms.

Catiline throws his own life and those of his supporters away in a doomed attempt at attacking a pursiuing force. Rome is safe, but was it ever in any real danger from the hapless, unscrupulous, yet infinitely ambitious Catiline? It seems that Italy was far too calm, and fatigued from civil war, to allow a second temporary monarchy, as it had endured under Sulla. If Catiline had taken sustained power, he would likely have been condemned to play second fiddle to Pompey the Great, who would have been able to make a return with a terrifyingly large force, and dislodge Catiline as the unconstitutional ruler.

Cicero is the man of the hour, in the wake of the Conspiracy. He is venerated by the Senate, and the senator Catulus (not the poet) suggests he be given the title of pater patriae (Father of the Fatherland), an incredible accolade which put him on par with Romulus himself, out of sheer gratitude to Cicero. Cicero had achieved not only the consulship, but am exceptional one too, one to be remembered for years to come. The weight his voice would carry in the Senate for the decades to come was gargantuan.As a result of Catiline’s ability to exploit popular discontent, the Senate supported a particularly generous bill increasing the amount of corn given to the plebeians (working classes and peasantry, primarily agrarian), to avoid other uprisings and populist demagogues from appealing to them.

Well, dear reader, I do hope you’ve enjoyed this rather long account of Catiline’s fifteen minutes of shame, failing, failing, and failing again to achieve his ambitions. One hopes too that you have an improved understanding of Roman politics in its Republic’s most tumultuous days, and more than anything, that this has developed any interest you may have had in the ancient world; at best, created one; and at minimum, not stamped it out.

Vale!

The Renaissance – Jacques Huet

The Renaissance was a cultural movement that originated in modern day Italy beginning in around 1300 and lasting till 1600. The Renaissance period marked the global transition from the Dark Ages into a period of cultural revival, with renewed interests in classical antiquities, the growth of Humanism, and increased patronage of artists and creatives. Most historians agree that Florence and the surrounding countryside was the birthplace of the Renaissance. It was the ideal area for the cultural movement to take shape; the lucrative wool trade that was central to Florence's economy had elevated many people to extreme wealth, and they used this wealth to commission the early writers and artists that came from the surrounding hills to make beautiful artworks and scriptures that are still so famous today.

This cultural revolution spread throughout Europe, with the new Humanist thinkers changing the ways people looked at religion, the most notable examples of this are through Erasmus and his influence in England and on the young prince Henry VIII. Furthermore, the artists and writers like Michelangelo and of course Leonardo da Vinci created pieces that changed history and influenced world leaders of the time to change their styles and ideals. For example, the gothic architecture and sculptures of the 'DarkAges' transitioned to free standing sculptures, and buildings that had increasing classical elements, including columns, pilasters, pediments, and entablatures. These buildings were often commissioned by the wealthy Florentines, most notably the Medici's, a family that is inextricably linked to the prospering Florentine economy and the propagation of the Renaissance throughout Europe.

Florence was a Republic, but not in the modern sense of the word. It had a constitution that limited the power of nobility, as well as the labourers, and thus ensured that no one person could have complete political control over the city state. However, a very small percentage of the population actually had the right to vote, and so elections were often very biased. This meant that power usually resided with the wealthy wool traders, or other powerful families, most notably the Medici's. The Medici family, starting with Giovanni Di Bicci Medici, made their fortune through providing financial services for most of the nobility and royalty in Europe.

This allowed them to amass a sizeable fortune that would allow them to effectively rule Florence and become the main drivers of the Renaissance through their investments into the city and through their patronage of the early writers and artists of the period. The Medici bank was created in 1397 and quickly became one of the most respected and prosperous institutions in Europe with branches in major cities like London, Lyon, Geneva, and Bruges. This - along with the bank having clients like the papacy and the Kingdom of France - propelled the House of Medici into being arguably the wealthiest family in Europe.

Along with the Medici bank and its long list of high profile, affluent clients; Florence was also a major trade hub, specifically in the trade of wool. Out of an estimated population of 80,000 in 1340, over 25,000 people where related in some way to the wool industry, and this elevated many Florentines into extreme wealth. These wealthy traders built huge mansions in the city as well as villas in the countryside and contributed to the building of cathedrals and experimental architecture, that boosted the physical and cultural rebirth of the city. Subsequently, competition arose quickly between the rich merchants as to who could build the biggest mansion or villa, or who could commission the most famous and beautiful work of art. This accelerated the effect of the Renaissance, with an increasing number of artworks being commissioned and grand houses being built, allowing this cultural revolution to spread rapidly throughout Europe in a few short years.

Why has modern-day Russia never been conquered? - Finlay Milner

Modern-day Russia dates from the 16th century from when the state of Russia was ruled over by an absolute monarch known as a Tsar (a word which derives from the Roman emperor Caesar). Russia’s enormous landmass, harsh winters and willingness to suffer huge casualties to achieve victory all contribute to its ability to defeat many invaders over the years.

Russia’s huge size meant that it was difficult to invade. For example, Napoleon ( emperor of France at the time) was a great military leader, along with many other things, he used speed to destroy his enemies in a quick, decisive battle while him and his soldiers would live off the land so that slow supply chains would not slow them down. However, Russia’s great size meant that their army could just retreat through their vast countryside and burn everything while retreating so that they would leave no supplies for the opposing army. This tactic, known as “scorched earth,” would work particularly well against Napoleon’s forces who would starve to death as they travelled over a 900km distance.An estimated 150,000 French soldiers out of the 600,000 strong invasion force died of starvation and the French invasion would soon end in an embarrassing defeat for Napoleon. The first use of the “scorched earth,” tactic was actually in 1707 when the Swedish empire invaded Russia and, yet again, was one of the causes of another Russian victory as they repelled the Swedes. Russia’s ability to keep retreating through their vast lands had proved key to their potential to defend their country.

Another important factor of the Russians inability to be conquered is the Russian winter. For instance, when the Swedish empire, under the rule of Charles XII, invaded the Russians spent months retreating to avoid confrontation. By then however, it was winter and by the end of it the “Great Frost of 1709,” had devastated the Swedish army and shrunk it from 40,000 men to 24,000 men. This lead to the Swedish invasion being a failiure and another Russian victory.Another example of the Russian winter playing a role in the outcome of an offensive is the German invasion of Russia on the 22nd of June 1941, named Operation Barbarossa.Again the Russians kept retreating using their “scorched earth,” tactic. When winter came the German advance stopped and a total of 100,000 men died of the cold with average temperatures of -12.8 degrees in December of 1941 in Moscow. Furthermore, Stalin then called men from Siberia who were specially trained to fight in the extreme cold to lead a successful Russian counter-offensive which saw the Russians push the German lines back 150km. The Russian winter played a huge role in warding off invaders.

Additionally, one more significant factor of Russia’s successful defending of their country is their willingness to suffer losses.As when the Russians were pushing the Germans back into Europe from 1943-1945 in WW2 they lost far more men than the Germans in battles like the Second Battle of Kiev, where the Russian’s casualties and losses were 118,042 men while the German’s were 16,992.Also in the battle of Kursk ,which is considered to be the largest tank battle in history, the Russian’s casualties and losses were 863,000 while the Germans were 203,000.

Overall, Russia’s willingness to suffer staggering human losses is why it has never been conquered. The inexhaustible supply of young Russian soldiers is what seems to always to lead to eventual victory.

The Russian empire at its peak in 1895

Brazil: A Country of Coups - Harry Pritchard

Brazilian history has been shaped by coups and uprisings since 1889 with the last one occurring just this year. This report looks at the different coups which have influenced the country.

The 1889 Military Coup d’état, also known as the Proclamation of the Republic, led to the establishment of the First Brazilian Republic on the 15th of November 1889. The coup took place in the capital, Rio de Janeiro, and was led by Marshall Deodoro da Fonsea. The military coup overthrew the monarchy of the Empire of Brazil and also ended the reign of Emperor Pedro II. This led to the creation of a provisional government by Marshall Deodoro da Fonseca, on the 15th of November 1889.

So, what factors influenced this peaceful coup?

Firstly, Emperor Pedro II had no male heirs, and as his eldest daughter was married to a Frenchman, the elites were worried about potentially being ruled over by a foreigner. Secondly, the monarchy, via the Golden Law in 1888, had abolished slavery, which was incredibly unpopular with the elite as they weren’t compensate; this made many of them increasingly resent the monarchy. Finally, the army was becoming increasingly frustrated and resentful towards the monarchy. This was due to the ideas of positivism and modern ideas, which were spreading rapidly through the Brazilian army, and due to the fact that promotions within the army were difficult to gain (often coming through name and wealth, not through achievements), which ultimately led to the army becoming frustrated with the monarchy.

The combination of both the army and the agrarian elites led to the successful coup in 1889 against Emperor Pedro II, in which the emperor decided not to resist, shown by him saying, ‘If it is so, it will be my retirement. I have worked too hard, and I am tired. I will go rest then.’Emperor Pedro II was then exiled to Europe along with his family. The 1930 armed revolution within Brazil ended the Old Republic, by replacing the incumbent President Washington Luis, with Getulio Vargas. The states of Minas Gerais, Paraiba and Rio Grande do Sul formed the Liberal Alliance which backed Vargas against Julios Prestes who was backed by Sao Paulo and the incumbent President. When Prestes won, the Liberal Alliance declared the election as fraudulent, and therefore orchestrated an armed uprising which started on 30th October 1930. Luis had his power removed by military leaders, who eventually gave their powers to Vargas on the 3rd of November 1930. On the 11th of November 1930, Vargas issued a decree, that awarded himself dictatorial powers. In 1937 Vargas created a new constitution, the Estado Novo Constitution. This new constitution abolished legislative assembly and replaced the majority of state governors with men that Vargas approved of. This therefore increased his power by removing checks and balances on his power. This started the 3rd Brazilian Republic, Estado Novo, and led to Vargas becoming a dictator from 1937 to 1945.

The 1964 Brazilian Coup was a military coup which led to President Joao Goulart being overthrown by the Brazilian Armed Forces in a 48-hour period from 31st of March to the 1st ofApril. Goulart had poor relationships with both the Brazilian military, due to his handling over the Sailors’ revolt in 1964, and with America. Goulart publicly criticised theAmerican-led Bay of Pigs Invasion and was also threatened with economic pressure by the USA. The Brazilian Army also informed the US that there were suspicions of Goulart sympathising with communists, which led to the USAbeing against Goulart’s presidency. However, Goulart also failed to secure foreign investment and also failed to reduce domestic inflation, further reducing his support within his country. Goulart also had no military support outside of the South of Brazil, and had also alienated himself from Cuba by criticizing Castro’s regime.All of these factors led to Goulart being very vulnerable to rebellion and revolt within Brazil and lack of international support further weakened his position.

On the 2nd ofApril, Brazilian Congress came out in support for the coup, and later, on the 11th ofApril, Castello Blanco was elected President by National Congress, replacing Goulart.

The most recent Brazilian Coups happened very recently, on the 8th of January 2023, in which the incumbent president Jair Bolsonaro was defeated by Lula in the election, leading to a mob of Bolsonaro’s supporters invading government buildings in the capital, Brasilia. Bolsonaro’s supporters then vandalised the National Congress building, the Supreme Federal Court and the Planalto Presidential Palace. Bolsonaro’s supporters claimed election fraud which led to Lula being elected on the 1st of January, so this invasion of government buildings was to overthrow President Lula despite Lula being democratically elected. The rioters were predominantly armed with sticks and stones and the federal government estimated that around 5000 protestors had taken part.

However, this attempted coup failed, as it took security just five hours to clear the government buildings and the coup was condemned by governments around the world. The attempted coup also led to Lula signing a decree authorising a federal state of emergency in the Federal district which lasted until the end of January. At the time of writing it has only been just over a month since the attempted coup so given the fragility of Brazil and their history of coups within this country, there may be further developments in the months to come.

Politics, Religion, Terror: How decades of instability gave rise to Al-Qaeda and culminated in The 9/11 Attacks - Theo Webb

[September 11th, 2001] - Many remember the impact - 4 planes, 3000 dead, the world in disarray, drunk on the shock, the bewilderment - that something like this could even happen in a modern society. Many remember the response: the heroics of the 343 firefighters that died trying to save the lives of those trapped; a fiery, burning mess on the higher floors of the World Trade Centre. Many remember the vengeance: the steel ofAmerican resolve, George Bush, Operation Enduring Freedom, a 25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden’s head. However, many overlook the causation - the decades of instability which lead to the resurgence ofAl-Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban. This may be history, but it is ever-relevant following the US withdrawal from the country resulting in the fall of theAfghanistan government to Taliban forces inAugust 2021. Could we be seeing a repeat of the past?

One can judge this exponential rise in 3 phases - the Saur Revolution and the Soviet occupation, the transition from the GenevaAccords Into the Mujahidin’s Civil War, and the Taliban’s Conquest ofAfghanistan and the consequential rise ofAl-Qaeda.

Phase 1 - The Saur Revolution and the Soviet Occupation:

Before one asks the question of howAl-Qaeda came to power, it is important to understand the nature of the political Instability within Afghanistan, and how this created the environment for Islamic extremism to flourish. Before its civil war,Afghanistan was a monarchy under Muhammad Shah, who had been in power since 1933.After World War

Two, both the US and the Soviet Union used various forms of economic aid to jostle for influence. However, sinceAmerica had decided to side with Pakistan in 1954,Afghanistan increasingly turned to the Soviet Union for support. Whilst religion, or more specifically Islam, had not yet manifested itself fully inAfghanistan’s politics, we can see the roots of influence starting to form. In 1962, Zahir Shah convened a grand council of tribal leaders to proposed a constitution in draft form, which would in theory pave the way for a more democratic, representative government. Whilst this in theory seemed a positive change that would result in the unification of the different factions within Afghanistan, it did quite the opposite. Zahir Shah refused to relinquish any form of power - parties could organise elections, however they could never in reality contest them. Therefore,Afghanistan remained largely a monarchy - exceedingly prone to revolt and uprising in a country that contains such a diverse variety of ethnic groups. The largest of these are the Pashtuns - who are native to the Pashtunistan region of southern and north-western Afghanistan, and compromise 42% ofAfghanistan’s population, notably not a majority, indicative of the instability ofAfghanistan’s politics, both then and today. Other groups include the Tajiks, the Hazaras and the Uzbeks - in descending order of population TheAfghan Constitution (before 2021), mentioned only 14 individual ethnic groups, whilst in reality there are far more, re-

A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III evacuating over 640 desperate Afghans

Asignificant observation to make from this is the harsh divide between those following the Sunni, and Shi’a practices of Islam. Shi’a Muslims are by a large margin, in the minority, constituting only 10-13% of the Muslims inAfghanistan - and are mainly Hazaras. The real difference between the two branches of Islam is their perception of the religion. Both branches are based on the teachings of the holy Quran- with the exemplary way of life for Muslims being defined by those teachings and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed. The difference between the ideology of the 2 sects is that Shi’a Muslims consider Imams (Islamic worship leaders) to be divine and in possession of spiritual authority, a mediator betweenAllah and his followers. For Shi’a, Imams are not inferior to the Prophet Muhammed, but his representatives on Earth. In contrast, Sunni’s attach no reverence to Imams, and view them as simply religious leaders within the community. However, when one comes to consider how this difference becomes a catalyst for political instability, and the consequential Afghan civil war- there is a more nuanced difference to be examined. Whilst Sunni Muslims adhere to, and practice the 5 pillars of Islam- Shi’a Muslims, as well as practicing the 5 pillars (albeit subtly different), practice the 10 ancillaries. This includes Jihad, which composes of 2 elements: an inner struggle with oneself to maintain the way of God, and an outer struggle against Islam’s enemies, which can often be violent. Many simply hear the word Jihadis used to describe Muslims, and unconsciously associate this with religious conflict, or Terrorism. While partially true, it is important to understand the significance this had in creating the internal discord within Afghanistan and the ideal conditions in which civil war and power could be so readily waged - as it is backed by the fundamental beliefs of the combatants who had nothing to lose, with the promise of being rewarded byAllah in the afterlife regardless.

This revolt quickly materialised in the form of a coup, in which Shah was overthrown by his cousin, Daoud Kahn, who was represented by the peoples Democratic Party ofAfghanistan, or the PDPA. There were various political factions within this party, one, the Parchams, representing the educated people from the more urban areas of the country. The other, the Khalqs, (or masses in English), drew its support from the educated rural communities. These 2 factions collectively overthrew their leader, Daoud Kahn, killing him in 1978 and seizing power. They formed a new government, with a rather clever ranking system, carefully constructed to alternate positions of importance between the Parchamis and the Khalqs. This was the Saur Revolution in action. The PDPAgovernment embarked on a campaign of radical land reform, accompanied by mass repression in the countryside resulting in the arrest and execution of tens of thousands, as they forced their reforms on the traditional rural people. This distinct separation between the educated populace of the urban cities and the traditional masses, which resided in the countrysideis indeed another factor which contributed to the sheer instability withinAfghanistan at the time. It is important however to note that there were some positives that came from the reforms - the emancipation of women and the reduction of feudal practices, such as usuary (the practice of loaning out money and demanding repayment with especially high interest rates). Furthermore, forced marriage was discouraged, education for all was established, and sharia law was abolished.

From the lens of someone living in the western world today, you might assume that these reforms were automatically popular - however this program of rapid modernisation, centred on the separation of the Mosque and the state, was very unwelcome. It was considered a deviation from traditional Islamic values and a forced approach of western culture inAfghan society. One must realise here that these people have been living in this way for the entirety of their lives, and in a county that is 98% Islamic, western reforms were unlikely to be popular. This became a catalyst for the unification of the ethnically diverse tribal population against the the unpopular new government, and essentially the advent of Islamic participation inAfghan politics. Thus, this resulted in huge uprisings across the country - and exemplifies the new fusion of religion and politics in Afghan society and culture.

The Soviets were alarmed by this deteriorating situation, especially by the collapse of the army and indeed of total order. In 1979 the Soviet Union airlifted thousands of troops into Kabul.As such, the President of the government at the time, Hafizullah Amin, was also assassinated after Soviet intelligence forces took control of the government. The Soviet force subsequently embedded themselves within Afghan society - spreading the Communist doctrine from the ground up, starting from lower education.As a result of this pockets of rebellion immediately started to spring up, slowly escalating. The army of some 115,000 troops, as well as the new Soviet appointed government, sought to crush the uprisings with mass arrests, executions, and in some cases, even aerial bombardments. The estimated death toll throughout the period was over 1 million. As more and more people died - the resistance of the communist government only increased - deepening the political rifts and adding yet another dimension to the instability that was already present. This, in turn, fuelled a flow of refugees out of the country that reached 5 million out of a population of 16 million - a rate of over 30%. For reference - this is over half the total number of refugees during the entirely of World War One. Here we see the true beginning of established terror organisations within Afghanistan - as Islamic organisations became the heart of the resistance against the Soviets. These were known as jihad fighters, or the mujahidin.Amongst these was the young son of a millionaire construction magnatelater well known as Osama Bin Laden.

Front page of The Kabul Times in May, 1978.

In 1980, the UN general assembly passed a resolution protesting against the Soviet intervention, and it was passed by 104 votes for to 18 votes against. The US saw this as an almost Cold War-like background, and provided masses of support for the resistance cause, funnelling nearly all of it through Pakistan – and was aided by UK, Saudi Arabia, and China. By contrast,Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of support through aid, financing and military training in neighbouring Pakistan with significant help from the United States and United Kingdom. They were also heavily financed by China and the Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf. One can see here how the US is locked up in an intense battle against the Soviet Union – and fails to notice that it is in actual fact financing future terrorist organisations. Joining the resistance forces were thousands of Muslim radicals from the Middle East, North Africa and other Muslim countries. Most fought with Pashtun factions that had the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar and Ittihad-i Islami of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Among them was Osama bin Laden, who came to Pakistan in the early 1980s and built training facilities for these foreign recruits insideAfghanistan. He is now mot simply a religious fighter, but a leader - capable of managing men. Here we can see the advent ofAlQuaeda, and the emerging significance of Osama Bin Laden, who would later come to be the most wanted man of the planet, as the orchestrator of the 911 attacks.

Afghan refugees flee fighting, entering Pakistan near Peshawar, in May of 1980.

Afghan boys orphaned by the war between Kabul’s Soviet-backed government and Muslim rebels salute visitors at the Watan (‘Homeland’) Nursery in Kabul on January 20, 1986.

U.S. President Ronald Reagan meets with a group of Afghan freedom fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan, especially the September 1982 massacre of 105 Afghan villagers in Lowgar Province. Credit: Rare Historical Photos

A Muslim guerrilla in Afghanistan’s Paktia Province shows off his combat ration of peanut butter from the United States, on July 11, 1986.

The Second Phase: From the Geneva Accords to the Mujahidin’s Civil War: Negotiations to end the war culminated in the 1988 GenevaAccords, which contained an agreement made by the Soviet Union to orchestrate a complete withdrawal of all its troops by February 1989. In 1999 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1267, creating the Taliban sanctions committee - illustrating the fact that terrorism within Afghanistan is now becoming a globally recognised threat. With Soviet assistance, the government held on to power through early 1992 whilst the UN attempted to assemble a transition process. The U.S. and its allies abandoned any further efforts towards a peace process until after the Taliban had come to power. Whilst one may argue that the Soviet Union had no right to exert undue influence on the people ofAfghanistan in establishing its regime - it provided a form of law and order, something that now has been reduced to aught but nothing. The UN effort continued. but suffered from the lack of international engagement in Afghanistan. Donor countries, including the U.S., continued to support the relief effort, but as the war dragged on, media attention onAfghanistan was reduced and the need to respond to other humanitarian crises left the assistance effort in Afghanistan falling short. This created the perfect environment forAfghanistan to become a country that is ruled by factions. In 1992 the Northern Alliance was established – made up of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras - the 3 largest ethnic groups within Afghanistan. Non-Pashtuns mutinied and took control of Kabul airport – preventing President Najibuillah from leaving the country – and soon after Northern Alliance factions reached a coalition government. Civil war thus ensured – in 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 people were killed in Kabul, most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks. By 1995, one-third of the city had been reduced to rubble.

The Third Phase: The Taliban’s Conquest ofAfghanistan and Rise to Power:

Exiled by the Saudi regime, and later stripped of his citizenship in 1994, Bin Laden left Afghanistan and set up operations in Sudan, with the United States in his sights as Public Enemy No. 1.Al-Qaeda took credit for the attack on two Black Hawk helicopters during the Battle of Trans Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993, as well as the World Trade Center Bombing in New York in 1993, and a car bombing in 1995 that destroyed a U.S.-leased military building in Saudi Arabia. In 1998 the group claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and, in 2000, for the suicide bombings against the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in which 17 American sailors were killed, and 39 injured. During this period of civil war, mujahidin commanders established themselves as local warlords, and were defectively the government at the time. Humanitarian agencies were fiercely persecuted, finding their offices stripped, their vehicles hijacked and their staff threatened - a coordinated intervention of Western powers was now sorely needed. Under this background the Taliban emerged yet even stronger.

A Soviet soldier atop of his armoured vehicle smiles as Soviet Army troops stop in Kabul prior to their withdrawal from Afghanistan, on May 16, 1988.

Al-Quaeda was founded in 1988 by Osama Bin Laden, and means ‘the base’in Arabic. Former mujahidin who were disillusioned with the chaos that had followed their victory became the centre of a movement that coalesced around Mullah Mohammad Omar, a former mujahid from Qandahar province. The group, many of whom were madrasa (Islamic school) students, called themselves Taliban, meaning students. Many others who became core members of the group were commanders in other predominantly Pashtun parties, and former Khalqi PDPA members. Their stated aims were to restore stability and enforce (their interpretation of) Islamic law. They successfully attacked local warlords and soon gained a reputation for military prowess, and acquired an arsenal of captured weaponry. By October 1994 the movement attracted the support of Pakistan, which saw in the Taliban a way to secure routes to Central Asia and establish a government in Kabul that was friendly to its interests, and Pakistani traders who had long sought a secure route to send their goods across to CentralAsia quickly became some of the Taliban's strongest financial backers. In September 1995 the Taliban took control of Herat, cutting off the land route connecting the Islamic State ofAfghanistan with Iran. The Taliban's innovative use of mobile warfare appeared to indicate that Pakistan had provided vital assistance for the capture of Herat. In September 1996, the Taliban took control of Kabul after Massoud was forced to retreat to the north. Sometime after Massoud's loss of Kabul, he began to obtain military assistance from Russia as well as Iran. The NorthernAlliance was reconstituted in opposition to the Taliban.

Osama Bin Laden, who had left Afghanistan in 1990, returned in 1996 – and moved to Qandahar where he developed a close relationship to Mullah Muhammad Umar, the head of the Taliban. His fighters fought alongside Taliban troops. In 1997 – the Taliban turned their attention to enforcing Islamic rule, enacting policies prohibiting women from working outside the home in activities other than health care, and requiring corporal punishment for those convicted of certain crimes. They prohibited women from attending universities and closed girls' schools in Kabul and some other cities, although primary schools for girls continued to operate in many other areas of the country under Taliban control. The Taliban also enforced a strict dress code for women, and required men to have beards and to refrain from Western haircuts or dress. “In particular, al Qaeda opposed the continued presence ofAmerican military forces in SaudiArabia (and elsewhere on the SaudiArabian peninsula) following the Gulf War,” the Council reports, adding that “Al-Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to al Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or those with whom it worked. For these and other reasons, Bin Laden declared a jihad, or holy war, against the United States, which he has carried out through al Qaeda and its affiliated organisations.” – Council on Foreign Relations. “The U.S. today, as a result of the arrogant atmosphere, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist,” bin Laden said in a 1997 interview with CNN.

Through 1997 and 98, the Taliban made repeat attempts to extend their control to the North ofAfghanistan, where Dostum had carved out what amounted to a mini-state comprising five provinces which he administered from his headquarters in Shiberghan. Dostum’s forces centred in Mazar-i Sharif, howeverAbdul Malik Pahlawan (generally known as "Malik"), who had a grievance against Dostum, struck an agreement with the Taliban and arrested a number of Dostum’s commanders and as many as 5,000 of his soldiers.

This provided an opportunity for the Taliban to have control over the whole country - and Pakistan was quick to seize the opportunity to recognise the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, as was SaudiArabia and the UnitedArab Emirates. The alliance with Malik disintegrated, fighting ensued, and 3000 were taken prisoner. Eventually in 1998 Taliban finally took control of Mazar-i Sharif and massacred at least 2,000 people, most of them Hazara civilians, after they took the city. In the aftermath, Dostum left Afghanistan for exile in Turkey; Malik also fled and has reportedly lived in exile in Iran since 1997. Now, the US response started, albeit too late. In August 1998, the United States launched air strikes against bin Laden’s reputed training camps near the Pakistan border. The strikes came in the wake of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam. In October 1999 the U.N. imposed sanctions on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, banning Talibancontrolled aircraft from takeoff and landing and freezing the Taliban's assets abroad. The Taliban's failure to hand over bin Laden led to an expansion of the sanctions regime on December 19, 2000, including an arms embargo on the Taliban, a ban on travel outsideAfghanistan by Taliban officials of deputy ministerial rank, and the closing of Taliban offices abroad. This, as you can imagine, angered bin Laden, and only set the precedent for what was about to happen.

On September the 11th, 2001, four passenger airplanes were hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, resulting in the mass murder of 2,977 victims in New York, Washington, D.C. and Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Bin Laden was named as the orchestrator and prime suspect.

9:03am - Hijackers crash United Airlines flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre.

Rocket Propelled Planes of WWII - James

Greenfield

Throughout the Second World War, there were many weird and wonderful aircraft designs, many of which did not make it past the drawing board. However, of the few designs that were able to make it through the experimental phase, the Me 163 “Komet” stands out.

The concept was first devised and developed by Alexander Lippisch, and in 1939 the decision was made to use rocket engines for propulsion, as opposed to a single front propellor which had been a feature of contemporary designs. The Komet’s first flight on the 1st of September 1941 demonstrated unprecedented performance and, after being optimised for mass production, it became the first aircraft to ever travel over 1000km/h in level flight – with a maximum speed of 1,130km/h being achieved in July of 1944 by Heini Dittmar. The model entered service this same year and was used in minimal numbers to defend bomber formations.

By the end of the war, only approximately 370 had been produced due to a combination of production line failures and resource shortages. The Komet’s overall failure can be linked to the fact that it was a highly dangerous aircraft – on account of the rocket fuel it used, which was corrosive and highly explosive, killing test pilots on a number of occasions. The plane also had a skid instead of a front wheel – a design feature that meant that upon heavy landings, pilots could suffer significant spinal injuries. There is currently a surviving Komet exhibited in the Science Museum in London.

The antagonism between collective leadership and personal dictatorship in Russia in the last

100 years - Fedor Arkhipov

On 24 February 2022, the ground of Europe trembled for the first time in decades with the rumble of tanks and rocket attacks. The wars in Europe seemed to have ended on 8 May 1945, and conflicts were mostly on the periphery, with dictators trying to change the order of their countries by brute force, initially failing in their cause. The word dictator is mentioned for a reason.As the title suggests, the article is about Russia. Now, more than ever there is talk of a full-blown dictatorship in Russia, and the dictatorship in Russia is personal; the full extent of power belongs to Vladimir Putin personally. Until 20 years ago, there was a debate whether Putin's regime is an oligarchic dictatorship or a personalised dictatorship. On February 24th that debate was sealed.After all, a military venture is more a sign of a personal dictatorship than a dictatorship of any group.Andrey Pertsev, an expert at the Carnegie International Center, wrote this the day before the invasion: "Vladimir Putin is increasingly re-inventing himself in a new role. He's no longer a guarantor of stability, and now he's neither an arbiter nor the First. He is not the people's president, not the spokesman for the elite, and not even the intermediary between the elite and the people. He is now the sole boss".And this statement is crucial not only for Russia, but for all of Europe (as Moscow is still capable of influencing European security). Since the last time a sole commander sat in the Kremlin was in 1953, one can speak of a radical shift in the balance of power within Russia and throughout Eastern Europe. Since March 5, 1953, Soviet nomenklatura did everything to avoid personal dictatorship (Russian nomenklatura is just an extension of numerous Soviet bureaucrats) ... But as the morning of February showed, their 80-year-long efforts were in vain.... The struggle between personal dictatorship and collective leadership in the Russian power structure of the 20th and 21st centuries will be the focus of this article.

The roots of collective leadership: the Leninist system:

The very notion of collective leadership is inextricably linked with the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party of the Bolsheviks. In the future, the party would change names: it would become theAll-Union Communist Party and later the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It has the most direct relevance to modern Russia, because most of the Russian elite was in the Communist Party, although it is important to note that the Communist Party in the ‘70s was strikingly different from the Party of the‘20s. But the path of the Party must be traced from the beginning, which will be done in the following paragraphs. The Leninist Party was created in conditions of struggle, and it operated in extreme conditions (the underground, repression, and then the civil war). However, long-awaited peace had come to Russia, which changed the function of the Party. It needed to concentrate on the urgent tasks of rebuilding the country. Here an important stage in the history of the Party was its centralization, which Lenin wrote about as early as 1917 in his book "The State and the Revolution".At that time, he coined the term "democratic centralism", which implied on the one hand an elective system,

Fragment of Jan Brueghel's Allegory of War

In the centre of the photo (from left to right): Bukharin, Rykov and Stalin. The first two would be shot in 1938.

but the representatives of the people were strictly accountable to the centre - Lenin paid great attention to internal party discipline and its strengthening. Please disregard the word "democracy" in the usual Western sense of the word. The principle of separation of powers was de facto absent in the early years of Soviet power. The key similarity between the collective leadership and the personal dictatorship in the USSR was the total monopoly of power and violence. But it was difficult to reach unanimity on such important issues under the collective leadership, which may explain both the scale of repression under Stalin's personal dictatorship and its decline under the shift from personal dictatorship to collective leadership.

But was Lenin's rule in the twenties a personal dictatorship or was decision-making largely dependent on the party majority? And the problem here is primarily that the very notion of "collective leadership" emerged in the ‘50s, and the above text is an attempt to explain to the reader the premises of both systems. Lenin himself did not rule for long - he died in 1924. But the system that emerged during his time included both democratic principles and a heavy-handed authoritarian style. This was succinctly described by DmitryApalkov of the Department of History at MSU, who writes that although "Lenin was the undisputed leader of the party, it was a long way from establishing Lenin's sole authority. In addition to Lenin, there were other leaders - his closest associates and like-minded people - who possessed considerable political weight. The presence of major political figures in Lenin's entourage hindered the establishment of the Leninist dictatorship.” And hereApalkov gives the example of the confrontation between Lenin and the so-called workers' opposition led byAlexander Shliapnikov in 1921-1922. The fact is that Lenin was unable to expel his then-main rivals from the Party. Expulsion from the Party was a mortal sin for every self-respecting Communist, but Shliapnikov lost his position in the Central Committee of the Party. The workers' opposition was then completely defeated, and its leaders... simply continued to work in the Party, taking an active part in internal Party discussions. It is more likely, however, that intra-party democracy was not Lenin's desire, but rather an obstacle to it.Also, important here were the Bolsheviks, who played a key role in the victory of the cause of socialism in Russia. The most prominent and recognisable representative of this group is undoubtedly Lev (Leon) Trotsky. However, there were other charismatic and not so charismatic people who had influence on the politics of the early Union.

There were also influential military men such as Tukhachevsky. What all the above personalities had in common is that they played a major role in the so-called balance of power within the young revolutionary state.Although they might have fallen into disgrace, they were rarely deprived of their lives and voices. But with Comrade Stalin's rise to power the situation rarely changed.And this brings us elegantly to the next part of the article.

Stalin's dictatorship

Adecisive factor in Stalin’s victory in the intra-party struggle was his control over the party's cadre apparatus. In the ‘20s the Communist Party had finally transformed itself from a revolutionary cell into a huge structure. Since most of the new members came from the lower classes, it was easy for Stalin to establish contact with them and gain their trust. This is how Dzhugashvili gained a party majority, through which he legitimised the deposition of his party opponents. He skilfully manipulated some prominent party members through tactical union methods.

Stalin's total control of the party, coupled with his manic tyrannical nature, led the country to totalitarianism. The fate of millions now depended not on the Party but on the Leader. In the 30s the Leader was purging the army, the dictator's prejudice against the RedArmy was strong, for Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, though neutralised, were extremely important army figures, and their supporters could all wait for their turn. The Party, too, would soon be purged of unruly elements. In 1937.

The reader has already realised that by the second half of the thirties Stalin could do anything to the Party and the country. But what was the reason for such a mass repression? Russian historian Oleg Khlevnyiuk believes the reason could have been the impending war. The atmosphere in Europe by 1937 was already heated enough.And unlike conventional France, which was resting on its laurels of the First World War, the Soviet Union had a clear image of war before its eyes.At issue was the war scare of 1927, when Moscow found itself in a situation of possible conflict with Britain and an entire block of Eastern European states (dominated by Poland). With Stalin's departure from the World Revolution and the doctrine of building socialism in a particular country, the Soviet Union began to turn into a beleaguered camp, and propaganda drew pictures of an imminent war with capitalism.

By 1953 Stalin was too dangerous for the Soviet elite. The important fact was that most Soviet party members had been through a terrible war and felt much braver than in 1937. In addition, Stalin's attacks on his closest supporters and new rounds of repression increased tension in the ranks of the Communist Party. The spectre of a new Big Terror hovered over Moscow.

Gate at the Kommunarka shooting ground where NKVD chief

Memorial plaque at Kommunarka shooting ground.

Therefore, after the extremely fortunate stroke of the Leader of the Party, the model of personal dictatorship was carried into the Mausoleum with Stalin's body. Ironically, when Stalin's body was removed from the Mausoleum (following the logic of the metaphor, personal dictatorship was once again possible), Khrushchev began again to consolidate his PERSONAL power. But there was a gap in between, in which collective leadership existed and acted. Before 1954, no claim to power could achieve parity. This could have been put down to an ordinary power struggle. However, the case of Beria is illustrative here. The all-powerful chief of the NKVD met an ignominious end, in part because he had tried on the sacred.

He tried to reshuffle the cadres in the party nomenclature in Lithuania and Ukraine.And this shows the radical break between the Stalinist and post-Stalinist era. If before March 5, 1953, the official wanted to succeed, he did everything to please Stalin, then after that the centre of his efforts was the Party, which was becoming increasingly all-powerful. Khrushchev played by its rules, did not touch Party privileges, and skillfully pitted the Party against the duumvirate of upstarts Beria and Malenkov. But then Khrushchev became a voluntarist, began to conduct an adventurous foreign policy, and tried to put his opinion above that of the Party members, for example, in questions of culture. So, Nikita Sergeevich was deposed peacefully in 1964. The conspiracy was astonishingly simple. Leonid Brezhnev just suggested that Khrushchev resign voluntarily.All members of the Presidium (members of the conspiracy) voted unanimously to "grant Khrushchev's request to retire".

British journalist Mark Frankland wrote in his 1966 biography of Khrushchev: "In a sense, this was his finest hour: 10 years earlier, no one would have imagined that Stalin's successor could be eliminated by such a simple and gentle method as a simple vote." Khrushchev himself, according to his son, said “I am already old and tired. Let them cope on their own now. I have done the main thing. The relationship between us, the style of leadership had changed fundamentally. Could anyone dream that we can tell Stalin that he does not suit us, and offer him to resign? There would have been nothing left of us. Now everything is different. The fear has disappeared, and the conversation is on an equal footing. That is my merit.And I will not fight.”

Further and further

Brezhnev became the leader of the country. He displayed the only talent necessary for a Party leader: the ability to lead: to give general instructions on all questions without being a specialist in any of them. Brezhnev suited many people by being a compromising figure. He was moderately progressive, but also moderately conservative.

Formally there was a triumvirate in power: Brezhnev led the party, Kosygin led the government, and the formal head of state was Podgorny. However, in the 1970s Brezhnev gradually removed his colleagues from the triumvirate and, at the same time, those who

Khrushchev just before his resignation, October 1964

posed potential danger to him. This is the proof of the triumph of the anti-Stalinist doctrine after 1953. The physical elimination of political opponents was out of the question. Provided, of course, that these political opponents were members of the Party.

Brezhnev, although he became a symbol of the 70s for Soviet citizens, could not concentrate all the power in his hands, even if he wanted to.Abalance of power had been reached. Cadres moved very carefully, the Party nomenklatura had almost become a new aristocracy. The role of the grey cardinal Suslov was also noticeable, the shadow management of the country was another fact which was impossible to imagine under Stalin. But these are all empty words. The real indicator of how decisions were made under Brezhnev is the war inAfghanistan.

Brezhnev himself hesitated for a long time; he was relatively peace-loving. The reformers, including part of the military, were strongly against the war, or rather against the insertion of a limited contingent of troops (80,000). There was an option of a full-scale invasion involving already 300,000+ troops, but Brezhnev did not want a big war. In the end the militarist views prevailed, but again the decision to invade was taken collectively. This is in great contrast to February 2022, when the new European war was headlined by Vladimir Putin personally, giving at least one aggressive speech a day (period of 20-25 Feb 2022).

A soviet poster “Unity is strength!” which was made in 1980-s and represented the almighty bureaucracy.

The Kiev writerAnatoliy Kuznetsov called this process self-imposation. This policy logically led to mass terror, affecting hundreds of thousands whose loyalty was questioned by Joseph Vissarionovich. However, there were other reasons, economic over-centralisation (economic repression in the first half of the 1930s inevitably led to political repression), Stalin's fear of traitors within the Party, and finally, there is an opinion that the terror was the last link in creating a new type of man, Homo Sovieticus.

The key difference between the Stalinist terror of the second half of the 1930s was the physical destruction of the Soviet elite, or rather part of it. Previously, the repression had been axed against the kulaks, the former underdog aristocrats, the clergy and the old czarist officers... but suddenly the machine of terror turned against... against its own creators. Yes, the uniqueness of the 37th repressions is that the executioners shot the executioners. Yagoda was followed by Yezhov, Yezhov by Beria. Here the figure of Khrushchev is interesting. He was directly involved in terror, but after Stalin's death, when he was already in power, he loudly condemned it. Following Khrushchev, many still view the "Great Terror" as the extermination of the elites - Party workers, engineers, soldiers, writers, etc. The number of victims was frightening for the Soviet nomenklatura. Officials literally trembled at every night knock, because the sword of the NKVD (execution or imprisonment in a camp) hung over everyone. There are 383 lists for the arrest and execution of 40,000 Soviet officials approved by the master of the Kremlin. The pinnacle of the system of destruction of the "nomenklatura" and the old Bolsheviks were the famous Moscow open trials against some prominent party members. The second part of the "great terror" was the so-called "mass operations''. It was these, encompassing over a million people, that made the terror of 1937-1938. "big". But it was the fact that the Party suffered from Stalinist terror that made its condemnation possible.As cynical as it may sound, Stalin did to the Party what the Party did to the Russian people for a decade. And the Party learned this lesson. It understood that personal dictatorship always leads to arbitrariness from which no one can defend them. This was a factor in the Soviet bureaucracy's attempts to rid itself of personalist dogma and move towards that very collective leadership. However, this would happen after Stalin's death on 5-th of March 1953, which brings us to the next part.

Collective leadership

According to historian Yuri Zhukov, a great expert on the subject, as early as the evening of March 3, some agreement was reached among Stalin's comrades-in-arms regarding the occupation of key positions in the party and the government of the country. Moreover, Stalin's comrades-in-arms began to share power, when Stalin himself was still alive, but could not prevent them from doing so. When doctors reported the hopelessness of the sick leader, comrades-inarms began to share portfolios, as if he was no longer alive.

Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Afterword

However, the Soviet Union had about 10 years to live.Adetailed analysis of the first two Brezhnev successors is unlikely to be of interest to the reader. It should only be said that power was entirely in the hands of the Politburo, which chose the General Secretary in the 1980s. However, the reader is surely aware of Gorbachev. The Soviet reformer, however, was in a wholly dictatorial mood, trying to exert total control over the party. His personnel policy was described by Jack Matlock, the US ambassador to the USSR, who said: "He only felt comfortable next to silent or grey ones..." In 1988, Gorbachev began the "rejuvenation" of the Central Committee apparatus. "Gorbachev's" were put on all key posts. However, this did not prevent a fierce polemic within the party about reform between conservative communists and reformists. Gorbachev's idealism and commensurate ambition, coupled with the presence of opposition to him at the top, culminated in theAugust 1991 putsch. Ironically, the reformer was confronted by a collective council of reactionaries who dreamed of a return to the Brezhnev era. It was perhaps the last example of collective leadership in the USSR’s history.

We can, however, recall Yeltsin and his conflict with the collective opposition in parliament. It all ended in a small civil war and the shooting of a parliament building. Many liberal historians in today's Russia consider 1993 (the year parliament was shot down and Yeltsin himself established a super-presidential form of government) to be one of the roots of Putin's dictatorship, as the collective majority again lost out to the leader. However, Yeltsin was far more dependent on his entourage, above all the oligarchs, than Putin. Just as in the early years of Soviet Russia, there was no stable model of power in the early years of the Russian Federation (except officially, but paperwork in Russia has always made little sense). Putin, on the other hand, began his rule by destroying the disloyal oligarchs and forming a system of government built around the president alone. The process was slow but reached its climax on 24 February. The lives of millions now depended on one man alone. The last time this kind of autocracy, coupled with military hysteria, led to a huge repression. Whether Russia will see a new 37th year and a purge of the upper classes is an open question…

Black October 1993, tanks in Moscow shoot up parliament.

Just following orders?

Examining the role of Radio Free Europe in The Hungarian Revolution - Piers Marchant

When the Hungarian Revolution began in Budapest in autumn 1956, the US had a key decision to make on how it should proceed. Should it promote the liberation of Hungary and actively propagandise and support the revolutionaries’desires, or should it continue its passive policy of containment and leave the freedom of eastern Europe to the eventual collapse of the Soviet system? Promoting liberation risked aggravating the Soviet Union into intervention in Hungary and included the potential for nuclear conflict. Passivity, however, could have been seen as a wasted opportunity to unravel the Iron Curtain. This is where Radio Free Europe (RFE) enter the fray. The mission of this US-funded radio station was to spread anti-communist propaganda throughout the communist world and to promote the ideals and political positions of the United States and US allies. During the Revolution, RFE’s objective was to strike a balance between supporting the desire of the Hungarian people for freedom and avoiding inciting armed struggle against the Soviet army. However, its success in this task has been the subject of considerable historical debate, as many historians such as Granville and Kissinger consider RFE to have been a major factor in encouraging continuation of armed uprising, whilst Ross Johnson and Holt disagree with this due to lack of evidence. To determine an answer to the question of RFE’s involvement, it must be divided into two. What were the guidelines and orders that RFE should have followed and to what extent did RFE obey these orders? Ultimately it is clear that RFE implicitly encouraged the Revolution’s continuation and explicitly abandoned the position of the US government by doing so.

RFE was founded in 1950 by the National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), a CIAfunded organisation founded in 1949. Its stated aim was “to transmit uncensored news and information to audiences behind the Iron Curtain”. As a result, RFE was transmitted to Soviet satellite states and within the Soviet Union. The early years of the radio station saw huge rises in funding from the US government and by the second half of the Cold War, RFE listening audiences in some Eastern European countries had increased to between 40 and 60 percent of their population. However, the turning point in RFE’s history came during the Hungarian Revolution.After the conclusion of the Revolution, stricter guidelines were put in place and RFE was far more limited in what it could broadcast, suggesting that RFE went beyond its permitted CIAregulations and published content which abandoned normal standards of journalism, inciting further rebellion. On 25 October 1956, Egypt nationalised the canal and it became clear that France, Britain and Israel were set to invade.American diplomats had to both condemn and maintain their relations with the invaders whilst also disavowing the Egyptian and Soviet methods in the crisis. This created a thorough diplomatic headache, as the US could not condemn one invasion into a fully recognised UN member state whilst also actively supporting a rebellion against another.

Therefore, it is easy to see why the United States held back from allowing RFE to freely act to entice the Hungarians to subvert the Soviet Union, since they simply did not have the capacity to deal with the responsibility of a widespread Hungarian revolt. RFE was effectively ordered to play a supportive, but ultimately peaceful role in the Hungarian Revolution, subverting the wishes of the Dulles brothers and many Hungarian freedom fighters too.

Scholarship around the role of RFE in the Hungarian Revolution often refers to the claim that RFE urged the Hungarians in a broad appeal to fight and declare independence from the Soviet Union, in violation ofAmerican instruction. Kissinger claims RFE “took it upon itself to interpretAmerican attitudes, urging Hungarians to step up the pace of their revolution and reject any compromise.” Pelchat agrees, saying “Radio Free Europe went beyond the directives and policies issued to it by Washington D.C. These broadcasts violated their directives from Washington by informing their listeners how to effectively engage in partisan warfare and disable tanks with limited supplies.” The main example showcasing this abandonment of standards, is a broadcast from Zoltán Thury, who gave this commentary on November 4th, about an Observer article on the developing situation in Hungary.

“The reports from London, Paris, the United States, and other Western reports show that the world’s reaction to the Hungarian events surpasses every imagination. In the Western capitals a practical manifestation of Western sympathy is expected at any hour.”

Giving this commentary on the day when Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest violates any journalistic standards of impartiality, in that it gives hope to the diminishing numbers of freedom fighters desiring help from the West. It is also a flagrant falsehood for Thury to interpret American policy this way when the US Department of State had made it clear that a “practical manifestation of Western sympathy” was not forthcoming. In addition, this statement is a clear violation of the guidance to RFE given just the day before. It also weakened America’s diplomatic position laid out in Dulles’October 29th speech where he said “the US has no ulterior purpose in desiring the independence of the satellite countries. We do not look upon these nations as potential military allies” as Thury seemingly did the opposite and directly promised or at least predicted a military alliance.

Some believe this to be evidence that RFE incited further revolution and promised Western intervention throughout the uprising.ASüddeutsche Zeitung editorial claims exactly this by saying “[RFE] encouraged [the Hungarians] with promises that the U.S. military would rush to their aid.” However, those who believe RFE did little to promote Western armed intervention, such as Holt, point to this broadcast as “the result of clumsiness rather than intent”, and that “this one press review is hardly grounds for the claim that RFE promised the freedom fighters thatAmericans would come to their aid”. There is merit to this observation, as one is hard-pressed to find other examples of an RFE broadcast being so explicit about the probability of Western intervention. Combined with the fact that Thury’s broadcast was made towards the end of the Revolution on November 4th, no factual basis can be made for the claim that RFE consistently and directly promised Western aid. While RFE may still have indirectly encouraged the Revolution through its broadcasts, the claim that RFE explicitly and invariably promised Western intervention is not supported by available evidence.

Whether through clumsiness or genuine intent, Thury’s broadcast nonetheless still broke CIAguidelines. In addition, there are also some notable instances of RFE going so far as to give direct tactical advice. In his “Armed Forces Special #A1” of October 27th, Julian Borsanyi gave “detailed instructions as to how partisan forces should fight” and “advised local authorities to secure stores of arms for the use of Freedom Fighters”. Borsanyi’s broadcast effectively changed RFE from a supportive but ultimately unaffiliated radio station into a logistical tool for coordination amongst the freedom fighters. This would stir the ire of both Moscow and Washington, as the Kremlin could accuse theAmericans of abetting the rebels, which would force Washington into a difficult position. In this way it can be said that RFE in fact weakened America’s international position during the Hungarian Revolution.

The answer to the question posed at the beginning of this section is a nuanced one. Whilst not going so far as to seriously promote Western intervention, it is most convincing to argue that RFE seriously disobeyed CIAadvice and therefore abandoned the diplomatic line pushed by theAmericans in favour of a more idealistic and far-reaching viewpoint through its proselytization of tactical advice and inflammatory commentary.An internal review of RFE broadcasts on December 3rd, 1956, supports this conclusion saying:

“The present programs of Radio Free Europe … which are principally based on a concept of encouraging the people to make demands of the regime for change … should be carefully examined.”

To come to this conclusion so soon after the end of the Revolution suggests that RFE strayed from CIAguidelines to such an extent that the US government would wish to amend the use of RFE for future conflicts.

RFE would undergo a series of changes almost immediately after the Revolution including the creation of a “Broadcast Analysis Division” which had the aim of protecting journalistic integrity. RFE switched from a radio network - whose main role was propagandisingto a network focused more closely on giving access to reliable news to those who cannot receive it. This was further facilitated by the ending of CIAfunding in 1971. But in relation to the Hungarian Revolution, it is most convincing to describe RFE’s role as one of an overzealous broadcaster whose presenters longed for the freedom of their native lands but were impeded by the realities of diplomacy and the US position towards Eastern Europe. However, there was clearly a lack of quality control within RFE, which could have prevented the airing of the provocative broadcasts mentioned above. Had the US position been different, perhaps RFE could have played a vital role in securing the liberation of Hungary. In the end though, Soviet tanks ploughed into Budapest, crushed all opposition, and installed a new loyalist government. RFE would have to wait until 1989 for its chance to have a role in the liberation of Hungary.

Marchamont Nedham: A guide to surviving Civil War- Henry Bramall

What better way to start a new magazine than by discussing one of the most influential newspaper editors in English History: Marchamont Nedham (also spelt Needham, if that helps with pronunciation!). Nedham was a master of the news and one of the greatest turncoats in the English Civil Wars century (more aptly known as the War of the Three Kingdoms – it was the conflict between Charles I and his Cavaliers and Parliament and their Roundheads).

He initially rose to prominence writing for the Mercurius Britannicus (sensational name) in the early 1640s. He so virulently attacked King Charles that he was actually admonished by Parliament! The paper was shut down and he was imprisoned for two weeks, and was released having paid £200 as surety for good behaviour and a promise to not write further without parliament’s permission. You know it’s bad when your own side punish you for attacking the enemy too much. Astonishingly, Nedham somehow managed to gain an audience with the King himself at our very own Hampton Court Palace, where he begged for forgiveness and somehow gained a royal pardon. Even more amazingly, he was then hired by Charles to write for the Mercurius Pragmaticus, where he wrote in favour of the king! If that does not prove his skill as a masterful writer – twisting narratives and the pure value he provided to either side – then it would be hard to find something that does.

Following the Parliamentarian victory over Charles in 1649, Nedham was, once again imprisoned – this time in Newgate. He would be released five months later for a rather peculiar reason. Yep, he switched sides again! He apologised again and was, extraordinarily, appointed editor of the Mercurius Politicus. Despite ending up on the losing side of the war, Nedham was able to do remarkably well as the Politicus became the only legal newspaper in England from 1654. His innovations, such as the introduction of the leading article and paid advertising in journalism, made the paper highly profitable as well as influential.

Now Nedham was not completely independent in his authorship; much evidence suggests that Secretary of State John Thurloe played a key role in the shaping of the narrative, particularly during the times of crisis. However, Nedham was largely given free rein in his control of the paper and this can be clearly seen in his weekly reports on the exiled Charles Stuart (who would go on to become Charles II). His primary line of attack was established when, following the regicide, Scotland recognised Charles Stuart as King of both Scotland and England. Nedham led the assault against the royalists and Scottish Presbyterians, and it was here where first appears Nedham’s referring to Charles as ‘Tarquin’. The ancient historians among you should instantly recognise the reference to the last line of Roman Kings and, more specifically, the last King: Tarquinius Superbus. For those unfamiliar to the niche Roman History reference, Superbus was a cruel and oppressive king who was ultimately overthrown by the people who were led by figures such as Brutus (not that one). Rome then established itself into a republic and the rest is history, but from this point on, the name Tarquin became increasingly synonymous with tyranny, oppression and suffering. Therefore, Nedham was successfully able to create

a clear and direct link between Charles Stuart and tyranny with ease, weaving together a larger narrative that England would be far worse off if Charles was restored and England returned to a monarchy. Interestingly, Nedham’s attacks in this period are against both Charles and the role of the King itself. However, following victory at the battle of Worcester, the Politicus shifted its depiction and, as argued by Historian Benjamin Woodford, moves from attacking the very nature of a monarchy itself to the character of Charles as a person. This was as the situation had now shifted as the royalist threat had been all but destroyed for now.

It is important to acknowledge that Nedham’s values and priorities were not bound to a single person, but rather the protection of English Liberty at all costs (some of his work would inspire later figures such as the Founding Fathers of the USA). Initially, Charles Stuart’s efforts to return to the throne represented the greatest threat, hence the print onslaught against him. However, once, as just mentioned, this threat seemed minimal, Nedham’s target shifted to the next largest threat to Liberty: Oliver Cromwell. For about a year between 1651 and 1652, Nedham’s editorials criticised a Brutusesque figure machinating for the crown (Cromwell). These were likely stopped due to being too controversial because of their overt references to the most powerful man in the country and leader of the government who published the paper. However, the shift in the political landscape prompted Nedham to have perhaps his most dramatic shift yet. Yes – he once again switched sides and started writing to aid Cromwell’s ascension to the throne. By this point Cromwell’s assumption of the monarchy was increasingly seeming to be inevitable and Nedham, always keen to be on the winning side, capitalised on the opportunity. This is where Nedham’s true genius and political skill shines. Through his editorials, he carefully shifted his depiction of Charles, from a tyrant trying to bring back the malicious monarchy, to simply a man unfit to be King. Simultaneously, he subtly posed a suitable alternative, the man he had only recently rallied against – Cromwell. Woodford argues that this was Nedham’s masterstroke as he skilfully portrays Charles as “undeserving of the throne, while at the same time avoiding any direct criticism to the monarchy”.

Following the death of Cromwell and the problems that subsequently plagued the Commonwealth, Nedham published numerous warnings against the possibility of the restoration of the monarchy. He was fired in April 1660 and fled to the Netherlands. Many royalist pamphleteers attacked him greatly for abandoning the King, however; he was still included in the Bill of Indemnity and Oblivion and returned to London in September of the same sideyear, gaining a pardon under the Great Seal. He briefly returned to politics in 1676 and remarkably died peacefully in 1678.

If one man could prove the power and importance of print media, it was Nedham; he was successfully able to control the narrative through one of, if not, England’s most tumultuous period, as well as being an incredibly valuable historical source in bringing us the internal conflicts, the views of Charles Stuart and State perspectives on the various crises through the period, and their perspective on the future of the Constitution and governmental rule in England.

America’s Intentions to Boycott The 1936 Olympics - Hal Leman

The 1936 Olympics were won by Berlin in 1931, with Brüning (of the Zentrum / Centre Party) as Chancellor. Hitler’s appointment in January 1933 saw Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister, seize the lucky opportunity won by a previous government. The intentions of many western states – including France, Britain, and America – was to boycott the games due to the antisemitic ideologies of the NSDAP. However, many argue America that did not have the right to not attend due to large scale segregation between races within their own society similar to that of the Nazis’ intentions in separating the Jews from German citizens. Despite the possibility of a boycott, it is important to note that in actuality the games took place with no countries pulling out.

The NSDAP (Nazis) led by Hitler claimed power in the Reichstag in January 1933 and was a party largely supported due to the popular desire for economic reform to haul Germany out of the Depression. Although not at the forefront of the Nazis’ manifesto, antisemitism was evident, most visible as early as 1925 in ‘Mein Kampf’Hitler’s own political testament which he wrote during his time in prison after his failed Munich Putsch in 1923. This included elements of his earliest manifesto and contained his intentions to create a pure Aryan race. However, the hatred for the Jewish community continued to become more prominent and increasingly important for Hitler. This is demonstrated by the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which represented two race-based measures depriving Jews of rights. Reichsburgergesetz took away Jews’ German citizenship, and Blutschutzgesetz forbade marriage or sexual relations between Jews and “citizens of Germany or kindred blood,” thus displaying the antisemitic views of the NSDAP and arguably giving the West a strong base for a boycott.

However, America can be seen as an exception, with the saying ‘people in glass houses should not throw stones’ being applicable in this context, as people viewed the segregation of races in America as equally disturbing as the antisemitic views of the Nazis. The Jim Crow Laws, originating in the 1800s, segregated the African American population from the white population and were only truly struck down in the 1950s and the 1960s, with crucial Supreme Court rulings such as Brown vs Topeka Board of Education of 1954 and federal legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 respectively, finally enforcing the principles set out in the 14th Amendment. Even then there remained inconsistencies in the application of the new wave of legislation, with the legacy of segregation laws continuing to have an impact over the following decades often in a de facto capacity. Pressure groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) actively sought to terrorise African Americans in southern states and were often able to do so unchecked, with a total of 3424 lynchings occurring from 1899 to 1922.

This, therefore, raises the question as to whether the antisemitic situation in Germany at the time of the Berlin Olympics in 1936 was similar to segregation in America? To answer simply, yes. Up until the point of the 1936 Olympics, Jews were subjected to levels of dis-

Olympics Opening Ceremony, 1936

crimination comparable to those suffered by African Americans in the USA. Ultimately, in both countries little was done at the time that proved effective in challenging the racism and religious discrimination that was so evident. As such, America did not have ground to stand on when considering the boycott of the 1936 Berlin (Nazi) Olympics.

Catacombs of Paris - Freddie McIntosh

Snaking beneath Paris is a labyrinthine network of tunnels. There are 250 kilometres of them, 20 metres deep, and on multiple levels. A section of the tunnels are known as the Catacombs, which are underground ossuaries holding, in neatly displayed rows along the tunnels, the remains of over 6 million people. The existence of such a network thus begs the question: how did this fascinating historical catacomb in subterranean Paris come about?

Starting in the Gallo-Roman period and continuing through the Middle Ages, the stone quarries, beneath what is now the city of Paris, supplied the stone for building Paris, including for major projects such as the Notre-Dame cathedral and the Louvre Palace. The limestone, gypsum, and chalk quarries stretched over 3000 hectares and were described by Victor Hugo as the city’s ‘intestines’. Urbanisation spread, and so the quarries were largely abandoned. The subterranean tunnels remained and the city was built over them.

This began to be a problem when, in the 1770s, streets began collapsing into the quarry cavities. In 1774 a sinkhole, over 80 feet both deep and wide, appeared in the Rue d’Enfer (Street of Hell) and within seconds engulfed homes, horses, carts and people. Over the next 3 years, further collapses occurred in various parts of the city and, naturally, people began to panic. It was Louis XVI who would act in 1777, by creating the ‘Inspectorate of quarries beneath Paris and adjacent plains’ to catalogue, map and consolidate the cavities beneath Paris. The lead inspector, Charles-Axel Guillaumot, was tasked with regulating the quarry tunnels to ensure the safety of the people.

In the late 18th century, the Cimetière des Innocents was the main and largest Parisian cemetery and had been used since medieval times, largely for mass graves. A few years after a burial, once the flesh and tissue had decomposed, the bones were then routinely transferred to ossuaries, usually in the cemetery walls. These ossuaries stored the stacked bones, releasing space in the cemetery for more bodies to be buried.

As Paris grew outwards, cemeteries became more central within the city. The population increased and, along with wars and epidemics, there was a huge increase in the number of corpses to be buried. As a result, layers of remains built up and as the earth was piled on top, the ground level of the Cimetière des Innocents reached 2 metres higher than its surroundings. There was so much exhuming to make way for new burials that eventually the cemetery lands had been emptied and reused so much that the soil was saturated and there was not enough oxygen to properly decompose the bodies. Exhuming was uncovering partially decomposed flesh rather than just bones. The Parlement de Paris called it a ‘sanitary catastrophe’ and this, along with heatwaves and flooding, meant that the cemeteries (particularly the Cimetière des Innocents) were putrid and overflowing. There were dreadful odours and people living near to cemeteries felt that their food such as milk went ‘off’more quickly. There was panic as people were convinced that disease was spread by smells, and in 1780, an area of mass graves collapsed into a neighbouring property.

In 1763, Louis XV had ordered that no further burials were to take place inside the city, but Church leaders had disagreed and no further action was taken. His successor, Louis XVI, declared that all cemeteries should be outside Paris, but it was not until 1780 that anything was actually done. It took an outbreak of disease in the area around the Cimetière des Innocents to prompt a royal decree closing the site to further burials and announcing the creation of 8 new cemeteries around the city edges, serving separate areas and replacing the huge central cemeteries. The existing overpopulated cemeteries were to be emptied.

In 1782 city officials proposed that the vast network of underground limestone quarries – empty and newly consolidated – could be the ideal location for a huge ossuary to store the remains of millions of Parisians. The tunnels that once gave the stone to build the city would now become the city’s ossuary.

In 1786 the Tombe-Issoire part of the quarries was consecrated and the period of transferring the remains of millions of Parisians began. Human bones from Paris’s cemetery ossuaries and human remains from the mass graves were collected and transported. Every night, horse-drawn wagons piled with human remains and covered in black cloth made the journey to the new underground ossuary in the tunnels, that would soon become known as Les Catacombs. The transportation happened at night to avoid causing too much distress or criticism. The processions were funerary and accompanied by chanting priests, but on arrival, the delivery of remains to the tunnels down below was less ceremonious.

The remains were then piled in the tunnels, often floor to ceiling, with engraved plaques indicating the origin of the bodies and the date of their transfer. In this way, from 1786 to 1809, many generations of Parisians, spanning up to 5 centuries were piled together.

Victims of political violence were also placed in the Catacombs and during the French Revolution of 1789-1799, bodies, rather than bones, were placed directly into the Catacombs. Historian Erin-Marie Legacy explained, “the Catacombs served as a useful space where potentially controversial bodies could be quickly stashed away in anonymity and forgotten since the Catacombs were not yet an accessible city space”. In 1792, the bodies of those killed in the assault on the Tuileries Palace and in the September prison massacre were placed in the Catacombs. They were joined by the remains of various leaders of the French Revolution such as, in 1794, those of Robespierre and Danton. In this way, the bodies of many killed during the revolution were certainly brought together in a form of equality and fraternity, being entombed together in subterranean Paris. The Catacombs can be said to be inclusive, with no divisions of class, ideology, age, gender, religion, importance or side of the law, and so the masses and piles of bones can be seen to symbolise equality.

Populating the Catacombs continued until 1804 and then in 1809, during the Napoleonic regime, the engineer de Thury was put in charge of the quarries and given the task of cleaning and opening up the Catacombs, describing them as being “in a state of imminent peril” as there was subsidence and water leaks. They began the enormous task of stacking the bones in patterns and rows to present them respectfully and make them accessible to visitors. Tibias, femurs and skulls were stacked and arranged, thick row upon thick row of them, stretching along the walls of the tunnels. Sometimes with symmetry, sometimes in patterns, often just in very neat rows. The remaining smaller bones were piled out of sight behind the ordered rows. Engraved slabs stating the origin of the group of remains, such as a certain cemetery, and dates of transfer were incorporated into the bone walls. The walls of the Catacombs were now lined with bones from millions of people and in 1809 were opened to the fee-paying public for pre-arranged, guided, candlelit tours. By 1830 the Catacombs

were closed to visitors as the new regime considered them dangerous and disrespectful, and they opened again after public pressure from 1850. The modernisation of Paris meant further bones were unearthed and transferred to the Catacombs during the period 1842-1860.

In 1861 the famous pioneer photographer Tournachon (known as Nadar) visited the Catacombs and spent 3 months there experimenting with early flash photography to create 100 photographs of the ossuaries and workers, which now constitute an important historical document of the time. Nadar described the Catacombs as a place “that everyone wants to see, and no one wants to see again”.

In the following years, other parts of the subterranean tunnel network have been used. As quarrying dwindled, quarrymen rented some of the damp dark voids to mushroom farmers. During WWII, the tunnel network was used as a Nazi bunker, as a bolthole for French Resistance meetings and as an air raid shelter by civilians. The tunnels have, over time been used also for wine storage (including, in 2017, a theft of some of the wine valued at €250,000) smuggling and tax-free transit. Macabre secret underground musical performances were held during the 19th century and to this day parties and raves are organised by the clandestine group known as the ‘cataphiles’. The cataphiles are a huge clandestine community who illegally access the tunnel network for exploring and for partying. They get in via manholes in places such as train tunnels and put themselves and others at huge risk often crawling through unlit, crumbling and flooded passageways as the Paris city and metro rumbles above them. The Catacombs have always intrigued the adventurous. A hospital doorkeeper named Aspairt ventured into the unmapped tunnels in 1793 and his body was not discovered until 11 years later. In 2017, 3 teenagers illegally entered the Catacombs, went missing for 3 days, and were eventually found alive by search dogs.

Today at the Catacombs, a ticker on the wall counts small numbers of people at a time in and out of the historic space that is largely unchanged since 1809. For the 2km visitor route, there is now electric lighting, handheld audio guides and plaques with quotes from poetry, literature, the Bible and the 19th century visitors book. At the entrance a sign reads ‘Arrête ! C'est ici l'empire de la Mort’ (‘Stop! This is the empire of Death’). Walking through the tunnels, seeing thousands of bones packed tightly together, of people from all walks of life who did not know they would be on display hundreds of years later, is an intense experience. The experience of being next to row upon row of femurs, tibias and skulls is at first unsettling but then all of a sudden is not, as the realisation hits of the sheer number of real people you are surrounded by, who all led lives and who are now all seemingly the same. It serves as a reminder that whilst we are all individuals, we are also all the same, across history.

The Gentleman’s Pirate: The Greatest Midlife Crisis of All Time - Monty Fletcher

Now, you might know a man in his forties who decided to buy a sports car or a leather jacket, but what about a pirate ship? Enter stage right one Mr Stede Bonnet, born 29th of July 1688. Bonnet had a very unusual upbringing for a pirate - born in Bridgetown, Barbados as the son of plantation owners. Tragically, Bonnet’s father died when he was only six meaning he inherited his family’s estate and great wealth at a very young age. Stede went on to be given the rank of major in the military and to marry Mary Allamby, another plantation owner, on the 21st of November 1709. They went on to have three sons and a daughter. Stede was enjoying a decadent life which had been relatively set out for him, however, it seems this was not enough for Mr Bonnet. In early 1717, at the age of 29, Stede Bonnet gave up his home, left his life and children, now only three as one of his sons had died - possibly a reason for his complete life change - and bought himself his very own pirate ship: ‘The Revenge’. This was rather unusual as most pirates would simply steal their ships from military, a famous example being “Queen Anne’s Revenge”, but Stede Bonnet would continue to prove anomalous. Steve would set sail in spring 1717.

The Revenge was a humble sloop fitted with 10 guns and sporting a crew of 70 men, many of whom were experienced pirates. This included his officers, who would essentially run the ship for him due to his complete and utter inexperience. Stede, on the other hand, loved to read. His cabin was piled high with his favourite books, making him one of very few literate pirates. Rumour has it, he would even read to his crew to help voyages pass faster, and to try and build rapport.As a first move, Stede and his crew set sail to Chesapeake Bay to look for valuable merchant vessels, which were pirates’main target at the time. In the next months, the crew plundered two ships near Virginia, and two more near New York.

Stede’s crew management was a completely new idea for the time. Normally, when a pirate crew sunk a ship, the whole crew would all receive payment after plundering the ship and would only be paid again after they hit the next one, providing they were successful. Stede had a different idea though, he would take all the money after plundering a ship and then pay his crew wages. This way the crew would receive a regular income, in theory, fostering loyalty whether they won a battle or otherwise. This, in combination with Stede’s literacy and refusal to harm any opposing crew member, bestowed upon Stede his legendary title: “The Gentleman’s Pirate”.

After a few more raids, Bonnet decided on a foolhardy attempt to attack a Man o’War (The most powerful ships in the Portuguese navy) – which proved about as successful as you would expect. The Revenge was hit badly, with half the crew being either dead or injured by the end of the fight, even Bonnet himself was badly injured. With the ship and crew in dire need of repair, they headed to the infamous pirate city of Nassau in August 1717. Here Stede would come into contact with a pirate I am sure all of you reading will be familiar with: Blackbeard.

Born in Bristol England, Blackbeard (born Edward Teach) started as a deckhand and worked his way up to captain of his ship. However, the ship he had control over was smaller than The Revenge. The two men struck up an arrangement of sorts where Blackbeard would assume the role of captain onboard The Revenge, giving Bonnet plenty of time to lick his wounds and learn from the most feared pirate of all time. The two of them worked together frequently between September 1717 and late summer 1718, taking tens of ships and making a plethora of money. During this time Blackbeard amassed a large fleet, including his infamous 40-gunned ship: Queen Anne’s Revenge. It was towards the end of these two men’s journey together, in late Summer 1718, that the two of them wanted to make use of King George I’s promise to pardon all pirates who willingly turned themselves in. Bonnet would soon learn that this was a terrible idea, as it was revealed that Blackbeard was not to be trusted. Bonnet was first sent to talk to a Governor, and while this took place, Blackbeard stripped Stede’s ship and marooned most of his men on an island with no amenities. Bonnet was incensed. He quickly gathered his men and his ship, desperate for Blackbeard’s head, but the two would never meet again. Blackbeard would die before Bonnet on the 21st of November 1718 when he was ambushed and killed by British forces, with his fleet left to be destroyed. Bonnet, however, did receive his pardon, at least for a short while, and planned to get a letter of permission from the Danish to pirate in Spain, since England, France and the Netherlands had all just entered a war against the Spanish. Unfortunately, it proved fruitless as hurricane season was soon upon Bonnet, leading him to enter the Cape Fear River of North Carolina in August to wait out the storm.

By late September word of their location had reached English ships and two of them, led by Colonel William Rhett arrived in order to challenge Bonnet to a fight in order to arrest him. At the time, the water was at low tide and all three ships ended up marooned while attempting to ram each other, and so the crews resorted to handheld firearms in an attempt to finish the fight. This comic skirmish continued right up until the tide came back, and the battle swiftly ended as Rhett’s ship got free first, meaning Stede Bonnet and his crew had no choice but to surrender.

Bonnet was brought to Charleston and placed on trial. He was sentenced guilty on the 10th of November 1718 and beheaded a month later. During this period, Bonnet would write profusely to the judge, governors and - most desperate of all - Rhett himself. However, it was in vain. Many of the population of Charleston themselves even pleaded for mercy for The Gentleman’s Pirate, but alas, no such mercy was given.

The pirate era only spanned from 1650-1730, yet it is a period of time which captures the imaginations of all.An idea of freedom and idealism with pirates having their own city all for themselves. Despite what can be said about Stede Bonnet’s pirating abilities which were, to be frank, limited, the man captures the essence of the pirate era perfectly and in all its absurdity, and for that we will remember Stede Bonnet: The Gentleman’s Pirate.

Walter Tull - Dan Cubbon

The life of Walter Tull, even 95 years after his death, is widely regarded as impressive.At the time, it would have seemed impossible for other people living in Britain with a mixed heritage. Walter became the first black outfield player in the first division of English Football, and the first British army officer of a mixed heritage to lead troops out into war during World War One.

Walter was born in Kent and was of Barbadian heritage on his father’s side. However, the death of both of his parents at a young age led to him being sent to an orphanage in Bethnal Green at the age of 9. His brother was separated from him and lived in Glasgow, where he became the first black practicing dentist in the United Kingdom.

Walter had a short yet impressive career in football, starting at theAmateur side, Clapton, before signing for Tottenham Hotspur at the age of 21. Walter’s strong performances in the Amateur leagues caused a wide range of attention from clubs, with him being labelled as ‘The Catch of The Season’by The Football Star.

Walter made history on the 1st of September 1909 during his debut by becoming the first black outfield footballer to play in the topflight of English football, in a 3-1 loss to Sunderland. Life in football wasn’t easy for Walter, facing heavy racial abuse, which was most prominent in a game against Bristol City, where the abuse was reported after the match for the first time.

Walter’s career at Tottenham ended in November 1911, when he left for Northampton town after making 10 appearances at the club.After 110 appearances and 9 goals for the Third Division club, his footballing career would come to a halt following the outbreak of the First World War.

Walter first served in the War in two Football Battalions and earned the role of sergeant in 1915 when fighting in France. Despite suffering with shell shock in 1916, and trench fever in 1917, Tull returned to fight in the Battle of the Somme, and after was sent to Scotland to complete officer training.

Tull was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1917 and, after joining the Second Footballer’s Battalion in 1917, he became the first British-born black officer to lead troops into battle, doing so in Italy. His efforts in the war led to him being recommended for the Military Cross. Despite it ultimately not being granted, it was clear that it would have been deserved.

During the Spring Offensive, Walter’s Battalion faced heavy fire from the Germans. Walter, while attempting to rally his troops, was hit by heavy machine gun fire. Walter was killed on the 25th of March 1918 in Pas-de-Calais. His body was never recovered.

Walter’s legacy has lived on for decades, through memorials in both Northampton and Dover, along with his induction into the English Football Hall of Fame in 2021.

Pitt, Politics and Patriotism: The impact and legacy of the French Revolution in Britain - Ollie Lycett

For Britain, the 1780s and 1790s represented a time of political volatility – a period where radicalism was rife, and the future of previously sacrosanct political institutions came under threat. The radical threat was a very real one, with Constitutional and Revolutionary societies growing in membership, and their messages reaching an increasingly widening audience. It would only be the repression of radical ideas by the government of William Pitt the Younger that would save the status quo. These years were undoubtedly a tumultuous time for the British people, although they would emerge into the new century with a newfound sense of identity and patriotism.

The roots of radicalism were growing in the 1780s, with high unemployment and inflation fostering resentment among the predominantly agrarian lower-middle classes, which by 1790 came to constitute over 75% of the population. Notably, appetite for reform was by no means explicitly confined to the lower classes, with the leader of the Whig opposition Charles James Fox advocating for the abolition of the House of Lords, for the replacement of George III with George IV, and unprecedented reforms to enfranchise a greater proportion of the population. In fact, the Regency Crisis of 1788 exemplified how close Fox came to being Prime Minister, with only the miraculous recovery of George III stopping him. Pitt relied on 150 Crown MPs who supported the monarch, the prospect of the Prince of Wales, who favoured Fox, becoming King, would have rendered Pitt’s position untenable. Coupled with the crisis, the 100 year anniversary of the 1688 Glorious Revolution only further contributed to the spreading of radicalism, with Constitutional and Revolutionary societies meeting to mark the occasion and seeing their membership expand. The London Constitutional Society, for instance, saw its official membership reach 5,000, although it is important to recognise that in actuality this figure only represented its literate members who could sign the registration documents. As such, the reality was that the London Constitutional Society, and the many others like it, would have been much stronger in numbers than officially cited.

The bottom line was, therefore, when revolution erupted across the channel in 1789, was that Pitt’s government was weak – only just surviving the Regency Crisis – and the reformers were strong.

The first phase of the revolution was met with distinctly mixed reactions in Britain, with many condemning it as a fundamental threat to order, organicism, and stability – a notion championed by Edmund Burke in his subsequent 1791 work Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Anglican clergyman William Paley in his work the following year Reasons for Contentment. Conversely, the revolution was welcomed with open arms by a

William Pitt the Younger

significant portion of British society, inclusive of Fox and Portland, as well as influential contemporaries such as Paine, whilst work Rights of Man justified the revolution as a means of overcoming the fundamental inequalities of the status quo. Similar ideas were only further drawn upon in works by Macauley, Mackintosh and Godwin, to simply name a few. As this war of philosophies waged visibly in the public sphere, and radicalism brewed, it was Pitt who would act decisively.

Fearful of revolution and losing control of his government and position as Prime Minister, Pitt would undertake a series of measures in the 1790s to suppress radicalism and restore order. Whilst at first such actions would seem wholly draconian and dictatorial by nature; they would be enabled by a turning of the tide amidst some supporters of the revolution. The honeymoon phase had passed, and now bloodthirsty chaos would ensue at the hands of the ironically named Committee of Public Safety and Maximilien Robespierre through the Reign of Terror, whereby from September of 1793 to July of 1794 approximately 17,000 people would be executed. What was previously hailed by many as a manifestation of enlightenment principles, popular sovereignty and égalité, was now exposed as an anarchic tyranny. It was now a fear of revolution that occupied the minds of the British people. This is clearly supported by a transcript from a parliamentary debate concerning the possibility of going to war with France in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on February 25th 1793. Following a monologue from Charles Grey condemning military involvement on the continent, Tory MP William Drake proclaimed ardently that the ’public would cordially and emphatically say to (war with France), Aye! Aye! Aye!’. This instance of patriotic clamour for the defeat of the French revolutionaries, therefore, can only be seen as symptomatic of great changes to the perception of the revolution in light of the massacres that unfolded. This trend would only become increasingly profound amidst the suppression of radicalism by Pitt’s government, the invasion threat of 1797 and the mainstreaming of actively patriotic ideas through popular cultural mediums such as theatre and music.

Another key enabler of Pitt’s suppression of radicalism was the emergence of a PittPortland coalition in 1794, whereby ranks of Whigs deserted Fox and his continued support for radical reform, to form a stronger government at the helm of Tory PM Pitt. Now commanding a decisive parliamentary majority amidst the backdrop of a shifting national view of the revolution, Pitt was now able to take measures to suppress radicalism. Through suspending Habeus Corpus in 1794 and implementing the Treasonable Practices Act in 1795, Pitt had orchestrated the legal framework necessary to imprison radicals and crush the movement. Under these new laws, figures such as Thomas Paine were convicted of Treason, and under the Treasonable Practices Act a man named Thomas Hardy (neither the admiral nor the author, but one of the leaders of the London Constitutional Society) was imprisoned for dreaming of the death of the King! Other key reformist leaders such as the likes of Horntooke and Flood were also arrested, further illustrating the extent and efficacy of Pitt’s repression of radicalism.

Moreover, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1795 represented another key means of weakening opposition and revolutionary sentiment, as now meetings of over 50 people required a warrant to occur. This same idea of preventing revolutionary groups from massing was extended through the Combinations Acts of 1799 and 1800 which would see a ban placed on all trade unions. Largely perceived by the masses as a protector of a now highly valued social order, Pitt’s actions were able to operate on both a politically legitimate basis (due to the size of his coalition and his use of parliamentary sovereignty) but also on a popularly sovereign basis.

Following his arrest and the wider condemnation of his ideas, Thomas Paine was largely discredited by the public as well as even by the Whigs, who had previously been great supporters of his proposed reforms. This had allowed Burkean philosophy to hold weight as the dominant train of political thought – a philosophy of conservation, organicism, empiricism and order that was the antithesis to the chaos of revolution that was now so feared. It was arguably upon these principles, therefore, that early 19th century government operated under the generation of Lord Liverpool, Castlereagh, and Canning with any real political reform being delayed until 1832 with the Great ReformAct.

The successes of France in its military operations on the continent and the possibility of a French invasion of England in 1797 rekindled the ‘domestic distress’, as described by historian David Cannadine, that was rampant four years prior as the tide turned against radicalism in Britain. This only furthered the sense of national identity felt by the population, being the polar opposite to that of La République.

By the turn of the century, ‘early enthusiasm for the French revolution had largely evaporated as Napoleon was increasingly seen as … a usurper, tyrant and megalomaniac’ as argued by Cannadine. This thundering new patriotism is evidenced by how Addington was able to raise in excess of 85,000 men for a militia and 400,000 volunteers for a national defence in 1804. In political matters, this is supported by how even the likes of Fox and poets such as Wordsworth and Southey, who had previously championed the revolution, were now opposed to it.

The flooding of the public realm with this immovable patriotism was further achieved through the use of cultural mediums that acted like arteries in pumping popular patriotism across Britain. Anti-French propaganda had a monopoly over the stage, with productions such as Shakespeare’s Henry V featuring heavily. In print form too was a mighty Britain depicted as victorious over the French, with the cartoons showing a formidable John Bull dominant over a feeble Napoleon of weak stature. Perhaps the lasting relevance of this wave of national unity and patriotism is best reflected by the magnificent spectacle that was Lord Nelson’s funeral in 1806 in honour of his great naval victories, such as those of Copenhagen and Trafalgar and how similarly, Wellington received a state funeral in 1852 with a procession viewed by over a million people. The fact that these two figures, with their military accomplishments great and their deaths over 45 years apart, were treated with similarly grand funerals can be seen to be testimony to a retention of national pride

a popular patriotism that did not wither with time.

Across the first few decades of the 19th century, there remained a shadow of revolution and radicalism, which haunted every government and influenced their actions. Previously contentious topics such as the abolition of the House of Lords and the monarchy were now silenced and the fear of destabilisation remained dominant. Even seemingly historic reforms such as the Reform Act of 1832 were in some ways restrained. Whilst the Act was successful in disenfranchising most rotten boroughs, some still remained, such as Totnes in Devon. Most importantly, the Act failed to extend the franchise to most of the working class, as ownership of at property worth at least £10 in boroughs remained a requirement. The only real exceptions being those who worked on high value land and some workers who lived in London, where the general price level was higher. In fact, the inadequacies of theAct can be seen by how even Earl Grey, who was Prime Minister at the time labelled it

as an ‘aristocratic measure’. Suffice to say a similar sentiment was expressed by radicals, with key leader of working class radicalism Henry ‘Orator’ Hunt describing the Act as a ‘betrayal of the working class’. As such, it is evident that the reactionary dismissal of radicalism and calls for reform in Britain that took hold in the mid to late 1790s would continue to temper the extent of reforms well into the 19th century.

Overall, the French Revolution would induce a defining period in British politics and national identity to form something of a basis of the Nation-state, where a championing of an uncodified constitution and a Burkean philosophy of tradition, hierarchy, and order would be profound. The revolution settled controversy over reform and gave Pitt an effective mandate to suppress radicalism and marginalise those who supported it. From the 1790s emerged a patriotic people proud of their British identity, and also a tradition of radicalism which would hark back to the 1790s amid the growth of the Hampden Clubs and then the Chartists some 50 years later.

Was the cultural influence the biggest impact of the AK-47 since its invention in 1947? - Aran Taheri Murphy

TheAK-47, officially known as theAvtomat Kalashnikova, was developed and named after the Soviet Union small-arms designer Mikhail Kalashnikov. The gun was developed in 1947 and has been produced 75-100 million times across the globe. It was first produced in the Soviet Union to defend against the Germans and their far superior weaponry, but since then it has been produced and used in every country and major conflict across the globe. TheAvtomat Kalashnikova has dominated the global gun market for the last 8 decades and is by far the most produced gun ever due to its simplicity (only 8 moving parts) and the fact that it is extremely lightweight, weighing in at only 9.5lb. This article will focus on the impacts of theAK47 not just in terms of the cost of human life, but also both the economic and cultural impacts it has had since its invention attempting to highlight its major influence. The definition of ‘impact’used in this essay to evaluate the effects of theAK-47 will be the longevity and severity of the ramifications caused by its creation.

TheAK47 has had a huge economic impact on the USSR due to its mass production and sale within the USSR, to its allies and within the global weapons parallel market. The main strength of theAK-47 was the simplicity of its design which allowed it to be massproduced resulting in it becoming a household name in the Soviet Union. TheAK-47 was a far superior weapon to its Western counterparts at the time of its invention, due to its reliability in extreme weather and the simplicity of its use. The durability and reliability were created as the gun was made to fit loose tolerances, allowing dirt and water to seep into the gun without affecting its performance. The USSR was otherwise known for having very poor-quality goods, so the positivity and effectiveness of the weapon became a source of national pride and one of the leading “exports” for Russia.

These weapons were so highly respected that the USSR sent out millions ofAKs to all its satellite states as well as the blueprints so that they could produce their own, to help them maintain control of their country. The satellite states used these blueprints to mass produce this weapon on an even greater scale and started to sell the gun to neighbouring countries and eventually even to the US, supplying the countries with much-needed income. This caused massive stockpiles to be built up in countries around the world which have since been taken control of by the mafia and gun traffickers. This market saturation remains the case today as theAK-47 is still widely popular in the US shown by the fact that 40% of AK sales go to American citizens which is more than the sales to the Russian army and police combined. The fact that the USSR was able to market the gun so effectively to countries all around the world boosted its economy and allowed it to invest more into the arms race to modernise its army. The importance of this economic boost cannot be understated.As it was a part of the reason that the USSR could keep itself afloat for as long as it did, with over 170m of its citizens under their oppressive control.

However, an even more damaging impact of the success of theAK47 is its overwhelming presence in the global arms parallel market. The large quantity of reproductions as well as the large quantity first produced in the USSR during the Cold War has caused a flood of weapons into the market, due to the large stockpiles being sold off after the USSR fell, allowing them to be picked up for incredibly cheap. The base parallel-market price for theAK-47 around the world varies from $3,600 inAmerica to just $10 in Afghanistan whereas in Kenya you can trade an AK for only 5 heads of cattle. These cut-rate guns allow small armies to be built for a fraction of the cost, which is why it is the first choice for any insurgent or terrorist group. The issue which arises with all of this is that due to most AKs being sold on the market today, being second-hand models from the Cold War stocks, the bulk of the profit goes to dealers or middlemen instead of the manufacturers, which puts a lot of money and power into the hands of dangerous people. InAfrica particularly the use of theAK47 reflects political instability in certain countries whereby black marketeers benefit from the sales, dictators benefit from the easily accessible weaponry and the average person suffers due to the extreme instability and violence. Therefore, the impact of theAK 47 in relation to being a front-running gun in the black market must not be understated, as it leads to violence and enables corruption in governments all around the world. For instance, theAK is most certainly involved in theAnglophone crisis (Cameroonian civil war) which started in 2017 and is still active to this day.

Secondarily theAK-47 has also had a major cultural impact in the world since its invention. Due to the popularity of the weapon on the battlefield, it is constantly in the limelight and thus has had a role in many different cultures. In the US and other Western countries, theAK has been a symbol of Communism and rebellion and was a constant in propaganda against the USSR during the Cold War. TheAK-47 first made to be a gun that could “protect the motherland” (Mikhail Kalashnikov) was then used to crush freedom movements in the USSR’s satellite states. This alongside the power of its image and the legacy it had behind it enabled the West to place the weapon at the forefront of propaganda. On the contrary, in the USSR theAK-47 was a source of national pride, due to it being one of very few military weapons which were superior to their Western counterparts. This led to it acting as a powerful symbol to the Soviet people and an image that ignited the belief that they would win the Second World War.As well as the Soviet citizens admiring the gun, the army did too, as the ability to mass produce it allowed the Generals to fully equip the RedArmy compared to what happened at the start of WW2 where due to dire supply chain issues, the Soviets sent soldiers into combat without enough rifles. Having said that, this concept is mostly a product of Hollywood movies (portrayed in the movie “Enemy at the Gates”), propaganda, and the disastrous performance of the Soviet army in the early stages of the war.

Furthermore, in manyAfrican countries, theAK is a symbol of fighting against oppression highlighted by the fact that it has a place as a symbol of independence in 4 countries' flags, which include Mozambique, East de Timor, Zimbabwe and Mufasa. For example, in Mozambique, theAK47 was widely used in the battle of independence against the Portuguese which occurred during the Cold War period. Indeed, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact powers attempted to support any revolutionary movements, especially in Africa which attacked the Colonial Western Capitalist powers and the AK47’s given to those countries were a tangible demonstration of Soviet support and a clear example of the Cold War being fought outside of Europe and the US. Generally, and specifically because of its direct role in achieving independence for the new nation of Mozambique, it was chosen as a symbol of the newly independent nation on its flag. This addition to the flag was heavily debated and the RENAMO, Mozambique's parliamentary opposition wanted its removal. This appeal was refused which highlights how significant of a part the AK47 has in the hearts of the Mozambique people and how they believe that it is a symbol of their freedom. Finally, theAK-47 has also had its part in politics with even a few political leaders such as Saddam Hussain even frequently having held an AK-47 during interviews, many of which were gold plated.

TheAK-47 has not just altered culture in the past but remains an influence in modern cultures today, both as a communist and terrorist’s firearm portrayed as stereotypical “bad guy” gun. The history of the gun, alongside its distinctive shape, has created a place for it within modern movie and gaming culture whereby it is always used by the “enemies of freedom”. Furthermore, theAK has had a significant impact on the hip-hop genre as well with theAK repeatedly referred to by artists such as Ice Cube in his song “It Was AGood Day” as well as others such as Future and Migos who often use the term “Draco” (Nickname for a Romanian Short Barrelled AKM variant) in their songs. Furthermore, theAK has also become highly present in the modern protest art scene, due to the rifle’s association with rebellion and counterculture. Its presence in the art world is so strong that,AK-47 is the nom de plume ofAndy Link, the leader of a street protests art collective known as “Art Kieda”. As such, it has been shown that the rifle can be seen in every media type imaginable. It has influenced almost every person on the planet, not necessarily with direct contact with a weapon but through images, propaganda, or art. It could most certainly be argued that the influence of theAK47 on culture will have the largest longevity of all the impacts of theAK-47 as it holds a part in every art form on the planet. That being said the cultural influence is not the largest impact of theAK 47 as the severity of its effect is far less than both the Black market and terrorism or loss of life.

The final and most significant impact of theAK is its role in both wars and terrorism and the death toll caused by its usage. There are 100 million AK-47s in circulation to date, the highest number of any other model of gun produced by almost a factor of 10. Each year it is estimated, according to ‘The Globalist’, that over 250,000 men, women, and children die at the hands of anAK-47, and it has been present in almost every conflict on the globe since its invention. TheAK47 was most significantly present in the Cambodian Civil War and the Cambodian

Vietnamese War, as well as the Vietnam War. TheAK-47 was so widely present in the Vietnam War that theAmericans recognized the superiority of the

Flag of Mozambique

weapon in the harsh conditions of the jungle, many of whom instead used confiscated or lootedAKs rather than their own issued US weapons.

The ability to buyAK47s so cheaply has also made it the ‘go-to gun’for any terrorist organisation and for example could be commonly found in the hands of the head ofAl Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden during interviews as well as photos taken by reporters.According to Nils Duquet (director of the Flemish Peace Institute), “In the past two years, terrorists had changed their modus operandi towards firearms rather than bombs.” Between 2014 and 2015, 217 people died in terrorist attacks where theAK has been present, including the attack in Paris in November 2015 where 130 people died from both the use ofAKs and suicide vests.As discussed throughout the article, theAK, as well as a deadly weapon, is also a symbol which is extremely well used by terrorist organisations to strike fear into the hearts of citizens worldwide.

Secondly, theAK has also been omnipresent in the civil wars in Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan.An estimated 383,000 people had died in the South Sudan civil war in just under 5 years of fighting and it can be approximated that a large majority of those at the hands of part of theAK family.Arguably speaking the most horrifying consequence of the simple and cheap design of theAK is the fact that it is simple enough for a child to use. The reduced recoil alongside the fact it is easy to shoot and maintain has made it the popular choice of gun to be placed in the hands of child soldiers. According to a recent report released by the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, more than 120,000 children serve as child soldiers with government armed forces and armed opposition groups worldwide in Sub-Saharan Africa (300,000 Worldwide), many of which can be as young as 8 years old. Some child soldiers are there on their own accord as many 16/17/18-year-olds choose to stand up against a government which they believe is corrupt and are willing to die for it. On the other hand, and far more horrifyingly, in West Africa over 3500 children have been abducted (2nd highest region in the world), a large majority of which would have an AK thrust into their hands and told to fight and die for a cause they do not believe in and most likely do not understand. The part that theAK 47 has had in terrorism and wars is by far the biggest impact of theAK due to the devastation it has left in its path and the fact that it has both been a key weapon in wars in the last 80 years and will also remain a key weapon in future conflicts for decades to come.

In conclusion, theAK-47 is by far the most popular gun on the planet and, with that title, it has had an enormous impact on the world in more ways than one. The impact of the gun’s popularity has caused it to infiltrate into media, art, and culture and even caused it to be placed on flags as a sign of freedom and defense. Since its invention in 1947, 100 million AK-47s have been produced and they will remain in circulation and conflicts for decades to come, taking more and more lives.Although the impact it has had in everyday life is larger than one would think, the loss of life is by far the biggest impact of theAK with 250,000 people dying every year at the hands of one. TheAK is no longer a gun for “defending the motherland” and even Mikhail Kalashnikov towards the end of his life was horrified by the death and destruction his creation had caused. He addressed the church by saying: “My spiritual pain is unbearable. I keep having the same unsolved question: if my rifle took away people’s lives, then can it be that I am guilty for people's deaths?”.

Atatürk, Turkey’s benevolent dictator? - Finn Watton

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (or simply ‘Atatürk’) was the dictator and first president,of Turkey from 1923 to 1938. In modern Turkey he is seen as a national hero, integral in the construction of the Turkish State as we know it today. In fact, the name ‘Atatürk’even means ‘Father of The Turks’, which while being a name which Atatürk gave himself, the fact that it is still used shows the profound legacy he left behind. The image ofAtatürk continues to be plastered on the walls of houses across the country, including on the exterior of the Turkish Parliament. What did Atatürk do to gain this reputation? Why do so many look past his dictatorial rule and praise his democratic values? Hopefully both these questions, and more yet un-asked, will be answered throughout the course of this article.

CONTEXT

Atatürk rose to prominence as an Ottoman General serving in many key wars, such as The Italo-Turkish War in 1911, and The First World War, but the most important to explain why he is so revered would be the Turkish War of Independence in 1919-1923.Atatürk was one of the leading generals who decided to oppose The Treaty of Sèvres, which aimed to partition The Ottoman Empire and further divide up the Turkish State among the victors of WWI.Atatürk was a prominent general in the war, winning numerous victories against The Entente. The victory of this war led to the establishment of a free Turkish Republic, with Atatürk in charge.Atatürk’s participation in the war of independence gave him the image of a nationalist revolutionary, securing self-determination for the Turkish people in a time of concern over being dominated by the Western European powers, thus starting his reign with a positive image that would persist until today. However, this was not the only factor behind the reverence towards him, and would only be a footnote within the greater story of Atatürk.

POLITICAL

When it comes to his political reforms, it is often argued that Atatürk’s dictatorship was set up to prevent Turkey from sliding into Fascist or Communist tyranny, with both becoming more and more present in Europe at the time, which is part of the reason Atatürk is revered as a national hero. This is a fair assessment, as Atatürk’s personal convictions to democracy are reflected in both his actions in terms of political reforms and his words, stating that his “people [were] going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth, and the teachings of science.” This can be seen in his actions Atatürk allowed for, at times a multiparty democratic parliament in the early years of his government, with universal suffrage to those over 18 and various civil rights such as the right to free speech and free assembly, all guaranteed under the 1924 Constitution.

However, it is hard to say that this universal suffrage was a significant reform, as only one party (the People’s Party) was able to run after the only opposition party, the PRP, were dissolved after an assassination plot onAtatürk in 1926. Furthermore,Atatürk’s democratic credentials are further called into question by his widespread oppression of Communist opposition in the 1927 Detentions in which key Communist figures within Turkey were arrested. Nevertheless,Atatürk’s invitation to the opposition figure Fethi Okyar to form a new opposition party in 1930 (4 years after the last opposition party had been dissolved) betrays the democratic intentions that Atatürk had showing that he truly did want to create a multiparty state, although this opposition party wouldn’t last long, lasting only a year due to internal conflict in the party.

Overall, it seems convincing that Atatürk’s end goal was democracy, but his actions were authoritarian and at times outright oppressive, demonstrating a doctrine of a ‘Democratic revolution from above’through his political reforms, with modern Turks praising him for his role in laying the groundwork for their Republic.

SECULARISATION

Atatürk is perhaps more well known for his campaign of secularisation of Turkey, which, while not bringing about full democratic rights, did help build the foundation on which the Republic of Turkey would be built. To set the stage,Atatürk’s abolition of the Caliphate on 3rd March 1924 serves to defineAtatürk’s position on the role of Islam in a modern Turkey, which is important to keep in mind throughout studying his religious policy.

One of the major secular drives pushed byAtatürk was the issue of women’s rights, which had been heavily restricted due to the theocratic nature of The Ottoman Empire. Turkey became one of the first countries in the world to give women universal suffrage (in 1934), making Turkey a pioneer in women’s rights not only in the Islamic world, but also making Turkey outpace most of the western world. The extension of women’s rights went further than suffrage, with equal rights to divorce and custody given to both men and women, reforming of Islamic inheritance laws that gave men half of a woman’s inheritance and a drive to get more women into university. Despite these reforms, men were still officially the head of the household in Turkey. However, it is impossible to deny the radical changes made to Turkish society, contributing toAtatürk’s reputation as a ‘moderniser’.

Perhaps more controversial wasAtatürk’s actively anti-religious reforms due to his belief in French Secularism (freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion), especially controversial due to the 99% Muslim population of Turkey at the time. This French Secularism is revealed in his outlawing of many Muslim institutions and practices. The practice of wearing a fez was widespread in Ottoman society, with almost everyone who could afford one donning one. This all changed with the Hat Law of 1925, which outlawed the fez due to its connection to Islam, with Atatürk instead promoting the wearing of top hats or other ‘Western’hats.Atatürk went a step further with The Law Relating to Prohibited Garments of 1934, banning the wearing of all religious clothing in public for men. These examples show areas in whichAtatürk can be seen as overreaching in his power in order to, in his mind, modernise the country, once again demonstrating that Atatürk did not act fully within democratic boundaries.

Nevertheless,Atatürk is revered for his secularisation of Turkey, with many modern Turks vehemently opposed to the notion that Turkey is a ‘Muslim country’(despite a 92% Muslim population), and 80% supporting the continuation of the secular state as of 2015. Therefore, it may be confusing to many that politicians with heavily religious policies and rhetoric, such as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and hisAKP, remain incredibly popular at the same time. However, there has been much pushback against Erdoğan’s ‘Islamisation’policies, such as the pro-government newspaper ‘Bugün’running a story stating, “no one has the right to convert this society into a religious one, or the opposite.” Therefore, it is more convincing to argue that Erdoğan’s popularity is derived from his paternalistic conservative outlook, rather than his religious drives, and that Atatürk’s legacy of secularism remains in Turkish culture despite the efforts of the incumbent government, thus revealing another reason behind Atatürk’s continued popularity.

To conclude,Atatürk’s legacy continues to be highly respected in Turkey thanks to his steps to secularise Turkey, including his steps to include women in the construction of the new republic, despite his use of authoritarian means, again adding to his reputation of being a benevolent dictator.

NATIONALIST ICON

Finally,Atatürk’s push of nationalist ideals made him (and continues to make him) a source of pride for ethnic Turks, especially at a time where the Turkish people had been so deeply humiliated by the collapse of The Ottoman Empire.Atatürk implemented many laws to make Turkey as distinct as possible, especially from itsArab neighbours to the East.

Aperfect example of this is his reform of the Turkish language, switching from theArabic script to a new Latin alphabet with Turkish characteristics. This clearly betrays Atatürk’s desire to start a new nationalist wave for a new distinctly ‘Turkish Turkey’separate from the Arab world, with this nationalism still being present today.

The reform made to the script is also credited, in part, with increasing literacy rates from around 10% to around 90%, due to how hard the old Arabic script was to learn, another example ofAtatürk seemingly raising Turkey up from its tremendous fall just years prior. Of course, this one reform is not the only reason behind the drastic increase in literacy, with a whole host of language and educational reforms leading to it. But it is just worth quickly noting the impact the growth of literacy had on national pride, leading to a wealth of new literature in the 20th century in a society that was never able to write or even read on such a grand scale just before.

However, it is necessary to recognise thatAtatürk’s nationalism was incredibly harmful for many minority groups within Turkey. Laws such as the Surname Law, which made it so that every Turk must have a surname, was a luxury only afforded to nobility under Ottoman rule. Whilst this seems relatively harmless, it also stated that all surnames that contained ‘connotations of foreign cultures, nations, tribes and religions’, including ‘foreign’suffixes (such as the Greek -pulos, or theArmenian -yan, among many other) or references to foreign countries must be changed to a Turkish name. This law can be seen as incredibly oppressive for minorities, stripping them of their own identities.

More outright oppressive actions include the 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law, which forced non-Turkish minorities to assimilate into Turkish culture, and the ‘Citizen, speak Turkish!’ campaign, promoting the use of the Turkish language in public and rejecting the use of other languages. These actions led to pogroms, arrests, and a Kurdish rebellion and a following massacre (‘Dersim Rebellion’) in the case of the Resettlement Law. The government did, at times, step in to protect minorities from pogroms, such as with Jews in Thrace in 1934 following the Resettlement law, but the original intention of both these actions was to oppress minorities, so this should not be used to brush them under the rug. It is also worth considering, however, that this would have been looked favourably upon by those deemed as Turks, so the impact on his legacy from these oppressive laws is not felt, and, if analysing his legacy, can even be seen as strengthening nationalism in Turkey. This, of course, does not absolveAtatürk or his government, but it is undeniable that it is a persistent part of his legacy.

To sum up,Atatürk was able to form a new, united Turkish culture at a time when Turks were ashamed of their country due to a humiliating decline in the prior couple of decades, giving modern nationalists a figure to rally around as a founder of modern Turkey. Conversely, his legacy among minorities in Turkey, including Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, among others, was heavily damaged by this aspect of his rule, which also presents a challenge to the notion that Atatürk was a ‘benevolent’dictator, as some may argue.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a figure that continues to be admired by Turkish society due to his contributions to Turkish culture and his efforts to establish a truly democratic Turkish Republic, including his drive for secularisation, bringing Turkey to, and at times beyond, the level of Western nations. However, it must also be remembered that he is seen as far from benevolent by minority groups in Turkey, and those sympathetic to them, due to his government’s highly nationalistic policies to integrate everyone in the country into the Turkish culture. Taking all into account,Atatürk can instead be seen as a figure who desired a greater Turkey and took the approach of ‘the end justifies the means’, at times acting with benevolence, and at others, with a harmful ideological zeal.

Portuguese Exploration to India - Jose Bouras Leao

Portuguese exploration to India started with small less significant exploration and settlements along all the west ofAfrica. Henry the Navigator was extremely interested in exploration and sponsored voyages as Governor ofAlgarve. His support was crucial in the journey to India and under his service, Álvaro Fernandes captained two important expeditions and reached Cape Roxo, the border of Senegal and Guinea-Bissau and a trading Post was established which was created to attract Muslim traders and monopolize the business in the routes travelled.Although the Portuguese always said they did this exploration for mainly religion, this was only to get extra funding and support from the Church. In reality, they had fallen so far behind in the contest in Italy over cities like Florence, they needed to find other ways to get rich, and so trading for spices in places nobody but they could reach was the decision they took. In 1488, Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope near the Southern tip ofAfrica, disproving the view that the Indian Ocean was separate from theAtlantic. At the same time, another Portuguese explorer, Pêro da Covilhã reached India via Egypt and Yemen and was supposed to bring back information of the waters they were going to sail in, but the letter never reached the King and Covilhã disappeared in Ethiopia.

Vasco Da Gama was chosen due to his young age and experience. On 8th of July 1497, nine years after Dias had made the most important step in exploration to India, Vasco Da Gama’s squadron left Portugal. It consisted of four ships and 170 men. Within a week they had reached the Canary Islands and Da Gama gave the order that if they were to split up, they must rendezvous at the islands of Cape Verde. The crew travelled along the coast ofAfrica; this section of the trip was relatively easy due to experience from previous journeys. When they reached the South Atlantic, to avoid unfavourable currents, Da Gama made the difficult decision to adventure into the open sea. They sailed into cold conditions where they found whales swimming around their ships and, despite taking six days and multiple attempts, they successfully sailed around the Cape of Good Hope.Along the coast of modern-day South Africa, they traded with natives for food and resources, but every time both sides were very sceptic and led to fighting between natives and Portuguese. The crew sailed past Dias’last pillar on the 15th of December but were swept back there again on the 20th of December.At this point the crew began developing serious signs of scurvy and some died, but on the 22nd of January, they reached a delta with the Zambezi River, and they stayed there for one month collecting fruits to recover. When they left, they erected a pillar to tell everyone this was their land and they Christened the Zambezi the River of Good Omens. The Fleet continued to travel in unknown waters and stopped more often in Mozambique and Kenya for supplies. They even got an Arab navigator in one of their stops who managed to show them the way to cross the Indian Ocean until they finally reached Calicut. TheArab Navigator helped make up for fact that Covilhã’s letter had never reached the King.

The Portuguese reached Calicut in Western India in May 1498, around 300 days after they first left Portugal. Initially, the local Hindus welcomed the Portuguese, making them think they were Christians. However, the mood soured when Gama’s gifts were considered cheap by the local ruler. The Portuguese also tried trading with the local Muslims in the area and were initially successful, but the Muslims soon realised their true reason to be there was to make the local Muslims and Hindus fight each other. Ultimately, Vasco Da Gama had to leave without making a treaty with locals and collecting very few spices and resources to

bring back to Portugal.

Despite failing in the attempt to create a settlement, this exploration is the root of today’s globalization. It opened up a new way of trade, much safer than the silk road. It initiated a global cultural, economic, and historic connection as it had never before and was the reason other countries realised, they needed to explore globally in order to become rich. The failure to bring back anything meaningful is a lie, however, Da Gama and his crew were able to bring the most important resource: information. This journey was the reason the English reached India and the reason the Portuguese were in India for 450 years. Without the 170 men that went and put their lives on the line, the world would look completely different.

Vasco da Gama

With thanks to...

Editors:

Charles Blagden

Henry Bramall

Ollie Lycett

Designers:

Finn Watton

Aran Taheri-Murphy

Mr Cobb (Reprographics)