New history is made everyday, politically, economically, socially, both for better and for worse. With the pace at which this new history is created around us, it can be easy to forget about history in its more classical sense – the twisting, turning journey from humanity’s humble beginnings to the thriving civilisation of today. To do so would be a crucial mistake. As the saying goes, “if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it”. There are countless lessons to be taken from the successes and mistakes of the past – a small number of which this journal seeks to capture. We have received a record number of entries this year, and each and every one is testament to the curiosity, passion, and talent of historians at this school. Thank you to all the contributors who have made this year’s journal possible and who have ensured the continued flourishing of history at St. Olave’s in general. I hope as you read this journal, you find that these lessons interest you as much as they have interested us in editing them.
- Shaun Abraham Chief editor Chris Choi, Tymek Lecybyl Co-editors
Over the course of this year, the History Society have sought to expand their horizons and diversify the topics being discussed in the weekly meetings. To this end, the focus of this edition of the History Society Journal is the lessons that can be learnt from history broadly. Articles have been submitted during the course of this academic year, from pupils across the school and my thanks go to those who have gone above and beyond the curriculum and exhibited the love of History within St. Olave's. I would also like to take the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the lengths that our student leadership team have gone to to run the weekly society and produce this excellent journal alongside their studies.
- Mr Wearn
The Dangers of Appeasement Chris Choi Y13
History has repeatedly demonstrated the dangers of appeasement- the cowardly and defeatist policy of conceding to an aggressor's demands in the hope of avoiding conflict. Perhaps the most infamous example of this occurred in the lead-up to World War II, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Édouard Daladier, seeking to maintain peace in Europe, allowed Adolf Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia. This decision, made without Czechoslovakia's participation in the Munich Conference of 1938, only emboldened Nazi Germany, ultimately leading to greater territorial conquests and, soon after, global war. While Chamberlain and Daladier’s actions have been widely condemned, some historians argue that Britain used this period to rearm, recognising that war was inevitable. Nonetheless, appeasement failed spectacularly. Today, echoes of this failed strategy are emerging once again as the United States meets with Russia in Saudi Arabia- without Ukraine presentraising fears that history may be repeating itself.
In September 1938, Hitler demanded control over the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia with a significant German-speaking population. Rather than stand firm against this aggression,
Britain and France sought a diplomatic solution, out of fear that a war of a similar scale to the Great War would break out again. The Munich Agreement, signed on September 30, 1938, granted Hitler his demands in exchange for promises of peace, notably without the consent of the Czechoslovak State. Chamberlain famously returned to Britain declaring “peace in our time,” waving a worthless piece of paper while Hitler laughed and made plans to gobble up the rest of Czechoslovakia. Predictably, by March 1939, Hitler had done just that. Appeasement wasn’t just a failure- it was a farce. This event exposed the fallacy of appeasement: giving in to an aggressor does not satisfy their appetite for powerit only encourages further expansion. This failure directly led to World War II. Hitler, emboldened by his easy victory in Czechoslovakia, turned his sights on Poland. When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Britain and France had no choice but to declare war. The lesson was clear: appeasement does not prevent war- it delays it while making the aggressor stronger.
Fast forward to today, and here we go again. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to a prolonged conflict with devastating consequences. The West initially responded with strong rhetoric,
sanctions, and military aid, but as the war drags on, the weak-kneed politicians are getting nervous. Now, diplomatic efforts are being made to negotiate a resolutionbut, in true Munich fashion, without Ukraine at the table. The U.S. and Russian officials meeting in Saudi Arabia might as well be standing on a balcony, waving a piece of paper and promising “peace for our time.” There are growing fears that parts of Ukraine may be ceded to Russia under the guise of securing peace. If this occurs, it would send a dangerous message: aggression is rewarded, and borders can be changed through force. Just as Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia emboldened his later conquests, allowing Russia to retain Ukrainian territory could encourage further territorial ambitions- not just by Russia but by other revisionist powers worldwide.
And who are the ringleaders of this disgrace? Look no further than VPOTUS J.D. Vance and POTUS Donald Trump, two men who have made it their mission to turn American foreign policy into a circus act. Their rhetoric, such as calling the Ukrainian President a Dictator, blaming the Ukrainians for the War, along with threats to pull the United States out of NATO, sends a dangerous signal- not just to Ukraine but to every American ally. This abandonment is especially galling given that the United States expected European solidarity after the attacks of 9/11. America did not stand alone then, yet today, these political charlatans would have us believe that isolationism is the way forward. It’s a pathetic, gutless betrayal, plain and simple.
And what about the so-called leadership in the Pentagon and the State Department?
The U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have been about as useful as a
chocolate teapot- blustering about democracy while offering half-baked support, dithering like frightened schoolboys who’ve forgotten their homework. Their indecision, or rather, decision to allow Russia to maybe even retain control of the areas they have invaded, to the extent of defending Russia, has emboldened them, signaling weakness when strength is needed most. If Ukraine is abandoned, it won’t just be a strategic blunder- it will be a moral failure of epic proportions, one that will stain America’s reputation for generations.
The lesson from history is clear: failing to stand firm against aggression does not prevent conflict- it invites more of it. The Munich Conference of 1938 showed that sacrificing smaller nations for the illusion of peace only delays the inevitable and empowers aggressors. If Western leaders today attempt a similar strategy with Ukraine, they may be repeating the mistakes of Chamberlain and Daladier, leading to even greater instability in the future.
The world must remember that true peace comes not from appeasement, but from deterrence. Strength and unity are the only ways to prevent further expansionist aggression. If history teaches us anything, it is that conceding land to aggressors does not buy lasting peace- it only sets the stage for greater conflict down the road. The current stance of American leadership, particularly from isolationist figures in the Republican Party, is not just weak- it is outright treacherous. They are betraying Ukraine, betraying NATO, and betraying every principle they claim to uphold. They are not leaders; they are appeasers, enablers of tyranny, standing idly by while history repeats itself.
If the US turns its back on Ukraine, it will
not just be a stain on its record- it will be an act of cowardice that future generations will curse. And no amount of spin, no carefully-worded diplomatic statements, will erase the act of abandoning a nation fighting for its survival. When history looks back, let it record their names alongside
the great appeasers of the pastChamberlain, Daladier, and now, Vance, Trump, and every other masquerading leader. Appeasement is the defeatist and cowardly way out, and they have no place in history except as a warning to others.
India vs Pakistan- A Study in Sports Diplomacy
Shaun Abraham Y13
When faced with the prompt ‘Lessons Learnt from History’ , the first instinct is to retrospect on history’s great failures. This is borne out of the generally reasonable, if somewhat idealistic, assumption that society has been ever advancing, building on lessons from past failures towards a mutually beneficial future. However, in an increasingly fractious modern climate of geopolitical tensions, environmental disasters, and social unrest, it would be foolish to assume that society has not taken a backward step at some point in its journey up to today. As many as the failures in history we can learn from, there are also successes which we can, and far too often don’t, emulate. One such lesson, of particular relevance in today’s unstable geopolitical context, is in the forgotten art of sports diplomacy. Among the best examples of this is the cricket diplomacy employed between India and Pakistan from the 1980s to the late 2000s, set against a volatile backdrop of flaring border tensions and aggressive political posturing.
Background
The Partition of British India in 1947 into the independent states of Pakistan and
India was a tumultuous period in the history of the subcontinent. Conflicts between the Muslim and Hindu ethnic groups dominating the two states respectively had left millions dead and tens of millions displaced. This fraught beginning to the two nations’ relationship, despite coexisting under British rule for more than a century preceding this, left any interaction between the two, however small, highly charged and subject to massive public interest on both sides of the border. Cricket matches between the two took on significance both as a peaceful outlet for the tensions between the two, but also as an opportunity for communities sundered by the Partition to come together and put aside their differences under the unifying banner of sport.
India vs Pakistan: Cricket’s most anticipated encounter
However, following the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 – the largest engagement of armed vehicles and tanks since WW2 – and later the War of 1971 over the formation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan, cricket matches between India and Pakistan were suspended till 1978. Cricket was at that point structured such that bilateral international tours were the primary basis of the sport – with no leagues paralleling those in football or basketball - meaning this suspension had a large and definitive impact. The resumption of cricketing ties between the two from 1978 was thus an incredibly important event, particularly given the explosion of cricket’s already huge popularity in India (and by extension Pakistan) following their ODI World Cup win in 1983.
1987 Operation Brasstacks
In the latter months of 1986 ,leading into early 1987, India launched a mass mobilisation of its armed forces in the border state of Rajasthan, in a military simulation exercise codified ‘Operation Brasstacks’ . Though India’s stated aim was to determine tactical nuclear strategy, the Pakistan Military viewed this operation as a rehearsal for a “blitzkrieg-like” infiltration of their borders, with over 500,000 Indian troops amassed within 100 miles of Pakistani territory. In response, Pakistan increased its own military presence on the border and put its nuclear installations on high alert in January 1987, with Pakistani foreign minister Zain Noorani overtly threatening India’s Ambassador S.K. Singh with the infliction of “unacceptable damage” on India. Given India’s own nuclear capabilities, established from their 1974 ‘Smiling Buddha’ nuclear test, there was a genuine threat that these tensions could escalate into nuclear war.
Indian tanks in Rajasthan, 1987
A cricket tour may seem inconsequential against such high stakes, but when in February of 1987 Pakistan toured India for a 5 match Test series, Pakistani President General Zia ul-Haq was invited to watch the 3rd test in Jaipur – the state capital of Rajasthan – where he engaged in cordial discussions with Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi that helped precipitate the de-escalation of tensions. By March 1987 an agreement had been reached for troops to be withdrawn on both sides from the Rajasthan border and from the contested state of Jammu and Kashmir, with India inviting Pakistani statesmen to observe the conclusion of Operation Brasstacks as a marker of its peaceful intentions. Given the political ill will between the two nations, the organisation of a face to face summit between the two leaders would have proved difficult without the use of cricket as a facilitating medium. Despite simmering tensions between the two nations, the sheer public excitement around an Indo-Pak cricket tour meant their differences were temporarily put aside and the tour was able to go ahead as normal, making it a prime vehicle for diplomacy where more conventional pathways of discussion were hindered.
1999-2004 Tensions
Pakistani backed militant movements in Indian-administered Kashmir from 1989
led once more to a cooling of relations between the two countries in the 90s. Cricketing relations between the two were maintained, albeit with matches being played at neutral venues such as Sharjah and Toronto, where matches remained highly anticipated and well attended by large audiences of expatriates. Between 1996 and 1999, Canada even hosted an annual Indo-Pak ODI series titled “The Friendship Cup”. However, Pakistani infiltration beyond the ‘Line of Control (LoC)’ into Indian territory in May 1999, beginning the Kargil War, saw bilateral cricketing relations cease once more, aside from a one-off encounter in the 2003 World Cup. Though India had claimed victory in the war by July of 1999, tensions between the two countries remained at a dangerous high over the next 5 years, exacerbated by numerous flashpoints and standoffs. Terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament in 2001 and on an Indian army camp in 2002 (where the majority of victims were civilians) saw the two nations come to the brink of nuclear war, with India having set concrete plans in motion for ground assaults on Pakistan. It was only through the diplomatic efforts of the UK, US, Russia, France, and Japan that tensions finally began to ease in late 2002, with a ceasefire deal signed in November 2003.
The ensuing period of détente between the two nations remained fraught, with tensions liable to boil over at even the smallest provocation. In this context, India’s tour of Pakistan in 2004 was a landmark proposal of diplomacy, marking the first Indian tour on Pakistani soil in 15 years, and planned by the government rather than the central cricket board. It was seen as an attempt by Indian PM Vajpayee at burying hostilities with President Musharraf of Pakistan, despite
the latter standing accused of orchestrating attacks on India just a few years prior. The tour required hitherto unseen levels of security for the Indian contingent, but they were greeted warmly by Pakistani crowds and players across the country – despite beating Pakistan in both the Test and ODI legs of the series (losses having previously inspired acrimonious reactions from both sets of fans). Indian fans and journalists were also given special ‘cricket visas’ to Pakistan to watch the tour, inspiring a cultural exchange and dispelling hostilities between the two nations at the grassroots level. Sending off the Indian team on their tour, PM Vajpayee had instructed them to “win hearts too, beside matches” and this was indeed the case, as the tour helped create a period of prospering cricketing relations and thawing diplomatic ones, with General Musharraf visiting India for a cricket match in 2006, and Pakistani players forming an integral part of the newly formed ‘Indian Premier League (IPL)’ in 2008.
Indian players celebrating their ODI series win, 2004
2008 Onwards
Following the Pakistani backed 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai, relations between the two countries deteriorated once more, with Pakistani players expelled from the IPL and all bilateral tours between the two countries ceased, apart
from one Pakistani tour of India in 2012. Aside from that, India and Pakistan have only played each other since 2008 under the auspices of official tournaments, with Pakistan visiting India for the 2011 and 2023 World Cups, but themselves having to host any ‘home’ matches against India in neutral venues like Dubai. India’s domination of the cricketing market has in some senses been weaponised by the Indian Cricket Board against Pakistan, with India recently refusing to travel to Pakistan for the ongoing (as of February 2025) Champions Trophy, forcing them to accede to Indian wishes about where they play. Cricket matches between the two countries today garner fervorous public attention due to their scarcity, and though they continue to serve as a source of camaraderie between fans and players, the political will to convert them into opportunities for governmental diplomacy is unfortunately far less prevalent than it once was.
Conclusion
Despite its death beyond 2008, there are many lessons to be learned from the cricket diplomacy between India and Pakistan across the 1980s and 2000s. Sport unifies international communities in a way not many other mechanisms can, acting as an equaliser by subjecting all participants to the same rules on the pitch or court, the same competitive jeopardy, and the same end goal of victory. It serves as a reminder to viewers that international conflicts are not against the common people of the opposing country, who are fans or players in just the same way as them, but with their leaders, and thus helps prevent the escalation of political disagreement into wider racial or ethnic hatred. Many Indians and Pakistanis today still refer to each other as brothers and
sisters, not just because of their shared past but because of a shared culture –particularly when it comes to cricket – that unifies them despite their differences. In today’s world sporting relations are often the first casualty of international conflicts - players being banned from tournaments and championships not on their own demerit but on that of the country they represent. There is of course a case to be made for this – some conflicts are too pervasive for them to be set aside in the name of sport – but it is important to remember that sport can also be extended as an olive branch, or a vehicle for diplomatic discussion, as it was by India and Pakistan. Though they too no longer abide by the policy of sports diplomacy, we should learn from their past successes, and recognise that sport is not just a pastime, but holds value as a tool for peace and diplomacy.
Standard Oil, Antitrust Law and A Lesson to Unlearn? Rishabh Murali Y12
In 1904, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company (SOC) controlled 91 percent of oil production and 85 percent of final sales in the United States, which was at the time, the foremost producer of oil and gas globally. In comparison, when we think oil today, we tend to think of the Saudis (Aramco) and their especially tight grip on modern oil prices, however they (Aramco) only have a pitiable 41 percent share of global oil production as of 2023, less than half of that of Standard Oil’s at their peak. It’s hard to illustrate the extent to which Rockefeller had a stranglehold on not only oil, but also transport industries, and even U.S politics, and how through Standard Oil’s unchecked and meteoric growth he was able to create a fully integrated monopoly that controlled all aspects of the supply chain, decimated competition through predatory pricing practices, and made him the richest individual in modern history, with an estimated net worth of $631 billion.
While this might sound problematic from a financial fair play standpoint, superficially this isn’t immediately indicative of a problem for consumers. Perhaps Standard Oil just offered the highest quality and lowest priced oil compared to the competition, which
explained their immense share of the market, as consumers just bought the products they felt were of the best value for their money. Why did the state need to intervene by introducing new laws and splitting up Standard Oil if consumers benefited from the SOC’s domination of the oil industry?
The fairly obvious answer to this question is that consumers did not benefit from the SOC’s domination of the oil industry, in fact very much the opposite. Or at least, we’d assume that the SOC raised oil prices having decimated any competition, and consumers were forced to pay more for oil with no other alternative available.
This is, in actual fact, a complete myth. A myth I had bought into myself before I did some preliminary research for this article. Standard Oil did change prices at points in their history, but this was usually dropping them to at or below their costs, essentially operating at a loss in order to drive companies out of the market. Once they had achieved a dominating position in the market, oil prices were actually lower than they previously had been due to the SOC’s efficient business models and economies of scale they had achieved. They did raise prices on occasion, but this was never enough to warrant a widespread response. Prices did fluctuate, as they do in a market, but the SOC never raised prices significantly to retain public favor and minimize regulatory scrutiny. Why would a company as shrewd and tactful as the SOC who were able to build such an empire risk it all for a slightly larger profit margin? They knew they could make more money through gains in market share than if they drove up prices, which would likely get them lobbied out of existence, at which point they’re making no money. A net loss.
Looking at these facts it’s hard to say there was anything inherently wrong with Standard’s monopoly. At a time when the United States was growing rapidly and quickly establishing itself as the leading industrial power in the world, cheap oil was a necessity, not only to sustain current industry but also to sustain the growth of new industries, such as the freshly burgeoning automobile industry, which needed oil for both production and fueling. Standard provided where no one else could. What benefit was it to the state to break up such a cornerstone of the American economy, and to what extent were these measures intended to protect consumer interests?
The first question has a much more complex answer than may be initially assumed. The best oversimplification of this answer is in one word, power. Standard had integrated themselves into the American economy in almost total secrecy, to the public at least. What I’ve failed to mention is that while the SOC were easily the largest conglomerate in the country, their status as a trust of around 40 companies was virtually unknown. The trust, formed by Rockefeller, his brother William Rockefeller, and a number of other associates, managed to embrace a maze of legals structures, allowing them to stay under the radar and pull the strings from their New York headquarters, much like how companies like BlackRock and Nestle have their fingers in a lot more pies than is comfortable to admit, but we’ll take a deeper look those examples later. It was this legal fortitude that allowed them to come out of an order from the Supreme Court of Ohio to dissolve in 1892 relatively unharmed.
It was at this point critics began to emerge of the government and how they had let such a company exist in the first place. This growing public scrutiny culminated in investigative journalist Ida Tarbell’s 1904 book “The History of the Standard Oil Company”, where in reference to the SOC’s legal status: “You could argue its existence from its effects, but you could not prove it”. It was this ambiguity in their nature that had allowed the SOC to gain their unfair advantage they held that gave them their position in the market. They took advantage of railroad rebates, which, as described in Britannica, are: “retroactive refund or credit given to a buyer after he has paid the full list price for a product or for a service such as transportation”.
The Britannica definition also includes a lengthy section on how these were abused by “19th century industrialists”, and specifically calls out Standard as the most infamous beneficiary of these rebates, which are anticompetitive. What if there was a company that could have provided oil cheaper and better quality than that of Standard, but couldn’t afford the same quality of transportation that Standard seemed to enjoy and were forced out of the market?
It took several more years for Standard to be taken to court, and it was only in 1911 that the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey was dissolved into 33 different companies, many of which are household names now: BP, Texaco, ExxonMobil, being 3 of the most successful direct descendants. It took the effort of countless lawyers, lawmakers, judiciaries and even some presidents to defeat Standard Oil and Rockefeller, but the nature of the why is the more fascinating to me. I’ve already explored how Standard’s consolidation did actually advance the oil industry, and American industry as a whole, so what lesson did we learn from the example of Standard Oil v. United States, if it wasn’t that big corporations are bad for us?
Antitrust law is intended to maximize consumer welfare. And in a free market, higher consumer welfare (in the form of increased options) leads to a healthier market (in the form of competition). The unchecked growth and domination of
Standard Oil is traditionally the example given of where we learnt our lesson and consumers paid the price. However, it’s raising questions about what consumer welfare entails. If a big company happens to be able to provide the best product (in this case, the cheapest oil), and as a result of economies of scale, the oil they provide will only get cheaper (provided corporate greed is kept in check), what’s to say this isn’t in the best interest of consumers?
This question becomes increasingly relevant as geopolitical and trade relations begin to heat up as superpowers begin to emerge, and other superpowers attempt to consolidate their position. It was an extremely fringe idea to roll back antitrust law in the U.S, especially as it was an issue that enjoyed bipartisan support, until recently, when as its position as the leading global power is increasingly threatened, lawmakers are being pressured to pull back antitrust law in order to allow technological innovation to flourish and the economy alongside it. It’s a very relevant issue and will likely take decades to break down. It’s easy to learn lessons from history, but how easy is it to unlearn said lessons?
How did the Silk Road weave the threads of modern society?
Aryen Adhikari Y12
The silk road was neither an actual road nor single route – rather, it was a vast network of many interconnected trade routes spanning over 6400km. It lasted the course of 1600 years, from when the Han dynasty of China opened trade in 130 BCE. until 1453 CE, when the Ottoman Empire closed off trade with the West. Not only was it the physical connection between the East and the West, facilitating trade and economic activity (most notably silk and spices from China to Western Europe), but the silk road also played an integral role in cultural exchanges, technological advancement, political alliances, and the broader process of globalization. However, there are key lessons to be learned from not only its successes, but also eventual downfall. The origins of the silk road can be traced back to Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, who sought alliances with the Central Asian kingdoms to counter the nomadic Xiongnu tribes who were encroaching upon the borders of northern China. The reports received by the emperor from his ambassador within Central Asia, Zhang Qian, in 138 BCE highlighted the wealth and commercial potential of those regions, encouraging the development of westward pathways for economic growth as well as military and diplomatic purposes.
The Roman empire was also expanding during this period. A victory in the Punic wars against Carthage, and the following conquest of Egypt and the Mediterranean shoreline signified the beginning of the Pax Romana – Roman Peace.
By consolidating power and establishing peace within their borders, both empires enabled the free flow of goods, people, and ideas across vast distances. The Han Dynasty’s efforts in forging alliances with Central Asian kingdoms opened trade routes that stretched across the Asian continent, while the Roman Empire’s control over key Mediterranean ports integrated the West into these networks. Over time, these interconnected trade routes expanded beyond the borders of China and Rome, influenced by the Parthian Empire, and later, the Mongols.
This emerging capacity for the exchange of goods and ideals highlights how no civilization thrives in isolation, as the benefits that arose from a greater interdependence between nations would foster mutual economic prosperity.
In today’s modernized world, we can perhaps also consider international dialogue and cultural diversity as factors that play a key role in innovation. One of the most notable examples of crosscultural exchange facilitated by the silk road was the spread of the secret art of Chinese papermaking into the Islamic world, and subsequently Europe. Following the Abbasid Caliphate’s victory over the Tang dynasty at the Battle of Talas (751 CE) in modern day Kyrgyzstan, a significant number of Chinese craftsmen and artisans were captured. It was through these prisoners of war that the Islamic world would learn of such closely guarded papermaking techniques which could then later spread westward along the road. This completely transformed the way knowledge was preserved and disseminated, stimulating the creation of intellectual hubs such as the House of Wisdom in Baghdad in 786 CE, and eventually led to the emergence of the Islamic Golden Age that saw significant advancements in fields like mathematics, sciences and medicine. This laid the foundations for the European Renaissance in the 15th century. The success of the silk road also heavily relied on the stability of the aforementioned empires that ensured security and safe passage for merchants, and peace between powers was vital. Modern parallels can be drawn to international agreements and institutions like the World Trade Organization, emphasizing the importance of geopolitical balance in facilitating trade.
The Pax Mongolica (12th to 13th centuries) marked the peak of the silk road’s golden age, as the Mongol expansion ushered in an era of political stability allowing for a boom in trade.
However, the eventual fragmentation of the Mongol territory loosened the economic, cultural and political unity of the silk road. The creation of smaller, competing territories meant that the once safe passageways were vulnerable to banditry and local conflicts, and the costs and risks associated with trade began to rise. These problems were accompanied by increased tariffs and tolls from local powers following the collapse of a larger centralized government, also worsening the issue. This unstable period coincided with the outbreak of the Black Death in the 14th century which would wipe out populations across Eurasia and greatly decrease economic activity and a demand for goods and therefore decrease the viability of the silk road. Its decline was accelerated due to the rise of maritime trade and the establishment of sea routes that would provide a more efficient means for the transportation of items.
The silk road’s vulnerability to disruptions –whether it be from disease, war, or political collapse – highlights the risk of overdependence on specific trade routes, or perhaps partners. The importance of diversification still remains highly relevant today. This is particularly evident when
considering the recent COVID-19 pandemic, when global supply chains –heavily reliant on manufacturing hubs like modern day China – were severely damaged.
Whilst the silk road was once the backbone of global trade and ideological exchange, its decline was inevitable when considering economic shifts away from unstable regions to alternatives such as maritime routes. However, its legacy endures in the way it transformed the world, connecting distant civilizations and fostering the early seeds of globalization.
The Paradox of Progress: Quantum Mechanics and the Challenge of Advancing Beyond Bohr’s Legacy
Anna Greenwood Y12
The development of Quantum Mechanics in the early 20th century is a stunted yet enriching story featuring the collisions of the greatest physicists of all time. The chronology of the monumental discoveries provides a cautionary tale to researchers today, exemplifying the hindering effect by which popular, widely accepted theories can inadvertently slow scientific progress. Planck first introduced the idea of quantized energy in the 1900s, marking the beginning of Quantum Theory. Einstein expanded the theory in 1905 through his suggestion that light is quantised as photons, and Bohr proposed his model of the atom in 1913, setting the stage for further quantum developments. Yet his model stifled further evolution of the theory until 1924 when a new generation of physicists emerged, and the quantum world exploded. This narrative demonstrates how groundbreaking ideas can, paradoxically, become obstacles to progress if they become too successful, emphasizing the importance of ongoing scepticism in the world of scientific research.
Solvay Conference 1971
Despite being a major step forward, the model had significant limitations which physicists of the time were unaware (or purposefully ignorant) of, hesitant to abandon a model that explained atomic stability and hydrogen’s spectral lines so accurately. Parallelling the Geocentric model of the solar system which popular belief clung to in 380 BCE, the scientific community overwhelmingly supported Bohr’s model, despite the accumulating evidence against it.
Bohr’s work built on Ernest Rutherford's discovery that atoms consist of a dense, positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons. His model incorporated the new ideas of Quantum Mechanics, suggesting an atom with Quantised Energy Levels and Stable Electron Orbits. With strong experimental support of accurately predicting the line spectra of hydrogen, Bohr’s revolutionary model was wellregarded and popular amongst the scientific community.
Research such as the double slit experiment, and its subversive idea of wave-particle duality, highlighted the growing deficiencies in Bohr’s model. Further incompatibilities also arose with the introduction of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in the 1920s: Bohr’s model relied on specific orbits, which contradicted the forthcoming understanding that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty.
Opposing evidence continued to stack up against Bohr’s flailing model, and yet scientists continued to cite it, clinging to the comforting and reliable interpretation it provided. Neils Bohr was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1922 for his work, and it is of no doubt that his model was a giant (and necessary) leap forward in the world of science through its incorporation of features of Quantum Mechanics into the description of atoms and molecules. Yet its failures should have been more immediately noticed.
Disregarding the small adjustments made in 1916 to create the Sommerfeld-Bohr model of the atom, Bohr’s model was the leading theory in Physics until 1925, when Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Schrodinger, and Dirac began to disrupt the landscape. This demonstrates the all-consuming effect of a model such as Bohr’s, as it took a new generation of scientists, unconstrained by ‘traditional ideas’, to truly make new advances and break free of the box Bohr had created.
It should be noted, however, that although Bohr’s initial model was replaced, his role in the development of quantum mechanics did not end with his 1913 contribution. His principle of
complementarity, publicised in 1928, emphasised wave-particle duality and had extensive impacts across the field of Physics, essentially shifting scientific thinking about reality.
The stunted development of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920s exemplifies how progress in physics often requires scepticism about established beliefs and a willingness to explore alternative explanations. This essential mindset of both curiosity and determination has proved crucial throughout the history of Physics. Yet it is a lesson scientists continue to ignore – instead relying on the influence of incoming generations and their clear, unbiased vision to provide new insights. Ones which we ourselves could determine, should we be assertive enough to go against popular belief and challenge common knowledge. Our greatest advancements often come when we are willing to question the assumptions we inherit, just as was once required of Copernicus and Galileo, and later the likes of Heisenberg and Schrodinger. This unconventional openness can lead to revolutionary understanding and is still necessary in fields exploring uncharted territory, such as quantum computing and dark matter research. The history of Quantum Mechanics serves as a reminder that meaningful development demands both boldness and a relentless pursuit of deeper truths, unencumbered by the biases of convention, to facilitate true scientific progress.
Guerilla Warfare Chendoor Pushpanathan Y11
Imagine you are a country being attacked by one of the world’s most advanced military powers, outnumbered and overpowered in every sense. How can you win when the opposition is just so much more stronger? Today I will be discussing how the Vietnamese overcame the Americans oppression using a simple yet devastating tactic – guerilla warfare, how it works, and the potential issues that it may have.
The word ‘guerilla’ essentially means ‘little war’, in Spanish, which was used during Spain’s uprising against Napoleon troops. It essentially adapts a hit-and-run tactic, where small, irregular groups of people undergo raids and ambushes to outlast and defeat their opponents. This tactic has been used throughout humanity, as it provides the easiest route of opposition against vastly superior military strength. The end goal of guerilla warfare is to win the hearts and minds of the people, which then in turn can spark national rebellions, driving the opposition out of the country.
A key example of guerilla warfare that I will be discussing today seen is the battle between America and North Vietnam in the Vietnam war of 1955. The South had a truce with the Americans, meaning that the Americans wanted to defeat the North to
stop the idea of domino theory, where countries would fall to communism. The war was a good example of a proxy war between the US and Russia and is a pivotal moment for the Cold War escalating. When the Americans had reached, General Westmoreland had wanted to fight a war of attrition, or a search-and-destroy attack. Essentially, he wanted to fight head-on with the North Vietnamese forces and attack them directly and use their vastly superior numbers to crush them. However, the Vietnamese, knowing this, adapted guerilla warfare, and instead focused on attacking and then disappearing into the civilian population, or the large forests where most of their battles were situated. The Vietnamese was led by the Viet Cong, a resistance group supported by the North Vietnamese army. They picked off the American forced little by little, inflicting major casualties whilst receiving very little themselves. So how exactly did they do this?
A key advantage of fighting a guerilla war is the terrain. By knowing our home ground, you can know areas of safety, places where you can retreat to and never be found. It also allows for setting booby traps, a favourite of the Viet Cong. A famous example is the Punji pit, where a camouflaged pit would have bamboo
spikes smeared with faeces so that any soldier unlucky to fall through would not only be impaled, but also receive infections, causing them to stay out of combat for a long time. These traps were estimated to have caused 11% of the total fatalities during the war. Similarly, mace traps were also used, when a tripwire activates and causes a large, weighted ball of spikes to swing down from above, often killing the soldier that activated it. These traps too down the Americans slowly but surely, but were also cheap and affordable to make, meaning the Americans were whittled down without being able to use their technology.
A Punji Pit
In terms of mobility, the Vietnamese had a huge underground system of tunnels that spanned over ten thousand miles. The most famous of these tunnels is the Cu Chi tunnels, which served as an effective means of safe transport between key villages, allowing access to resources for soldiers. These tunnels were not found by Americans until the later stages of the war, which they then describe as a ‘parallel city’ underneath them. And it truly was a city – some areas underground became so developed they turned into villages, with theatres and music halls to provide diversion for the troops and their supporters. The tunnels also provided a means of shelter against the persistent bombing of the Americans, which was
largely unsuccessful thanks to the underground network. The U.S, now becoming impatient with their poor campaign, even sent in ‘tunnel rats’, who would spend hours navigating the cramped, dark tunnels to detect booby traps and scout for enemy troops. Often this was a suicide mission, with very few of the soldiers able to return to the camps, often finding themselves lost in the underground labyrinth they tried to navigate.
The psychological effect of guerrilla warfare cannot be understated. The Americans grew restless day by day, itching to fight but were unable to find their enemies. Each step they took was with caution, knowing they could be surrounded by booby traps. Not only that, but skilled archers could be hiding in trees, waiting for the perfect moment to pounce and vanish into the vast wilderness. The soldiers were losing their will to fight, seeing their comrades rushed into makeshift hospitals, knowing very well that they could be next. This is one of the key effects of guerilla warfare and results in opposition giving up on the battle, causing them to retreat. Guerilla warfare takes a huge toll on soldiers mentally; it is a key aspect on why it is so effective.
Some people have argued that guerilla warfare is a cowardly way to fight and look down upon it for said reason. They believe wars should be fought by ‘real methods’, i.e. front-on confrontation and in a military warzone, with whichever side having better tactics on the field or more manpower to overcome its adversaries achieving victory for their country. However, to this I would argue the case of invading countries taking over other’s land. How can a country defend itself if
they have a significantly smaller number of soldiers, or even no tactical leader to follow? That’s why guerilla wars are typically referred to as ‘peoples wars’, where the people take action to defend their homeland, and why their traps often seem cheap and primitive.
Others also argue that guerilla warfare may not be ethically correct and can cause severe harm to civilians. As the Viet Cong typically did not wear any uniform, it became difficult for Americans to identify them in villages, where they could blend in as members of the normal public. This caused Americans to kill hundreds of civilians as a result, leading to noncombatants losing their lives. Moreover, the way the Viet Cong treated the prisoners of war wasn’t humanitarian, and those who were captured sometimes committed suicide. They also recruited children to do some of their work, which completely goes against all international laws on child labour. The way the North Vietnamese fought wasn’t ethically correct at all.
However, whilst looking at the overall picture, it could be argued that the North Vietnamese had no choice at all. Against one of the strongest militaries in the world at the time, they had to find a way to drive the Americans out, and the only strategy capable of doing so was this. In conclusion, I think that the way the North Vietnamese fought the war using Guerilla warfare was the best solution to a war that they had little to no hope of winning. It made a statement to the world that no matter however much you spend on artillery and technology, tactics will always come out on top.
The Galileo Affair
Vivaan Shanker Y8
What was the Galileo Affair?
The Galileo Affair took place around 1610 and was when the famous Galileo was arrested, tried and ridiculed for his belief. This is a famous example of one of the biggest mistakes of the developing human civilization and the church. His beliefs are now proven to be true and the whole incident incredulous by the majority of the modern-day population. He also wrote a book he called Stary Messenger in which he put all his findings. His journal was later found and published as a book.
Who was Galileo?
Galileo Galilei was a researcher that studied various subjects but most importantly astrophysics. He was born in modern day Pisa, Italy. He had 5 siblings, only three of whom survived past their first couple of years. His youngest brother, Michelangelo, was interested in Music and therefore he required money for his endeavors, money that he did not have, but Galileo did. Therefore, Galileo gave a lot of his funds to his brother, leaving less for himself. He was later sent to gain a medical degree at the University of Pisa as it paid more than a mathematical or scientific job, however it was a chandelier in one of his lessons that inspired him to study pendulums and after some more of such things,
including attending a geometry lecture that he ended up pursuing Mathematics and Sciences.
What did Galileo believe?
The reason that Galileo was prosecuted was for the message he was spreading, which included theories of a heliocentric (all planets rotate around the sun) solar system, as opposed to the beliefs of the church and the Bible who believed that the geocentric (all planets and The Sun rotate around the Earth) solar system was correct theory. What he said was seen as heretical and an action against the church. Additionally, the people of the kingdom found the notion utterly ridiculous. His beliefs also included a round Earth. This was not the first time this theory was brought up in history either. However, it is mentioned in the Christian Bible that the world revolves around the Earth and it is at the center of the universe. He was also known to discover the craters on the sun and the moon, along with the moons of Jupiter and many more.
How did he come across these discoveries?
Galileo was able to observe our solar system and learn these facts by building and improving a mirror telescope that had an extremely impressive range. Simply put, this telescope is the main
reason for his discoveries. He was able to observe the sun and then moon, which he saw had craters and mountains on the surface. He observed the rotation and orbit of the planets and the Earth and concluded that their solar system was heliocentric, and he built a model to show this.
Reasons for the church’s anger
The Church, at the time, made a crucial mistake and an irrational choice and, with little to no proof, decided that Galileo’s words were incorrect. They thought that Galileo was being a heretic by speaking his words as, in the Bible, it is stated that the Earth is at the center of the Universe. They had no scientific proof of the fact that it was so, yet they still chose to put Galileo through a trial, the result of which was that he was declared as a heretic. After centuries, in modern times, it is now obvious that they were mistaken, however at the time it was seen as completely reasonable.
The Result of the Trial
The Trial in 1633 showed Galileo as guilty and his punishment was to remain under house arrest, until his death in 1642.Upon speculation, many historians believe that this was done by the church so that his discoveries could not be spread by him to the wider public and this theory could not grow further. After this trial, books that suggested the theory of heliocentricity were banned and it was also declared that Galileo Galilei was to not be allowed to teach or defend his theory of heliocentricity. There was a lot of political and internal church complication in this event as Pope Urban VIII had declared himself as a kind of mentor and protector of Galileo and permitted him to publish some books on his theory as long as he
only considered it a hypothesis in them. However, this deal was undone some time before Galileo’s trial.
Lesson To Learn
There are multiple valuable lessons to be learned from this event. However, the first and foremost is to never make statements with no proof of its accuracy. The church made this mistake as they relied on no scientific evidence to their claims and prosecuted an innocent man. If they had not done so and instead let the research advance, there is no telling how far ahead we would be now.
Lessons learnt from Revolutions Aayush Kampani Y12
The 18th to 20th Century was a century rich with various unanticipated revolutions, dissatisfaction in existing governments that eventually leads to profound and rapid change in political order. Revolutions, throughout history, have very much promised to be powerful engines of political change and progress, providing Countries with an opportunity to institute the framework of a better government that aims to improve the lives of civilians. Despite revolutions providing a glimmer of hope to countries, almost all major political revolutions have ended as terrible tragedies, and in the most extreme cases, has led to millions of deaths. So, in this article, I seek to find the common threads upon which some of the most well-known, and some more obscure revolutions, have led to the rise in extremism and radicalism, and try to understand what we can learn from the revolutions to ensure that History never repeats itself. The first thing that we can learn from revolutions is that despite them being preordained in hindsight, they ultimately fail due to rapid and abrupt change, breaking the mould of all historic institutions that creates a severe power vacuum, immediately leading to the crumbling of institutional stability. This is seen through the start of the French Revolution, starting
1789, that had the hope of achieving ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’, and immediately did so by overthrowing King Louis XVI and in September 1792, with a lack of institutional stability to reap the benefits that would come by building a fairer system. Instead, a power vacuum was created through firstly, the overthrowing of traditional institutions, with the Catholic church, acting as a stabilising force in French society, diminishing in power under the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. However, the revolutionaries themselves had no clear successor regime, with a wide range of provisional government after the monarchs fall and many political figures using the power vacuum for personal advantage, as you would expect to be the case. This was heightened by tensions between more moderate Girondins as opposed to the more radical Jacobins who had a large amount of influence of the National Convention, declaring France as a republic and installing Maximilien Robespierre as the leader, who claimed he was ‘the people himself’ and tried to grasp control of the huge political factionalism and divide within France by beginning a ‘reign of terror’, essentially eliminating the many opposition leaders, like Georges Danton, who rose and fell rapidly in their attempt to control the revolution.
In stark contrast to this, the American Revolution, despite also having a degree of violence, was focused on fighting the British army rather than widespread internal purges and had a structure upon which power would be separated. This is one of the few exceptions to in which a smoother power transition occurred that prevented the creation of a power vacuum, testament to the fact that not only institutions were broken down, was the American revolution which led to its independence and flourishment. American colonies had an institution originally built upon self-government, giving them the experience required to create and run their own political affairs once they broke ties with Britain, who was argued to be a ‘careless mother’ that let America get used to self-governing. This contrast highlights one key things about revolutions, the sudden political change they bring about can create a power vacuum, descending into chaos and leading to a cyclic structure in which the ideas of a revolution aren’t implemented, with the Napoleonic Era beginning in 1799 and the suppression of electoral process and partisan politics. This teaches us not only of the unpredictability that comes with revolutions, but the complexity of post-revolutionary governance.
Another reason why revolutions are so dangerous is because moderate liberal reformers have repeatedly failed to understand the dangers of radicals and the rise of extremism that comes with revolutions. This is clearly seen in the French and the Russian revolution, where leaders like Lafayette and Condorcet being a target to extremists on the left and right of the political spectrum, despite cooperating and trying to work with the French Jacobin rivals. The similar can be
said for the Russian Revolution the Mensheviks and the liberal reformed like Kerensky sought to moderate reforms, and establish a parliamentary democracy, hence forming a provisional government because of the Tsar’s abdication. However, in such circumstances created by social inequality and power vacuums, moderates very often fail to understand the appeal of parties such as the Bolsheviks. But it isn’t only the lack of moderates grasping the threat of radicals during revolutions, conservatives opposing revolutions have too incidentally provided power in the hands of those are far right, such as the installation of Hitler in 1933. The instability of revolutions highlights the sheer risk of radicalism that comes when trying to topple over political institutions, and the consequences of this radicalism was most certainly seen. The combination of radicalism and desperation from a revolution is what eventually lead to the outcomes of modern revolutions failing partly because of corruption and ultimately resulted in Russia’s 20th century authoritarian regime that resulted in political repression and economic hardship. Alongside such radicalism, also comes corruption within dictatorship that was hidden and could not be exposed at all. Corruption has become a key aspect of the anti-colonial ‘Third World’ revolutionary regimes such as Algeria, in which the National Liberation Front (FLN) became the ruling political party that held huge amounts of centralised power and distribution of jobs within the civil service, military and state owned industries often handing out positions based on loyalty, along with the huge wealth in oil and gas, all leading to Algeria becoming a breeding ground for corruption.
Finally, revolutions have taught us that political tact means that so long to the fact politicians understand the need for change and compromise, they can try and prevent revolutions. Some historians would argue that revolutions are most likely caused by one drastic, potentially global event like an economic depression and cynicism within governments that all trigger a revolution. However, revolutions could also have been avoided. Take the Cuban revolution, considering the dictatorship of Batista, seen to merely serve the elite and foreign interests of the Cuban population. If Batista implemented land and economic reform that improved the livelihoods of people living in rural areas, reduced inequality and reducing US influence as their heavy influence fuelled anti-American and Nationalist sentiment, the Cuban revolution may not have occurred, and many others follow a similar trajectory.
In conclusion, revolutions teach us a lot. Most of the time, the desperation, social and economic disparity and inequality that tends to cause a revolution also leads to a change in historical institutions and systems. When not planned properly, and when revolution fundamentally alter the working of a country, the power vacuum created leads to corruption and radicalisation – ultimately leading to most revolutions ending in disaster. For revolutions to work, at the centre of it is unity, planning and above all, conservation of a lot of what exists within society to ensure the outcome of a revolution can be achieved without causing political chaos.
Lessons we can learn from legislation behind Power and Governance. Vincent Uong Y12
Empires are often remembered for the military tactics and prowess that allowed for their impressive reach across the globe. We often glorify the battles which display strength and valour, forging the borders we recognise today, yet we rarely consider the complex structures of governance, and the systems that sustained these empires long after the conquests had ended. These ensured loyalty and stability not only at home, but perhaps more significantly in the new land engulfed under the common name. What would follow, was a crucial balance between cohesion and control, appeasement and command, and ultimately an understanding of the unique contexts of each region. Today, we know this as legislation.
To explore the relationship between law and power, we will look at two of the largest empires to date, those with the most to lose, and at the same time the highest capability to expand: The Roman and The British Empires. This essay seeks to unveil the lessons embedded in their approaches to governance. Their successes and failures aptly form a legal framework, stressing the importance of justice and sensitivity to different cultures, some as relevant to contemporary contexts as they were to ancient empires.
Roman law evolved most significantly in the 5th century BC, as a result of internal pressure within the empire. This period is often remembered for the tensions between the two main social classes: the patricians and the plebians. The patricians were the aristocrats, holding the majority of the political power and land, while the plebians comprised of the common people, they were the average working citizen of Rome. This did not include the slaves, who were an integral part of the economic and social fabric of Roman society, although they lacked individuality from their masters let alone rights to engage in the political process, and thus in this specific scenario are largely irrelevant.
“The plebeians were oppressed, for the laws were not written, and thus they were subjected to the arbitrary will of the magistrates” as Plutarch put it in his Parallel Lives. This led to political and economic vulnerability, with the legal system backing the patricians instead of working to protect the common majority, this would manifest itself most often in harsh debt laws and underrepresentation.
“Those who fell into debt often lost their property and could even face enslavement”, as detailed in On the Laws (Cicero).
It is clear that the legal system was skewed in the favour of the wealthy elite, which often preyed on the vulnerability and financial struggles of the lower classes. Furthermore, the underrepresentation of plebians in the government, and even the explicit exclusion from holding political office, reinforces their impairment. This resulted, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the Conflict of the Orders, which were a series of social struggles demanding political reform and equal standing. The plebians withdrew from the state five times on critical occasions between 494 BCE and 287 BCE to compel patrician concessions, essentially striking and leaving Rome. This became known in Latin as a “secessio” . This led to the establishment of the office of the tribune of the plebians to represent the interests of the common people, and the Twelve Tables, marking a turning point in Roman governance by formalizing laws, laying the groundwork for the evolution of Roman law towards equality.
The Twelve Tables created legal uniformity across Rome and its provinces, which allowed smoother administration of new regions, allowing citizens to immediately understand the laws which protected them and the rights they had which allowed them to participate in local governance, integrating the diverse cultures into the political framework, ultimately cutting out the risky grey area of time in which there would often be uprisings, and preventing the need for a local figurehead which often led to power struggles and instability. However, corruption and deviation from the principles established by the Twelve Tables hindered this. Local magistrates frequently manipulated the laws for personal gain. Cicero noted that “the
power of the magistrate has become the greatest threat to justice” (Pro Sestio). In Judea, heavy taxation and corruption culminated in the Jewish Revolt (66-73 AD) with “the tyranny of the governors [bringing] about the ruin of the province” (The Jewish War, Josephus). Or, in Hispania, where the frequent abuse of power by the officials, led to the local populations view on Rome deteriorating, believing the “laws had become a tool for the powerful rather than a shield for the weak” (Ab Urde Condita). We see corruption essentially disregard the Twelve Tables and their principles, resulting in the decline in loyalty to Rome, ultimately leading to the challenging of authority, most explicitly in Judea, where the conflict highlighted the fragility of Roman control, contributing massively to a pattern of instability and fragmentation, which played a crucial role in the decline of the Roman Empire.
In many ways, we can see that the British Empire learnt a lot from Rome, seeing them as a model for success. Britain adopted many elements, like a centralised authority, and provincial governance, and faced similar issues in terms of the clashing of culture, which was largely mismanaged. Due to the sheer scale of the British Empire, at its height, the challenges they faced were much more pronounced in terms of scale and complexity than the Romans. Whilst the Romans did recognise the importance of allowing a degree of cultural autonomy, the British largely failed to learn this lesson from them. Instead, when the British established control, especially in India, they imposed their own legal framework, with traditional legal systems replaced or marginalised, prioritising British interests, which were designed to facilitate the extraction of wealth from the colonies.
This is known as “mercantilism” or in a wider economical context, “profit maximisation”, not only seen in India, but also equally significantly in the thirteen American colonies. This would not only alienate the local population but allowed for the development of resentment against colonial authorities.
In India, the British laws were perceived as a violation of rights and a direct attack to cultural identity, ultimately a loud display of power and dominance, especially in reference to the Enfield Rifle. Other policies like the Permanent Settlement of 1793, the first major institutional reform, a more individualistic form of land ownership, as opposed to the mahalwari system of shared ownership, emphasised the differences in legislation and customs. Outrage would build, consistently over time, with the aforementioned Enfield Rifle being the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, to the Indian Mutiny of 1857. This would expose the vulnerability of British authority, and showcased the deep-seated resent against the colonials, ultimately calling their bluff, and reshaping the political and social structure. On top of this, the focus on profit, with the British prioritising cash crops over edible produce, made the nation susceptible to environmental factors. This would come to bite them in the back in the Great Famine 1876-1878, and the ineffective relief measures led to a massive loss of life. The subsequent growing resentment was inevitable, also contributing to the loss of power in India for the British Crown, in 1947. Similar events happened in the thirteen colonies, with the differing cultures being religion, and the desire for economic output sustained, although the latter is more significant in the direct loss of power and American independence, with harsh taxes posing the British as the
enemy to their colonies. The mismanagement of India and America, and the British disregard for the population in their legislation, shows the British failed to learn from the Romans, resulting in their own collapse and inability to sustain power.
Ultimately, the need for fair and inclusive laws to shape governance, and the importance of local sensitivity within it, prove themselves to be empirical in sustaining power. The ability to evolve to circumstances is equally essential, as the balance between appeasement and control shifts, so too must the laws which define it.
The reforms proposed at the very start of this essay regarding the plebians are not so different to those in a modern context, despite the passing of more than two millennia. Perhaps it points towards the fact we have not learnt from our mistakes and that history is, after all, destined to keep repeating itself. Although, it is pessimistic to say that society has not improved at all. If I were to predict how the British and Roman empires will shape those in the future, I would say that the ancient Roman phrase “vox populi, vox Dei”, which translates to “The voice of the people is the voice of God” will prove itself to be more and more significant, as the balance shifts away from the elite and towards the “plebians”, history shows us that the voices of the marginalised will always reshape legislation, which remains a critical tool for equality. After all, the law should always work to protect the population, not feed into the greed of the elite, and the understanding of that is what separates a thriving empire from a fallen giant.
The Chernobyl Disaster
Temi Akinsete Y9
The Chernobyl Disaster. A tale of sadness, pain – and unnecessary death. A blunder during an experiment that sharpened our attention to safety in regards to radiation. A blunder that could have been stopped.
What is the Chernobyl Disaster? Pripyat was formerly, at the time of this experiment, located in the Soviet Union. This town was 10 miles away from the Plant. This is nowadays Northern Ukraine, although it was captured by Russia’s invasion, and may change hands again. In 1986, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union were desperate to trump the U.S –industrialization was in full force, and Nuclear Power was needed. Hence this –the Chernobyl Power Plant. The Chernobyl Power Plant was working as normal. The Reactors were working and producing as needed. Yet, on 26th April 1986, an entirely avoidable incident occurred, shaping the future of work safety generally.
How did it happen?
On the 26th April 1986, an experiment occurred. Important leaders in Moscow wanted crucial information – what would happen to the Plant if there was a complete shutdown. They couldn’t afford a loss of energy. For safety reasons, there were three backup generators for each reactor. In case the Turbines shut off, it would take
75 seconds for these to turn on and the turbine, which would be powering off but still spinning, would power the generators. Theoretically. Over the course of 19821985, there were several tests taken to check on these backup generators, to see if they would work in the case of disaster. Unfortunately, these all failed miserably. So, in 1986, another test was conducted. This time, the cooling system was shut off as to not cause interference in the experiment. This was just a controlled example to monitor energy output. The generator was turned down to 25%. The staff conducting the experiment were under-trained and unready. It was the night shift, and many people would’ve been tired. However, during 25% power, the energy levels were falling too low. For future reference (this is a simple roundedup explanation), cooling rods could absorb neutrons which, in turn, could limit the nuclear reactions and help maintain problems should anything go wrong. Due to the low power situation, these cooling rods were removed, allowing reactions to occur without hindrance. However, due to chemical buildup, the reactor is being prevented from creating much more power. In fact, the reaction rate is getting slower. For now.
The test starts at approximately 1:24 AM. The turbines are turned off to simulate what would happen. However, due to the removal of cooling pumps and the shutting off of the cooling system. A surge in power occurs. The reactor overheats. And then there it is – the Chernobyl disaster.
What were the effects?
The Chernobyl disaster was a shamble. It pumped radiation in to the air and in to the ground – the area of Pripyat is a ghost town and still has irradiated dirt in the surrounding areas. Yet this disaster did not only have negative effects. Even nowadays, it is an example highlighting safety in the workplace, the necessity of PPE and the priority of lives over workforce.
former Ukrainian Republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, near the present borders of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, was categorised at the time as “the most devastating accident in the history of nuclear power”.1 Two decades on, the assessment of the health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the accident still continues, with the aim of providing definitive and authoritative answers.2
In addition, from a legal perspective the accident underlined some significant deficiencies and gaps in the international legal and regulatory norms that had been established to govern the safe and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. At the same time, it stressed the “need for a collective international focus on [nuclear] safety” and, in its wake, prompted a call for “the creation of an international regime for the safe development of [nuclear energy]” under the auspices of the IAEA.3
For all its devastating consequences, the accident was in fact a wake-up call for the “international nuclear community” and led to a new era in international nuclear cooperation, involving states which had so far been removed both geographically and technologically from nuclear power. In its aftermath, the international nuclear community, in an attempt to allay concerns of the public and political world over the use of the atom as a viable energy source, sought to rebuild confidence in the safety of nuclear energy, primarily through the IAEA, by urgently addressing those main deficiencies in the existing international legal framework that had been exemplified by the accident.
What were the reactions to this event?
Here is an extract cited from the International Atomic Energy Agency:
“The accident on 26 April 1986 in unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the
Also, a global experts’ community of selfsustaining safety networks of expert knowledge and experience has been created to facilitate continuous safety improvement and mutual learning. “
This extract gives a grim but true overview on the public’s overview of the safety of nuclear items. Reporters commented on these subjects, all emanating the same thing – the Chernobyl incident was a horrific disaster. It was covered up by the Soviet Union until spy cameras from the U.S. managed to catch images and deduce that there had been a large nuclear meltdown – radiation levels had risen sharply across the whole of the European Continent.
How did this end up as a “Lesson learned from History”?
Well, as mentioned before in this write-up, unfortunate accidents like this can really help us understand the gravity the importance of PPE and safety measures. The Soviet Union were more interested in covering their back than actually consoling those in the area. Some died from radiation sickness after sluggish evacuation and carelessness exposure by experts – some people and unborn children had deformities which resulted ultimately in death. I can say, with confidence, that this is a lesson learnt from History.
The Transatlantic Slave Trade: A Grim Chapter in Human History
Sajan Suresh and Sai Mishra Y8
The transatlantic slave trade stands as one of the most harrowing and defining chapters in global history, marking an era of inhumanity that spanned over four centuries. It involved the forced transportation of millions of Africans to the Americas, where they were subjected to brutal conditions and exploited for their labour. The legacy of the slave trade continues to shape societies, economies, and cultures, leaving its mark on the world.
Origins and Scale of the Slave Trade
The transatlantic slave trade began in the early 15th century, by European powers such as Portugal and Spain, who sought to expand their influence and wealth through colonization and the exploitation of foreign lands. The discovery of the New World (The Americas) in 1492 opened vast opportunities for European expansion, but it also set the stage for one of history's most outrageous human rights abuses. Initially, Europeans attempted to enslave indigenous populations in the Americas, but these efforts failed due to high death rates caused by disease and brutal working conditions. As a result, Europeans turned their attention to Africa, where a wellestablished system of slavery already existed. African societies had long engaged in the practice of slavery, but it was
typically localized and differed significantly from the slavery that would emerge in the Americas.
European traders capitalized on existing conflicts and rivalries among African states, exchanging firearms, manufactured goods, and alcohol for slaves. African leaders often captured people from neighbouring communities, selling them to European traders in exchange for these goods. Over time, the demand for slaves grew, leading to a catastrophic increase in the scale of the trade.
By the peak of the slave trade in the 18th century, it is estimated that over 12 million Africans had been forcibly transported across the Atlantic Ocean. The Middle Passage, as this journey came to be known, was notorious for its horrific conditions. Slaves were packed into ships with little room to move, and the lack of food, water, and sanitation led to a high mortality rate up to 20% of slaves died before reaching the Americas.
The Impact on Africa
The transatlantic slave trade had a devastating impact on African societies. The loss of millions of young and ablebodied individuals led to significant population declines, which in turn weakened economies and disrupted social structures. The demand for slaves also fuelled conflict and warfare, as African states and groups competed to capture and sell slaves to European traders.
The slave trade bled existing divisions within African societies, leading to the breakdown of traditional communities and cultures. Entire regions were depopulated, and the social fabric of many societies was irrevocably damaged. The trade also contributed to the rise of powerful African kingdoms, such as Dahomey and Ashanti, which profited from the capture and sale of slaves. However, the long-term consequences were overwhelmingly negative, as the human and social costs far outweighed any economic gains.
Trade between the Americas, Africa, and Europe
The Slave Trade in the Americas
Upon arrival in the America's, enslaved Africans were sold at auction and forced into a life of gruelling labour. They worked on plantations, in mines, and in households, producing goods such as sugar, tobacco, cotton, and coffee
commodities that fuelled the growth of European economies. The labour of enslaved Africans became the backbone of the colonial economy, particularly in the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Brazil.
The conditions of slavery in the Americas were brutal. Enslaved people were treated as property, subjected to harsh punishments, and denied basic human rights. Families were often separated, as individuals were sold to different owners. The dehumanization of enslaved people was justified by racist ideologies that depicted Africans as inferior beings, deserving of their subjugation.
Despite the inhumane conditions, enslaved Africans resisted their oppression in many ways. Some attempted to escape, forming maroon communities in remote areas, while others engaged in acts of sabotage, work slowdowns, and rebellion. The Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), in which enslaved Africans overthrew French colonial rule and established the first black republic, stands as a powerful example of resistance against slavery.
Abolition and the End of the Slave Trade
The abolition of the transatlantic slave trade was a gradual process that unfolded over the 19th century, driven by a combination of economic, social, and moral factors. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on human rights and individual liberty, played a significant role in shaping anti-slavery sentiment in Europe and the Americas. Abolitionist movements emerged, advocating for the end of slavery and the slave trade.
Legacy of the Slave Trade
The legacy of the transatlantic slave trade is profound and enduring. The trade's effects are still felt today in the form of systemic racism, economic disparities, and social inequalities that continue to affect descendants of enslaved Africans. The forced migration of millions of Africans also had a significant impact on the cultural landscapes of the Americas, contributing to the rich and diverse cultures that exist today.
The transatlantic slave trade also serves as a stark reminder of the capacity for human cruelty and the dangers of unchecked power and greed. It has become a crucial subject of historical study and reflection, offering lessons on the importance of human rights, dignity, and the ongoing struggle for equality and justice.
Conclusion
The transatlantic slave trade was one of the darkest periods in human history, marked by immense suffering and exploitation. While it has left a lasting scar on the world, it also serves as a testament to the resilience and strength of those who endured its horrors. Understanding this history is essential to confronting its legacy and working towards a future where the dignity and rights of all people are respected and upheld.
The Entebbe Raid
Aryan Singh Y9
On July 3, 1976, Israel launched the most daring, complicated, long range, logistically challenging and political volatile hostage rescue in history. The raid made history in many ways and proved to the world the lengths that Israel would go to rescue its citizens. But how did we get here?
On June 27th, 1976, Air France Flight 139 departed from Tel Aviv, Israel, destined for Paris, France, carrying 246 Jewish and Israeli passengers and a 12-person crew. The flight stopped in Athens, Greece, where it picked up fifty-eight passengers, with 4 hijackers who managed to slip past security. After the plane departed again, the 4 hijackers instantly hijacked the plane: 2 from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine External Operations (LPEO), with two Germans from the German Revolutionary Cells. The hijackers diverted the flight path of the plane to Benghazi, Libya, where lots of time was spent refuelling. During this time, one Britishborn Israeli citizen, Patricia Martell, was released after she convinced them she was suffering a miscarriage (she was not).
Airport in Uganda. Idi Amin who knew about the hijacking from the start supported the hijackers and soon 4 more joined. The passengers were moved to the hall of a former airport terminal under reconstruction. On June 29th, the hijackers decided to separate the Israeli and nonIsraeli passengers who each went into different rooms. The Israelis being treated more harshly. Amin visited the hostages daily, making false promises about negotiation and release which were no true. The terrorists demanded $5 million USD for the release of the plane and the release of 53 Palestinian and proPalestinian prisoners from various locations. 40 were situated in Israel with others in Britain and America. Both Britain and America refused to release the prisoners claiming that that would only make the terrorist situation worst. They threatened to start killing hostages if their demands were not met by July 1st.
The plane departed from Benghazi, Libya and on June 28th, arrived at Entebbe
Amin was aware of the hijacking from the beginning and personally welcomed the hijackers especially as he had a bad history with Israel. On June 30th, following Amin's second visit, 148 non-Israeli hostages were released and flown to Paris. 94 passengers, alongside the 12 member crew who adamantly wanted to remain in
custody, were held behind. Ironically, one Israeli military officer, using his other passport as a dual national, was not identified by the hijackers who let him go realising only later that he was in fact an Israeli military officer. A Holocaust survivor showed hijacker Wilfried Boese his concentration camp tattoo. Boese exclaimed, "I'm no Nazi. I am an idealist!"
Israel faced a difficult decision: comply with the terrorists’ demands or attempt a daring rescue. While Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin leaned toward negotiation, Defence Minister Shimon Peres and military leaders believed in a military solution. As the deadline approached and the hijackers threatened to kill the remaining hostages, the decision was made to launch a rescue mission. The Israeli plans also had to account for clashes with Ugandan soldiers. Israel had no diplomatic and negotiating options except one. Israel then sought the United States' help to influence Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to pressure Amin into releasing the hostages. Despite attempts, the Egyptian government were unsuccessful in negotiating with the hijackers who refused to even speak with him.
Operation Entebbe
On July 1st, Israel requested an extension of the deadline to July 4th, and Amin also requested this extension, citing a diplomatic trip to Mauritius. The extension gave Israeli commandos enough time to prepare for their rescue attack. On July 3rd, the Israeli cabinet approved the rescue mission presented by Major General Yekutiel Adam and Brigadier General Dan Shomron, who had been appointed operational commander. The mission, codenamed Operation Thunderbolt/Operation Entebbe, was set
to take place at night on July 4th. Israeli C130 Hercules transports flew over 2,500 miles to Uganda at low altitude so they could not be detected on radar, carrying one hundred commandos. Kenya allowed the commandos to land and refuel at Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta International Airport as it had initially arisen as a problem.
Israel’s military force gathered intelligence from the released hostages and Patricia Martell who had the fake miscarriage , identifying the remaining hostages' location and details about the terrorists' weapons and other pieces of useful information. The Israelis constructed a partial replica of the airport terminal for rehearsals. Despite rumours spreading of an Israeli rescue attempt, Ugandan military commander Isaac Maliyamungu dismissed the information after a general made him aware. Amin, informed by his son, Jaffar Remo Amin, arrogantly ordered the Ugandan Army not to fire on Israeli aircraft during a potential raid (which he thought would not occur), as he doubted the Israelis could succeed.
The Israeli force, led by Brigadier General Dan Shomron, comprised of lots of units. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Netanyahu led the main 29-man assault team tasked with rescuing the hostages swiftly and taking down the hijackers. Other units secured the runway and were told to destroy any Ugandan MiG fighters, and provide cover for the aircraft so that they could leave Uganda quickly. The C-130s flew at low altitudes to avoid radar detection back and landed at Entebbe on July 4th, with their cargo bay doors already open. A black Mercedes and several Land Rovers rolled off one of the Hercules aircraft, aiming to mimic Amin's motorcade.
The commandos quickly neutralized Ugandan sentries who realised that these were not Amin and his generals and raced to the terminal fearing Ugandan soldiers would hear the gunshots. Once they reached the hall, they shouted in Hebrew and English for the hostages to stay down. Unfortunately, 19-year-old Jean-Jacques Maimoni stood up and was mistakenly killed by Israeli soldiers. Two other hostages, Pasco Cohen and Ida Borochovitch, were also killed. German terrorist Wilfried Boese, who had earlier shown restraint, was killed when he opened fire on the commandos. The remaining hijackers were found in another room and quickly neutralised. As Ugandan soldiers fired on the Israelis from the control tower, the commandos responded with light machine guns. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Netanyahu was shot and the control tower blew up as one of the Israeli soldiers threw a rocket-propelled grenade.
The mission resulted in the deaths of all of the hijackers, 45 unsuspecting Ugandan soldiers, and the destruction of 11 Ugandan MiG fighters. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Netanyahu was killed in the operation. Despite the loss, the mission was deemed a success, rescuing 102 hostages in a 53-minute operation, with the assault lasting just 30 minutes. The Air France crew, who stayed with the hostages despite being offered release, were honoured by France.
The Aftermath
On May 24th, 1978, Kenyan agricultural minister Bruce Mackenzie was assassinated when a bomb planted on his aircraft exploded. This was believed to be revenge for him helping Israel. Israel later honoured MacKenzie by planting a forest in Israel in his name.
The United Nations Security Council convened on July 9th to consider charging Israel with aggression. While UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim acknowledged the violation of Uganda's sovereignty, he also recognized Israel's need to act against international terrorism. Israel's ambassador, Chaim Herzog, accused Uganda of complicity with the terrorists. Ultimately, no resolutions condemning Israel or Uganda were made and the raid demonstrated Israel's commitment to defending its citizens and combating terrorism. Most members of the UN went on to congratulate Israel for the impossible feat they pulled off.
The Lesson Learnt
There are multiple lessons that we learn from the Entebbe Raid. The first is the importance of planning and coordination. Without these two key factors, the raid would have failed. The plan was complex involving multiple units tasked with different jobs and roles like fending off MiGs, fending off Ugandan soldiers, negotiating with Kenya, getting information, creating models, fight and healing. All of these roles combined made for a well-executed operation. The second
In the aftermath, Idi Amin retaliated against Kenya for assisting Israel, which resulted in the deaths of 245 Kenyans in Uganda, and many others fleeing the country. Some Ugandan soldiers were executed on suspicion of collaborating with the Israelis, and the airbase commander although all the executions were out of anger and humiliation not evidence. Dora Bloch, who was an elderly hostage taken to a hospital before the raid for being seriously ill, was murdered by Ugandan officers on Amin's order.
we learn is of the importance of decisive leadership - many decisions were made quickly which worked in their favour. Some include negotiating or attacking and how many people were needed and who. The decisiveness of the actions meant that the plan could be executed swiftly and without fail. The final lesson we learn from the Entebbe Raid is bravery. When everyone thought a military attack was impossible, Israel did not back down and negotiate but instead took that as a challenge to attack. The raid made history in many ways and proved to the world the lengths that Israel would go to rescue its citizens. They did not back down from the impossible challenge.
The Strategic Role of Mountains in the Russo-Afghan War: Hadi Siddiqui Y9
The Russo-Afghan War (1979-1989) is still one of the most significant conflicts of the late 20th century, with the death of over 1 –and – a – half million people. At the heart of this conflict lay Afghanistan's mountainous terrain, which profoundly shaped military strategies, influenced the course of the war, and eventually led to the defeat of the Soviet Union. Afghanistan's geography: Afghanistan is dominated by the Hindu Kush mountains, which run across the country from northeast to southwest. The mountains create natural barriers against threats and can render most technologies, like tanks and artillery useless. This geographic complexity made Afghanistan a difficult environment for any invading force, but particularly for the Soviet Union, whose troops were often ill-prepared for such conditions.
Why did the war start?
In 1973, Afghanistan’s last king was ousted in a coup by his cousin and brother-in-law,
Mohammed Daoud Khan, who went ahead to establish a republic. The Soviet Union was fine with this, but this soon changed as Daoud refused to become a Soviet puppet. In a private meeting in 1977, Daoud said ““Afghanistan shall remain poor, if necessary, but free in its acts and decisions.”. However, in 1978, the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) overthrew Daoud Khan in what became known as the Saur Revolution. Daoud Khan and 18 family members died. The PDPA, which was a communist regime, faced fierce resistance from liberals and nationalists. In the fall of 1979, revolutionary Hafizullah Amin orchestrated an internal PDPA coup that killed the party’s first leader and ushered in his brief, but brutal reign. The Soviets also worried about Afghanistan worsening the country’s ‘Nationalities Problem’. Communist leaders worried about internal challenges erupting in its satellite states particularly the fast-growing Muslimmajority Central Asian ones. Any dissent or shift in alliance from Afghans even those pretending to be communists—posed the risk of sparking similar moves in adjacent states like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, which all shared ethnic identity, religion, and history with Afghanistan.
The start of the war:
On Christmas Eve 1979, the Soviet began an invasion of Afghanistan. First, its airdropped elite troops into principal Afghan cities. Soon after, it deployed motorized divisions across the border. Within days, the KGB, which had infiltrated the Afghan presidential palace, poisoned the president and his ministers, helping launch a Moscow-backed coup to install a new puppet leader, Babrak Karmal.
The Mujahideen:
The Mujahideen were a resistance group which were made during the invasion. They conducted a guerrilla warfare campaign, using the rugged terrain of Afghanistan to their advantage and employing hit-and-run tactics against Soviet forces. The mujahideen received significant support from foreign powers, particularly the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which provided arms, training, and funding.
The mountainous terrain also served as a defensive advantage for the Mujahideen. The difficult conditions made it hard for Soviet forces to pursue them effectively.
The Mujahideen could retreat to higher elevations, regroup, and launch counterattacks from strategic positions. The natural fortifications provided by the mountains allowed them to withstand Soviet offensives, which often involved substantial troop and material commitments.
Mujahideen fighters often used the mountains to set ambushes against Soviet convoys and patrols. The steep terrain provided natural cover and concealment, allowing them to launch surprise attacks before quickly disappearing into the mountains. These tactics proved devastating for Soviet troops, who struggled to adapt to the irregular warfare style employed by the Mujahideen. The Soviet reliance on heavy armor and
conventional tactics was often ineffective in the face of guerrilla strategies.
How did the war play out?
The Soviet Union were not suited to the harsh mountains and deserts of Afghanistan and suffered many losses from this. Whilst they were able to secure key areas of the countries, they were unable to control the more rural areas, which the Mujahideen were liberating using their guerilla warfare strategies. With the help of foreign powers, especially the USA, who launched Operation Cyclone, which funded billions into training the Mujahideen, and Pakistan, who housed the resistance group. This funding significantly boosted the effectiveness of the Mujahideen.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, played a crucial role in changing the course of the SovietAfghan War. He recognised that the war was not popular with the people and was tarnishing the Soviet's international standing. He pursued negotiations for a withdrawal, and initiated a phased withdrawal of Soviet troops, starting in 1986, and completed the withdrawal by February 1989. This was formalized through the Geneva Accords.
What did the war do to Afghanistan?
The war left a legacy of violence and instability for Afghanistan. Right after the war, a brutal civil war between rival parties, which further damaged the already ruined infrastructure. The SovietAfghan war caused the deaths of 1 million people and caused millions more to flee; a humanitarian crisis that still lasts today. So, in the end, the war was not good for any sides and showed us how war is not good for anyone.
Introduction:
The My Lai massacre
Aarav Mathur Y9
The Mai Lai massacre is a tragedy inflicted during the Vietnam War and is one of the most infamous war crimes committed by American soldiers, whereby a company of American soldiers brutally killed most of the people women, children and old men—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women. It was hidden from the public for 18 months and sparked mass outrage leading to mass protest. In this I’ll try to give some context of the positions the Americans were in at this time of the war, what happened during the massacre, how the officers involved were punished and finally what we can learn from this horrific act.
Timeline of Events
Pre-Massacre:
• The Americans entered the war in 1964 after the Gulf of Tonkin incident where North Vietnamese patrol boats fired on a US destroyer. This prompted the US congress to approve military action in the area.
• The number of soldiers deployed to Vietnam increases every year with the introduction of conscription jumping from 200,00 soldiers in 1965 to 500,00 in 1967.
• In 1968, the year of the massacre, the Tet offensive was launched. The Tet offensive
was a combined assault by Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army on US positions. Thousands are killed by communist forces during their occupation of the city of Hue.
Charlie Company: Charlie company was a part of the American 11th division were used in search and destroy missions and was informed of an are ridden with booby traps and was a frequent meeting spot for Viet Cong. Their mission, ordered by the superior officers was to exterminate the entire area regardless of if they were civilians or not, regardless of if they were children, women, whatever they saw as the enemy they killed. Army commanders had advised the soldiers of Charlie Company that all who were found in the My Lai area could be considered VC or active VC sympathizers and ordered them to destroy the village.
After the previously mentioned Tet offensive Charlie company lost 28 of its men and morale was down, this may have fuelled the massacre 2 months later. Additionally, the war was at a critical point and tensions were at an all-time high.
What happened during the Massacre?
• When they arrived shortly after dawn, the soldiers led by Lieutenant William Calley—found no Viet Cong.
Instead, they came across a quiet village of primarily women, children and older men preparing their breakfast rice. The villagers were rounded up into groups as the soldiers inspected their huts. Despite finding only a few weapons, William Calley ordered his men to begin shooting the villagers.
• Some soldiers balked at Calley’s command, but within seconds the massacre had begun, with Calley himself shooting numerous men, women and children. Mothers who were shielding their children were shot, and when their children tried to run away, they too were slaughtered. Huts were set on fire, and anyone inside who tried to escape was gunned down.
• “I saw them shoot an M79 (grenade launcher) into a group of people who were still alive. But it was mostly done with a machine gun. They were shooting women and children just like anybody else,” Sgt. Michael Bernhardt, a soldier at the scene, later told a reporter. “We met no resistance, and I only saw three captured weapons. We had no casualties. It was just like any other Vietnamese village old papa-sans [men], women and kids. As a matter of fact, I don’t remember seeing one military-age male in the entire place, dead or alive,” Bernhardt said.
• In addition to killing unarmed men, women and children, the soldiers slaughtered countless livestock, raped an unknown number of women, and burned the village to the ground.
• Calley was reported to have dragged dozens of people, including young children, into a ditch before executing them with a machine gun. Not a single shot was fired against the men of Charlie Company at My Lai.
• By the time the My Lai massacre ended, 504 people were dead Among the victims
were 182 women 17 of them pregnant and 173 children, including 56 infants.
How were they punished?
Knowing news of the massacre would cause a scandal, officers higher up in command of Charlie Company and the 11th Brigade immediately made efforts to downplay the bloodshed. Nonetheless, the U.S. Army began an internal investigation of the incident. The coverup of the My Lai massacre continued until Ron Ridenhour, a soldier in the 11th Brigade who had heard reports of the massacre but had not participated, began a campaign to bring the events to light. After writing letters to President Richard Nixon, the Pentagon, State Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff and several congressmen with no response Ridenhour finally gave an interview to the investigative journalist Seymour Harsh, who broke the story in November 1969. Amid the international uproar and protests that followed Ridenhour’s revelations, the U.S. Army ordered a special investigation into the My Lai massacre and subsequent efforts to cover it up. The inquiry, headed by Lieutenant General William Peers, released its report in March 1970 and recommended that no fewer than 28 officers be charged for their involvement in covering up the massacre. The My Lai trial began on November 17, 1970.The Army would later charge only 14 men including Calley, Captain Ernest Medina etc., with crimes related to the events at My Lai. All were acquitted except for Calley who was charged with premeditated murder for ordering the shootings, despite his contention that he was only following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina. In March 1971, Calley was given a life sentence for his role in directing the killings at My Lai. Many saw
Calley as a scapegoat, and his sentence was reduced upon appeal to 20 years and later to 10; he was paroled in 1974.
How did the public react?
The anti-war movement reached its peak in late 1969. On November 12th Associated Press journalist Seymour Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre, an incident concealed by the US government and military for 18 months. Three days later, around two million Americans joined in a National Day of Protest. It was by far the largest organised protest in American history. Across the country, civilians strung up banners, wore black armbands, held candlelight vigils, said prayers and chanted the names of dead soldiers. This protest was most concentrated in Washington, where more than 400,000 people gathered.
What is the lesson learned from this devastating event?
The My Lai massacre teaches us to always learn from the mistakes from the past. War crimes are seen in most modern-day conflicts, but the My Lai massacre shows us that they will always come back to bite you. The US has been careful in future conflicts to avoid atrocities like that after seeing the widespread anger after the massacre came to light causing a world with less innocent civilians getting killed for no reason. However, war crimes are still seen in many ongoing conflicts but are more challenged and protested as the public knows they can fight back now. The My Lai massacre may have been appalling in the moment, and still is, it led to less of citizens blindly following their government regardless of what they’re doing to civilians and if they’re using bioweapons
etc. It is more challenged and that has saved more lives than we can imagine.
Lieutenant William Calley
Don’t mess with the Romans
Noah Goodall Y7
Throughout history, some civilizations have risen above the rest and formed empires that have lasted for centuries. The Romans are one of the best examples of such a civilization. However, as one might expect, problems begin to occur in an empire. Rebellions, power struggles and external threats of invasion have plagued every empire there has ever been and the Romans were no exception. These are some of the most famous examples of Roman dominance.
The Punic Wars
The Punic wars were fought between the Romans and the Carthaginian Empire between 264 and 241BCE.The Romans had entered part of Sicily [an island which Carthage ruled over] to help the Mamertines, a group of mercenaries occupying the city of Messana. Carthage had already established a military presence there but the Romans, undeterred, travelled to Messana to assist the Mamertines who had expelled the Carthaginian garrison and were under siege from both Carthage and Syracuse. However, the Carthaginians and the Syracusans soon withdrew. Multiple key battles ensued with heavy losses on both sides though the Romans ultimately won due to their superior naval tactics. The
Second Punic War followed in 218BCE and lasted until 201BCE once again resulting in large losses on both sides. This war, however, saw the safety of Rome itself threatened by the Carthaginian general Hannibal. Although he was undoubtedly an excellent general in many ways with his ambush of the Roman army at Lake Trasimene and various other victories, he did attempt one monumentally stupid thing. He tried to make elephants cross the Alps. Out of the 23 that set off only one survived. Aside from this madness, he managed to defeat the Romans so badly that some Roman allies like Capua defected to the Carthaginian side! Hypothetically, Hannibal could have taken Rome, but he lacked the men, materials and siege engines that he would need for an attack. Instead, he acted like a real nuisance and rampaged around Italy for a little while before finally being defeated by the Roman general Scipio at the Battle of Zama in 202BCE.Following the end of the Second Punic War, Rome stripped Carthage of all its overseas territories and charged them 10,000 silver talents in damage similar to the Treaty of Versailles where the allies blamed Germany for WWI and demanded they pay what is now $500 billion in today’s money. Finally, the Third Punic War completely wiped our Carthage
with the final nail in the coffin being the 3year long Siege of Carthage that eventually saw the city destroyed in 146BCE.
The Pyrrhic War
This was one of the Romans’ many wars fought against the Greeks. The main opponent this time being Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus. Epirus was a Greek city-state in the west of Greece and Pyrrhus got a little pushy and decided that he was going to war with Rome over some random altercation between two tribes resulting in one tribe going to war with Rome. His main tactic was to use war elephants which the Romans had never seen before and were promptly destroyed by at the Battle of Heraclea and again at the Battle of Asculum. Despite these early victories, the first two battles of the war depleted Pyrrhus’ forces and finances so greatly that the Greek writer Plutarch reported that Pyrrhus said, ‘If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans then we shall be utterly ruined' This is where the phrase a ‘pyrrhic victory’ comes from. At the Battle of Beneventum, however the Romans found a way to avoid death by elephant. When the Greeks charged, the Roman forces parted allowing the clumsy elephants to pass to specially trained soldiers who prodded the elephants with long spears until they turned around and flattened the Greeks!
Boudicca’s Revolt
Arguably one of the most famous rebellions in Roman history, Boudicca’s revolt saw thousands die in the bloody revenge of a Celtic queen. Although originally a big fan of the Romans, things turned sour for Boudicca when her husband Prasutagus died in 60CE. He had managed to broker a deal with the Romans that, if the Iceni did not rebel,
they would be left as an independent nation with their own rulers. Despite this, shortly after Prasutagus’ death, the Romans broke their deal and looted the Iceni capital and when Boudicca tried to resist, she was publicly flogged. Furious, Boudicca encouraged other Celtic tribes to rally to her causeEncouraged greatly by this, Boudicca’s army marched on Camulodunum[now Colchester] and razed the city to the ground. The Roman resistance was little and the 9th legion were annihilated. The Celts soon marched on Londinium [now London]. Paulinus rushed to Londinium but was only able to evacuate a few citizens before withdrawing due to a lack of troops. The last Roman city to be burned was Verulamium [now St. Albans]. Finally, the Romans met the Britons near Watling Street in 61CE. The Britons, confident of victory due to their superior manpower, had their families in carts behind them watching the battle. The Roman forces of around 10,000 men seemed trapped. Thick forest blocked their rear with cliffs both left and right. The battle began with the Celts charging forward in a wave of screaming [sometimes nude] warriors. However, when the Celts neared the Roman formation, they were met with two waves of pilum [spears] which halted the charge’s momentum. Amongst the Celtic confusion, Paulinus ordered his troops forward in wedge formations and soon the tide had turned. The Celts’ carts blocked their way however and soon the battle became a massacre. With no route of escape Boudicca’s forces, along with British resistance, was ultimately crushed. According to Tacitus, Boudicca poisoned herself to avoid being taken prisoner. Cassius Dio claimed that she died of illness.
Changes in Democracy and People’s Rights
Mikel Osei Y8
Over the years, democracy has had significant changes to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard, whether it be from a witness statement in court, or a general opinion on live TV, Britain has the air of free will. However, it was not always this way. Using what I have learnt, I will be talking about the changes of our democratic society.
The Death of Thomas Becket – 1170
One of the first secret signs of democracy was the murder of Thomas Becket. He worked as a clerk and Archdeacon at Canterbury Cathedral for Archbishop Theobald. When monarch Henry II was looking for a new Chancellor, Theobald recommended Becket due to his impressive services. By 1155, Becket had been appointed Chancellor and became close friends with Henry II. Henry sensed that Becket was not quite religious and thought that he would serve him instead of God. In 1161, Becket had been appointed Archbishop. But, when Henry asked him to make the bishops and priests accept his law, Becket refused. In 1164, Becket escaped England and fled to France. In 1170, he finally had the courage to return to Canterbury Cathedral. Little did he know, Henry had assigned 4 knights with hunting down and killing him.
The Magna Carta - 1215
The more known act of democracy occurred in 1215. The son of Henry II and currently reigning monarch, King John, overstepped his role as ruler when he lost his family-kept French land and an enormous amount of wealth.
At his lowest point, John decided that the only suitable way to earn his money back was to unfairly force the peasants of England to pay him in ways such as restriction resources and certain forests where they got their food unless he was paid a certain amount of money. However, what surprised everyone was when his most loyal barons came under extremely heavy tax. This was the last straw for the people and the barons. They marched up to the King and ordered him to take down the new laws he had constructed. John reluctantly signed the Magna Carta- the first true restriction of monarchal power.
Upon arrival, the 4 knights emerged and slayed him. His head was cut off and his brains were smeared across the walls. Needless to say, the people were not very happy. Together, they forced Henry to do the traditional ‘penance’ of forgiveness. A penance is the act of walking upon a person’s grave, pleading forgiveness while being simultaneously being whipped by bishops and monks. This was soon to be one of the first recorded acts of civil rights.
The Peasant’s Revolt - 1381
Following a series of falls in the English society for the peasants – such as the Black Death, the Poll Tax and many more –they finally reached their breaking point and so the Peasant’s Revolt began.
Wat Tyler, the leader of the Kent’s section of the revolt, marched his army forth to London, setting fire to structures and killing some of the King’s trusted men as they went. More townsfolk joined the brave band of rebels as they progressed.
In time, the rebels had amassed various scenes of chaos and destruction. Eventually, 14-year-old King Richard agreed to meet with the rebels and find the purpose of their sudden outbreak. This satisfied many peasants and so they met at Smithfield, London. However, soldiers loyal to the King killed Tyler before negotiations could begin. Without their leader, the structure of the rebellion fell. Over 1,500 peasants were killed and forced back to their original lifestyle.
Overall, the Peasant’s Revolt failed, and the original motive was not met. However, the rules and treatment of peasants slightly improved, contributing to the society we have today.
The Salt March – 1930 Centuries after the Peasant’s Revolt, England had evolved into in industrial society called Britain. India was under their rule and was made to serve under their laws and customs. Unfortunately, this included weapon production. The cases for the gun cartridges were sealed with pork fat and the enslaved Indians were under instructions to bite them off. According to Indian tradition, the consumption of beef and pork is not
allowed. This frustrated the Indians, particularly a man named Mahatma Gandhi.
As the British occupation of India progressed, more unfair laws were forced onto them. The production of salt was deemed illegal amongst Indians unless purchased by the British at unaffordable prices. Gandhi was not pleased with this but wanted to maintain a formal and nonviolent movement. Along with his most trusted followers, he walked 240 miles (385km) to the riverbank, stopping at cities and picking up others along the way.
Upon arrival, Gandhi stopped and scooped up handfuls of salt, therefore ‘producing’ salt and breaking the law. Britain did not respond to this in a violent matter, but detached from India in 1947, ending its unjust rule and granting freedom for all of India.
Lessons Learnt
In all the above events we can see the hand of democratic action in promoting positive change. This should serve as a lesson to us not to accept poor governance but to make our voices heard and make use of the democracy which was so hard won through history.
The two-faced leaders of the second world war
Nikhil Gajavilli Y7
The years 1942 to 1945 were dark parts of our history. There was the WWII, which brought with it millions of deaths, economic recession and conflict everywhere. In these times, three leaders emerged: Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt. Living in a western country, we have been taught quite strongly that Churchill and Roosevelt were perfect humans that performed heroic acts and Hitler was pure evil. However, I was doubtful if this was really the case and put together an article on both sides of the argument.
Sir Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of Britain 1940-1945)
Sir Churchill was the prime minister of Britain for 5 years. He took up his role at a time of desperation when the allied forces lay stranded on the beach of Dunkirk helpless. The people were beginning to lose faith, but it was him that rallied them up, evacuated the troops successfully and led the United Kingdom to victory. He had brilliant oratory skills and was (and still is) widely respected deeply.
On the contrary, Churchill was a racist and used language that we would condemn in today’s world. It was under his government under which the Bengal Famine took place. He blamed it on the fact that the Indians
were “breeding like rabbits” and simply shrugged off all the international accusations made of violence and racism. Also, he was not financially well off to begin with as one would expect but engaged in contortions to avoid paying taxes that every other Briton would. There is a lot of criticism of his imperialist and discriminatory views.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (President of the United States of America 1933-1945)
Roosevelt served as the American president for four consecutive terms. He led his country through The Great Depression, a time of economic struggle post the First World War. Additionally, after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, Roosevelt declared war on the Axis nations. He formed the Allies, formally known as the United Nations and fought bravely against the far-right forces. He played a vital role in developing war strategies and provided support to Britain while fighting the Nazis.
However, Franklin and his ways have drawn a lot of criticism. On February the 5th of 1937, Roosevelt announced his plan to have more judges in the supreme court to ‘increase efficiency’. Earlier, Roosevelt’s New Deal financial plan had been rejected by the judges. Therefore, this was his attempt to neutralize the justices that opposed him. He also proposed a bill that juries over the age of 70 could retire at full wage. If one refused to retire, they would be given an “assistant” to help them. This person would have full voting rights and would have been someone supporting Roosevelt.
Adolf Hitler (German dictator 1933-1945) Hitler was a dictator with highly controversial views. One of his aims was to create a “perfect” race of people through genocide. He was behind the second world war after his invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland. Adolf was a racist and aimed to conquer the entire world. His name is widely frowned upon, and we all believe that he was but an evil monster. However, there is a completely different side to him. Firstly, Adolf was one of the only leaders at the time who did not have any unhealthy habits. For example, he never drank alcohol or smoked. Additionally, after World War 1, Germany as a nation was severely penalized by the Treaty of Versailles. This stated that Germany had to accept full responsibility for the war,
pay £ 6.6 billion in reparations to the UK and France. They even had to reduce their army to 100,000 men, not tanks or battleships and only 6 battleships. In fact, they had to give away 13% of their territories and 10% of their population to the League of Nations. These punishments caused many struggles for Germans. As a result, Hitler was determined to get revenge for these unrealistic penalties. Moreover, he had a very troubled birth and childhood, with a drunken father. This was one of the reasons for him being so cruel.
In conclusion, these were the three prominent leaders of WWII. They all had two sides to them. Their dual faces give us a lesson to not always accept politicians at face value.
The Dangers of Human Power; Nuclear Warfare
Rayner Chatterjee, Aryan Pothapregada, Shubham
Tumulu Y10
Case Study 1: Pearl Harbour
In the early, 1930’s Japan was undergoing an era of right-wing military influence and ultra-nationalism, pursuing an aggressive campaign of territorial expansion throughout South-East Asia, invading Manchuria (1931) and a full – scale, brutal invasion of China (1937), and imperial beliefs, emphasising loyalty to the emperor, and becoming the regional superpower of Asia, to rival the west.
The west took note of this, especially the US, introducing an oil embargo in 1941, threatening Japan’s initiatives for power. Though supposed to be a temporary sanction, tensions between the USA and Japan escalated as negotiations on Japan’s territorial ambitions were hindered by American interests. Unable to reach an agreement, and desperate for resources, Japan secretly planned to eliminate the U.S Pacific Fleet located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
In the early, 1930’s On the 7th of December 1941 at 7:55 AM , Local Time, Japan launched a surprise military strike on the U.S naval base at Pearl Harbour. The attack was carried out in two waves, by 353 Japanese aircrafts, including bombers, torpedo bombers and fighter jets. The primary targets includes eight U.S battleships, aircraft carriers.
In the end, four manned U.S battleships were sunken on the naval front, including
the USS Oklahoma and the USS Arizona, which resulted in over 1,100 sailors dying.
In terms of aerial damages, a staggering 188 American aircraft were strategically either destroyed or damages, hindering an immediate counterattack.
Despite being caught off guard, some U.S forces managed to mount a defence, downing 29 Japanese aircraft. This left an everlasting impact as one of the deadliest attacks on U.S soil murdering 2,403 Americans and wounding another 1,178.
The following day, on the on December 8, 1941, the United States declared was on Japan, entering WW2 and joining the allied forces, a key contributing factor, the turning point in the loss of the axis forces less than four years later.
The aftermath of Pearl Harbor and World War II included investigations and trials addressing war crimes and crimes against humanity. These events show the importance of power and how a country uses it and the ethical necessity of addressing injustices committed during conflict- a bomb for a war cause had a ripple effect onto millions of civilians, as a latent of humans and their desire to exert power. And fatefully, Japan did not show ANY remorse.
The Pearl Harbour bombing highlights the moral complexities of surprise nuclear strikes and the broader impacts of warfare on non-combatants. It portrays the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications of military actions, even in wartime. Nuclear warfare has such stark ethical downsides that it arguably has a case of being humanity's greatest weapon, and is the key, if abused, to a country's downfall, which is why we are advocating for the
Abusing the power bestowed upon humans can trigger a cascade of societal degradation, undermining the very foundations of ethical foundations that are prudent even in 2024. When power is wielded without restraint or moral consideration, it erodes trust and fosters inequity, exacerbating social discord. Japan, the ruthless empire they were renowned as did not show any regard, and history from this point on was irreversibly changed.
Pearl Harbour was the first blow, and Nagasaki was the devastating knockout Punch
Case Study 2: Nagasaki and Hiroshima
Build up:
1) The war between the USA and Japan began on December the 8th 1944, a day after the tragic Pearl Harbour incident.
2) Nearing the end of the war, the USA tried to force Japan into surrendering by dropping an atomic bomb. On the 6th of August 1945, the atomic bomb was dropped by Enola Gay in the city of Hiroshima killing between 30,000 –1CC,000 people.
3) However, Japan despite the horrid incident at Hiroshima, did not surrender to the US as Emperor Hirohito did not
publicly announce anything or respond to the bombings.
4) On the 8th of August 1945, the Soviet Union joined the war against Japan.
5) Then, on the 9th of August 1945, another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki massacring 35,000 to 40,000 people.
6) Japan officially surrendered on the 2nd of September, ending WW2 but not without scarring the world as they were aware of the unprecedented level of power could not be fathomed by the people.
The Effects of The Bombing:
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more than just a death toll, it was a war crime. Innocent civilians, hundreds of thousands of them, murdered by the hand on Enola Gay. Infrastructure, destroyed. Roads and buildings destroyed, homes of thousands fallen to pieces in front of their owners, if only they could live long enough to see that. The only merciful aspect of this cruel bombing was that the victims would die in seconds, parents couldn’t see their children die, a slight bit of mercy, unintentional mercy but mercy, nonetheless.
Facts and figures are irrelevant, death is death, pain is pain. Up to 240,000 people perished, more than the populations of countries such as Samoa, Saint Lucia and Kiribati.
The Lesson from History:
In conclusion, though it might not be easy for nuclear weapons to destroy the earth itself, eliminating all humanity and living organisms on earth is relatively easier, and it could happen. According to calculations based on the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 100 atomic bombs could destroy around 2 billion lives- making them by a distance the most
destructive force that humankind has EVER seen, trumping the mass genocide and horrors of war – this is war taken to the extreme, where morals are out of the equation and the most powerful humans on Earth can wager death with just a click of their fingers. We, in this modern era, continue to see the abuses of human power and what mankind is truly capable of, the devastation in the middle east and violent attacks that have the capability to wreak havoc – have we not learnt our lesson from history?
Nuclear Warfare. According to experts, the chance of a nuclear war in the next 100 years is roughly 20–50 percent, and as technology develops, this figure will steadily increase- history's immeasurable impact and the guilt from the WW2 bombings serve as the (slowly fading) boundary between warfare and peace in the 21st century.
