General Charles Gordon Avenged at Omdurman:

Kitchener Defeats Large Sudanese Force 

Michael Streich

July 3, 2011

 In early September 1898, General H.H. Kitchener, commanding at Omdurman in the African Sudan, informed his government that, “The remnant of the Khalifa’s forces has surrendered, and I have now a very large number of prisoners on my hands.” Omdurman was located up the Nile River, across from Khartoum where Major-General Charles Gordon had been killed by the Mahdist forces fourteen years earlier. Kitchener, at that time, was part of the relief operation led by Viscount Garnett Wolsey. The expedition arrived too late; Omdurman was to be the long awaited act of revenge. Yet Omdurman was also a transitional object lesson perpetuating the belief of European superiority.

 

Avenging Governor-General Charles Gordon of Khartoum

 

General Gordon had returned to the Sudan to confront the Mahdi, whose personal ambitions rested on Islamic mysticism and posed a serious threat to Egyptian hegemony over the vast expanse of desert. It would not be until Kitchener’s victory at Omdurman in 1898, however, that, as the London Times postulated, the territory would be re-opened, “to the benefits of peace, civilization, and good government.”

 

Following the death of Gordon and the destruction of Khartoum, the Mahdi himself died, succeeded by the Khalifa Abdullahi, who turned the fort at Omdurman into a citadel housing his palace and the tomb of the Mahdi. According to writer Philip Ziegler, Omdurman was “Africa’s largest slum.” Kitchener’s army, composed of a well-trained Egyptian contingent as well as the British Brigade, began the long and arduous march up the Nile to Omdurman, vastly outnumbered by the dervishes. But, as Ziegler writes, “…arithmetic counted for nothing in the fierce joy of battle.”

 

Omdurman Victory Attributed to Several Factors

 

As a transitional event, Omdurman would witness a heroic cavalry charge by the 21^st Lancers, as well as the use of heavily armed gunboats and a significant advantage in artillery. As the London Times correspondent pointed out, the siege of Khartoum several years earlier lasted 317 days; the siege of Sevastopol during the Crimean conflict took slightly over 300 days. Omdurman fell after five hours.

 

Kitchener’s success was due to excellent planning as well as moments of good luck. The Khalifa, for example, was frequently guided by dreams. These dreams caused him to withdraw his troops from points along the Nile such as Berber, concentrating his men at Omdurman. Further, the battle would be fought on the Kerreri plain rather than a house-to-house battle within the city.

 

A notable exception was Atbara. 20,000 dervishes took part in the battle of Atbara under Emir Mahmoud. It was a foolish move. Sandhurst military historian Philip Warner argues that had those 20,000 men been available at Omdurman, “the outcome of that critical battle might well have been different.”

 

Role of the Forces under Kitchener’s Command

 

Both Egyptian and British forces were eager to fight. According to the London Times, the lesson of Omdurman showed that British soldiers “will go anywhere and do anything.” Lt. General Francis Grenfell, commander of the British troops, wrote that, “…never, in the course of my service, have I seen a finer body of troops than the British contingent…as regards physique, smartness, and soldier like bearing.” (The London Gazette, September 30, 1898) To this must be added the contributions of loyalist Sudanese units.

 

Detractors like the young Lt. Winston Churchill, involved in his first conflict, showed their arrogance with criticism of Kitchener and fellow officers. Churchill became a life-long critic of Kitchener, attempting to blame the later Field Marshall in 1915 for Churchill’s own debacle at Gallipoli in Turkey. Kitchener had been selected to command over much older and seasoned officers, but had the confidence of Sir Evelyn Baring, Britain’s proconsul in Cairo.

 

Kitchener’s Success at Omdurman Assisted by Modern Technology

 

Victory at Omdurman was achieved by daring and bravery, but not without the presence of gunboats. This firepower saved the Camel Corps from almost sure annihilation, an action that could have altered the battle outcome. To this must be added the actions of Lt. Colonel H.A. Macdonald, whose native brigade managed to hold the line against an unforeseen mass of dervishes, as well as the charge of the 17^th Lancers. By the afternoon of that fateful day, the Khalifa’s power was broken as he fled in disguise to the south.

 

Omdurman had all of the elements of a modern battle: the use of railroads, superior firepower, artillery placement, and gunboats specifically designed for the conflict. Unlike Islawanda or the much earlier devastation of Hicks Pasha in the Sudan desert, few British lives were lost but thousands of dervishes lay before the Khalifa’s capital in great bleeding piles. The British euphoria reinforced the notion of western superiority, a belief still held today in the technological war against Middle East extremists.

 

Gordon is Memorialized

 

Gordon was avenged with the fall of Omdurman. A memorial service was conducted in Khartoum with the 11^th Sudanese band playing Gordon’s favorite hymn, “Abide with Me.” It was the same hymn played at the memorial service for Kitchener in 1916 after he died aboard the HMS Hampshire. With Omdurman achieved, Kitchener turned his attention southward to confront French incursions into British-claimed territory. Carving up Africa would continue as European powers used their technology to expand empires.

 

Sources:

 

Byron Farwell, Queen Victoria’s Little Wars (W.W. Norton & Co., 1985)

London Gazette, September 30, 1898

London Times, various articles, September 1898

John Pollock, Kitchener: Architect of Victory, Artisan of Peace (Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998)

Philip Warner, Dervish (Mackays, 2000)

Philip Warner, Kitchener: The Man Behind The Legend (Atheneum, 1986)

Philip Ziegler, Omdurman (Dorsett Press, 1973)

First Published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. All republications subject to written permission.

The American Revolution Ends the War at Yorktown

Cornwallis Trapped as Americans and French Allies Defeat British Forces

Michael Streich

June 27, 2009

By 1781 the patriot cause was summarized by George Washington as “gloomy.” Under-equipped and fragmented, colonial forces had been weakened by desertions and mutinies. Yet key events in 1781 resulting from spectacular British blunders changed the outlook, leading to the victory at Yorktown late in the year. British defeat at Yorktown paved the way toward an end to the war and the 1783 peace treaty that recognized American independence.

 

Cornwallis moves north into Virginia

 

In March 1781 the British army under the command of Charles, Lord Cornwallis had been severely weakened when nearly one quarter of his force had been incapacitated by a patriot force under General Nathaniel Greene at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, just south of the Virginia border.

 

Cornwallis continued to march his men into Virginia, however, expecting reinforcement from Sir Henry Clinton in New York and hoping to link with separate British forces commanded by Benedict Arnold and Colonel Tarleton. Clinton, however, who commanded 11,000 men in New York, ordered Cornwallis to send part of his force north to reinforce his own position, an order Cornwallis refused.

 

George Washington’s forces and a 4,500 man French army under General Rochambeau were north of New York, poised to begin a siege of the well-fortified city. It was at this point that the news of the imminent arrival of a French fleet at the Chesapeake offered an opportunity to possibly end the war.

 

Cornwallis Encircled at Yorktown

 

Prior to his withdrawal to Yorktown, Cornwallis had been successful in harassing patriot forces in Virginia. British troops captured Richmond and came within minutes of capturing Governor Thomas Jefferson. So successful was Cornwallis that Nathanial Greene referred to him as a “modern Hannibal.”

 

Retiring to Yorktown, Cornwallis anticipated reinforcements and fresh supplies, not realizing that French Admiral de Grasse had sailed from Santo Domingo with 28 warships and 3,300 French troops. In New York, Sir Henry Clinton reacted to the news of de Grasse with typical vacillation. Ironically, a British naval force under Sir Samuel Hood had actually arrived at the Chesapeake before de Grasse from the Caribbean but concluded that the French had sailed to New York instead. Departing north, Hood left the Chesapeake open for the French fleet.

 

Cutting off all Hope for Cornwallis

 

Cornwallis began fortifying Yorktown but abandoned the outer defenses. His troops were weary and sick. Smallpox began to take its toll among the men and Yorktown’s inhabitants. At the same time, Washington and Rochambeau, sensing a great opportunity, force-marched their men south into Virginia, linking with General Lafayette’s force of 3,000.

 

By the time Clinton realized what had happened (Washington had left enough men behind to confuse the British), it was too late. Admiral Sir Thomas Graves, perhaps the most criminally ineffectual British commander, arrived at the Chesapeake, briefly engaged the French fleet after dispersing his own ships in such a manner as to render them useless, and retreated back to New York.

 

Admiral de Grasse had been reinforced by a smaller French force commanded by Admiral de Barra. It was this smaller fleet that anchored in the Chesapeake while de Grasse fought the British in the open sea.

 

Believing until the last that reinforcements would arrive, Cornwallis made no attempt to break out of Yorktown or ferry his men across the York River, both actions still feasible before the arrival of Washington and Rochambeau. The end came after French forces, in the stealth of darkness, overran Redoubt 9 and American forces took Redoubt 10, two strategically important defensive fortifications.

 

Cornwallis Maligned in History

 

Lord Cornwallis has often been the scapegoat for British defeat, even as recently as the popular film The Patriot. Yet the evidence suggests that he was a capable commander. The loss at Yorktown can best be blamed on the incompetence of Admiral Graves and the jealous indecision of Sir Henry Clinton.

 

Sources:

 

Walter Edgar, Partisans and Redcoats (HarperCollins,2001)

Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Overlook Press, 2002)

Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. No reprints of any kind without written permission from Michael Streich.

 

 Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations

The Role of Weather Patterns in the Near East, Greece, and Rome

© Michael Streich

 Apr 5, 2009

Drought more than politics and war may have undermined several ancient civilizations , leaving them vulnerable to internal stability and external conquest.

As contemporary societies grapple with climate change that may dramatically affect the ebb and flow of civilizations, historians of various specialties look back at ancient civilizations, postulating that historical climate changes may have played a more significant part in the rise and fall of early empires. While some of these changes may have been catastrophic, such as the Greek Dark Ages, c 1200-800 BCE, others were part of drawn out patterns like the affects of climate change during second and third century Imperial Rome. Drought and subsequent famine may have played a larger role in power shifts in the ancient world then previously noted.

The Ancient Near East

Akkad, the first great empire in Ancient Mesopotamia, was founded by Sargon the Great, described as “one of the outstanding figures of the ancient world.” His empire fell after 200 years with the invasion of the Gutians, barbarians that descended upon the Tigris and Euphrates region from the northern highlands. Elizabeth Kolbert, who has written a book on climate change, states that “scholars blamed the empire’s fall on politics.” According to Kolbert, however, a more plausible direct reason for the Akkadian collapse “was caused by a devastating drought.”

Kolbert gives similar examples of how “shifts in rainfall” destabilized other civilizations such as the Egyptian Old Kingdom and, in the Americas, the Maya and the Tiwanacu in Peru. In the Genesis account describing how the Israelites migrated to Egypt (chapter 42ff), famine had gripped Canaan and Jacob sent his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The uncorroborated story does highlight the fact that, for the most part, Egyptians could predict the flow of the Nile and were thus able to prepare for the expected periods of famine.

Some scholars speculate that the famine mentioned in Genesis coincided with Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period that included the Hyksos invasion across the Sinai, perhaps prompted more by the lure of grain than other riches. Famines often precipitated population shifts, affecting longer, established civilizations. The Hyksos changed the direction of Egyptian history, resulting in the New Kingdom and Egyptian imperialism.

The Mediterranean

The Greeks always possessed a fragile agricultural economy reflecting irregular rainfall. Yet around 1200 BCE, catastrophic events destroyed the Mycenaean civilization. Widespread famine engulfed the land, desperate inhabitants took to the sea in search of better conditions, and much of Greece returned to a primitive culture. The event may have been sparked by significant volcanic activity in the Aegean Sea that blocked the sun, affecting an already weak agricultural base.

Trade and commerce was disrupted, affecting also the Hittites and the Minoans. Within this calamity, barbarians entered Greece from the north. Like the Gutians, the Dorians benefited from internal instability and weakness attributed, in part, to severe climate changes.

Much later, beginning in the mid-second century AD, climate change again affected a great empire – the Romans. Soil erosion, deforestation, and changes in rainfall patterns disrupted grain shipments to Rome and affected other provincial agrarian enterprises. This is often one of several reasons advanced for the so-called “fall of Rome.”

The importance of water in the Ancient Near East, much as it is today, played a dominant role in the survival of civilizations. The evolution of siege warfare, for example, greatly perfected by the Assyrians, included the elimination of any water source into the city under siege. Herodotus recounts that when Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem, he dried up the river, an action that might have backfired because his actions increased the rodent population which proceeded to destroy his soldier’s weapons.

Climate and Civilization

As scholars delve into the past to assess the impact of climate on ancient civilizations, they may produce models that can be used today. Contemporary climate changes may also precipitate major population shifts and affect national economies, particularly those heavily dependent upon agriculture and herding, much as happened centuries ago.

Sources:

C. E. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. I, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, no date given).

Elizabeth Kolbert, “Outlook: Extreme,” National Geographic, April, 2009, pp 60-61. See also Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change (Bloomsbury, 2006).

Samuel Noah Kramer, Cradle of Civilization (Time Incorporated, 1967).

The copyright of the article Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Climate Affects Good Harvests

See all posts for Aspects of the War of 1812 and applications to current history published in early November.

Yesterday, January 6, 2021, a mob of thousands, incited by President Donald Trump, marched to the Capitol and viciously invaded the hallowed rooms, forcing Representatives and Senators to flee and shelter in place. The last time the heart of Democracy and cradle of the Constitution was besmirched  in such a manner was over 200 years ago, when, during the war of 1812, the British burned Washington City and the President's house. 

Here is a brief article to go along with the other already posted in early November.

 

 

 

While crucial maritime issues formed the bulk of American grievances against Great Britain in 1812, and these are copiously detailed by President Madison in his war message to the Congress, the ancillary issue of expansionism, particularly with the view of taking Canada, cannot be discounted. Historian Paul Johnson, identifying this cause, [1] states, that the  “South and the burgeoning West favored war for imperial reasons…they thought of appropriating…British Canada.” Albert Weinberg [2] writes that, “It has been plausibly argued by Professor Pratt [1925] that this war, long explained by reference to impressments and commercial restrictions, was caused fundamentally by the desire of Western States for the annexation of Canada.”

 

From Their Own Words

 

Samuel Taggart’s June 24, 1812 speech opposing the war was never given during the closed-session vote, but it was published in the Annals of Congress. Taggart, a representative from Massachusetts, devotes his final paragraphs to the issue of Canada. “For whose benefit is the capture of Canada,” he asks. “What advantages are we likely to reap from the conquest?” That Canada was to be an indemnity for maritime grievances is addressed earlier when Taggart says, “Canada must be ours; and this is to be the sovereign balm, the universal panacea, which is to heal all the wounds we have received either in our honor, interest, or reputation.”

 

Donald Hickey, whose causes for the war focus on maritime issues, allows that, “advocates of war also hoped to put an end to British influence over American Indians by conquering Canada…” [3] and begins his third chapter with a speech by John Randolph [December 16, 1811] in which Randolph says, “Agrarian cupidity not maritime right, urges war. Ever since the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word…Canada! Canada! Canada!” That certain members of Congress harbored thoughts of acquiring Canada seems indisputable.

 

Weinberg applies the term “geographic predestination” to the expansionist elements present at the start of the War of 1812. He cites Representative John Harper (NH) as stating, “it appears that the Author of Nature has marked our limits in the south, by the Gulf of Mexico; and on the north, by the regions of eternal frost.” [4] Taking Canada served several purposes. Canada would be an appropriate reparation for the economic ills suffered because of British policies such as the Orders in Council, but would also fall within the natural and inevitable expansionist mode that, as Weinberg argues, had been a part of American land lust since the first days of colonization. Additionally, the British, through Canada, were thought to be behind incessant Indian raids along the frontier. Walter R. Borneman writes that, “ Thoughts of quelling Indian influence for good and ousting Great Britain from Canada became the rallying cry for Henry Clay and…the ‘war hawks.’” [5] This feeling was boosted by Tecumseh’s attempt to rally disparate tribes against frontier settlements.

 

Expansionism may have been a powerful underlying reason some political leaders supported war with Britain in 1812. Notwithstanding years of impressments, trade disruptions, losses of cargoes, and commercial strangulation, the lure of Florida and Canada cannot be discounted, if nothing else than a fitting remuneration for years of turmoil and loss. Expansionist motive was often cloaked by public and patriotic reasons that the citizenry can more readily accept and react to. More than just a theory, enough evidence exists that Canadian annexation figured into the overall strategy of war in 1812.

 

Sources:

 

[1] Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830 (New York: HarperCollins, 1991) p. 10.

[2] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958) p.52ff.

[3] Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989) p.47.

[4] Annals of Congress, 12^th Congress, 1^st Session, col. 657.

[5] Walter R. Borneman, 1812: The War That Forged A Nation (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) p. 28.

 

Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction and Restoration Program

Apr 20, 2010 Michael Streich

President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation appeared to many Northerners to undo four years of war, focusing on leniency in contrast to Republican policies.

Andrew Johnson became the 17th President of the United States upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. From his prior statements, it was widely believed that Johnson agreed with the Congressional Radical Republicans regarding Reconstruction policies, most notably toward ex-Confederates. But Johnson’s policy of “Restoration” was deemed far too lenient, resulting in a break with Congressional leaders and verbal charges of “treason” by men like Thaddeus Stevens. His final significant act as President was a general amnesty for all ex-Confederates not covered by prior published exceptions as found in his May 29, 1865 Amnesty Proclamation.

Andrew Johnson’s Restoration Policy

Johnson was a Southern, born in Raleigh, North Carolina and associated with Tennessee which he represented in the National Congress and later ruled as military governor. Johnson resented the wealthy Southern planter class and identified with the average yeoman farmer. These attitudes can be seen in his Amnesty Proclamation.

Under Johnson, amnesty would be extended to all Southerners that took an oath to “faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution…” Johnson, however, made exceptions, listing 14 specific classes of people. Several of these exceptions had also appeared in Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction.

Exceptions to Johnson’s Amnesty Proclamation

Exceptions included Confederate political leaders, officers that had resigned their commissions in 1861 to take up arms against the United States, Congressional representatives that had resigned their seats in 1860 (South Carolina) and 1861, and a host of others that had left the United States to support the rebellion. The 13th exception included any persons “…who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.”

A final clause in the document, however, provided “That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes…” Many pardon-seekers, as evidenced from letters sent to Johnson, represented exceptions to the 13th class. The petition of Mrs. A. C. Bower, of Ashe County, N.C., for example, declares her taxable property to be “more than twenty thousand dollars…” but that her only offense was linked to the purchase of Confederate war bonds, purchased indirectly through an agent and without her express approval.

Several of these letters stress that the writers had been strong supporters of the Union. In the case of R. L. Abernathy, the petitioner claims that he “used all his efforts in public and private to preserve the Union of the States…” Such letters may validate Abraham Lincoln’s initial conclusions in early 1861 that pro-Union sentiment was still strong in certain areas of the South, notably those districts that had supported John Bell in the 1860 election.

Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republican Congress

Confronted by Johnson’s Proclamation as well as his policy of returning confiscated Southern lands to pre-war owners (see the article on Forty Acres and a Mule), Congressional Radicals turned against him. Johnson’s refusal to grant freedmen equal rights resulted in passage of the 14th Amendment. Despite surviving Impeachment, Johnson managed to pardon 654 persons (United States Department of Justice). This included Jefferson Davis and Dr. Samuel Mudd, who treated John Wilkes Booth after Lincoln was assassinated.

Johnson’s Restoration Program Hindered Reconstruction

Both Johnson and the Republican backlash hindered efforts to “bind the nation’s wounds,” as Lincoln had stated in his Second Inaugural Speech. Radicals enacted their own policies which were focused on revenge. In response, white Southerners enacted “Black Laws” and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan terrorized black communities, assassinated whites viewed as Northern collaborators, and disrupted elections. Neither Johnson’s program nor the Republican policies fairly and objectively addressed the post-war South.

References:

• Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 (History Book Club: Francis Parkman Prize Edition, in association with HarperCollins, 2005)
• Andrew Johnson, Amnesty Proclamation (text document) and “Amnesty letters,” original source letters
• Library of Congress, letters and Documents
• Lloyd Robinson, The Stolen Election (NY: Tom Doherty Associates, Forge Books, 2001)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich

Reichstag Fire Leads to Dictatorship in Germany

History Should be a Teacher to all democratic societies

Michael Streich May 23, 2009

 

On February 27, 1933 fire erupted in the Reichstag building in Berlin. The burning of the parliament building, less than a month after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor, had far reaching results. The Reichstag fire represented the first act of provocation Hitler would use to consolidate power. Before the night was over, thousands of Communists were arrested, over-crowing police stations.

 

Communists and Social Democrats

 

The Communist Party in Germany (KPD) had been active for decades. Controlled by Moscow through the Comintern (Communist International), the party received guidance and funds with the goal of turning Germany into a Communist state. Working from Berlin and Hamburg – known as the “reddest city outside of Moscow,” the KPD developed vast international organizations, chiefly through its work in the maritime industry.

 

The KPD, however, opposed the Social Democrats (SPD) because their socialist program did not accept Soviet leadership or influence and was heavily involved in trade unionism. The SPD favored democratic means, anathema to both the KPD and the Nazis. As the National Socialists (NASPD – Nazis) began to strengthen, particularly in the immediate years preceding Hitler’s ascendancy as Chancellor, the KPD, under orders from Moscow, concentrated their efforts against the Social Democrats.

 

KPD leaders dismissed Hitler and the Nazis, completely underestimating the ruthless lust for power within the Nazi Party. During national elections in 1932, Communist activists joined with the Nazi Brownshirts in disrupting Social Democratic political meetings. KPD leaders that saw the proverbial “hand-writing on the wall” were given short shrift by Kremlin bosses.

 

The Communist “Night of the Long Knives”

 

A Dutch citizen, Marinus van der Lubbe, also a known arsonist, was found at the burning Reichstag and arrested. Historians differ as to whether he actually ever was a Communist. KPD leadership, however, denied any Communist involvement. Privately, they wondered who Lubbe really was; he was completely unknown to any of the Communist leaders or field organizers.

 

Along with Lubbe, several other known Communists were arrested and charged with the burning, including G. Dimitrov, a top leader in the KPD organization. Within weeks, jails and hastily constructed camps were set up to house the thousands of Communists arrested. In Hamburg, a hotbed of Communist activity where several Brownshirts had been shot while marching through Altona, an old camp in the Fuhlsbuettel section that had been slated for demolition was rapidly enlarged.

 

Known Communist leaders in Gestapo custody were brutally tortured into revealing the names of confederates. In some cases, entire families were arrested. These actions drove those still at large underground, forming an early resistance to Hitlerism. Although Social Democrats were not implicated, many rushed to join the Nazis, fearing that they would be next.

 

Destruction of the Weimar Constitution

 

The day after the Reichstag fire, February 28^th, Hitler suspended civil liberties in the constitution and declared that the “Bolsheviks” were to blame. It was a state of emergency. The Enabling Act or law of March 24^th further destroyed constitutional provisions, giving Hitler virtual powers as dictator. Despite not having won a Nazi majority in the parliament, the Reichstag would rubber-stamp Hitler’s policies.

 

Herman Goring had boasted that the March 1933 elections would be the last. As Hitler moved against the other parties, political opposition was eliminated. The Catholic Party was dissolved following a Concordat with the Vatican.

 

On September 21, the trial against the Communists responsible for the fire began in Leipzig and would last several months. G. Dimitrov, who railed against Goring during the trial, was acquitted and eventually returned to Moscow. Neutral observers, such as a group of lawyers in London that engaged in a “mock trial,” believed that Nazis themselves were guilty of the fire.

 

The Reichstag fire gave Hitler an excuse to move against the Communists, dismantling the party by arresting its leaders and destroying the Comintern in Germany.

 

Sources:

 

E. H. Carr, Twilight of the Comintern 1930-1935 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982)

Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: a New History (New York: Continuum, 1995)

Jan Valtin, Out of the Night (New York, Alliance Book Corp. 1941)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints in print or digital must have written permission from Michael Streich

The Long Belgian Legacy of Torture and Despair

The Worst of Colonialism Defined by the Belgian Congo

Michael Streich in 2011 

 

Belgium is a small country, derisively called one of the “chocolate producing” countries of Europe in the 21^st Century. In the 1890’s, however, the Belgian King Leopold II was master over an immense African private fief that he called the Congo Free State. But the Belgian Congo was anything but free; Leopold’s legacy of ruthless greed committed under the guise of benevolence resulted in the deaths of at least eight million indigenous people through slave labor. Upon his death in 1909, over sixteen million Africans were still enslaved. This was his legacy: a colony to continue enriching seven million Belgians.

 

How Leopold Exploited the Congo

 

Leopold’s secret monopoly in Africa focused first on ivory and in the later 1890’s rubber. It was the trade in rubber that made him a fortune well above his investments. It was also the pursuit of profits that resulted in growing slave labor that included frequent massacres of villagers and the mutilation of workers, including women and children. By the early 20^th Century, pictures of severed hands helped to tell the story of Leopold’s Congo Free State. By 1900, eleven millions pounds of rubber were being shipped from the Congo every year.

 

Leopold’s drive for African lands was many faceted. Psychohistorians may point to his upbringing and need for acceptance. Yet in the end, it was his voracious appetite for power and control beyond the confines of tiny Belgium. Professor David Landes writes that, “…colonies paid, whether by nourishing the growth of imperialist economies or by transferring wealth from poor to rich – empire as vampire.” The Congo Free State provided Leopold with unlimited funds.

 

The Role of State Functionaries in Africa

 

Belgian officials made up the bulk of the small white population in the colony. Administrators, military officers, merchants, and Catholic missionaries were often directly and indirectly party to the atrocities committed so that millions of francs flowed into Leopold’s coffers, dummy corporations secretly set up to deflect any criticism of the King-Sovereign. To the rest of the world, however, Leopold was a philanthropist, the don of charity whose only intentions were to eliminate the African “Arab” slave trade.

 

Leopold was one of the most cunning and duplicitous men of power when it came to imperialism and the exploitation of raw materials. Worse than the industrial robber barons, Leopold was also a first-rate “con” who used propaganda, preyed on the weaknesses of others with flattery and gifts, and used the power of the media to portray himself as a benevolent champion working for the betterment of African peoples.

 

Harvesting the Wealth of Central Africa

 

By 1900, the Congo was a source of raw materials needed to fuel the industrial conglomerates of Europe and America. This was the so-called “gospel of enterprise.” Copper, tin, gold, diamonds, and other minerals joined the rubber plantations in enriching the accounts of Belgium’s king. Much of the wealth came at a staggering humanitarian cost: the taking of hostages, floggings to the point of death, rape, and child labor. Only a few consular officials from foreign powers as well as American missionaries called for immediate and drastic reform.

 

Although the Congo became an official state colony upon the death of Leopold, much remained the same. Belgium never established a working local civil service or left an enduring infrastructure at the time independence was granted in 1960. After decades of misrule by J.D. Mobutu, the nation reverted to continual civil war. Today, slave labor continues to exist in the effort to harvest rare earth minerals, often referred to as “conflict” minerals. In early 2010, BBC reported that a special UN envoy, Margot Wallstrom, referred to the Democratic Republic of Congo as the “rape capital of the world.” (April 28, 2010)

 

Imperialism and Exploitation

 

Leopold was not alone in the ill-treatment of Africans. Adam Hochschild, in his book King Leopold’s Ghost, writes that, “What happened in the Congo was indeed mass murder on a vast scale, but the sad truth is that the men who carried it out for Leopold were no more murderous than many Europeans then at work or at war elsewhere in Africa.” Historian Thomas Pakenham argues that the abuses “were not haphazard, but systemic.”

 

As with the Germans during the 1930’s and 1940’s, the first response to Belgian atrocities in the Congo was denial and disbelief. Belgians were far too civilized to perpetrate such acts of inhumanity. Yet what happened in much of central Africa under the brutal policies of Leopold II represented the first modern example of mass extermination. Like future exterminations, many eye witnesses were too afraid to speak up. Most came to accept the atrocities as the normal part of colonial rule.

 

Hochschild comments that, “In any system of terror, the functionaries must first of all see the victims as less than human, and Victorian ideas about race provided such a foundation.” These were Rudyard Kipling’s “sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.” This was the ideology that allowed an American private fighting Filipinos to write his family that shooting people was like shooting rabbits back at home. The world, then as today, cared little for the most vulnerable members of humanity. That is always left to what Leopold II referred to as “do-gooders.”

 

Leopold was a life-long womanizer, with an incorrigible lust for young women. His final dalliance involved a sixteen-year old who produced two children before his death. Although history continues to treat Leopold with disdain, Belgium must share the responsibility. Belgium never paid reparations to the people of the Congo. Historian Eric Hobsbawm, who sees the scramble for the Congo as “primarily economic,” argues that, “The atrocities of Congo…so shocked the Age of Empire…just because [it] appeared as regression of civilized men into savagery.”

 

Sources:

 

Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost (Mariner Books, 1999)

David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (W. W. Norton & Company, 1998)

Thomas Packenham, The Scramble For Africa: The White Man’s Conquest

of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912 (Random House, 1991)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich;reprints require written permission 

 

 

Britain's Torture Camps in Post World War II

Aug 1, 2010 Michael Streich

Bad Nenndorf is an historical reminder that any nation can commit and condone torture, whether such techniques involve physical or psychological pain.

On August 1, 1945, a British military convoy arrived at Bad Nenndorf, located in the British occupation zone of Northwest Germany. 

The soldiers ordered the removal of all villagers and began to construct a prison camp. Although some prisoners held at Bad Nenndorf were former Nazi soldiers and officials, others were not. In several cases, the men held here, forced to undergo torture, were innocent of either association with the Nazis or the Communists. The British government sealed all records of this and similar camps for 60 years and still refuses to release damaging photographs.

Torture Used by the British at Bad Nenndorf

Prisoners at the camp were starved and beaten. According to The Guardian writer, Ian Cobain (“The interrogation camp that turned prisoners into living skeletons,” December 17, 2005), “Naked prisoners were handcuffed back-to-back and forced to stand before open windows in mid-winter.”

The web page for the British Security Service MI5, commenting on the scandal once it became public in 1947, states that, “Britain, it was claimed, had established ‘concentration camps’ similar to those of the Nazis.”

Bad Nenndorf Part of a System of Secret Camps

The secret interrogations centers were facilitated by the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Center (CSDIC). Until November 1945, the CSDIC conducted interrogations at camps within the UK. One of these camps, known as the London Cage – located near Kensington Palace Gardens, processed 3,573 men. One of the top interrogators, Robin Stephens, became the camp commander at Bad Nenndorf.

Many of the guards at Nenndorf were social misfits, men reassigned to the camp for crimes such as assault or desertion. Most were very young. According to The Guardian (April 3, 2006), “As one minster of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners ‘in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps.’”

What Constitutes “Torture?”

Ian Cobain writes that Colonel Stephens was eventually court martialled during a closed door trial and was acquitted. In another article (April 3, 2006), Cobain says that “The only officer at Bad Nenndorf to be convicted was the prison doctor.” How can all of the stories of torture, including those pictures that were released and published in the April 3, 2006 Guardian newspaper, be reconciled with Stephens’ acquittal?

Ben Macintyre wrote two Times articles, February 10, 2006 and May 1 2009, dealing with Robin Stephens. The first article appeared after the Bad Nenndorf documents were released. ("The truth that Tin Eye saw") The second article stresses that Colonel Stephens may have used psychological intimidation brilliantly, but never employed torture or condoned it.

Significantly, Macintyre begins his 2009 article with the statement that “torture is morally abhorrent…the most important argument against torture is that it doesn’t work.” He then refers to “the cells of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo…” But this is the very essence of the torture debate. Witness statements regarding conditions at Bad Nenndorf, published in the December 17, 2005 Guardian, record that prison inmates were, “severely starved, frostbitten, and caked in dirt. Some had been beaten or whipped.”

The Definition of Torture in Interrogations

Both Winston Churchill and Barack Obama have publicly stated, “We do not torture.” But the definition of torture can mean many things. During the George W. Bush administration, debate ensued whether or not water boarding was an appropriate interrogation technique or if it should be considered torture. Both Mr. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney rejected the torture definition, claiming that the technique was crucial and legal. (CBS News, February 8, 2008)

Secret Interrogation Points to Illegalities and Human Rights Violations

The British interrogation centers in the UK, while producing desirable results, were completely secret, even to the Red Cross. The same was true of camps like Bad Nenndorf. Observers today refer to the “Gestapo-like” tactics employed on prisoners. At Bad Nenndorf, interrogators used tools taken from the Hamburg Gestapo headquarters that had been used by Nazis to interrogate enemies of the Reich.

There may indeed be a difference interrogating a dental technician in 1945 who was considered a security risk and a 2010 terrorist like Faisal Shahzad who confessed to attempting to detonate a bomb in New York City’s Times Square. Water boarding the mastermind behind the 9/11 atrocity may save many more lives if similar plots are revealed. Post modern society, however, will have to define the limits of interrogation and the definition of torture in the light of history.

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.