Historian - TCD History Society

LETTER FROM THE AUDITOR

To our returning friends and new faces, On behalf of our entire committee, welcome to the 88th session of the Dublin University History Society, Trinity College’s premier society for all things history. Since 1932, our society has strived to build a sense of community around all things historical. To ensure this, our weekly events have ranged from pub quizzes, academic talks, workshops, tours and trips abroad. At DU History, our aim is to cater to the interests of every student that has a passion for the past. Our committee is determined to provide the best experience to all our members for this upcoming year, whether you study History or lurk the halls of the Hamilton, thank you for Auditor, Shane in front of the campanile at joining us on the journey.

Trinity.

This year, our committee have been posed an interesting challenge in the face of a global pandemic.

During the summer months, we have been re-evaluating how DU History can give you the same fantastic experience as we have done in previous years. In past years, DU History has prided itself on wonderful events such as the annual Apollo Ball, transporting our members back in time through fascinating themes in venues including Christ Church Cathedral, Smock Alley and City Hall. Whether we see you virtually or in person, just know that we are committed to offering the same amazing experiences in a social distanced or online capacity. Our events bring history to life in ways which highlight how the past is far from a dull affair. Throughout the year, we will explore many topical trends in history and celebrate the achievements of the people who fought for a more equal world.

In our efforts, we hope to shine a light on new knowledge, break away from the books gathering dust on the shelf, and question much of what you think you know about Irish history and world history.

We aim to deliver riveting academic and social events for all members and embrace you all into our growing membership this year.

While the year at hand is one like never before, we could not be happier you are here to join the society along the way towards making history (the puns do not get any better – sorry!). As a society, we pride ourselves in our welcoming community spirit. My time with the society has been the beginning of many fantastic friendships, so I want to afford every single member this opportunity.

DU History is the forge in which many lasting relationships are made. Despite the restrictions we face during the coming months, you can be assured we will work tirelessly to take every opportunity for our members to get to know one another. I hope that in joining DU History, you find the same amazing experiences cherished by thousands of members of days gone by. The committee and I are really looking forward to meeting you all over the coming weeks, in whatever form that might take.

I cannot wait to see you all soon, Shane Macken, Auditor of the 88th Session.

HISTORICAL HOROSCOPES Aries

March 21st-April 19th

Taurus

April 20th-May 20th

Aries you’re sharing your sign with creative minds like Leonardo DaVinci, tap into that with your new reenergised spirit and you will go far!

You know what you’re good at Taurus, but don’t forget it’s good to push yourself further and aspire for more, just like historical Taurus Florence Nightingale.

Leo

Virgo

July 23rd-Aug 22nd

Leo is excited to see everyone again. Just make sure your need to socialise doesn’t interfere with the work in front of you. If you’re struggling to balance your social life and work, maybe combine the two, just like another Leo, Louis Armstrong did!

Saggitarius

Nov 22nd-Dec 21st

Sagittarius you work incredibly hard and strive for more, just like your fellow Sagittarius Ada Lovelace. Just don’t forget to breathe!

Aug 23rd-Sept 22nd

You have a good handle on your workload right now Virgo, but remember to relax.

You’re a busy bee just like another historical Virgo, Agatha Christie, who always strived to work harder and do more.

Capricorn

Dec 22nd-Jan 21st

Capricorn now is the time to keep boosting your social skills! Take inspiration from fellow Capricorn and brilliant public speaker Martin Luther King JR.

Gemini

May 21st-June 20th

Arthur Conan Doyle, your fellow Gemini, had an eye for a good mystery so finding out what good news is coming your way shouldn’t be a problem for you at all!

Libra

Cancer

June 21st-July 22

You’re preventing yourself from diving right in Cancer, there are so many opportunities for you right now!

Dive right in and challenge yourself Cancer! Be like your fellow Cancer George Michael, and just have a little faith!

Scorpio

Sept 23rd-Oct 22nd

Oct 23rd-Nov 21st

Sometimes it’s hard to know yourself Libra, take some time to find yourself and explore your identity like a fellow libra, Oscar Wilde.

Sometimes it’s good to have your head in the clouds Scorpio, the imagination is a powerful thing!

Maybe turn your creative ideas into something solid, just like fellow Scorpio Bram Stoker did through his writing!

Aquarius

Jan 20-Feb 18th

You’ve perfected a skill this summer Aquarius, keep it up, it will bring you joy. Let the creativity flow Aquarius!

Create some amazing stuff just like James Joyce, your famous historical Aquarius counterpart!

Pisces

Feb 19th-March 20th

There’s a new path coming your way Pisces, try not to isolate yourself or you might miss it! It’s the time to think big while you have a clear mind Pisces, just like Albert Einstein, another big thinking Pisces!

MEET THE COMMITTEE Shane Macken as Louis XIV

Shane has been a staple of DU History events for as long as I can remember, and presumably, is embarking upon a 72-year reign as Auditor just like his idol Louis XIV. That is not where the similarities end, both Shane and the Sun King are known for serving looks, although, we are yet to see Shane in fur. Perhaps this could be the year?

Much like Louis XIV’s France was frequently at war,this year Shane will be battling against COVID-19 restrictions. Not to be deterred by a pesky global pandemic, Shane will be basking in his own Versailles: the alcoves on Berkeley 2, to outmanoeuvre the virus and bring great events to all (even Huguenots)!

Terence Donovan as James Dean

This year’s Secretary is DU History’s heartthrob-in-residence, Terence. His historical counterpart James Dean was an icon of American youth in the 1950s, and likewise Terence has gained his own cult following with his boyish good-looks. While Terence will certainly be flattered by the comparison, they’re not entirely alike. Dean became synonymous with a “live fast, die young” philosophy following his tragic death at the age of 24. This has clearly not rubbed off on Terence, as at the ripe old age of 21, he finds himself in charge of a history society’s correspondence.

OF THE 88TH SESSION Katie Dumpleton as Charles de Gaulle Making her triumphant return to the committee this year as Fourth Year Rep is Katie Dumpleton. Her return is reminiscent of Charles de Gaulle’s return to Paris in August 1944 as he liberated the city. Katie’s experience as first year rep will stand to her this year, they say it’s like repping a bike. Just as de Gaulle was tasked with rebuilding post-war France and restoring it to it’s previous glory, our elder stateswoman Katie will be tasked with restoring DU History’s place in the college social landscape for our final year students in the face of COVID-19.

Máire Hussey as Maria Edgeworth This is our Third Year Rep Máire’s first time on the committee, but has been a longtime familiar face to DU History. As a TSM History and English student, Máire is mad for the oul Irish literature, and is a perfect match for her (almost) namesake Maria Edgeworth. Like her historical counterpart, Máire has a gentle demeanour, but don’t let this fool you, just like Edgeworth, Máire has exciting things in store for her role on the committee. Just like Edgeworth published one of the first historical novels, Máire will be bringing her interdisciplinary flair to the society this year.

Liam Kiernan as Thomas Francis Meagher

Tim Murphy as John D.Rockefeller

In charge of the societies finances this year is Tim “Rockefeller” Murphy. Treasurer Tim will have to approach his role a wee bit differently to his historical counterpart, in that we don’t have all the money in the world. However, Tim has uncovered our petroleum fortune that was hidden away inour books, so he will be making sure our parties will be as gaudy and lavish as the Rockefellers’. Joint the queue and let’s follow Tim into our Roaring Twenties!

Rachel Murphy as Evie Hone

This is our PRO Rachel’s first year on the DU History Committee, and we’re all excited for her to show off her creative flair in promoting our events. Rachel will be hoping to follow the footsteps of fellow Dubliner Evie Hone, who was a pioneer of cubism and one of the 20th century’s best stained glass artists. We’re delighted to have such a gifted artist on our committee this year, and we’re looking forward to seeing what Rachel comes up with for this year’s promotional material!

Michelle Mee as Anna Pavlova In Michelle’s second year on the committee, she’s tasked with providing everyone with the best boogies as Social Secretary. While “boogying” is perhaps an on-the-nose way to describe ballerina Anna Pavlova’s dancing, it’s the only word to describe what Michelle does best. Following last year’s Apollo Ball, I asked Michelle how I could dance like her. She replied, quoting Pavlova “No one can arrive from being talented alone, work transforms talent into genius.” Pavlova travelled widely and brought ballet across the world, just as Michelle hopes to fill dancefloors far and wide with DU History’s revellers.

Ruairí Lafferty as John Wayne Third time is a charm for librarian Ruairí Lafferty. Ruairí’s previous roles of PRO and Secretary make him a veteran of the DU History scene, just like his role model John Wayne was a veteran of all things rodeo related. With his catchphrase of ‘yeehaw’ becoming a staple of DU History emails, it is clear Ruairí is ramping up his cowboy energy to a climatic finale. Will his final year bring the inevitable appearance of Wayne’s infamous cowboy hat? Yeehaw over to library hours to find out!

The first of our Second Year Reps, Big Liamo is a committed Irish republican with an American twist, just like the great Irish rebel and Montana governor Thomas Francis Meagher. Liam is a fresh face to the DU History committee, but his experience as Chairperson of Ógra Sinn Féin in Trinity will surely give him a leg up in navigating committee politics. We’re glad to have Liam on board to avoid the partitionist, Free-State history events that this society was (probably) famous for long ago.

Mairead Maguire as Annie Besant Mairead completes our team of Second Year reps, and is hoping to make a splash in her first year on the committee. Her historical counterpart Annie Besant was a prolific writer and activist, writing on socialism, atheism and Home Rule movements in Ireland and India. Likewise, Mairead is a prolific Twitter activist for her various political causes. While Besant only published in the region of 100 books during her lifetime, Mairead has already surpassed that with 2000 tweets to her name. We’re excited to see Mairead’s radicalism in action on this year’s committee.

Meghan Flood as Grace Slick Arguably in the most powerful position on the committee is our Social Media Officer, Meghan. She could have us cancelled in seconds. Just like Grace Slick was the 1960s’ counterculture queen, Meghan is our queen of astrology and all things eccentric. If anyone is familiar with Grace Slick’s antics at a White House tea party, they’ll be hoping Meghan doesn’t try any of the same tricks at library hours.

Caoimhe McConnon Burke as Sybil Connolly Our OCM Caoimhe is a long-time committee member. A friendly face around DU History events, Caoimhe is known for her impeccable style. Her historical counterpart Sybil Connolly was a giant of 20th century fashion, who styled Jackie Kennedy and Elizabeth Taylor. As Connolly built her fashion empire on American connections, Caoimhe is on the same path following her sojourn in Cape Cod last summer. Jack Lynch described Connolly as a national treasure, and after three years on the DU History scene, Caoimhe can be described as one of our treasures.

87TH SESSION IN REVIEW

Herstory IV

Cork trip:

For the trip a global pandemic did not cancel; DU History’s venture to Cork did not disapoint. The city’s striking beauty was on show during our trips to the Elizabethan fort, along with the endearing charm of smaller outings to Clonakilty.

On a personal note, I immensely enjoyed the stop at the home of Michael Collins and the site of his demise at mBéal na mBlath. These locations would be the highlights of any Irish historical trip.

The nights out in Cork were some of the best craic of my year. Karaoke at the Old Oak will never leave my memory (no matter how hard I try)! Renditions of ‘Islands in the Stream’, ‘Dancing Queen’ and Kylie Jenner’s ‘Rise and Shine’ were all perfomed skilfully by our members. One regret I’ll carry with me for the rest of my days is that I never performed onstage with departed members of our committee.

Michaelmas Term 2019’s Reading Week saw members from all four years made lasting friendships from their time in Cork and a joyful time for all.

Committee members and our guests from the Herstory Salon.

Members of DU History at the sight of Michael Collins’ assassination in Béal na mBláth in Cork.

Evening Events:

The 87th session ran two extremely successful pub quizzes during both semesters in Doyle’s and JP Mooney’s respectively. Our esteemed host Cathal Byrne asked an eclectic series of questions, most notably around the oldest university in the world. I really enjoyed our pub quizzes for their testing of our knowledge and the great fun accompanied with getting an answer right.

DU History has been committed to the Herstory movement since its inception in 2016. Our partnership with DUGES allowed the society to organise the fourth Herstory salon with an impressive guest list of Professor Ruth Karras, former Ireland Professor of Poetry Eileán Ní Chuilleanáin, Sarah McAuliffe of the National Galley, and author Michael Traynor. The panel introduced an array of women whose impressive contributions have been left unappreciated in the historical canon.

Lunarcy:

Our Apollo landing themed night out was a successful venture for the committee of the 87th session. Our former (and fantastic) PRO Sarah Kate Brown who created wonderful stop motion videos as we danced the night away with (carboard cut-out) Neil Armstrong.

Dancing at our Lunarcy club night.

Bad Bridget:

Early in Michaelmas term, we had the pleasure of hosting Dr Leanne McCormick and Dr Elaine Farrell from Queens University. The minds behind Bad Bridget, a project centred around revealing the long-forgotten stories of Irish women who emigrated to the United States and became ensnared in local criminality. This resulted in Irish women making up the largest ethnic group in the American penal system during the late nineteenth century, which made for an enlightening talk on some of their stories.

In Whelans for our Christmas 12 Pubs event.

DU History members posing with the cardboard Apollo 11 astronaut.

Conclusion

National Gallery Tour.

The 87th session would like to express our appreciation for all of our members who supported us throughout what became an unprecedented year. The events the 87th session did hold were certainly an overwhelming success. As our outgoing secretary Ruari Lafferty eloquently stated, ‘don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.’ With that we hope to see you all for the coming year ahead!

PARATROOPERS OVER PARIS: THE STORY OF FRANCE’S NEAR-MISS WITH CIVIL WAR 1958-1961 “By 1961, it had

De Gaulle. The next day, De Gaulle announced his intention to form a government.

Cian Cooney PhD Candidate B.A. European Studies, MSc. International Politics France is notoriously politically unstable. French politics evokes images of revolution, barricades and more recently, protestors in fluorescent yellow vests.

However, it may come as a surprise to some that less than sixty years ago, Parisians were living in fear of invasion, not from the armoured spearheads of the Wehrmacht, but from Foreign Legion paratroopers. How and why did the French Army get to the point of breaking into open revolt against the elected French government?

in the postwar era, the French Empire ‘…functioned as a sort of compensation for the humiliation of 1940’. France, was determined to hold onto her teetering Imperial empire, fighting two long and brutal colonial wars, first in Indochina from 1946-54, then in Algeria from 1954-62. Defeated again decisively at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954, where the cream of the Indochina expeditionary force was killed or marched into captivity, France had suffered another huge and embarrassing defeat.

The French Army had emerged from the Second World War with its reputation greatly tarnished.

Not only had their doctrinal intransigence and unimaginative leadership during the war led to its defeat in detail by the Wehrmacht in the summer of 1940, but the subsequent split between those who followed the legal French state under Pétain and the Free French rebellion led by the exiled De Gaulle, further divided the officer corps. It is without doubt that the humiliation of 1940 was seared into the minds of the officer cadres in the postwar era, despite the contribution of the Free French forces in the liberation of the metropole and the fight into Germany herself.

For historian Julian Jackson,

The result of this was that career officers were determined to fight to keep Algeria French or die trying. French Algeria would be the rock upon which many French officers were prepared to sacrifice their careers. For four years, the Algerian war was continuously escalated, with reservists and conscripts being committed to the fight from 1956.

In 1957, paratroopers under the command of the charismatic Général Jacques Massu succeeded in breaking the back of the FLN cells operating within the casbah of Algeria’s capital, Algiers, using far from savoury methods, including torture. By 1958, the Army was seemingly in the ascendency over the FLN. However, they were weary of the

ever-changing governments and policies of the Fourth Republic.

On the 9th May 1958, General Raoul Salan, the most highly decorated French officer of all time and Commander in Chief of French Forces in Algeria, sent a thinly veiled threat to the Chief of Staff General Paul Ely that any attempt by the government to abandon Algeria would not be tolerated by the Army. Five days later, a Comité de Salut Publique was formed in Algeria by Massu, who called for the return of General De Gaulle to power.

Those of you with more than a rudimentary grasp of French history will appreciate the association of the Committee of Public Safety with Robespierre’s reign of terror. The conspirators meant business. The military in Algeria was in open revolt against the government in Paris.

On the 24th-25th May 1958, Foreign Legion Paratroopers were dropped on Corsica and a Comité de Salut Publique was also established there. The government in Paris was in utter disarray. It seemed that France was headed for civil war. On the night of the 26th, staring utter disaster in the face, the last leader of the Fourth Republic, Pierre Pflimlin, met with the aged

to choose their own destiny through referendum. In January of that year, a referendum was held throughout France, the response being unequivocally in support of the principle of Algerian self-determination.

International opinion was also unanimously in favour of Algerian independence, including France’s NATO allies, especially the US who saw how France’s war in Algeria was handing the USSR an easy propaganda victory. In the shadows, hardline supporters of French Algeria in the French Army made plans to repeat the coup of May 1958.

On the 24th April 1961, four prominent French generals, Salan, Jouhaud, Zeller and Challe, seized the Algerian capital again, with the help of the Foreign Legion’s 1e REP (1st Foreign Parachute Regiment). However, this time the French Republic was robustly The return of the old general to defended by De Gaulle who power was met with jubilation by refused to come to terms with coup leaders. An invasion of the the rebels. He would not roll over mainland was called off. France as his predecessor Pflimlim had had been spared the evils of a in 1958 and he was backed up by civil war, but it would not be the much stronger executive powers last time the nation faced down thanks to the 5th Republic’s new the barrel of civil conflict. In the constitution. Obsolete, mothballed aftermath of De Gaulle’s coming WW2-era Sherman SA-50 tanks to power, the leaders of the coup were brought out of storage and in Algiers were progressively sent stationed outside the National out to pasture and moved away Assembly, demonstrating how from Algeria. The coming months seriously the De Gaulle regime would see De Gaulle refuse to took this affront to its authority, throw himself behind the cause of both to its own citizens and to a French Algeria. For many, this the international community. The went against the spirit of his ‘Je French public on the mainland vous ai compris’ (I have understood unanimously stood behind you!) speech given on the 4th De Gaulle. In addition, coup June 1958 to a rapturous crowd conspirators had been arrested in Algiers. However, De Gaulle on the mainland before the was deliberately ambiguous in announcement of the coup and his pronouncements regarding the French intelligence services the Algerian question. By 1961, had known of the plot well in it had become clear that the advance. Importantly, only 25,000 Algerian people would be allowed of the 400,000 French troops of

become clear that the Algerian people would be allowed to choose their own destiny through referendum.”

the Algerian contingent had rallied to the putschists. The conscripts remained loyal to the government. De Gaulle appeared on television urging soldiers to disregard the orders of the rebel generals.

By the 26th April it was clear that the putsch had failed miserably. Generals Challe and Zeller surrendered themselves to the loyalists on the 26th, while Salan and Jouhaud fled to continue the fight with the OAS, a pro-French Algeria terrorist group founded in Franco’s Spain in January by Salan. It was this organisation which would attempt to assassinate De Gaulle on several occasions in the aftermath of the putsch, popularised by Forsyth’s novel ‘Day of the Jackal’.

Despite the best efforts of the hardliners, Algeria would gain its independence on the 5th July 1962 after the Evian accords were signed between the FLN and French government in March. The coups marked the first time since 1799 that the French Army had directly attempted to subvert the elected political establishment.

The military disobedience of 1958-61 highlight the dangers of a weak executive and a largely disenchanted and seditious army, the combination of which very nearly had deadly consequences for the post-war French state.

THE FIRST ENERGY REVOLUTION Nessa Lyons Junior Sophister TSM History and Ancient History and Archaeology

semblance of democracy to emerge. Now we must question what political effects our energy transitions will have on global politics. Will there be similar shifts in power balances as fossil fuels become scarcer?

The Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century saw the most dramatic energy transition ever experienced on earth. There was a rapid change from energy sources reliant on the sun, such as solar, wind and wood to inorganic sources such as coal. The coal industry grew exponentially, and people in Britain started using far more energy than they had in the past.

Now has come the time for another energy revolution, as fossil fuel shortages and global warming are forcing us in the twenty-first century to revert to organic energy sources. With that in mind, it seems worthwhile to consider the societal and political changes that the last monumental transition provoked, to be as prepared as possible for the looming fossil fuel dearth. Matthias Dunn’s ‘An Historical, Geological and Descriptive View of the Coal ‘ Trade of the North of England ‘and Edward Hull’s ‘The Coal Resources of Great Britain’ and W.S Jevons’s ‘The Coal Question’ are the best primary sources for understanding how the shifts in fuel mix and energy intensity unexpectedly influenced innovation, transport and politics in Britain.

During most of human history, coal was used minimally. Its primary purpose was heat energy, as it was easy to replace coal for wood for domestic uses, such as providing warmth in an open fire and heating salt pans or dye vats.

Ilustration of a factory in the Industrial Revolution.

However, by the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1760, it quickly became clear that coal could speed up transport and manufacturing in a way that the rapidly declining timber forests could never facilitate. The progress was often cyclical: steam trains and ships allowed for more coal to be transported, but the new technologies also relied on more coal production. For much of the eighteenth century, sailing along Britain’s coast and river systems was the most effective and common way to transport goods.

However, storms, wars and heavy taxes on coastal shipping could hinder efficiency. Therefore, coal was quickly adopted to bypass these issues, and it powered widespread industrialisation and faster journeys across Britain.

“Past peoples’ experience without fossil

fuels are still worth consideration as we may learn something from them. ”

Edward Wrigley notes that if firewood was having to generate the same amount of energy that coal was in 1800, eleven million acres would have to be devoted to woodland. It is hard to get our minds around the challenges we will face in substituting fossil fuels in a world that relies on such an astronomical amount of energy. Vast changes to our environment will be urgently required to revert to organic energy.

The energy revolution induced political upheaval.

The working class was essential for mining and transporting the energy sources, and thus gained greater power and a louder voice. The unions would now have a major effect on the government and were able to make demands.

The coal allowed for a

Britain’s access to fossil fuels allowed it to emerge as an industrial centre. Britain’s large and cheap coal reserves meant that efficient technologies were not an immediate necessity as they would be later in countries like France and Spain. The energy revolution in Britain meant that the British could start mass industrialisation without waiting for gradual technological improvements. They were only constrained by the amount of raw materials they could import.

Thus, the energy revolution was dependent on the work of people in the colonies. For example, resources like cotton still needed to be hand-picked in India and shipped over. Since other countries lacked such a concentrated fuel source, there was a greater demand for trading with Britain. Edward Hull indicated that the trans-Atlantic coal trade was in full flow by 1864 as he stated, ‘from its store the Metropolis of the Empire has principally been supplied’. This increase in Britain’s mercantile importance likely contributed to the nationalistic, imperialistic mindset festering in Britain at the time. It seems probable that as we run out of fossil fuels and as the effects of climate change take hold, different countries will gain prominence and other countries will lose wealth and power, and we must keep this in mind as further changes emerge in the coming years.

In these uncertain, tumultuous times, it can be informative and potentially reassuring to look back to past environment and industrial sea changes.

While the organic energy sources we have access to are more advanced and efficient than those of the eighteenth century, past peoples’

Image of multiple energy windmills.

experiences without fossil fuels are still worth consideration as we may learn something from them. Moreover, it is vital to be aware of the immense influence our energy use has on our internal and external politics, our everyday lives and our interactions with our surroundings.

ÉAMON DE VALERA’S U.S CAMPAIGN OF 1919/20 Caoimhe O’Neill Senior Freshman TSM History and Spanish

On 11th June 1919, in the midst of the War of Independence, Éamon de Valera arrived in New York after nine days on the SS Lapland.

Despite the chaos ensuing in Ireland, his status as leader of the Sinn Féin party and the selfproclaimed Irish government in Dáil Éireann, the ‘President of the Irish Republic’ decided that the time was ripe to embark on this trip. It would become an eighteenmonth trip around his country of birth. De Valera had several reasons for heading to America during this crucial time, including the need to raise funds for the Irish cause through the sale of bonds and the aim to gain official US recognition of the Irish Republic.

However, it is worth pointing out that some of his contemporaries in Sinn Féin suspected that he had ulterior motives for leaving the country, with Sinn Féin’s Secretary, Pádraig O’Caoimh, claiming that de Valera suggested the trip as a means to ‘get over there, out

of the trouble’. Regardless of his personal motives for leaving Ireland, de Valera did not have an easy task ahead of him in the States.

Almost immediately after landing in New York, de Valera embarked on the first of two ambitious tours across the length and breadth of the country in an attempt to secure and drum up interest in the sale of bonds. In the first 23 days of his colossal tour he travelled six thousand miles, delivering 17 major speeches, which drew in large crowds of loyal Irish-Americans. For example, his speech in Fenway Park on 29th June is said by some sources to have drawn in a crowd of roughly 50,000 people.

To encourage the purchase of bonds amongst those sympathetic to the Irish cause de Valera repeatedly drew comparisons between the Irish struggle and America’s own historic fight for independence in his speeches, stating on one occasion that ‘the patriots of Ireland are in one spirit with Franklin’. Although de Valera’s team encountered some obstacles to the selling of bonds, particularly the US’s laws regarding the sale of bonds from foreign countries, the sale of bonds was officially launched in January 1920. By the end of 1920, DeValera in New York with two American law- $5,123,640 had been raised by yers, Daniel F, Cohalan and John W. Goff and Irish rebel leader and exile John Devoy.

Éamon DeValera, c.1922-1930.

the purchasing of bonds by over 303,000 individuals. Nevertheless, despite their initial success regarding the sale of bonds, de Valera’s team was less successful at transferring the money back to Ireland. By 1921, only one million dollars had been smuggled back to Ireland. One million was spent on de Valera’s campaign itself, $1.5 million was launched into American banks and a further $1.5 million was put into US Liberty Bonds. Later, this would prove problematic.

Although de Valera’s bond drive was successful in raising money, the majority of the funds raised failed to make it back to Ireland in its time of greatest need.

Another task on de Valera’s mind was gaining official

“He implored the US to at least withdraw their recognition of British rule in Ireland.”

US recognition of the Irish Republic. The leader of Sinn Féin referenced this issue throughout his increasingly inflammatory speeches, in which he implored the US to at least withdraw their recognition of British rule in Ireland. On 8th June 1920, De Valera and his team travelled to the Republican Party National Convention in Chicago with the hopes that the party would adopt a policy of Irish recognition if elected later on that year. However, De Valera’s proposal, consisting of full recognition of Ireland, was defeated by the Republican Committee, and tensions between de Valera and the Irish-American faction led by Daniel Cohalan meant that, in the end, there was no formal mention of Ireland in the entire Republican platform.

Undeterred by the failure to secure the Republican party’s backing, de Valera made his official appeal to the federal government for recognition of Dáil Éireann and the Irish Republic on 27th October 1920. Entitled ‘Ireland’s Request to the Government of the United States of America as a Sovereign Independent State’, the appeal contained a mixture of persuasive arguments, President Wilson’s words regarding the rights of a nation, and comparisons between Ireland’s struggle and America’s own history. Although the document was forwarded to the State Department for further consideration, nothing more ever came of it.

New York, c.1919/20.

De Valera returned to Ireland in December 1920, having been absent for almost eighteen months of the War of Independence. While he managed to drum up massive support from the Irish-American faction during the campaign. Regardless of his successes and failures in the States, de Valera returned to Ireland at the end of 1920 as a much more battle-hardened, experienced politician, something which he would use to his advantage in the decades to come.

THE CAREER OF LENI RIEFENSTAHL AND HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NAZI REGIME 1932-63 Emily McQuade Junior Sophister TSM History and Sociology Supported by many original and award-winning productions there is no question that Leni Riefenstahl was an innovative and creative filmmaker. Riefenstahl may have believed that she was simply creating documentaries, but became a vehicle for the creation of Nazi propaganda.

While some consider Riefenstahl a pioneer and genius, others see her as a devious contributor to Nazi chaos. Riefenstahl was undeniably talented in the field of film-making, however her works had detrimental effects due to their spread of Nazi ideology. Her productions, especially ‘Triumph of the Will’, documenting the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, shone a dangerously rosy light on Hitler and his discriminatory regime. She made something very evil look appealing. The question regarding the accountability of Leni to purposely promote and glorify Hitler or whether she simply was ‘politically naive’ remained controversial to her death.

In the midst of the 20th century, it was clear that Riefenstahl was developing a reputable status, unmissable in the eyes of leading Nazi figures such as Hitler. In 1933, the Nazi party exercised a captivating power over the vulnerable German nation.

Riefenstahl’s close relationship with the Chancellor enabled her to secure many commissions from the Nazis. However, she was ignorant to the fact that she was

to become Germany’s favourite ‘Nazi pin up girl’ and Hitler’s number one director to create propaganda sources.

Riefenstahl’s most famous accomplishment is ‘Triumph of the Will’, an account of the Nazi Party’s 1934 Nuremberg Rally. A prominent theme in her awardwinning masterpiece was the emergence of a new German nation as a great power with Hitler as a God sent saviour, capable of Riefenstahl filming ‘Lowlands’ in 1940. bringing glory to the crumbled nation.

Reichsmark making it one of the top three most profitable films The audience is first shown romantic footage of the skies and of the year. Hitler praised the film as being an ‘incomparable clouds. In the midst of all this a plane is spotted flying through the glorification of the power and German air. It is Hitler descending beauty of our Movement.’ This led to Hitler commissioning Leni to upon Germany much like a heavenly God would descend from document the events of the 1936 the skies. As the film progresses, Berlin Olympics, which prompted arguably one of the most it is apparent that there is a infamous sporting documentary distinct contrast between the films in history: ‘Olympia.’ seven-hundred thousand Nazi followers and Hitler. Hitler is ‘Olympia’ was used as a political portrayed as a divine being with tool by the Nazis to showcase who has fortuitously come as a the Aryan Race on a global scale. saviour to the crumbled German The project was funded and nation. Through his gripping supported by Joseph Goebbels, speeches Hitler advocated a Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. unified Germany, rid of what he This documentary represented deemed the impurities of society all nations in a positive light such as Jewish people, Romani people, people with disabilities and and incorporated their victories as well as Germany’s, tactfully homosexuals. All of which were creating a warm attitude towards captured on film by Riefenstahl.

Germany from many countries.

Riefenstahl defied requests Within two months the from Hitler and Goebbels to omit documentary had earned 815,000

footage of the four-time gold medal winning African American runner Jesse Owens. Hitler was humiliated as Owens single-handedly crushed his myth of Aryan supremacy.

one of power, prestige and pride. All the while, she claimed to be making documentaries, fulfilling the

‘Olympia’ was an international success and defeated Walt Disney’s ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ at the 1938 Venice film festival.

However, retaliation in the wake of Kristallnacht in November 1938 caused a wave of anti-German sentiment in America. Thus, there was the boycott of ‘Olympia’ in the USA. Meanwhile, the backlash led to many of Riefenstahl’s intentional connections being severed out of spite. Walt Disney welcomed Riefenstahl warmly on a trip to Hollywood in the height of the controversy.

“Riefenstahl made something very dangerous look desirable.”

The 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Riefenstahl made something very dangerous look desirable. The best years of her life were undoubtedly spent under the Nazi regime, her career reaching its pinnacle under Hitler’s reign. Riefenstahl had firsthand experience of relationships with the most influential men in Europe. Along with other Nazi elites and Hitler, she attended social outings such as numerous dinner parties at the house of Goebbels. She showed the world the side of the Nazis that she knew,

role of a job that she had been commissioned but is responsible for documenting the prologue of terrible events to come. Thousands of men and women would be seduced into this dangerous regime, ultimately resulting in the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent death of eighty million people.

In the years following the war, Riefenstahl was tried during the process of denazification four times along with being detained in various prison camps for her connection with the Nazi Party. In March 1946, French

Poster for ‘Olympia’, 1938.

officials placed her into an asylum. Despite many attempts from post-war authorities, Leni Riefenstahl was never successfully prosecuted. Like many others who developed a reputable status under the Third Reich, much of the incriminating evidence was destroyed. Her ties to Hitler tarnished her reputation and hindered any later projects.

In 2003, at one hundred and one years of age, she voiced her dying words in a BBC interview ‘I was one of millions who thought Hitler had all the answers…We only saw the good things; we didn’t know the bad things were yet to come.’ The level of truth behind these words however, we may never know.

FROM ‘CURRY MILES’ TO ‘BALTIC TRIANGLES’: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH CURRY HOUSE Oz Russell Junior Sophister History and Political Science In the space of around 60 years curry in Britain has gone from a niche dish enjoyed by former colonial administrators and a small number of Southeast Asian migrants, to a national dish that forms the basis of an industry that employs 100,000 people and achieves sales worth £4.2 billion annually.

The story of the ‘curry house’ and its expansion into almost every urban area in Britain today is one of imperialism, entrepreneurialism, changing tastes and cultural attitudes and, above all, a story of successive waves of migration to Great Britain. The prehistory of the curry house can be found in the foundation of niche restaurants in London in the 19th century designed primarily to appeal to returnees from the British Raj who had acquired a taste for Indian cuisine. The Hindoostane Coffee House, founded in 1810, served hookah and traditional Indian dishes on Portman Square in London. By 1812 however, its founder was forced to declare bankruptcy and shut the cafe down. Veeraswamy’s in Swallow Street saw more success. It was established by Edward Palmer in 1926 to cater both for wealthy Londoners and for returned Anglo-Indians, and survives to this day. Despite the presence of restaurants such as these, and the fact that curry had become a regular staple of Queen Victoria’s royal menus, by 1945, Indian food

remained an alien concept to most Britons.

This began to change from the 1950s onwards, when successive waves of Southeast Asian migration created a new consumer market. In 1961 the British census counted roughly 106,000 people of Southeast Asian origin. By 1971, that number had tripled, and in 1981 it stood at over 1,000,000 people.

The first generation of migrants arriving in the 1950s had little inclination to spend their money in Indian restaurants, or anywhere else for that matter.

They were, for the most part, young male bachelors going to Britain to work in mills in cities like Bradford, Manchester and Birmingham in order to send their wages back to their families. What little money that

A Curry Mile in Rusholme, Manchester.

they did spend was spent on Western food. Traditional and halal ingredients were almost impossible to find, and as one Bradford mill worker explained ‘The last thing you want to do after a twelve hour shift is to go home and to cook yourself some dinner’. One family survived on almost nothing but baked beans during the 1950s, while a Punjabi Sikh who arrived in 1953 recalled foregoing the vegetarianism mandated by his religion and becoming a ‘proper Anglo-Indian gentlemen’ by eating meat and drinking beer.

The passing of the Commonwealth Immigration Bill in 1962 decidedly shifted the dynamics of Southeast Asian immigration to Britain.

The legal migration of unskilled workers was massively curtailed, and by 1968 only family members

of those already living in Britain were permitted to settle. The unintended consequence of the act was that an arrangement that had been seen by all as temporary suddenly became permanent, as migrant workers now unable to move back and forth settled down and brought over their families.

Between 1962 and 1965, ninety percent of Commonwealth migration to the UK was by dependants. With entire families now in Britain there was less of a need to send remittances back, and as wives began to earn their own pay-packets, a number of Asian shops, taxi companies and above all Indian restaurants were set up by entrepreneurs eager to cater to these new consumers.

‘Indian’ Restaurants, however, is a misnomer. Around 80-90 percent of all curry house owners in Britain can trace their ancestry to Sylhet, a city of 500,000 in Bangladesh. Sylhet was not renowned for its cuisine; the most famous dish from the city is a red paste made of fermented fish. It was known, however, for its boatmen. Sylhetis jumping ship to escape the horrendous conditions on merchant and naval ships during WW2 formed one of first Southeast Asian migrant communities in Britain. They first worked as cleaners or chefs before buying their own run down restaurants. At first these would serve mostly Western food, with only one or two curries on the menu.

As one Sylheti restaurant owner recalled: ‘We had to sell egg and chips and other things to start with. The customers took a long time before they started trying curry…Once I had a man who tried to fight me because he found a bay leaf in his curry.’ When the restaurant owners transitioned to serving Indian food, what they were actually serving was a grab bag of simplified versions of recipes from across the subcontinent. Chefs would use one giant vat of base sauce, to

“Originally, curry was treated with hostility by white Britons.” which they would add a handful of spices to create Vindaloos, Madrases, Kormas and any number of other dishes.

Originally, curry was treated with hostility by white Britons.

Sociological studies of the time were full of complaints of the ‘smell of curry’. An advertisement in 1961 for Vesta chicken curry, the first British ready meal, featuring a woman wearing a sari was one indication of changing tastes.

Curry houses began to spring up next to universities and pubs, as they became associated with cheap food after a night out.

Veeraswamy’s in Swallow Street, off Regent’s Street in London. Called ‘the UK’s oldest Indian restaurant.’

Although most white Britons were originally reluctant to go into curry houses, Abdullah Hussain, a restaurant owner recalled in the 1960s that ‘now the white people flock to them; they eat hot, spicy curry and wash it down with gallons of water. But before, merely walking through the area made their eyes water’.

Innovations in recipes to cater to white Britons abounded: Tikka Masala is said to have been invented in Glasgow when a restaurateur added tomato soup to a curry after a bus driver complained that was too dry, while the fast cooked balti is said to have been invented in Birmingham to satisfy Western customers who were used to their food being prepared quickly.

As Elizabeth Buettner put it, ‘while encounters with Asians, the “smell of curry”, and multiculturalism as official policy in mixed neighbourhoods, at work and at school had been- and often continued to be- widely resented and undertaken involuntarily, curry house cuisine gradually became accepted, appreciated, and ultimately celebrated’.

THE MURDER OF MARY PHAGAN AND THE TRIAL OF LEO FRANK Mark Hogan Junior Sophister History On the 21st of April, 1913, Atlanta based night watchman Newt Lee would discover the body of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. What followed was an investigation riddled with inconclusive evidence and bigotry. Leo Frank, a man of Jewish descent, would become the target of mob rule as suspicion over his involvement in the murder turned violent. All against the backdrop of a deeply rooted tradition of justice through lynching. Leo Frank had initially come to Atlanta to run the Pencil Factory partowned by his uncle Moses. It was here that Mary Phagan would find employment. Frank found himself connected to the case as part of employing the suspect, Newt Lee. As the police interviewed Frank about the murder, he raised suspicion as his awkward and unusual mannerisms came across to the investigators as indicative of his guilt. Frank would attempt to clear his name to the investigators by placing the blame for the murder on that of Newt Lee. However, by desperately trying to clear his name, he only added to the mounting suspicions of the investigators. Soon after he had been questioned, Leo Frank was arrested by police and taken into custody.

Journalists descended in droves upon Atlanta as the story of the murder captivated the nation, sending the public into a frenzy for justice in what many described as the story of the year. While Newt Lee would be cleared of any involvement in the murder, another suspect would emerge, Jim Conley. Conley also worked in the factory and was accused of the murder by a fellow employee. In the years before the murder, Conley had been arrested multiple times for crimes such as drunkenness and disorderly conduct. This only incriminated him further, as he was also seen by many at the time as just another ‘illiterate black man’. As a result, Frank and Conley came into direct conflict with each other as each vied to prove their innocence.

Crucial evidence found alongside the body of Mary Phagan would prove the deciding factor in the case as multiple murder notes were found with the body. Conley would quickly claim illiteracy, something that the investigators primarily took at face value. A notable flaw in the system of justice for the time, as strong evidence emerged after the case that Conley’s claim of illiteracy was fabricated.

The trial began on the 28th of July under Honourable Leonard Strickland Roan, with anger

Mary Phagan, 1913.

among the public edging towards a breaking point.

Further adding to this, the sight of a broken mother who had lost her daughter only added to the people’s growing bloodlust. The conclusion of the first part of the case brought with it a number of interesting developments. The state had concluded that Leo Frank had shown unusual signs of nervousness following the murder. However, the defence had found his nervousness to be natural, considering the distressing circumstances of the murder. Throughout the case, Conley’s lawyer capitalised on the awkward mannerisms of Leo Frank and would even go as far to accuse him of being a ‘sexual pervert’ and a ’rapist monster’. Frank’s female coworkers would support these accusations, claiming he frequently leered at them in the

women’s bathroom. This only added to the growing hatred of the public towards Leo Frank.

Although Conley claimed he could neither read nor write, he confessed to having dictated the murder note for Leo Frank. He also claimed Frank had offered him a bribe of $200 in return for his silence on the murder.

To this end, Conley was said to have mesmerised the courtroom around him as the public began to see him in a new light, even going as far as labelling him a ’hero’ and an unwilling participant in Frank’s plans. The court case would culminate in the jury finding Leo Frank to be guilty with his execution set for only two months later. Conley would be sentenced to serve ten months in prison.

Sometime after, emerging evidence not available at the time of the court case led Frank to attain a much less severe sentence as his sentence was lowered to life in imprisonment rather than execution.

When the news that Leo Frank would no longer be executed reached the public, they reacted in force.

While imprisoned in the state petitionary, on the 16th of August 1915, Leo Frank and his wife Lucille enjoyed an afternoon together, unaware it would be their last. Twenty-five people stormed the facility, and in ten minutes, one of the most famous prisoners in America had been captured and was now in the hands of a violent mob. The abductees would then drive

“In response to the lynching, over half the state’s Jewish population fled, fearing a similar fate.” than one-hundred miles to reach their destination, the grove facing the home where Mary Phagan grew up. Frank was sentenced to death by the mob as he was lynched with his body left to hang.

Later, the rope itself that had been used to hang Leo Frank was sold off as a souvenir after being cut into pieces.

Leo Frank in jail, awaiting appeals, 1915.

Governor Nat Harris would make a public apology for the lynching stating that ‘the penitentiary was not built to keep out, but to keep them in’.

One of two ‘murder notes’ found with the body of Mary Phagan.

While a reward for the murderers was issued, the police received multiple death threats, leading to the offer of an award being withdrawn. Overall, the perpetrators of the lynching would go largely unpunished and free of any charge. In response to the lynching, over half the state’s Jewish population fled, fearing a similar fate due to a growing tide of anti-Semitism sweeping the state. Georgia’s government would also cover up the lynching for the better part of a century, refusing to prosecute the perpetrators effectively or to pardon Frank until 1986 posthumously. The site of the murder itself is now lost to time, buried under four lanes on Interstate Highway 75.

PLAGUE RIOTS IN MOSCOW

He was found not long after in the monastery that he had fled to and was killed by the rioters. The crowd’s anger was also targeted against doctors. They were very suspicious of their use of western medicine and the role they played in having religious practices restricted.

Janina Knörzer Junior Sophister History

In a year where many people for the first time experienced the effects of a pandemic, it seems to be an opportune moment to take a look at one of the times humanity has struggled with pest and disease before.

From 1770-1772 the Russian Empire faced a plague epidemic that peaked in Moscow in 1771.

It was one of the worst regional outbursts that Europe had to face in the eighteenth-century and caused over 50.000 deaths in Moscow, a quarter of the city’s population. Some estimates are even higher, suggesting it killed a third of the population. The plague had made its way to Russia as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. Some of the first cases were discovered at the Big Woolen Court, a large manufactory in Moscow, and led to the conclusion that the disease might have made its way into Moscow through shipments of Turkish wool. Since the factory was close to the city centre, all people that could have been infected were quarantined outside of the city and by June authorities were positive to have kept the outbreak in check.

When precautions were lifted the disease had already spread to the city through rats and fleas and by July the prospect of a catastrophic epidemic was looming over the city. Moscow itself had poor health facilities,

Plans had already been made in 1767 to improve health care in Moscow, but these plans were only put into action after the plague disaster.

and the ban on burials within city walls, that was supposed to prevent further infections.

The tensions building up throughout this situation finally Of particular interest, however, is led to a three-day period of riots not the state of the city but people’s between 15 and 17 September that reaction to the outbreak and ensuing would later become known as tensions that cumulated into the the “Plague Riots.“ It was a way “Plague Riots“ in September of for the people to release pent up 1771. Thousands of people left the tension, to express their anger city, primarily those who could with doctors, the government, and afford to. Confronted with “the church officials, and to demand worst single pestilential onslaught changes in the government’s of the entire era” Catherine had strategy. But it was also a sign to decide on measures to be that people had lost trust in those taken against the spread of the in charge. pestilence. Most public institutions “On 15 September the and administration were shut down, factories and stores were closed. alarm bell was rung People were put into quarantine and and people gathered for all gatherings prohibited. Specific plague infirmaries were set up in the first day of riots.” abbeys throughout the city. Since those had to be overseen by medical The tensions were fueled further staff, doctors were assigned to by the class dispute in Moscow’s the hospitals, many asking to be society, which was reflected in dismissed again, out of fear to the different believes in modern contract the disease themselves. medicine and divine order. A These measures also included rumor had spread that healing burning down wooden dwellings in against the disease could an attempt to end or at least slow be achieved through intense down the epidemic. worshipping of an icon of the Mother of God located at one of Still, despite all efforts, infection the city gates. As a result, large numbers kept rising and the pest gatherings were taking place in epidemic reached its peak in front of it. To avoid the spread of September of 1771, killing up to nine the pest the archbishop Ambrose hundred people each day. People of Moscow decided to take the were particularly outraged about icon down. Many citizens however the restriction of religious practices assumed he was trying to steal it.

Illustration of Moscow in the 18th century.

On 15 September the alarm bell was rung and people gathered for the first day of riots. It was the beginning of break-ins and violent attacks on people and left many injured. The bell which had marked the beginning of the riots, had fled his house before the outbursts.

On 16 and 17 September, crowds gathered in front of the Kreml, to negotiate new rules and conditions for life with the plague. Both times the soldiers were able to successfully disperse the crowds with weapons after further attacks had taken place. Only a hand full of people were executed but many punished for their involvement in

the riots. By the end of September, Catherine II had sent medical and military support into the city. The government found a way to make the plague measures more bearable on Moscow’s citizens and was able to at least partially restore people’s faith and trust in the government and its strategies.

KRISTALLNACHT Moya O’Sullivan Junior Sophister TSM English and History The facts of Kristallnacht are familiar to many with a passing knowledge of history – on November 7th, 1938, a Jewish teenager in Paris, Herschel Grynszpan, shot German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in revenge for the Nazi persecution of Jews. Vom Rath died from his wounds on November 9th, provoking a night of terror as synagogues were burned, seven-thousand Jewish businesses destroyed, and thirty-thousand Jewish men sent to concentration camps, a figure representing 25% of Jewish men in Germany.

Though this event has become a

a defining event associated with the Nazi regime, party-officials were in fact divided on whether it was a judicious move. Hitler never spoke publicly about it to distance himself from an event he knew would horrify the world, but on November 9th he was overheard saying to Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels ‘the SA should be allowed to have a fling’.

Goebbels told local leaders that ‘spontaneous demonstrations [..] should not be discouraged’, as ‘for once the Jewish people should get the feel of popular anger’ and police were given instructions not to intervene except to prevent

damage to ‘Aryan’ businesses.

SS-Commandant Heinrich Himmler, in contrast, worried about the international response and journaled at 11.05 pm, ‘I suspect that Goebbels in his craving for power [...] and also in his empty-headedness, started this action just at a time when the foreign political situation is very grave’.

The Party was however united in the view that Kristallnacht should be used as an opportunity to confiscate property and impoverish the Jewish community. A fine of

one-billion Reichsmarks, or about €4 billion in today’s money, was levied on the Jewish population so that, in Hermann Goering’s words, ‘the swine won’t hurry to commit another murder’. Jewish people were prohibited from emigrating until they had paid their share of this fine, and passports were confiscated, to be returned only when as they were certified as having handed over all their financial assets to the State. New measures to ‘Aryanise the Jews’ and ‘make Jewish people debtors’ were announced on November 12th, and from 1 January 1939 Jewish people could not be a manager, foreman, chief clerk, artisan, or business-owner. By November 21st, 3,767 Jewish businesses in Berlin alone had closed permanently or had been transferred to ‘Aryan’ control The pogrom also provoked a wide variety of responses in the non-Jewish population. Certainly, the scale of violence, which saw seven-thousand Jewish businesses destroyed in over a thousand locations across Germany, Austria, and Danzig could not have happened without widespread antiSemitic hate. A correspondent for the British Daily Telegraph reported that in Berlin ‘racial hatred and hysteria seemed to have taken complete control of otherwise decent people. I saw fashionably dressed women clapping their hands and screaming with glee, while respectable middle-class mothers held up their babies to see the “fun”’. In Gottingen, a crowd tried to prevent the firebrigade from rescuing a Jewish woman trapped inside a burning synagogue. Schoolchildren also participated. In Feldafing, students were armed with bricks by their teachers and in Hamburg ‘some

sixty school-children stoned the glass doors of a synagogue’.

But it would be misleading to characterise the popular response as one of uniform hatred. On the contrary, many saw the violence as senseless. Arthur Flehinger, a Jewish man in Baden, witnessed ‘people crying while watching from behind their curtains’. One policereport concluded that ‘opinion was divided’ but that the ‘majority’ felt that ‘all this destruction was uncalled for.’

“Even if they were not uniformly hated by the population, however, Jewish survivors remained traumatised.”

An American official in Leipzig reported that ‘spectators’ were ‘horrified’ at the sight of Jewish people being thrown into a stream. The British ConsulGeneral in Munich spoke of ‘silent manifestations of grief’ among non-Jewish people ‘staring at the damage.’ Henry Stern, a Jewish survivor in Stuttgart, remembered that, as his synagogue burned, the crowd was ‘in complete silence’, not ‘jubilant’ as the German press had reported. Interestingly, a sample of 41 Nazi party-members was surveyed by psychologist Michael Muller-Claudius after

“...there was an almost-total ban on Jewish people frequenting theatres, concerts, cinemas or dance halls.”

Smashed windows of a Jewish owned business, 1938.

Kristallnacht, and 26, or 63%, were extremely upset and angered by the event, and just two, less than 5% of the sample, advocated for greater persecution. Even if they were not uniformly hated by the population, however, Jewish survivors remained traumatised, terrified, and in many cases impoverished after losing their homes and businesses, and suicide became a common response to their worsening fortunes. In Vienna alone, thirty Jewish people committed suicide on Kristallnacht, and twice as many attempted suicides, and for months afterward, suicides accounted for more than half of all Jewish burials. A recent study carried out by Richard Evans estimates that 638 suicides can be attributed to Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht is also recognised as a turning point in the deterioration of the Jewish situation in Nazi Germany and is often seen as the beginning of the Holocaust. At the cabinet meeting on November 12th Goering stated ‘the Jewish question must now, once and for all, be coordinated and solved one way or another. A phone call from the Fuhrer to me yesterday again gave me instructions that decisive co-ordinated steps must now be outlined’. New regulations isolated Jewish people from the rest of the population - any Jewish people

Smashed windows of a Jewish owned business, 1938.

remaining in non-Jewish schools were expelled, Jewish people were forbidden from enrolling at university or attending lectures, and there was an almost-total ban on Jewish people frequenting theatres, concerts, cinemas or dance halls. Trains, waiting rooms, and restaurants were segregated and the movement of Jewish people into separate housing blocks began. The following month all Jewish driving licenses were revoked. Crucially,

Destroyed Ohel Yaaqov Synagogue, 1938.

the unpopularity of Kristallnacht among the general population also meant a departure from the policy of promoting disorganized, public assaults on Jewish people, associated with Goebbels, towards more impersonal, systematic marginalisation, to be carefully planned and directed from the center of the State by experienced officials. Historian Raul Hilberg has suggested that this shift in policy towards

greater bureaucratisation made possible the colossal scale of the Holocaust and ‘transformed a pogrom into a genocide’.

From this point of view, the identification of Kristallnacht as a ‘moderate warning’ in official SS magazine Das Schwarze Korps a week after the events has a chilling prescience.

THE 1912 LAWRENCE TEXTILE STRIKE Katie Sewell Junior Sophister TSM English and History

By 1900, Lawrence, Massachusetts, like many other cities in America, had been transformed by the rapid mechanisation of labour, resulting in a high demand for unskilled workers. This demand drew new immigrants—mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe—to work in the often dangerous textile mills that dominated Lawrence’s industry. By January 1912, over 50,000 workers—men, women, and children—were employed by the textile business. 37,000 workers were employed by the American Woolen Company alone, which was the leading manufacturer of worsted fabric in the United States.

The mechanization of labour resulted in wages being lowered throughout the mills in Lawrence.

Most families were only able to afford to live in tenement buildings and often several families were squeezed into one apartment. On average, the weekly pay for all workers was $8.76, with skilled workers—mostly the Irish and French-Canadians—earning the most at $11.39 a week and Italian, Syrian, Lithuanian, and Polish immigrants earning lower wages at an average of $6.81 a week. For most families, these low wages were not enough to cover basic necessities. According to Elizabeth Shapleigh, a physician working in Lawrence in 1912, the dangerous work conditions coupled with poor living standards resulted in 36% of

the Italian Socialist Federation, took control of the strike efforts, demanding a 15% increase of pay, double pay for overtime work, and no discrimination against the strikers.

After the strikers prevented non-striking workers from entering the mills, the city of Lawrence responded by assembling a militia and requesting state police, which resulted in many violent confrontations between law enforcement and the strikers. On 29 January during one such conflict, an Italian woman named Anna LoPizzo was shot and killed by the police. However, state authorities charged Ettor and Giovannitti, who were not present at the clash.

A child working in a textile factory.

workers dying before reaching the age of twenty-five and an overall life expectancy of thirtynine.

While working conditions and wages were inadequate, labour organisations such as the United Textile Workers and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) experienced difficulty in organising unions for the unskilled workers of Lawrence. However, this indifference towards unions and labour unrest changed in January of 1912 when the state of Massachusetts passed a law that mandated the reduction of the working week from fifty-six to fifty-four hours for women and children. In response, the

working week from fifty-six to fifty-four hours for women and children. In response, the textile mill owners reduced the pay of their employees. On the 11 January 1912, a group of Polish workers were the first to walk out. The same night, the Italian workers gathered to discuss the pay reduction and decided to go on strike. The next morning, a headline of the local newspaper, the Lawrence Sun, read ‘Italian mill workers vote to go out on strike Friday: in noisy meeting 900 men voice dissatisfaction.’

Over the next two days, workers continued to leave their posts or riot in the textile mills.

Meanwhile, Joseph Ettor, an organiser from the IWW, and Arturo Giovannitti, a member of

A mechanic textile loom, invented in 1899.

The strikers faced more obstacles with the involvement of the local Catholic Church. The clergy in Lawrence was dominated by Irish-Americans, who, much like their Irish counterparts in the textile mills, were against the

The three most prominent priests in Lawrence coordinated a response to strike through a message which denounced socialism to their congregations, with Father Timothy Regan at St. Lawrence O’Toole Church stating that ‘socialism, anarchy, […] and atheism are at our very door and must be fought.’

In the meantime, the IWW attempted to raise support to the strikers by fundraising in other towns in New England and creating a relief system for the strikers. Several soup kitchens were established by national groups involved in the strike, such as the Italians, Syrians, the Poles, and the Armenians.

Furthermore, the IWW brought attention to the cause by organising the passage of strikers’ children to sympathetic families in New York. Due to the success of the first flight of children, in February, the IWW attempted to arrange for more children to be sent to families in Philadelphia. Once the city learned of the plan, the police and militia stormed the train station to arrest those involved.

The police involvement quickly devolved into violence against both the mothers and children, resulting in several women and children being clubbed and rounded up into police vehicles.

This event was widely publicised due to a heavy press presence, which created even more support for the strikers of Lawrence.

The images taken at the scene captured the attention of the First Lady, Helen Taft, who asked her husband President William Taft to intervene. As a result, both the House of Representatives and the Senate launched an investigation into the Lawrence textile mills,

revealing the atrocious working conditions of the mills to the nation. Several mill workers testified before Congress, such as Camella Teoli, a fourteenyear-old girl who attested that a ‘machine pulled [her] scalp off’ while she was working.

Due to the nationwide attention on Lawrence as a result of the police violence and the government investigations, the mill workers settled to appease the strikers, meeting all of their demands. However, while the strike had ended in March, Ettor and Giovannitti remained incarcerated until they were acquitted in November of 1912, after a two-month-long trial and several marches, parades, and strikes on their behalf.

However, even though the 1912 strike was victorious and Ettor and Giovannitti were freed, the anti-radical establishment and mill owners remained in power in Lawrence. After the strike and the acquittal of Ettor and Giovannitti, radicalism faded in Lawrence and the textile workers did not organise into a permanent union. The IWW turned its attention to other mill towns, such as Paterson, New Jersey, allowing the mill owners to slowly overturn any victories the strikers had won.

After a second failed strike in 1919, most forms of radicalised labour unrest dissipated in Lawrence.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION: BECOMING THE RAINBOW NATION? Regan Roseveare Senior Freshman History “After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.” ~Nelson Mandela In 1994 South Africa held its first fair and free election, in which all citizens of the country could vote for a democratically elected government. This election would officially start to undo the nearly 50-year Apartheid rule, which was the sociopolitical structure under which the National Party (NP) governed South Africa. The world had its eye on South Africa; scared that the violence of the previous 5 years would dictate how the African National Congress (ANC) and its newly elected President Nelson Mandela would govern. Many expected to see retribution and revenge by the new government, who had for many years been told that because of their race, ethnicity, and skin colour they were less than human. Instead, President Mandela chose a path of truth and reconciliation; by doing so he united what was once the most divided nation in the world.

Nelson Mandela rejected the options of either a Nuremberg Trial type of justice or the amnesia of black amnesty. Instead, he, formed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as a reform tactic that aimed to be more reconciliation than revenge and retribution. The TRC was a courtlike restorative justice body that sought to bring to light the injustices

of the past. Born in the spirit of participation; the body was made up of more than 50 human rights lawyers, religious figureheads, victims, and organisations, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu at the head. The Commission consisted of three main parts: the Human Rights Violations Committee, which investigated all human rights abuses from 1960 – 1994; the Reparation Committee which was responsible for restoring victims dignity and assisting with rehabilitation; and finally, the Amnesty Committee which considered applications from abuse perpetrators in exchange for a full honest confession of their crimes. To avoid Victor’s Justice, no side was excluded from appearing at the commission. Members of the NP, ANC, Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) all appeared as both witnesses and perpetrators.

Witnesses of gross human rights violations were invited to give their statements about their suffering, while perpetrators in some cases gave full confessions. The focal point of the commission was the victims. The TRC received more than 22 000 statements of human rights violations in the form of, killings, torture, disappearances, kidnappings, and mistreatment.

The Commission received over 7000 amnesty applications, from

Nelson Mandela voting in the 1994 election in South Africa.

which only 2500 were heard and only 1 500 granted. Given that TRC was created in the spirit of participation it functioned on the same idea. These hearings were held in public, ensuring that every South African citizen was aware of the brutal and despicable atrocities that were committed during Apartheid; giving back the voice of the South African people, which had been muted for so long.

However, despite the great intentions and actions of the Commission, it was not without

its faults. The main criticism voiced is that the Commission was not accepted by all contributors to the conflict of Apartheid. Some members of the Liberation movement felt they had not done anything wrong as they had been fighting what they believed to be a “just war.”

The top-ranking members of the military also chose to not cooperate with the commission. Thus, most of the amnesty applications were from foot-soldiers and low-ranking members of the military in an attempt to evade prosecution. Another

“...the sincere attempt to reconcile with the past and unite South Africa has yet to be completed.” significant criticism is that the TRC did not focus on the political economy of apartheid, this failure meant that only people who physically engaged in Apartheid had to hold all the shame, while those who benefited merely economically did not have to reflect on their own actions or fear punishment. Perhaps even more unfortunately, the post-

Mandela government also failed in some ways to enact the TRC’s recommendations for reconciliations and reparations.

By the 21st century only a few people who were denied amnesty by the TRC, or simply did not apply, had been prosecuted. Many of Apartheid’s perpetrators still walk free in 2020. Thus, the sincere attempt to reconcile with the past and unite South Africa has yet to be completed.

While these criticisms are valid, and the government of South Africa should continue to take steps to rectify the horrors of Apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is still widely regarded as successful.

The commission highlighted the importance of public participation, from its creation to engaging in the proceedings throughout.

Internationally amnesty is generally inconsistent with the law, but South Africa provided evidence that, under the correct circumstances, amnesties are a useful tool in uncovering the truth of the past and uniting a violently divided nation. The emphasis on reconciliation, rather than retribution, is in stark contrast to the de-Nazification of Europe, and the Nuremberg Trials, and should been seen as proof that equal and fair restorative justice can be used to create a country which both accepts its past, learns from it and uses it as a way to grow.

The TRC was effective in creating a firm account as to the events of Apartheid, transformed the image of South Africa internationally, and most importantly, helped bring reconciliation to South Africa.

Admittedly, South Africa has a long way to go and many more hills to climb. It is by no means

Archbishop Desmond Tuto.

perfect. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a truly unique part of South African History. The country, united together, witnessed mothers and fathers grieve for their missing children who left to fight for freedom and never returned, and the world heard the from soldiers who confessed to war crimes that would have otherwise been hidden from history.

South Africa is a country with an incredibly unique and unforgiving History, one which each person had to face and accept the abuses of the past because of the TRC. South Africa did not sweep its difficult history under the rug, South Africa confronted it in the most public of ways and is a better country as a result. In the 26 years since the end of Apartheid, South Africans can now celebrate their differences with 11 national languages, 5 major tribes, and 5 major ethnic groups. South Africa has progressed so far as to become the 5th country in the world to legalize gay marriage, a far cry from the conservative country we knew 26 years ago.

South Africa today is truly the Rainbow Nation it claims to be, in large part thanks to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

RAPHAEL LEMKIN: THE MAN BEHIND THE WORD GENOCIDE Tim Murphy Senior Freshman BESS “By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.” The murdering of certain ethnic groups is as old as humans themselves, yet a word didn’t exist to describe this crime until 1944 when the word genocide was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. The history of genocide stretches farther back than 1944 however, as far back as 416 BCE during the Peloponnesian War where the Athenians sought to destroy the society and culture of Melos. While in 146 BCE the Roman Empire sought to destroy not only the city of Carthage but its people and culture as well. As a phenomenon, genocide is often associated with World War 2 and more recent genocides such as those in Rwanda and Srebrenica in 1994 and 1995 respectively.

However, the two examples above show that genocide has always existed but courtesy of the persistent work of Raphael Lemkin it is now a recognised crime in international law.

Lemkin was born in 1900 on a small farm in the Polish town of Wolkowysk to a Jewish family.

As a university student studying law in Lwów, he became aware of the systematic mass murder of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during the 1910s and 1920s. He was horrified by the idea that “there has been no serious endeavour hitherto to prevent and punish the murder and destruction of millions.” This,

coupled with 49 members of his family perishing in the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis during World War 2, drove him further to give a name to what Winston Churchill described as the “crime without a name.” The German invasion of Poland in 1939 saw Lemkin flee Europe through Lithuania and Sweden moving to the United States of America.

In 1942, he moved to Washington DC working as an analyst in the American War Department. Two years later in his book “Axis rule in Occupied Europe,” he first introduces the word ‘genocide.’

Lemkin coined the word by combining the Ancient Greek word ‘genos’ meaning race or tribe and the Latin word ‘cide’ which means killing.

However, having coined the word

he went further pushing for the inclusion of genocide as a crime during the Nuremberg Trials. During these trials, Allied prosecutors tried over 200 Nazis for war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, while the indictments did mention ‘genocide,’ which was the first time it appeared in international law, those tried were not convicted on this count. Lemkin continued lobbying to the United Nations pushing for the addition of ‘genocide’ to international law. As Edet Belzberg, the director of “Watchers of the Sky” a documentary about Lemkin, points out, Lemkin “was a man who didn’t speak English very well, he didn’t represent a country, he didn’t represent an institution, he barely had a home, he barely had food,” yet in 1948 he was finally successful. On the 9th of December 1948 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly and came into force three years later when it was ratified by a 20th country.

Article 2 of the Convention defines ‘genocide’ as the “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Lemkin continued working to help and encourage countries to ratify the Convention and also assisted a group of lawyers

from Arab delegations at the UN to begin building a case to prosecute French officials for genocide in Algeria. Whilst he also was a lecturer at Rutger University in New Jersey. Lemkin was nominated 10 times for the Nobel Peace Prize during the 1950s but was never awarded the prize. The nominations demonstrate the significance of the role he played but also the limited recognition he received from the global community. This is further demonstrated by there being only seven mourners at his funeral in New York in 1959 having died of a heart attack.

As mentioned previously, genocide is, unfortunately, a staple in human history. It is seen throughout history and all over the world from the Cathar Crusade in the 1200s in the Languedoc region of France to Holodomor, the Ukrainian genocide perpetrated by the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

However, genocides are still occurring in the likes of South Sudan while the Indonesians have been conducting a genocidal campaign in Western New Guinea with allegedly 100,000 Papuans having been killed over the last 60

years. While the work of Lemkin has clearly not put an end to this type of crime taking place, his role in giving a name to it and making it a recognised crime in international law has had a huge impact in persecuting and raising international awareness about this sort of crime.

CALLING ALL FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS!

Want to help DU History steer through these crazy times? Want to give your year group the best engagement with the society? Want to meet new people?

We’ve got just the position for you! We will be electing two first year reps to complete the committee of the 88th session. In order to run for the position, you must be a member of the society and studying Single Honours History, History and Political Science or History through the Joint Honours programme. Keep an eye on our socials to find out more in the coming weeks!

Last year’s First Year Reps.

Instagram: @duhistory Twitter: @DU_History Facebook: DU History

NEO-REVISIONISM AND IRISH HISTORY Jack M.Traynor Senior Sophister History In the past few months, the issue of global racial injustice has exploded on a global scale.

The killing of George Floyd, a working-class African-American man, by police officers in the United States proved to be a seminal event, the spark that lit the powder keg on police brutality in the US. Heightened public awareness of racial injustice has prompted a renewed interest in established historical narratives. Perhaps this heightened awareness is best illustrated by the movement to remove statues of controversial historical figures, such as those involved in the slave trade or the Confederate cause.

While our neighbour the United Kingdom has been reckoning with her own imperial history, many in Irish society have renewed an interest in the art of historical self-reflection.

This process is evidenced by the outpour of articles focusing on ‘problematic’ Irish historical personalities; such as Dick Dowling who fought for the Confederate Army in Texas or John Mitchel, the nineteenthcentury Fenian, who was an unapologetic defender of slavery.

However, the heavy focus on the wrongs committed by elements of the Irish nation should not be taken as a synecdoche for the whole Irish nation nor should it replace our own history on the receiving side of oppression.

The generation of historians known as revisionists sought to dismantle the supposed narrative of Irish historical ‘victimology’ by employing an approach of ‘valuefree’ empiricism. The result was an interpretation of Irish history which presented the British state as more of a neutral arbiter which responded, sometimes heavyhandedly, to provocation by Irish ‘extremists’. Like Nelson wilfully lifting the telescope to his blind eye, the revisionists contentedly ignored the pernicious attitudes towards Ireland which flowed through every level of the British state. The fact that the (second wave) revisionists came of age and academically flourished during the Troubles and within the international context of the Cold War is no coincidence. Their work cast a long shadow across contemporary politics and the status of the Six Counties in particular. Some recent scholars have even invented a strawman argument of the Irish as ‘the most oppressed people ever’ allegedly expressed by the ignorant or by politically-driven polemicists. By interpreting the British role in Irish history as one of an impartial umpire merely responding to events and by emphasising the supposed sectarianism, slavishness and irrationality of Irish republicans, the revisionists set the tone for today’s new wave of ‘neorevisionism’. In this neorevisionism, Ireland must wear the sackcloth and ashes of an imperial history which was never ours.

Nonetheless, when comparing our own history of oppression with other oppressed peoples of the world we must tread carefully and respectfully. One such ham-fisted attempt to draw an explicit equivalency of shared discrimination was offered by Brendan O’Leary in the first volume of his A Treatise on Northern Ireland, in relation to the penal laws.

O’Leary includes in his book a table contrasting Ireland’s penal laws to the Jim Crow Laws in the American South and to Apartheid in South Africa. The reader is left with the impression that all three systems of oppression bore such overwhelming similarities that an equality of severity existed between the three.

Although O’Leary does note that the penal laws were specifically targeting religion while the other two were targeting race, the importance of this distinction is lost in a phalanx of purported similarities such as ‘social exclusion’, ‘coercion’, ‘doctrines of superiority’ between the three. Presenting religious discrimination in Ireland as akin to racial discrimination elsewhere is an inappropriate and inaccurate comparison on the part of O’Leary. The codification of religious discrimination was not unique to early modern Ireland; French Protestants were harshly discriminated against in Catholic France, culminating in

the Edict of Fontainebleau which revoked the rights protecting Protestants from religious persecution in 1685. Ireland did not suffer alone in the very unequal world of early modern Europe.

Yet the main reason for why equating Ireland’s penal laws to Apartheid is so egregious lies in the fundamental difference of purpose between the systems.

Yes, the penal laws discriminated against Roman Catholics. But inherent within their existence lay the (coercive) imploration for Catholics to convert to Protestantism. An Irish Catholic could convert to Anglicanism,

thereby gaining full legal equality within the British system. For example, William Conolly, born to a Catholic family in Donegal, converted to Anglicanism and rose to the very heights of Irish society during his remarkable career. Although still wrong, this discrimination was not the same as racism. Within a system of codified racial discrimination those considered part of the ‘inferior’ race will never be presented with an opportunity to gain legal equality. Racial discrimination targets an individual’s race which is both inherent and unchangeable. This cannot be said to be true in the case of those effected by the

penal laws.

I have sought to oppose the reflexive acts of historical selfflagellation so en vogue today which involve constructing a ‘shameful’ narrative of Irish history akin to the history and legacy of British imperialism. Yet I have also sought to show the wrongness of equating historical religious discrimination with pure racism. But perhaps the most important theme underpinning this article is to show the effect historical interpretation has on the present. Now, more than ever, history is at its most relevant to people’s lives.

DU HISTORY PRESENTS; MANY MOONS AGO Many Moons Ago

A podcast by DU History

This year, DU History are bringing you our very own podcast, with different episodes each week to keep you up to date in all things historical. For Freshers’ Week, meet our committee and listen to how DU History are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in all new ways. Every two weeks we will be launching a new episode, starting next week with ‘The Relationship between Art and History.’ Be sure to check out our social media for more information!