Gateway Chronicle 2015

Gateway

Chronicle ST

ALBANS

SCHOOL

a magazine produced by the students and staff of the History Department

AUTHORITARIANISM

Issue 2 2015

Contents 3 Editorial A few words from Mr DJ Stone and our editors.

4 Why Margaret Thatcher and her legacy should not be celebrated Alex Jennings examines Margaret Thatcher and her corrosive legacy.

8 Sixth Form History Conference: ‘The Arcane Great War’ A report from the school’s first Sixth Form History Conference from Edward Hunt.

9 Franco and football: an affair devoid of passion Tomás Hill López-Menchero looks at how General Franco used the success of Spanish football to his advantage during his regime.

10 History & Politics Society lectures: ‘Not Sleepwalking: The Origins of the First World War Reconsidered’ with Professor Gary Sheffield Esteemed historian Professor Gary Sheffield challenges some of the common misconceptions of the origins of the First World War. 12 Less of a conqueror, more of a tyrant? A critique of William I Mr TD Asch analyses Wlliam I’s despotic rule.

14 Profile: General Manuel Noriega Ciaran Reed charts the rise and fall of the Panamanian dictator.

Gateway Chronicle Editorial Team Editors:

Seun Adekoya Nick Harvey

Sub-editors: Alex Jennings

Tomás Hill López-Menchero

Edward Hunt

Nicholas Yap Published May 2015

2

The Gateway Chronicle

Staff:

Mr DJ Stone

Editorial A brief word from DJS...

W

ell done to the 2015 Chronicle team! It is great to see new innovations in the layout of this year’s issue without compromising on the content. This issue also contains work from a wider slice of the school community; a positive indicator of the levels of scholarship evident amongst St Albans School historians.

DJS

And from our editors...

W

elcome to the second issue of the Gateway Chronicle. After last year’s debut and the success that came along with it, I was delighted to be given the role of co-editor alongside my colleague Seun Adekoya. This issue focuses on authoritarianism – which of course plays a pivotal role in all major historical events.

I am glad to see such a variety of different articles coming from a range of ages throughout the school. This year we have articles on well-known authoritarian figures, as the cover depicting Margaret Thatcher shows, to lesser known figures such as General Manuel Noriega.

A lot of effort has gone into this project from the Gateway Chronicle team in order to make sure that we have surpassed the expectations set by last year’s issue and to make this year’s issue an intriguing and enjoyable read.

Nick Harvey

I

n this second issue of the Gateway Chronicle we tackle the most controversial political system; authoritarianism. We include classical examples of dictators, such as Generals Franco and Noriega, but we also ponder on the leadership of Thatcher, a polarising figure of British politics. It may seem paradoxical to call Thatcher, former Prime Minister in a country currently celebrating the 800 year legacy of the Magna Carta, an autocrat, but her conviction polarised the country to the extent that her opinions were far removed from many she presided over.

Another featured figure is so similarly polarising that historians are unsure whether to celebrate him for his military prowess or deride him for his illegitimate birth. William the Conqueror seems to me to be the archetypical medieval king; for him to have ruled with decency and a respect for the rule of law would have been a disappointment!

The editorial team is grateful to those who contributed to this magazine, and the editors to those who helped form it; especially the publications team. We are open to questions, suggestions and criticisms so the quality of this magazine increases with each issue.

Seun Adekoya

The Gateway Chronicle

3

Why Margaret Thatcher and her legacy should not be celebrated

M

argaret Thatcher was, in the eyes of many, one of the most corrosive and inhibiting politicians this country has had the misfortune to suffer. Her brand of politics was an adopted one, but one that she believed in and stuck to so blindly and staunchly, that it led to the severe detriment of the country as a whole, and ultimately her dismissal by her own party. Glenda Jackson MP succinctly described Thatcherism as “the most heinous social, economic and spiritual damage upon this country”, and it is truly difficult to disagree.

Even her most oblivious of supporters would be hard-pressed to defend Thatcher the individual, but perhaps economically speaking she was what was needed at the time. It is at least fair comment to suggest that the economy was in a less-thanideal condition under Callaghan, and perhaps an unprecedented lurch to the right, the free market and excessive privatisation was simply a symptom of the economic instability that Thatcher inherited.

Bizarrely though, then, Britain’s most sustained period of growth and increasing living standards were the three decades after the war – where taxes on the rich were higher, trade unions were stronger, and the state was a more interventionist one. In-fact, in the 31 years before Thatcher came to office the economy grew by about 150%; in the 31 years since, it’s grown by little more than 100%. Thatcher’s counter-productive policy of illogically low taxes, crushing the unions, and idolisation of the free market led to a reduction in growth, and three terrible recessions. Though Thatcher left office 25 years ago this annum, the financial struggles of recent times are far from discon-

4

The Gateway Chronicle

nected from the financial deregulation that Thatcher sought at the expense of many positive aspects of society.

Indeed for Thatcher, an astronomical rise in unemployment, to 3 million, was little price to pay for a free market. In 1979 when Thatcher came to power unemployment in Sheffield was at 4%, but by 1984 it was soaring at 15.5%.

Thatcher’s housing policy of ‘right to buy’ resulted and continues to result in the mire the housing industry is currently stuck in. The requisite houses are not being built now, and the proportion of people owning their own homes has been falling since 2007. The turbulence of the market has led to a situation whereby in northern England, the values are too low to justify repairs to existing houses, and in London an average home now costs £458,000, or 13 times the median full-time income. The Thatcher regime hiked interest rates to 17%, making borrowing, crucial for manufacturing, prohibitively expensive. In the words of Ken Livingstone, “Thatcher was sustained only by one extraordinary piece of luck. Almost the moment she stepped over the threshold of Downing Street the economy was engulfed in an oil bonanza. During her time in office, government oil receipts amounted to 16% of GDP. But instead of using this windfall to boost investment for longer-term prosperity, it was used for tax cuts.

Public investment was slashed. By the end of her time in office the military budget vastly exceeded net public investment.”

This slump in investment, and the associated destruction of manufacturing and jobs, is the disastrous economic and social

legacy of Thatcherism. Production was replaced by banking. House building gave way to estate agency.

The substitute for decent jobs was welfare. Until there is a break with that legacy there can be no serious rebuilding of Britain’s economy.

Moreover, Thatcher’s political demise came as a result of the nonsensical introduction of the poll tax, a decision that forced her own party to turn on her.

But to a certain extent one can accept that any Prime Minister will implement unsuccessful policy at some point, even if Thatcher stuck to an unfair dogma more than most, or even any before her.

Instead, it is important to examine Thatcher the person, and some of her political allies, whom she was only too willing to support. If a Prime Minister is truly great, surely they must have been in the slightest bit principled? Consequently, it is important to bear in mind that under inspection are the supposed merits of an individual who argued “The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloudcuckoo land”, refused to back sanctions against Apartheid, and invited the South African Prime Minister PW Botha, who when he was Defence Minister presided over a massive campaign of repression and militarisation in order to preserve Apartheid policies of segregation and discrimination, to Chequers.

Lady Thatcher did later qualify this move, saying “I do not accept that apartheid is the root of violence…nor do most people”, which presumably was an endorsement of great solace for those striving for equality.

Her brand of politics was one that she stuck to so blindly that it led to the severe detriment of the country as a whole.

The Gateway Chronicle

5

The journalist Nima Shirazi wrote an article in the wake of Thatcher’s death in which she explained the following: Thatcher was a staunch supporter of many of the world’s most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-Communism and neoliberal hegemony. Throughout the 1980s, Thatcher’s government backed Iraq during its war against Iran, funneling weapons and equipment to Saddam Hussein in contravention of both international law and British policy, until Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. She even sent Christmas cards to both Saddam and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 1981.

When she was in power, Thatcher also publicly supported Pol Pot’s then-exiled Khmer Rouge, which was responsible for the deaths of nearly two million Cambodians - this, despite the fact that she decried their “open savagery” in 1975, before she was Prime Minister. In April 1978, prior to her ascension to Prime Minister, Thatcher visited the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in Tehran where she praised him as “one of the world’s most far-sighted statesmen, whose experience is unrivaled.” Despite the popular protests against the Shah occurring across Iran with increasing frequency, Thatcher said of her host, “No other world leader has given his country more dynamic leadership. He is leading Iran through a twentieth century renaissance.” Exactly one month before her visit, street protests in over 55 Iranian cities resulted in the killing of more than 100 civilians, when police opened fire on the crowds.

Thatcher was a steadfast defender of Augusto Pinochet, whose un-

6

The Gateway Chronicle

speakably brutal dictatorship of torture and repression terrorized Chile from 1973 to 1990. She visited Pinochet in 1999 during his house arrest in England, saying that her country “owed” him “a great debt” of gratitude for his help during the 1982 Falklands War. Without any sense of irony, Thatcher added, “I’m also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile.”

Never one to mention his appalling human rights record, Thatcher expressed her “outrage at the callous and unjust treatment” of Pinochet during a speech that October at the Conservative Party Conference, called him “this country’s only political prisoner,” and hailed him as Britain’s “staunch, true friend in our time of need” and “who stopped the communists taking Chile.”

However, one accusation often levelled against the British Public is that Margaret Thatcher was popular. After all, she won three general elections – presumably a sure-fire Thatcher was a steadfast defender of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

indication of popularity. This despite the fact that her death was celebrated in some quarters, with ‘Ding Dong the Witch is Dead’ experiencing a sudden upsurge in popularity; such a virulent reaction that deceased Conservative Prime ministers such as Anthony Eden, Ted Heath or Harold Macmillan did not remotely receive, nor will John Major. In short, Margaret Thatcher oversaw the complete annihilation of Conservative Party support in vast swathes of the country – a support they have never recovered, underlining the viciousness and unpopularity of her administration. It was Thatcher and her policies that saw the Conservatives lose all of their seats in Scotland, for example. Moreover, during Thatcher’s rule, the opposition was hopelessly divided, with the SDP-Liberal Alliance splitting the left wing of the electorate. No Labour voters were convinced by Thatcher’s aggressive brand of individualism. Even when Thatcher was at her peak of popularity in terms of election result, in 1979, only a third of the electorate actively voted for her. It is also worth noting that Thatcher had suffered a severe dip

in popularity by the end of her time as Prime Minister, to the extent that Neil Kinnock, the leader of the Labour Party, suffered a sizeable negative swing in the opinion polls when she resigned as Prime Minister.

Some have mistakenly triumphed Margaret Thatcher as a figurehead of feminism. This would seem confusing, considering this oft-lauded champion of equality appointed a mere one woman as a cabinet minister in her 11 years as Prime Minister (and there was quite a high turnover of cabinet ministers, under Thatcher). And like 2010, Thatcher benefited from having the support of the popular press – Thatcher’s private files recently revealed that a secret meeting at Chequers three weeks before the first cabinet committee discussion of the proposed takeover, cleared the way for Rupert Murdoch and News International to obtain the Times and Sunday Times. Thankfully, the government now would never be ruled by the Murdoch press.

Thatcher also took interesting stances on other matters –papers published by the foreign office recently revealed that she opposed German unification, such a symbolic and joyful event – with her Foreign Secretary at the time, Douglas Hurd telling the BBC that she was fearful that the created German state would be too powerful. Thatcher’s opposition to the miners, the NUM, and unions in general was conceived early on in her stewardship, and she was intent on cutting millions of jobs – which came to a head in 1984, where the government announced the intention to close 20 coal mines, and in the long term shut down

70 pits. Pictures of the violence of the police towards the strikers who, in the words of Tony Benn, “were skilled and courageous men who had built the prosperity of Britain and were treated like criminals” strike a chord to this day, and are emblematic of her authoritarian rule as a whole.

The brutality of the police towards strikers is both shocking to this day, and emblematic of Thatcher’s authoritarian ruthlessness as a whole.

Yet Thatcher’s attitude and treatment towards the miners was merely the nadir of her stance towards nationalised industries in general.

Her privatisation of utilities such as British Steel, British Petroleum, British Airways, water and electricity was excessive, and in some cases ineffective – and inspired the calamitous privatisation seen under successive governments since, such as British Rail under Major, and New Labour’s PFI scheme.

Thatcher may have left government in 1990, but her abrasive ideology certainly remained and continues to remain – and the country continues to suffer for it.

Alex Jennings, L6

The Gateway Chronicle

7

Sixth Form History Conference: ‘The Arcane Great War’

O

n 19th March 2015, St Albans School held its first Sixth Form History Conference to commemorate the Great War and to shed light on some of the lesser known areas of the first worldwide conflict. The school welcomed Dr Iain Adams, David Walsh and Andrew Robertshaw to give talks on their particularly esoteric areas of research. The speakers provided new insight into the role of football and public schools in the war along with a modern recreation of life in the trenches.

Football is an oft romanticised aspect of the war, providing a glimmer of shared humanity and hope even amongst the darkest of times.

Dr Iain Adams, an academic in the field of Sports History, revealed the clandestine contribution of the beautiful game. Whilst many had heard of the tale of football matches played on Christmas Day, new light was shed upon the wider role of football, particularly in the recruitment drive. The spirit of adventure and excitement held by many young men who signed up to fight was embodied by the sport.

Tales of balls being kicked between the troops as they marched stoically over the trenches to their deaths was a poignant reminder of the similarities that we share despite our vastly different lives.

This theme of shared values was continued with the presentation on the role of public schools in the War, as David Walsh defended a group often lambasted for their callous nature. Again the spirit of “playing the great game” was highlighted and the death rate for public school pupils was harrowing. Taking the theme of his book co-written with Anthony Seldon, the notion of boys not too differ-

8

The Gateway Chronicle

ent from ourselves dying in their thousands led to sombre reflection on the sacrifice they made.

Andrew Robertshaw, broadcaster and expert on living archaeology, provided a radically different approach to study of the War whilst dispelling many popular myths. He succinctly summed up his passion for correcting fallacies with a memorable anecdote in which a veteran told him, “The difference between me and you…. Is that I remember the war in colour.” He credited this with instilling his drive to delve further into historical events and with greater precision than others had done before. In his unique experiment he recreated a trench in his garden, and recruited a team to stay with him in it for 24 hours in order to discover the conditions faced by millions of soldiers. The experience shed light on the reality of life on the Western Front and solved many mysteries that had perplexed historians for years. He also debunked the popular misconception that soldiers spent their whole service in the trenches, revealing that only five days out of each month would be spent on the front line.

There were a variety of presentations from pupils, again focusing on the more niche areas of the conflict. Leo Harris from St Columba’s College fought off fierce competition to claim first place with his presentation on the importance of tin cans. He reminded us of the role of technology in the War and how it shifted the dynamic of the conflict. The humble tin can created the first year round war, by allowing soldiers to fight through the winter, thanks to the ample supply of preserved food that the tin cans provided. Runners up were St Albans School representatives

Tom Alexander and the joint team of Tomás Hill López-Menchero and Alex Jennings. Tom Alexander revealed the dark truth of the Armenian Genocide on its centenary, with the awful images of massacred families reminding us of the dark outcome of racism and oppression. Meanwhile Alex Jennings and Tomás Hill López-Menchero focused on another persecuted minority in their presentation on conscientious objectors. They looked at the reasons for objection and the cruel and degrading treatment that objectors were subjected to along with the propaganda drive against them.

The afternoon was a great success with all involved learning a great deal about a conflict that has been studied extensively since its conclusion. The School and pupils are very grateful to Miss Mendes da Costa for organising the event along with all of those who gave presentations.

Edward Hunt, L6

Dr Iain Adams talks about the role of football during the Great War.

Franco and football: an affair devoid of passion

to stomach, and he gave orders for the Spanish Football Federation to withdraw the team from the competition. The President of the Federation made it clear to Alfredo Di Stefano why the trip had been cancelled. “We’re not going to Moscow. Franco said so.”

Spain celebrate winning Euro 1964.

O

n 21st June 1964, a Santiago Bernabéu stadium filled with 125,000 fans roared as Generalissimo Francisco Franco stood up to leave. The final whistle had just gone on Spain’s victory over the Soviet Union in the final of the European Nations’ Cup, and it would be 44 years before Spain would win another trophy. However, while the cliché of football being ‘more than a game’ is often used without justification, this was undoubtedly a match which had huge repercussions. The match had been billed as a battle between fascism and communism, with one team representing one of the last totalitarian fascist states in Europe and the other a totalitarian socialist one. In the words of Jimmy Burns, author of La Roja, ‘football and politics were in perfect synchrony’.

Four years earlier, Franco had refused to let Spain play against the Soviet Union for a place at the inaugural tournament. Two days before the team were due to depart for Moscow for the first-leg of their qualifier, they were told that the trip was off. Franco feared that a Spanish defeat would be exploited by the USSR for propaganda purposes, while he had also received reports that the Soviets would have significant support at the Bernabéu if the second leg on Spanish soil went ahead. This was all too much

It was a sign of the politicisation of Spanish football, and the influence Franco was allowed to exert over Spain’s best-loved sport. As it happened, the decision to withdraw Spain from the competition turned out to be a disastrous one, and was greatly exploited for Soviet propaganda purposes. Khruschev himself labelled the decision an ‘own goal’, and Franco had been embarrassed on the big stage. It was no surprise, therefore, that he took every opportunity to make the most of the final of 1964. When the Generalissimo entered the stadium, he was greeted with cries of ‘Franco, Franco and Franco’, initiated by groups of Falangistas, and which spread around the 125,000-strong crowd. The occasion was not lost on the members of the squad either, with the Spanish coach Villalonga preparing his players for the final as if it were a war.

Franco’s relationship with football is complex. In the past, some historians have argued that he was an avid football fan, but others, such as Santiago Segurola, Spain’s most esteemed football writer, have claimed that Franco ‘had no special interest in football’ and ‘preferred to sign death sentences to playing football or watching a game’.

Specifically, Franco has often been described as a Madridista, a Real Madrid fan, because of their success during the period that Franco was in charge, but according to the club’s then-press secretary, he never betrayed any emotion during

matches. The fact that Real Madrid are still criticised for supposedly being ‘Franco’s team’, stems from their success in the late 1950s, when Spain was at its lowest ebb.

This was the dream team of Di Stefano, Puskas and Kopa that won five consecutive European cups from 1955 to 1960. While Spain was languishing, the lavish team of Di Stefano and co. were conquering everything, giving Spaniards something to cheer about.

Invariably, football was a tool for diplomacy, and Franco knew how to use it. He was clearly taken away

by Real’s success, and did favour them in some ways, but this was because, as Franco’s foreign minister at the time once said, Real Madrid were ‘the best embassy we ever had’.

Spain had been rejected by the international community following the Civil War, but Madrid’s bright array of foreign players meant that Spain wasn’t so distrusted anymore.

It also stemmed from Real Madrid being the team of the capital. Real Madrid were not a fascist team, nor did Franco rig games or pay off referees, mainly because he did not have to. All his resources were concentrated in Spain’s capital, and so this created the perfect environment for Madrid to flourish.

Franco was not a football fan in the traditional sense, but he saw the potential in the sport to portray Spain as a virile, strong nation. He may well have favoured Real Madrid, but this was inevitable given their success during his time in charge, and the fact that they were the capital’s best team. As the sport of the masses, Franco was able to use football as a diplomatic tool, and certainly succeeded in doing so.

Tomás Hill López-Menchero, L6

The Gateway Chronicle

9

History & Politics Society lectures:

‘Not Sleepwalking: The Origins of the First World War Reconsidered’ with Professor Gary Sheffield

A

head of his History & Politics Society lecture ‘Not Sleepwalking: The Origins of the First World War Reconsidered’, preeminent war historian Professor Gary Sheffield and Mr Stone’s L6th form historians got together to discuss some of the key themes prevalent as we reflect on the centenary of the Great War. Alex Wick: What first interested you about the First World War? I’ve always been interested in history, for as long as I can remember.

I think I started by reading Ladybird books, which was the Horrible Histories equivalent of my day. I’ve always been interested in military history as well. I don’t really know why; I wasn’t particularly a military fan at a young age, my father did national service like everyone else did, and my uncle was a regular officer, so I didn’t really see that much of him. For some reason it captured my imagination, and really it is the 50 or so years that I was born, and so it was the first 60 years of the 20th century. I can be very specific about my interest in the First World War, because I was not really interested in the subject until the age of 13 when I happened across a book called The First Day of the Somme by Martin Middlebrook, which tells the story of 10 or so men of Kitchener’s Army that were in the first day of the Battle of the Somme. It completely gripped my imagination, and I was fascinated by it. I could not find out much more about it until I was at university, and one of the third year special subjects was Britain and the First World War. For my dissertation I studied a battalion of Kitchener’s Army and at the end of that I couldn’t face getting a real job, so I pursued my PhD. I wish I could say

10

The Gateway Chronicle

Professor Gary Sheffield with Kavit Borkhataria.

with such foresight in 1980 when I chose that subject that I thought 30 years later I could really cash in on the Centenary.

Stanislav Kudrayashov: Who in your mind stands out as the finest military commander of the First World War? Can I change the premise of the question slightly? I don’t think you can judge First World War Commanders in the same way you can judge figures such as Napoleon, because you are dealing with different things. Because if you talk about pure battlefield command Falkenhayn, the German General in Romania, or Brusilov the Russian General on the Eastern Front were the best commanders. The finest generals for the British and French were most likely Haig and Foch. They themselves were not really battlefield generals, more like war managers. They knew how to make use of the vast amount of resources available, unlike men such as Napoleon or Alexander the Great. So in effect I am dodging the question, but I don’t think you can judge First World War generals with the same yardstick as other

generals, unless you treat them like figure skaters, giving points of technique at the end, which doesn’t really get you far, because there are examples of German generals who were technically brilliant, however strategically rubbish, and they lost the war. And I believe that is one of the problems of looking at the First World War through conventional military eyes. There is the question of why was there no Napoleon on the Western Front, because the Napoleonic Wars were completely different in the way the war was conducted.

Kavit Borkhataria: I’m interested that you brought up Falkenhayn.

Do you think his reputation was tarnished by his blunders at Verdun?

Yes I would. But there again we are judging Falkenhayn for his skills as a war manager where he did not do very well, but in Romania in 1916 he was brilliant as a classical general because in Romania in 1916, most of the things I just talked about did not apply because you had one very feeble army, and one very powerful army, and he could basically conduct very powerful operations. The

British comparison in this situation I think is Allenby, who has a well deserved reputation for his campaigns in Palestine in 1917-1918, where he had the space to carry out traditional military manoeuvres.

Allenby did not do particularly well on the Western Front, under different circumstances, so again you cannot judge Western Front Generals with the classic open battle viewpoint Seb Bretnall: What do you see as the most significant turning point in the First World War? Ok. I slightly changed my viewpoint on this in the last few years because I think we can put our finger on a couple of battles which are game changers, but also I think we need to understand that the war was a long drawn out process. We need to appreciate that once the Allied blockade was underway, which it was very quickly within a few weeks in late August 1914, then the long term prognosis for Germany was not good because the Home Front would be literally starved of food.

Getting to 1915 there were serious food shortages in Germany, and by the end of the war German society was deeply polarised between those who wished to continue to support the war and those who didn’t and one of the causes of this polarisa-

tion was sheer hunger. So that is a long-term factor, and there is no single turning point there.

But there are a number of turning points such as the Battle of the Marne September 1914 when the Germans failed to win quickly as this was their best chance of winning the war. From that point onward it was a question of staving off defeat, not that it would be impossible for Germany to win the war, however it was hugely difficult. The Battle of the Somme was hugely important because it forces Germany as a result of the Somme, which is not a defeat for the Allies but a success, (however not many people see it that way) to perform a very unwise strategy of sinking merchant ships, to hopefully starve Britain into submission, despite that knowing to do this would most likely bring in American support for the Allies which with their vast amount of resources, financial support in the short term was hugely important.

American attack advanced eight miles in a day, and that was the point at which the initiative for the war was passed firmly on to the Allies; the Germans were forced to simply stave off defeat. So pick any of these points plus the long-term factor means that the odds were stacked against Germany once the Allied blockade started.

Nicholas Yap

Another turning point was the Battle of Amiens (8th August 1918) because when the Germans attacked in the spring of 1918 they came close to winning, but then their attack was halted. Amiens was the point at which the British, Australian, French, Canadian and A still from the film The Battle of the Somme (1916). The battle was hugely important as it forced Germany to resort to a strategy of trying to starve the British into submission, which ultimately failed.

The Gateway Chronicle

11

Less of a conqueror, more of a tyrant?

A critique of William I

I

t is one of those interesting quirks of the English language that even in the eleventh century the word ‘bastard’ carried the same double meaning it does today, of illegitimate birth and unpleasant character. The man who conquered England in 1066 was both of those things. He was also a tyrant. When we think of authoritarianism we usually think of the modern era, but William of Normandy was every bit the despot. And, remarkably, his methods and character were rather similar to those of more recent and more familiar villains.

Penitential Ordinance, a document issued by Bishop Ermenfrid to soldiers in William’s service, lays out the penances expected of men who had killed, plundered, and raped their way through England. But it was William’s actions in responding to a rebellion in the north a few years later which cements his place among this country’s worst monarchs. In retaliation for an uprising against his rule, the land from the Humber to the Tees (that is, most of Yorkshire) was laid waste, its inhabitants either slaughtered or left to starve.

Like most dictators William’s claim to be the rightful ruler of a state was dubious. It was based on his relationship with Emma of Normandy, the wife of two successive Kings of England (Æþelræd the Unready and Cnut) and the mother of two more (Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor); but she was not herself of English royal blood and he was only her illegitimate great-nephew.

Norman sources allege that Edward the Confessor promised him the succession: but not only is this not corroborated by any English record, it’s also irrelevant: the English crown is not private property and cannot be bequeathed as though it were.

The standard procedure was for the witenagemot to decide on the succession, and interestingly enough when news of Harold Godwinson’s death at Hastings reached the wise men they declared not for William but for Edgar Æþeling. So how, then, did William hold power? Through violence, through terror, and through purges. Sound familiar?

Don’t take my word for it. Orderic Vitalis, a monk who was halfEnglish and half-Norman, recorded William as having confessed on his deathbed to having “treated the native inhabitants with unreasonable severity, cruelly oppressed high and low … I was the cruel murderer of many thousands.” And don’t take his word for it either. Look in the Domesday Book: sixteen years after the Harrying of the North the bald phrase wasta est (it is waste; nothing of any value here) describes that entire region, as it does the path taken

by William’s soldiers in the autumn of 1066. And as for the Domesday Book, useful as it may be for historians, that wasn’t why it was created: instead it was supposed to enable William to extract as much wealth as he could from the people.

After Hastings, William’s army acted with ruthless barbarism. Its march through the south-east, from Hastings to Westminster, was an indication of what was to come: the

12

The Gateway Chronicle

Robert Conquest described Stalin’s actions in the Ukraine in 1932-3 as a ‘terror-famine’ – and this term might be just as accurately applied to the actions of William in the north in 1069-70. But just as the Ukrainian Holodomor was only a part of Stalin’s ‘liquidation of the kulaks as a class,’ so was the Harrying of the North only a part of William’s dispossession of the

English. We know what happened to the kulaks, and we can’t know for sure what happened to the English landowners of the last third of the eleventh century. But the Domesday Book gives us a pretty good idea. By 1086 the names of England’s landholders were almost exclusively Norman. It is hopefully suggested by the sort of morally bankrupt historians who for some reason approve of William that some Englishmen ‘Normanised’ their names in order to ingratiate themselves with their new lord; much more likely is that they were lucky if they were only thrown off their land and not killed.

Much of that land was then designated as ‘royal forest,’ which meant that people whose families had been hunting and fishing and gathering firewood from that land for centuries were now forbidden to do so: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records William as having had offenders against his ‘forest law’ blinded. Even Norman architecture, those imposing stone castles, literally towering above the single-storey wooden buildings which made up English settlements, are reminiscent of Soviet buildings and statues, demonstrating the relative might of the régime compared to its subjects.

This, by the way, is almost certainly the origin of the Robin Hood legend. A dispossessed aristocrat, who takes refuge from the king’s supporters in the greenwood? Doesn’t sound like the late Angevin period to me. I reckon this is a tale of the Conquest – a tale of native resistance against an oppressive foreign king. “People,” said George Orwell, “tend to live up to their names.” William of Normandy certainly did.

Mr TD Asch

When we think of authoritarianism we usually think of the modern era, but William of Normandy was every bit the despot.

The Gateway Chronicle

13

Profile: General Manuel Noriega

M

anuel Noriega’s early life is surrounded in mystery. He was born on 11th February 1934, as the illegitimate son of Ricaurte Noriega, a civil servant, and Maria Feliz Morena. At the age of five his mother died and his father could not care for him as his mother was a member of the lower class. From then on he was brought up by his aunt in Panama City.

of Panama or a doctor. Whilst at school he would lead lectures on socialism and left wing politics.

After school he dropped out after one year of studying medicine and went to work for pharmacist who also had left wing views. Eventually his half-brother, a Panamanian diplomat in Peru, got him a scholarship to the Chorrillos Military School. The only problem was that he was over the age limit to get a scholarship. So he forged a birth certificate to convince the academy he had been born on 11th February 1938, making him four years younger. For the rest of his life he maintained that he was born on this date. After four years at the academy he passed with honours as an engineer.

Even from an early age Noriega wanted to lead. He would always insist on being a captain. This can be attributed to the fact that he lived next to one of the all-white clubs in Panama in the knowledge that he would never be allowed into it because of his mother. According to a former American diplomat to Panama “This made him feel really insecure.” At school his ambition Noriega was military dictator of Panama was either to become the President from 1983-1989.

In 1962 he met the Chief of the Atlantic Zone in Panama, Omar Torrijos. Torrijos wanted to make the National Guard into a virtual army, and the defenders of the poor against the rich. Noriega was inspired by this idea and decided to support Torrijos in his vision.

The same year Noriega joined the National Guard and became very close with Torrijos.

At that time the National Guard in Panama was an extremely corrupt force. This clearly made an impression on Noriega when he was confined to barracks for thirty days, and accused of two counts of rape.

But he would never face the charges as he was protected by Torrijos.

In 1965 he met Felicidad Sieiro, a teacher in a school close to where he lived. In 1966 they got married and had the first of their three children. With Felicidad to help him he became the head of regional intelligence in 1967. As a result he was recruited by the CIA and was paid to give them information on possible left wing targets. As a part of this he was given training for anti-terrorism, sociological warfare and intelligence gathering.

In 1968 Noriega was part of a coup d’état that made Torrijos the head of a new military junta in Panama.

This junta was a nationalist junta whose main principle was to get the Americans to hand over the Panama Canal. Later that year the Americans made a counter coup to overthrow Torrijos whilst he was in Mexico. Noriega was in charge of the commander’s office whilst Torrjios was away. With all the airfields around Panama City under the control of the rebels, Noriega ordered the soldiers to capture a small runway where Torrijos landed. Noriega

14

The Gateway Chronicle

and Torrijos marched into Panama City with the National Guard as the coup plotters caved in. After this Noriega was made head of military intelligence in Panama.

With this new role Noriega used his intelligence to get rid of opposition to the junta, although he normally only threatened people. This meant that Panama, compared to other military juntas, had a good human rights record.

On 31st July 1981, Torrijos’ private aeroplane crashed in the mountains in Panama and Torrijos was killed.

Officially the crash was an accident, but according to some Noriega had planted a bomb in the plane. Two years later Noriega emerged as the new leader of the National Guard and de facto dictator of Panama.

In 1984 the first Presidential elections were held in Panama since Noriega’s coming to power where, due to widespread vote rigging, Noriega’s candidate became the President. During this time Panama was one of the only countries in Latin American that was not war torn, but there were still large amounts of drug trafficking throughout the country. In later years this would come back to haunt him, even though he destroyed a number of drug smugglers’ laboratories in the jungle.

Through the early and mid-parts of his time in power Noriega was supported by, and worked for, America, even though he was a left wing dictator. He spied on Fidel Castro for the USA whilst visiting Cuba and other communist guerillas.

On 13th September 1985 Doctor Hugo Spadafora, a revolutionary who styled himself on Che Guevara, returned from self-imposed

The USA invaded Panama on 20th December 1989.

exile with the plan to discredit Noriega and encourage a revolution.

He was headed, by bus, to Panama City, where he was intercepted by the National Guard. He was arrested and led away. His body was found, decapitated, in a postal sack just inside Costa Rica. This was seen as a brutal murder carried out under the command of Noriega.

But Noriega denies involvement as he was in the United Kingdom at that time. As a result opposition inside Panama rose and hundreds of people came out on the streets calling for him to be deposed. Even with mounting pressure Noriega was turning the National Guard into a fully-fledged army.

In 1988 a court in Miami put him on a list to be prosecuted on charges of drug trafficking. This was due to the taxation laws in Panama making it very easy to money launder and for his complacence in it.

Noriega has always said that these are political accusations.

Later in 1988 Roberto Diaz Herrera tried to topple Noriega but failed, after which he was exiled. In return Herrera accused Noriega of killing Doctor Hugo Spadafora. This incident led to protest on the streets of Panama City. Noriega decided to send in the army. As a result U.S. President Ronald Reagan stepped in, but this made the situation worse for both of them as negotia-

tions failed with Noriega saying “I don’t speak to Americans - only to Panamanians.”

In 1989 there was a Presidential election in Panama. A team of foreign observers were present to stop vote rigging. As a result Noriega declared that his candidate had won before the results came out. This sparked mass demonstrations around Panama. Three days later the protests were broken up violently by the army. Guillermo Ford, the main opposition leader, was attacked by the army and his bodyguard was killed.

The attack on Ford led the Americans to help some Panamanian opposition to stage a coup d’état which failed, with the ten ringleaders executed.

On 20th December 1989 an American force of over 25,000 men invaded the country. With little resistance Panama City fell, but Noriega went into hiding. After four days he was found in the Vatican embassy in Panama City. After being told he would not be executed he gave himself up on 3rd January 1990.

That was the end of his reign.

Since then he has been found guilty of drug trafficking in America and money laundering in France. Currently he is in jail in Panama for human rights violations.

Ciarán Reed, 3rd form

The Gateway Chronicle

15

16

The Gateway Chronicle