Featured

Is Hungary’s Appeasement of Putin Justified by its Past Experiences? III

Chapter Three – From Sarajevo to War & Revolutions, 1914-1919:

Archduke Franz Ferdinand favoured a policy of reconciliation with the Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Because of this attitude, he was disliked both by the traditional ruling élite in Vienna and the Magyar bourgeois statesmen of Hungary. The Slavs within the empire, seeking union with the Serbs, also opposed him. Nevertheless, the Austrian government seized the opportunity of his assassination to charge the Serbian Government with complicity.

Ultimatums & Mobilisations:

In Viennese political and military circles, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was mostly seen as a golden opportunity to settle old scores with Serbia and not to re-establish the prestige of the Monarchy. In Berlin, Kaiser Wilhelm II and his generals thought that since an armed confrontation between the Central Powers and the Entente was inevitable, it was better to fight it before Germany’s hard-won advantage in the armament race was completely diminished. They brought pressure on the Common Council of Ministers, especially Tisza, the Hungarian premier, who was worried both by the prospect of a Romanian attack and therefore by the plan for the annexations in the Balkans and elsewhere, urged by the bellicose Austrian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf and several political leaders both in Vienna and Budapest.

By mid-July 1914, a decision of sorts had been made about whether or not Austria-Hungary was going to war: the Austro-Hungarians, or at least the grouping around Berchtold, intended to seek a military resolution of their conflict with Serbia. Yet on all other issues, the policy-makers in Vienna had, as yet, failed to deliver coherent positions. There was still no agreement at the time Count Alexander Hoyos (Berchtold’s chef de cabinet) left for Berlin, on what policy should be pursued in Serbia after an Austrian victory. When he was asked there about Austria-Hungary’s post-war objectives, he responded with a bizarre improvisation: Serbia, he declared, would be partitioned between Austria, Bulgaria, and Romania. In reality, he had no authority to propose such a course of action, and no plan for partition had been agreed upon by his Austrian colleagues. He later explained that he had invented the policy because he feared that the Germans would lose faith in the Austro-Hungarians if they felt ‘that we could not formulate our Serbian policy precisely and had unclear objectives.’ (A. Hoyos, Meine Mission nach Berlin, in Fellner, Die Mission ‘Hoyos’, p.137. ) István Tisza, the Hungarian premier, was furious when he learned of Hoyos’s indiscretion; the Hungarians, even more than the political élite in Vienna, regarded the prospect of yet more angry South Slav Habsburg subjects with unalloyed horror. Vienna subsequently made it clear that no annexation of Serbian territory was intended. But Hoyos’s gaffe conveyed something of the chaotic way in which Austrian policy evolved during the crisis.

To alleviate the problem of the rural areas of the Habsburg lands, where military service in summertime created serious labour shortages at harvest time, the Austrian General Staff had devised a system of harvest ‘exeats’ that allowed men to return to their family farms to help with crops and then rejoin their units in time for their summer maneuvers. On 6th July, it was ascertained that troops serving in units at Agram (Zagreb), Graz, Pressburg (Bratislava), Craców, Temesvár, Innsbruck, and Budapest were currently on harvest leave and would not be returning to service until 25th July. It soon became clear, however, that it would be some time before military action could begin.

On 7th July, following Hoyos’s return from Berlin, it became clear that there was still no agreement among the principal decision-makers about how to proceed. Berchtold opened the Joint Ministerial Council by reminding his colleagues that Bosnia and Hercegovina would only be stabilised if the external threat from Belgrade was dealt with. If no action were taken, the monarchy’s ability to deal with the Russian-sponsored irredentist movements in its southern Slav and Romanian areas would steadily deteriorate. This was an argument calculated to appeal to Count Tisza, for whom the stability of Transylvania was a central concern. Tisza was not convinced, however, and in his reply to Berchtold, he conceded that the attitude of the Serbian press and the results of the police investigation in Sarajevo strengthened the case for a military strike. But first, he asserted, the diplomatic options needed to be exhausted.

There was general agreement that Belgrade had to be presented with an ultimatum, whose stipulations had to be firm, but not unfulfillable. Sufficient forces had to be made available to secure Transylvania against an opportunistic attack by Romania. Then Vienna would have to consolidate its position among the Balkan Powers: Vienna needed to seek closer relations with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire, in the hope of creating a Balkan counterweight to Serbia and ‘forcing Romania to return to the Triple Alliance’. (‘Protocol of the Ministerial Council for Joint Affairs convened on 7 July 1914.’) There was nothing in this to surprise anyone around the table. This was also the familiar view from Budapest, in which Transylvania occupied centre stage. But Tisza faced a solid bloc of colleagues determined to confront Serbia with demands they expected Belgrade to reject.

The Austrian ministers knew that a purely diplomatic success would have no value at all since it would be read as a sign of Vienna’s weakness and irresolution in Belgrade, Bucharest, St Petersburg, and the southern Slav areas of the monarchy. Time was running out for Austria-Hungary as with each passing year, the monarchy’s security position on the Balkan peninsula became increasingly fragile. The ministers agreed to accept Count Tisza’s suggestion that mobilisation against Serbia should occur only after Belgrade had been confronted with an ultimatum. But all of the ministers except Tisza believed that a diplomatic success, even one involving a ‘sensational humiliation’ of Serbia, would be worthless and that the ultimatum must therefore be framed in terms harsh enough to ensure a rejection, ‘so that the way is open to a radical solution by means of military intervention.’ This discussion and decision marked a watershed, washing away any chance of a peaceful outcome. Yet there was still no sign of precipitate action. The option of an immediate surprise attack without a declaration of war was rejected. Tisza, whose agreement was constitutionally necessary for a resolution of such importance, continued to insist that Serbia should first be humiliated diplomatically. Only after a further week did he give way to the majority view, mainly because he became convinced that failure to address the Serbian question would have an unsettling effect on Hungarian Transylvania.

Without positive knowledge of Serbian complicity in the Sarajevo assassination, a harsh ultimatum demanding, among other things, an official denunciation of the movement for Greater Serbia and the free involvement of Austro-Hungarian agents in investigating the case on Serbian territory, was dispatched to Belgrade on 23rd July. It soon turned out that the great powers of the opposite camp were also not anti-war. Serbia rejected the ultimatum two days later not on grounds of innocence, but because it was prompted to do so by her Entente supporters. Within two weeks of the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia on 28th July, allied obligations combining nationalist and imperialist dreams involved nearly the whole of the European continent, and significant regions of the world, in war.

In the meantime, a measure of unanimity was achieved in Vienna over the course of action to be followed. At a further summit meeting in the city on 14th July, it was agreed that a draft of the ultimatum would be checked and approved by the Council of Ministers on the 19th and the ultimatum would be presented to the Belgrade government only on 23rd July. This date was chosen to avoid a state visit by President Poincaré to St Petersburg in the days before, Berchtold and Tisza agreeing,

‘… that the sending of an ultimatum during this meeting in St Petersburg would be viewed as an affront and that personal discussion between the ambitious President of the Republic and His Majesty the Emperor of Russia… would heighten the likelihood of a military intervention by Russia and France‘.

(Berchtold’s Report to the Emperor, 14 July 1914).

From this moment onwards, secrecy was of the greatest possible importance, both for strategic and diplomatic reasons. It was essential for the Austro-Hungarians to avoid any action that might give the Serbs prior notice of their intentions and thereby give them time to steal a march on the Monarchy’s armies. Recent appraisals of Serbian military strength suggested that the Serbian army would not be a trivial opponent. Secrecy was also essential because it presented Vienna’s only hope of conveying its demands to Belgrade before the Entente powers had the opportunity for joint deliberations on how to respond. Berchtold therefore ordered that the press be firmly instructed to avoid the subject of Serbia. In its official relations with Russia, the Austro-Hungarians went out of their way to avoid even the slightest friction; Szapáry, their ambassador to St Petersburg, was particularly assiduous in his efforts to tranquilise the Russian foreign ministry with assurances that all would be well.

Yet these efforts attempted to disguise the many oddities involved in the Austro-Hungarian decision-making process. Berchtold, disparaged by many of the ‘hawks’ in his administration as a soft touch, incapable of forming clear resolutions, took control of the policy debate after 28th June in a quite impressive way. But he could only do this through an arduous, painstaking, and time-consuming consensus-building process. The puzzling dissonances in the documents that track the formulation of the Austro-Hungarian position to go to war reflect the need to incorporate opposing viewpoints. The momentous possibility of the decision leading to a Russian general mobilisation and the general European war that would undoubtedly follow was certainly glimpsed by the Austro-Hungarian decision-makers, who discussed it on several occasions. However, it was never fully integrated into the process by which the options were weighed and assessed. In particular, no sustained attention was given to the question of whether Austria-Hungary was in any position to wage a war with one or more other great powers.

There are several possible reasons for this myopic vision. One was the extraordinary confidence in the strength of German arms, which, it was assumed, was sufficient to deter, and failing that, to defeat Russia. The second was that the hive-like structure of the Austro-Hungarian political élite was simply not conducive to the formulation of decisions through the careful balancing of contradictory information. The contributors to the debate tended to indulge in rhetorical statements, often sharpened by mutual recrimination, rather than attempting to view the diplomatic and military choices facing the Monarchy in the round. These failings reflected the profound sense of isolation in Vienna and Budapest. The notion that the statement of the twin capitals had ‘a responsibility’ to Europe was nonsense, as one political insider noted,

‘Because there is no Europe. Public opinion in Russia and France … will always maintain that we are the guilty ones, even if the Serbs, in the midst of peace, invade us by the thousands one night, armed with bombs’.

Memorandum by Berthold Molden for the press department in Vienna, cited in Solomon Wank, ‘Desperate Counsel in Vienna in July 1914: Berthold Molden’s Unpublished Memorandum’, Central European History, 26/3 (1993), pp. 281-310.

However, the most important reason for the perplexing narrowness of the Austro-Hungarian policy debate is surely that they were so convinced of the rectitude of their case and of their proposed remedy against Serbia that they could conceive of no alternative to it – even Tisza had accepted by 7th July that Belgrade was implicated in the crimes at Sarajevo and was willing in principle to countenance a military response, provided the timing and diplomatic context were right. Nor is it easy to see how the Austro-Hungarians could have made a less drastic solution work, given the reluctance of the Serbian authorities to meet Austrian expectations, the absence of any international legal bodies capable of arbitrating in such cases, and the impossibility in the current international climate of enforcing the future compliance of Belgrade. Yet at the core of the Austro-Hungarian response was a temperamental, intuitive leap, an act of attrition founded on a shared understanding of what the Habsburg Empire had been, was still, and must be in future, if it were to remain a great power.

Austria-Hungary presented an ultimatum with demands which threatened the very existence of Serbia as an independent state. The Austrian statesmen believed that war with the Serbs would almost certainly lead to a general European war and that the ruin of the Austrian Empire was inevitable if they were defeated. They decided to take the risk. Emperor Franz Josef first sought and obtained the assurance of support from the Kaiser. Although Serbia accepted almost all of the humiliating demands of the ultimatum, Vienna treated the Serbian reply as a rejection. In the end, Tisza gave way because he knew that ‘Greater Hungary’ had only come about due to Bismarck’s intervention. He told the Belgian Minister, ‘Mon Cher, Allemagne est invincible.’

The Uncontrollable Storm of War:

War with Serbia followed on 28th July, and Budapest had paroxysms of enthusiasm. Even Count Apponyi said in Parliament, ‘At last’; ‘végre’. The Russians did protect Serbia, and Germany went to war, provoking trouble with Russia’s ally France and then giving the British no choice by invading Belgium, the neutrality of which Britain had guaranteed. In the last three days of July, a freak storm hit the microclimate of hilly Buda and the plain of Pest, destroying roofs and smashing the plate-glass windows of the cafés on the Danube embankment and the Oktogon, as the recruits marched towards the mobilisation trains. The now ‘late’ Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s main adviser, Count Czernin, said two things: that minority problems were a bore, and that the only difference in Austria was that they had a peculiarly multifarious collection. The main priority, for him, was to avoid a war. In his post-war memoirs, he also said:

‘We were bound to die, we were at liberty to choose the manner of our death and we chose the most terrible.’

Ottokar Czernin, In the World War (1920), p.38.

As noted previously, in 1867 Kossuth had written an open letter to Deák, warning that, without control of her own foreign policy and without her own army, Hungary would be dragged into Austro-German adventures which were not in her interest. Almost half a century later, it seemed that he had been proved right. Yet at the time he was writing, Austria-Hungary’s relations with a not yet unified Germany seemed a far more equal and positive partnership, and Kossuth’s alternative, a Balkan federation, was unattractive. Since then, Germany had become the most successful country in Europe, overtaking Great Britain and even rivaling the USA. Her education system was widely acknowledged as one of the best in the world. German universities attracted Hungarians in great numbers, including István Tisza, who studied Law at Heidelberg. Hungary now belonged firmly in the German orbit, whatever a posthumous ‘protector’ might have said. As early as 1878, Gyula Andrássy had set up Hungary’s Austro-German alliance. By 1914 the German cause had become very popular throughout the country, and very few Hungarians opposed the war: they did not have to be ‘dragged’ to the front.

Indeed, few in Hungary recognised the dilemmas, the tensions, and the traps that the country faced on the eve of the war in all their depth. On one side of the divide, Endre Ady, the poet, was the greatest of those who did, and he singled out with characteristic acuteness his nemesis: István Tisza. In the troublesome summer of 1914, the ‘deranged man of Geszt’, as Ady called the PM, after the seat of the Tisza estate, hesitated for two weeks, but in the end, he gave his sanction to decisions commencing the war which ultimately demolished ‘historic’ Hungary.

There was a universal belief, which seems incomprehensible a century later, that the war, though possibly brutish at times, would be short, involving a cast of Hungarian heroes pulling on their hussar uniforms and galloping off to glories, like in one of Miklós Banffy’s novels. The generals knew differently of course, that with millions of men and thousands of guns in the field, it could be very costly and last a long time, but economists and bankers ruled this out. Few people foresaw how paper money would fuel the war effort, and when the Hungarian Foreign Minister was asked how long the Empire could fight, he estimated three weeks. There had been an exchange of letters between Conrad von Hötzendorf and his opposite number, Helmuth von Moltke since 1909, when the Bosnian Crisis had first put a war with Russia on the table. In these, Moltke had intimated that Germany would send most of its troops against Belgium and France, and the idea was that, at the same time, the Austro-Hungarian army would keep the Russians busy in Galicia (southern Poland). Another romantic illusion was that the cavalry could sweep over the Carpathians led by the Hussars. The Austrians even nominated a governor of Warsaw just as the war broke out. Of course, they recognised that they would also have to deal with Serbia, which would mean them keeping part of the army in the Balkans for the time being.

As Conrad wrote in his correspondence with Moltke, if Austria went to war with Serbia, it would send a large part of the army south. Still, if Russia intervened, Austria-Hungary would need most of its forces in the north-east, in Galicia. But what would happen if the Russians delayed intervention until these forces were committed to the Serbian Front? The Germans do not seem to have worried about this: after all, if Austria-Hungary took a proper role in the great battles to come with France and Russia, Serbia could always be sorted out later. The fact was that the Austro-Hungarians were trying to do too much, but due to imperial vainglory, they were not able to admit it. Their army, with forty-eight infantry divisions, was expecting to take on the Serbians’ fourteen and the Russians’ fifty. Conrad found a way around this by dividing the army into three groups. Group A, half of it, would go to Galicia; a ‘Minimal Balkan Group’, somewhat less than a quarter, would face Serbia; group B, the rest, four army corps in strength, two Hungarian and two Bohemian, would go south if Russia stayed out, north if it did not.

The Eve of the First World War

The truth was that the Austro-Hungarians did not want to fight Russia and found excuses not to do so. Berlin had told them to provoke a war with Serbia, but they delayed the presentation of their ultimatum for a month, and when the Serbians rejected it, took another three days before declaring war on 28th July. This enabled them to deploy Army Group B to the Serbian front, alleging that the Russian response was not clear. In the event, the Russian mobilisation was quite rapid, so when the Germans heard that their ally was proposing to fight a pan-European war by sending a large part of its army to a very secondary theatre, they were outraged, including the military attaché, Chief of the General Staff and the Kaiser himself. When the Austro-Hungarian army corps reached the Serbian border, it sat in tents while the Minimal Balkan Group, too small to do its job, was humiliatingly defeated by the Serbs. It then trundled across Hungary by train to Galicia and arrived just in time to take part in an enormous defeat. This was how poor military planning led to disastrous early outcomes for Austria-Hungary as it entered the war in July 1914.

For their part, the Germans were anxious to confine the war to Austria and Serbia but were surprised by the strength of Russia’s support for Serbia and by the speed of the Tsar’s mobilisation. There were, however, no statesmen left uncommitted to war, and certainly none capable of controlling the situation; Bethman-Hollweg, the German Chancellor, and Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, both attempted unsuccessfully to stay the hand of Austria. The Kaiser sent a twelve-hour ultimatum to Russia demanding a suspension of mobilisation, but this was not answered in time, so he declared war on Russia immediately. France stood by her ally, Russia, and declared war on Germany. Austria-Hungary’s ambitious war aims were two-fold, neither of which was purely defensive. These were:

‘(a) To crush the Pan-Slav movement, which made the task of controlling the Austrian Slavs more difficult.

(b) To dominate the Balkans and, by crushing Serbia, to control the route to the Aegean port of Salonika.’

Irene Richards, et. al. (1938), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War and After, 1914-1935. London: Harrap., p. 18.

In Hungary, as elsewhere, the initial response to the outbreak of war was an outburst of patriotic enthusiasm. In parliament, which was prorogued and reconvened in November, the opposition Independence Party leader, Count Mihály Károlyi spoke of suspending political debate, hoping for democratic concessions in return for supporting the war effort. A similar motivation resulted in similar attitudes among the extra-parliamentary Social Democrats and even the national minorities, causing few headaches to the belligerent government in the early phases of the war. As in the West, Soldiers set out to the Eastern front amidst cheerful ceremonies, in the hope of returning victorious, as Wilhelm II said, ‘by the time the leaves fall’.

The War on the Eastern Front:

However, the war plans of the Central Powers were thwarted. Germany failed to inflict a decisive defeat on France in a lightning war and was therefore unable to lend sufficient support early enough to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy for the containment of the Russian advance and the breaking of Serbia. Especially given the unexpectedly rapid Russian mobilisation, the forces of the Monarchy were not equal to coping with these tasks simultaneously. Although Belgrade was occupied in December 1914, the Russian army posed a direct threat to Hungarian territory. Over half of the initial Austro-Hungarian fighting force of 1.8 million died, was wounded, or fell into captivity during the first stages of the war on the fronts in Galicia and Serbia.

The Hungarian cavalry, splendidly arrayed, made a magnificent sight as it cantered across the Galician plains, but it soon ran out of fodder and returned with the hussars leading their horses on foot. The only cavalry engagement took place at Jaroslawice) when the two cavalry divisions decided to re-enact the Napoleonic Wars with a lance-and-sabre engagement which ended inconclusively. They were forced to abandon the chief city of Galicia, Lemburg (Lviv) on 3rd September. The old professional Habsburg army was almost destroyed during these first few weeks, losing about half a million men. But conscripts flowed in, and there was enough devotion to the imperial cause to keep the army in the field. This was particularly the case in Hungary, where nationalism was still strong, and there was no trouble among the non-Magyar recruits, who were mainly Croats, but even included some ‘loyal’ Serbs. Gradually, however, Austria-Hungary was being pulled into a bigger German vortex.

Conrad’s pre-war fears were coming true, for there was worse to come on the Eastern Front. It would have made sense if Austria-Hungary had offered to get out of the war following the defeat of Serbia the following autumn. The Western powers had no interest in destroying the Habsburg Monarchy at this point, for its destruction could only profit either Russia or Germany. One prominent figure in the Monarchy did guess how it would all end. This was Professor Tomás Masaryk, the leader of a small Czech progressive party, who in the winter of 1915 tried in vain to persuade the British that Czech independence might help their cause. Hungary did not have a Masyryk, however, and the only prominent figure who might have reacted in this way was Count Mihály Károlyi, who had been in France since the outbreak of the war. Otherwise, Hungary remained solidly behind the war and, with the control of food supplies within the empire, was able to assert itself and state money was being showered on arms factories in Hungary. A new crest was designed for the Empire in 1915, giving more prominence to the Hungarian insignia, and the non-Hungarian half of the empire was officially renamed Austria. Meanwhile, as Austro-Hungarian confidence revived, so did resentment at German domination, in particular in the wrangling between the two powers over the future of Poland, in which Hungary had a clear territorial stake.

By the Spring of 1915, the type of attritional warfare that was becoming typical of the First World War was centred on the foot soldiers in the trenches armed with machine guns, and dependent on heavy artillery bombardment. This was the reality on both fronts. Until the entry of the USA into the war in April 1917, the sides were roughly equal, and the military balance was, if anything, slightly in favour of the Central Powers. Turkey hoped to avenge itself on Russia for losses suffered during the previous century, and Bulgaria was ambitious to expand further into the Balkans. Both joined the Central Powers, Turkey in the autumn of 1914, and Bulgaria in 1915, which finally helped the Monarchy to put down Serbia. By then, the Austro-Hungarian army had somewhat recovered from its earlier losses. With some German assistance, it was capable of significant success against its former allies that had now joined the side of the Entente. These included Italy, which was promised territorial acquisitions in the South Tyrol, the Adriatic, and Africa in the secret treaty of London in 1915, declaring war on the Central Powers in the following month.

At the same time, there was another field of diplomacy in play: besides propaganda directed at the hinterland of hostile countries, which naturally affected the ethnic minorities of Austria-Hungary, the Western allies gave shelter to the national committees of émigré politicians and encouraged their campaigns for the dismemberment of the Monarchy and the creation of ‘national’ states. The Yugoslav Committee, led by the Croatian Frano Supilo and Ante Trumbic, was established in London on 1st May 1915, with the programme of uniting Serbia and the South Slav inhabited territories of the Monarchy in a single, federative state (their Serbian counterparts, meanwhile, envisaged the future of the same territories as a centralised state governed from Belgrade); the leader of the Czech émigrés in Paris, Tomás Masaryk and Eduard Benes urged the creation of a Czecho-Slovak state including Carpatho-Ukraine and linked with a corridor to the future South Slav state to separate the Germans and Hungarians from each other. The Romanians, with claims to Transylvania as well as other parts of Hungary east of the River Tisza, emerged relatively late, founding the Committee of Romanian National Unity in Paris only in the latter stages of the war. A powerful Russian advance in the summer of 1916 on the eastern front prompted Romania to invade Transylvania. However, this offensive had collapsed within weeks, and in December 1916, the Austro-Hungarian army occupied Bucharest.

Until relatively late in the course of the war, the support given by the Entente powers to the high-blown demands of the national committees was largely tactical, and until the Spring of 1918, they contemplated various alternatives to the ‘destruction of Austria-Hungary’, as called for by Masaryk and Benes in 1916. They preferred (as did the representatives of the Czechs, the Ukrainians, and the South Slavs in the Austrian parliament convened in May 1917) a federal reorganisation of the Monarchy with wide-ranging autonomy granted to the nationalities, until it became clear that German influence over Austro-Hungarian policies was too great to negotiate a separate peace with it, and they convinced themselves that it could not be expected to play the traditional role of a counterpoise in the European balance of power any longer.

In the bloody battles fought on the slopes of the Alps and along the River Isonzo, the forces of the Monarchy fought with great determination and inflicted a decisive setback on the Italians at Carporetto in November 1917. However, the Congress of Oppressed Nations held in Rome in April 1918 served to weaken the cohesion of the Central Powers, with the recognition of the Czecho-Slovak and South Slav claims to sovereignty. Then, in the period between Russia’s falling out of the war, sealed by the Peace of Brest-Litovsk on 3rd March and the arrival of American troops on the western front in the summer, the military balance seemed, temporarily, to turn back in favour of the Central Powers. In reality, however, the multinational empire was on the brink of utter exhaustion by this time. Its economic and military resources had been under great strain since the first setbacks on the eastern front, which had also undermined the morale of the civilian population. In four years, Hungary sent somewhat over a third of the nine million soldiers of the monarchy to the eastern front, but among the casualties, half of the more than one million dead and nearly half of the two million prisoners came from the Hungarian half of the empire. Soldiers sent home increasingly exasperated letters, and in 1917 desertion, disobedience, and even mutiny were already endemic in the army.

A battlefield scene – painting by László Mednvánszky (1852-1919). Like all European countries, Hungary welcomed World War One with almost wholehearted enthusiasm. Its people became aware only slowly of the savagery of modern mechanised warfare. In their poems, Endre Ady and Géza Gyóni from up close, being on the fronts, began to stir up sentiment with the authenticity of the horrible events experienced personally against the war.

From behind the lines, the soldiers received reports of food shortages, inflation, requisitions, rationing, black marketeering, and general unrest. The general strike of 1918 involved half a million workers in all the major cities of Hungary. By this time, the traditional means of police, gendarmerie, and censorship were increasingly ineffective in suppressing the growing pacifist sentiment and the demands for social and political reform. The majority of the government party realised what the consequences of defeat would be for Hungary, whatever policies were adopted by that time. A moderate opposition, led by the younger Andrássy and Apponyi agreed that the war aims and the alliance policy ought to be maintained, but thought that well-considered reforms, instead of repression, would ensure the much-needed internal consolidation. Finally, a secessionist group of the Independence Party led by the increasingly influential Károlyi, from mid-1917 closely cooperating with radical democrats like Jászi, the Social Democratic Party, and a group of Christian Socialists, campaigning for universal suffrage and ‘peace without annexations’. Even amidst all the domestic turmoil, the military solution looked deceptively good until a few months before the end of the war: Austro-Hungarian armies were still deep in enemy lands, with the war aims apparently accomplished. It was only after the last great German offensive in the West had collapsed in August 1918, that the Entente counter-offensive started there as well as in the Balkans, that the Monarchy’s positions on all fronts became untenable. On 28th September, the Common Council of Ministers heard Foreign Minister István Burián’s brief and unequivocal verdict: ‘That is the end of it.’

Endings & Beginnings:

On 2nd October, the Monarchy solicited the Entente for an armistice and peace negotiations, based on Wilson’s fourteen points. But having recognised the Czecho-Slovak and South Slav claims, Wilson was no longer in a position to negotiate based on granting the ethnic minorities autonomy within an empire whose integrity would be maintained. By this time, the Monarchy was collapsing into chaos. By the first half of October, all the nationalities had their national councils, which proclaimed their independence, a move which now enjoyed the official sanction of the Entente; on 11th October, the Poles, and between the 28th and the 31st the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Croats, and the Ruthenes seceded, followed on 20th November by the Romanians. Finally, the provisional assembly in Vienna declared Austria an independent state. This, in turn, changed the face of Hungary beyond all recognition. Paradoxically, the dissolution of the historic Kingdom of Hungary, one of the greatest shocks the country suffered in terms of its economic resources, political influence, and self-confidence, also created the opportunity for a new beginning. The situation held out the promise of overhauling the ossified social and political structures and institutions that were partly responsible for the dissolution.

The election of Mihály Károlyi as president of the republic (16th November, 1918). Károlyi was a landowner and liberal, then a Social Democrat. He was the leader of the nation after the collapse of the nation during the transitional period after the fall of the monarchy. towards the end of 1918; he had received very limited powers from Habsburgs and handed them over to the Communists.

When 300,000 Hungarian former prisoners of war returned home in 1918, having seen what the Bolsheviks could do firsthand, their minds turned to the possibility of beginning a Red Revolution in their own country. At the beginning of November, they were joined by comrades from the Italian front where they had been given a humiliating armistice at the Villa Giusti near Padua. In Budapest, after brief resistance and a few casualties, great demonstrations caused a change in government. Tisza had already admitted on 24th October that the war was lost, and his rival, Mihály Károlyi, came to the fore, as the obvious opposition candidate. On 25th October, a National Council was set up, and when a crowd of its supporters moved on the Vár, there was a shooting, leaving three dead and seventy wounded. The new King/Emperor (since his uncle’s death on 21st November 1916), prevaricated, and the Palatine Archduke József appointed Károlyi as Prime Minister on 31st October. For a time, the atmosphere in Budapest was euphoric in what became known as the Aster Revolution, coming on All Saints’ Eve, when the custom was to wear a button-hole, which now became a revolutionary symbol. The Astoria Hotel became its centre, from where some soldiers drove to the house of István Tisza and shot him in front of his wife and niece. With an epidemic of Spanish influenza striking the capital and order breaking down, a deputation of high aristocrats, including an Eszterházy and a Szechényi, went to the King and asked him to abdicate. On 13th November, he stepped down from public affairs.

Lines of Demarcation – Neutral zones (November 1918-March 1919)

Károlyi faced another, immediate problem of an allied invasion. On the last days of the war, Romania had again invaded and was advancing into Transylvania, where it was met by local Romanians who intended to unite the country with those in Moldovia and Wallachia. In the southern provinces, there was similar disaffection among the Serbs and the Croats, aiming to set up the new Slav state (‘Yugoslavia’) under the Serbian king. Károlyi was unable to establish armistice lines because he had allowed the army to demobilise and disintegrate. So he went to see the Entente commander in Belgrade, Louis Franchet d’Esperey, announcing himself as head of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council, which drew the famous response, “You’ve fallen that low, have you?” The only force offering resistance to the Romanians was the Székely Division, but it got no support from Budapest since it was viewed as counter-revolutionary. Only one Hungarian success was achieved, at Balassagyarmat, and that was despite Károlyi’s orders for the Széklers to stand down. By the following March, the Allied occupation had taken more Hungarian land, and the shrunken borders of post-Trianon Hungary were already beginning to take shape. Károlyi had hoped that long overdue radical reforms might stabilise the situation and that his nationalities’ secretary, Oszkár Jászi would be able, through federalisation, to retain the loyalty of the non-Magyar minorities. But the Czecho-Slovaks and Serbs were already establishing their own independent states, and Jászi got nowhere. Károlyi was discredited and forced to resign, and his government was replaced, from March to July 1919, by Béla Kun’s Soviet-style Republic.

Left: Baross tér, 1st May 1919: The pyramid erected over the Baross Statue – A watercolour by Albert Baky (1868-1944). Right: Don’t hesitate! – A poster by Jenő Erbits (1893-?). When the Soviet Republic recruited a new army to face the assault of intervening Czech and Romanian forces, mobilisation posters were created in the distinctive graphic style that developed within the workers’ movement, which later became known as ‘socialist realism’.

Aside from the insurmountable domestic hurdles Kun faced, he had great problems with the allies. In April, General Smuts, the South African member of the British War Cabinet, steamed into the Eastern Station in Budapest and stayed for twenty-four hours. Harold Nicolson, his Foreign Office aid, observed the city he had known before the war as a child in his father’s cramped accommodation on Andrássy Boulevard when his father had been posted there by the FO. The cramped nature of the apartment, he said, had robbed it of the ‘stately ease’ of its environs.

Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West at a flower show in Sevenoaks, Kent, 1914.

On 3rd April, Harold woke up to find their train resting in a siding at the Keleti Palyaudvár, encircled by Red Guards with ‘fixed bayonets and scarlet brassards’. Smuts insisted on conducting the negotiations from the wagon-lit, as to have done otherwise would have implied recognition of the new régime. Harold had last visited the city in 1912 when it was still in its heyday. It rained continuously throughout the day, and – to add to the gloom – there was also an energy crisis – with supplies of gas and electricity at a premium. The negotiations centred on whether or not the Bolsheviks would accept the Allies’ armistice proposals, lines that would commit them to considerable territorial losses, particularly to the Romanians. They hesitated all day, and in the interval, Harold decided to reacquaint himself with Pest. Later in his diary, he wrote: ‘The whole place is wretched – sad – unkempt.’ The Communists laid on scenes for him, tableaux such as the gathering of middle-class figures in the Hungaria Hotel, Budapest’s leading hotel, supposedly taking tea undisturbed. He was not deceived, however, especially since the Red’s own headquarters were in the hotel on the Danube Embankment. Red Guards with bayonets patrolled the hall, but in the foyer what remained of Budapest society ‘huddled sadly together with anxious eyes and in complete, ghastly silence,’ sipping their lemonade ‘while the band played.’ They left ‘as soon as possible … silent eyes search out at us as we go.’

Later that evening Kun returned to the train’s dining car and handed Smuts his answer. Smuts responded, ‘No gentlemen, this is a Note which I cannot accept. There must be no reservations.’ Although prepared to offer minor concessions, Smuts’ terms of reference were uncompromising. Kun had first to agree to the occupation by the Allies of a neutral zone separating the Bolsheviks from the Romanian army; if he complied, the Allies would be prepared to raise the blockade strangling their régime. He desperately needed allied recognition of his government, but he inserted a clause into Smuts’s draft agreement that the Romanian forces should withdraw to a line east of the neutral zone, in effect to evacuate Transylvania. Smuts would not countenance such a deal. He made a final appeal to reason. But the Bolsheviks, ‘silent and sullen’, proved obdurate. Smuts, behaving with ‘exquisite courtesy’, bid the Bolshevik leaders ‘goodbye’.

Smuts had formed the opinion that the Kun episode was ‘just an incident and not worth taking seriously’. On the day after he completed his account, The Allies authorised the Romanians and Czechoslovaks to move forward, whereupon Kun organised a ‘Red Army’ of his own, which did retake towns in Slovakia, including Kassa (Kosice), but his forces were eventually overwhelmed and in late July he had to resign in failure. On 1st August, Béla Kun fled the capital in the face of the invading Romanian armies. Central Hungary, and even Győr in the west, remained occupied by the Romanians, who looted comprehensively and were only stopped when they threatened the precious exhibits of the National Museum. The Romanians eventually left when a provisional government was established in Budapest, with the help of the British and a counter-revolutionary organisation led by ‘White’ officers that met at the Britannia Hotel in Pest. This comprised representatives of the old ruling cliques including Count Gyula Károlyi, Count István Bethlen, and Admiral Horthy, the latter becoming ‘Regent’.

For the world’s leaders gathered in Paris, the spectre of Bolshevism was truly haunting Europe: it threatened widespread starvation, social chaos, economic ruin, anarchy, and a violent, shocking end to the old order. It was small wonder, then, that Béla Kun’s strike for communism triggered many anxious moments for the Supreme Council at the Paris Conference, but this was not as much of a ‘trump card’ as it was for Germany when it came to securing good terms at Paris, as the difference between the two treaties proved. In Germany, by the end of 1918, the Communist revolution had been stopped, and a parliamentary republic was soon proclaimed at Weimar. The key to this was that the Social Democrats were in charge, and used the Freikorps on their own terms. In Hungary, the reactionaries made the running, leading to Admiral Horthy’s ‘white horse putsch’ of November 1919. By the time of Trianon, Béla Kun’s brief experiment was long over, but Hungary was paying the price for his brief but violent insurrection, in blood and land. In 1927, Harold Nicolson refused a posting to Budapest on the grounds that he had been too involved in defining Hungary’s frontiers at Paris, and, more jokingly, on the ‘social’ grounds that he could ‘neither shoot nor dance’ (Norman Rose, 2005; Harold Nicolson, pp. 6, 96-98, 153; extracts from letters and diaries).

Harold & Vita at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Conclusion: To what extent was Hungary ‘dragged into’ the War by her allies?

Germany was anxious to confine the war to Austria and Serbia, and Italy did not become an active member of the Triple Alliance until 1915 when it declared war on France. Apparently, there were, however, no statesmen in either Austria-Hungary or Germany who were capable of controlling the situation, either before or during the July Crisis; Bethman-Holweg, the German Chancellor tried to stay the hand of Austria, without success, and the Prime Minister of Hungary, István Tisza, prevaricated as long as he could, before giving in to the pressure from the Imperial Council to back the ultimatum against Serbia. There were also longer-term causes going back to the 1870s, like the treatment of the minority nationalities, which were determined by the imperial partners, of whom Hungary took the hardest line with Serbia, Romania, and the other Slav nations. Hungary, of course, had more to lose from the growth of Pan-Slav nationalism. Clearly, however, the Alliance as a whole underestimated the speed and strength with which Russia would come to the aid of its ally, Serbia, turning a regional conflict into a world war. So while Hungary became tangled up in a complex web of Balkan rivalries, it was not a victim of Great Power machinations, but rather of its own sins of omission and commission.

Appendix: Maps of Hungary & The Great War:

1. Austria-Hungary – Ethnic Diversity & Divisions:

Franz Josef’s empire was a denial of the fashionable 19th-century doctrine of national self-determination. His subjects spoke at least twelve languages and adhered to four major religions – Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Judaism. The Habsburgs had long recognised that ‘nationalism’ was their deadly enemy, but even an enemy based on loyalty to a dynasty rather than a national ideal could not avoid the issue of language rights. Although some Habsburg dominions possessed clear linguistic majorities, such as the overwhelmingly German-speaking provinces in the Alpine West or the Hungarian-speaking villages of the plains, most parts of the empire contained a mixture of peoples and faiths.

This was particularly the case in the counties in the Southern Danubian countries from the Danube’s bend in Hungary to its delta on the Black Sea. The inset map above illustrates the close relation between the relief of the Carpathian Basin and the distribution of the ethnic groups. The Magyars occupied the Hungarian Plain, the Germans were in the Alpine lands, and the Slavs were in the highlands surrounding the Plain. Further south, on the Macedonian Plain, there was a confused ethnic mix. The River Danube was interwoven with the lives of all these ethnic groups. Complicated as the main map above appears, it is only a simplified representation of the mixture of ‘races’ inhabiting the Danubian area. In each area were peoples other than those shown; only the majorities are shown, and in the case of Macedonia and part of Transylvania even this becomes impossible. In 1789 these peoples were grouped into two empires, either the Austrian (Habsburg) Empire or the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire.

In the Austrian Empire, Germans were predominant in Austria, where the rise of Habsburg power in the German lands had been due to the strategic importance of Vienna, the guard of the Danube gateway into Western Europe against the Turks. When the Habsburgs built up their empire, the other natural routes of expansion were through the Moravian Gate into Poland (Galicia), over the low Alpine passes into Italy; down the Danube through Hungary to the Black Sea, with offshoots towards Salonika and the Aegean, and towards Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Bosphorus. The Magyars to the east of Vienna were only second in importance to the Germans and were given many concessions, including their own Diet. The Northern Slavs consisted of Czechs, who had once been independent in the Kingdom of Bohemia and Moravia, the Slovaks, Ruthenians (Ukrainians), and Poles (in Galicia and Besarrabia, acquired at the first partition of Poland in 1772); the Southern Slavs consisted of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Romanians were also Slavs, but originally of Western European origin.

As the 19th century progressed, the Habsburgs’ Slav subjects began asserting their identity through new national literature, music, and political organisations. Vienna’s difficulties with Budapest over Hungarian rights to self-rule made dealing with other peoples still more complicated. Although Hungarian liberals demanded that the ‘crownlands of St Stephen’ should enjoy autonomy within the empire, they were not happy to extend equal political and linguistic rights to their large Slovak, Romanian, or Serb minorities.

2. The Habsburg Empire, 1849-68:

It has been said that if the Austrian Empire had not existed it would have been necessary to invent it. The Austrian control of this great area brought together many peoples whose interests were bound together by the Danube, including many Jewish people and some Muslims. Communities of Turks were scattered throughout the empire, and Macedonia contained Greeks, Bulgars, Albanians, Serbs, and Turks. Throughout the nineteenth century, the various Slavic peoples sought to challenge or overthrow the Austrian authorities and set up separate national states. The weakness of Austria after the 1866 war with Prussia compelled Vienna to give ‘equality’ to the Magyars, but left the Slavs unsatisfied. The Serbs and Romanians within the Austrian empire wished to join those without. For the rise of the nations in the Balkans, see the maps below.

3. Southern Hungary – the Dissolution of the Military Frontier, 1873-82:

In 1789, the Mohammedan Turks had possessed loose control over a range of Christian peoples – Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians (more numerous than in Austria), Romanians, and Albanians. The border between Christian Europe and the Muslim Ottoman Empire – the Military Frontier – was one of the great political fault lines of Europe. It was established by the Habsburgs in Croatia in the mid-16th century to guard the Habsburg lands against Ottoman incursion and then greatly expanded after 1699 following the expulsion of the Ottomans from most of Hungary by Prince Eugene. By the mid-19th century, with the Ottoman Empire in terminal decline, Hungarian demands for the return of the frontier lands to civilian administration increased and from 1873 the Military Frontier was accordingly parcelled out to Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia.

By 1882, the “Military Frontier” had been put under civilian administration. Mutual fear of disintegration kept Vienna and Budapest together after 1867, despite petty disputes about the title of the common army (Imperial or Royal according to where it was stationed) and the language of command.

4. Sketch-Map Histories – The Armed Camps:

By the last decade of the nineteenth century, dynastic ties and fear of unrest had served to draw together the Great Powers to promote an essentially stable order across Europe through a multifaceted series of diplomatic alliances and alignments. This was the apogee of the European nation-state system. But whatever its apparent stability, the system was permanently threatened by Germany’s growing primacy among the Continental powers and by instability in the Balkans. One of the most striking characteristics of pre-world war Europe was its division into two rival alliances of opposing powers.

By 1914, Austria-Hungary was Germany’s only reliable ally. In the crisis after the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, Germany could not afford to abandon her even at the risk of a general European War. Furthermore, if war did come, the Kaiser’s generals wanted it sooner rather than later: the German army was increasingly certain that could defeat both France and Russia simultaneously.

The Dual Entente of 1894 between France and Russia came about after Russia and France found themselves isolated while Central Europe was united in the Triple Alliance. By then, Germany’s expanding military strength caused France and Russia to become nervous allies. Overcoming a dislike for each other’s forms of government, they came closer together between 1894-1904 for mutual defence against their common rivals.

THE ALLIANCE SYSTEMS AFTER 1892

The Entente Cordiále of 1904 marked a dramatic shift in Great Britain’s thirty-year policy of splendid isolation from continental conflicts and alliances: at the beginning of the twentieth century, it appeared dangerous to remain friendless in Europe in the light of the rapid growth in Germany’s naval power. Imperial issues had added to Britain’s estrangement from both Russia and France for a century or more. At first, the obvious partner for Britain had seemed to be Germany, but the Kaiser’s ‘Great Navy’ policy posed a threat to Britain as a naval power. This forced the British into the arms of France. Imperial issues were settled amicably and an understanding with both France and Russia, The Triple Entente was reached in 1907. This guaranteed mutual defence in the case of a German attack. In Berlin, these measures of alleged self-defence were viewed more as a strategy of ‘encirclement’ of Germany. Facing declared enemies to the west and the east, Germany drew closer to Austria, whose strained relations with Russia finally cracked with the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908.

These alliances, though defensive in aim, created suspicion and uneasiness and led to the piling up of armaments. Moreover, a quarrel between any two states involved the rest; the dispute between Russia and Austria-Hungary tended to bring about a dispute between France and Germany. Meanwhile, no one could agree on the fate of the Christian populations of the Balkans beyond a pious regret that they should have to remain under Muslim rule. However understandable the failure to grasp the Balkan nettle at Berlin in 1878, the problems of the region’s numerous ethnic, nationalist, religious, and imperial rivalries were to fester unchecked into the twentieth century to everyone’s disadvantage.

After 1901, when Germany had finally rejected British ‘overtures’, successive crises arose which heralded the approaching Great Power struggle. The crises concerned the Franco-German rivalry in North Africa and the Russo-Austrian rivalry in the Balkans. The chief storm centre in Europe was in the Turkish Empire, growing steadily weaker and forced to rely more and more upon Germany, the Sultan’s new ally. The Kaiser had shown his interest in Turkey in 1898 by his visit to the Sultan when all of Europe was horrified by the massacre of its Armenian subjects and by his announcement to extend German protection to the Muslim peoples of the Middle East. He had gained concessions for railway development under German direction – a prelude to his dream of a Berlin-Baghdad railway. This Drang Nach Osten conflicted with the aspiration of the Balkan peoples who endeavoured to secure their independence.

5.) The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913:

The ‘new’ Balkan states were united only by their hostility towards the Ottoman Empire, which in 1912 still held Albania and Macedonia. Taking advantage of its weakness, Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria formed a ‘Balkan League’ which attacked and defeated Turkey. This First Balkan War of 1912 gravely threatened the interests of Germany and Austria-Hungary, but the Great Powers agreed that the war should be kept localised. The anti-Ottoman alliance hoped to divide the Sultan’s European territories between them, and a conference was summoned in London in 1913 to settle the division of the territory which Turkey had been forced to surrender. It was mediated by the Great Powers and chaired by Britain, but it left everyone dissatisfied. The map above (left) shows the conflicting claims of the successful Balkan allies.

The great Aegean port of Salonica was coveted by all three victors. In the event, the Greek army had reached it just hours before the Bulgarians, who were left resentful when the London Conference confirmed that it as a Greek possession. But Bulgaria was compensated with a large tract of land from the Black Sea to the Kavala on the Aegean, including Adrianople. The province of Macedonia, with a mixed population of Slavs, Turks, Jews, and Greeks, was claimed by all three states, each with varying degrees of justice and all indifferent to the wishes of its inhabitants. The conquest by the three nations confirmed its division between Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. The Treaty of London also confirmed the creation of the independent principality of Albania, a development resented by both Greece and Serbia. Serbia wanted a port on the Adriatic at Albania’s expense and feared moreover that an independent Albania would make her substantial Albanian minorities in Kosovo and Macedonia restive. Greece laid claim to northern Epirus (i.e. southern Albania), basing its claim on the Greek Orthodox community there. Threatened by hostile neighbours, Albania was pushed into looking first to Austria-Hungary and then to Italy for protection. Austria, supported by Germany, intervened to prevent Serbia from securing access to the sea through Albania. This was the second successful attempt by Austria to curb the Pan-Slav movement. War was averted only through the influence of Germany and Britain.

However, resentment at the Treaty of London quickly developed into a new war. Serbia was compensated by accession to territories in Macedonia at the expense of Bulgaria, who objected and reopened the war, this time against her former allies and a ‘new’ rival to the north, Romania. Determined to right the wrongs done to it in London, Bulgaria attacked its erstwhile allies, Greece and Serbia. Bulgarian military optimism was soon shown to be misplaced. The Greeks and Serbians, aided by Romania and Turkey, who swiftly realised the opportunity the Bulgarian offensive presented, had little difficulty in repulsing it. Bulgaria was overwhelmingly defeated by the new alliance against it, and Serbia annexed large territories at her expense. The greatly enlarged and strengthened Serbia aroused the deep resentment of Austria. Greece kept Salonica and took western Thrace. Resentful Bulgaria was confined to a barren stretch of the Aegean coast while Turkey recovered Adrianople in Thrace, maintaining a foothold in Europe. Romania, a non-combattant in the first Balkan War, received southern Dobruja for her efforts in the second. Once again, only Germany’s restraining influence, combined with Italy’s refusal to cooperate prevented an immediate attack. Instead, the Central Powers waited for a better reason to intervene to curb Serbia’s ambition.

6.) The Eve of the First World War – a Summary:

The boundaries between the Great Powers changed little in the century after the Congress of Vienna (1815). Germany, although now unified, Austria-Hungary, and Russia still shared largely the same frontiers established at Vienna, and most contemporary observers could be forgiven for regarding them as permanent. But, in practice, the emergence of small states on the periphery of the Powers, allied to tensions created by conflicting aspirations for autonomy and independence on the part of the many ethnic groups within the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, marked the beginning of a process that threatened the territorial integrity of these empires.

Whatever its problems with nationalism, Russia at least had a majority ethnic group. Austria-Hungary lacked even this. The ‘Magyars’ made up half the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, the other half were Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, and Croats as well as two million Germans. In the Austrian part of the empire, Germans amounted to only 35% of the population. Czechs, Poles, Slovenes, Italians, and several smaller groups made up the remainder. The very principle of national self-determination which had justified the unification of Germany was a threat to its Habsburg ally.

It was in the Balkans that nationalist aspirations were to prove the most volatile. Newly independent Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece all saw the decline of the Ottoman Empire as an opportunity to extend their territories at the expense of the Turks. At the same time, Austria-Hungary and Russia both sought to increase their influence in the region. With Britain’s abandonment of its role as the protector of the Ottoman Sultan, a policy originally intended to contain Russian ambitions, the way was left open for Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece in 1912 to attack the Turks. Dividing the spoils proved harder, as the maps above have demonstrated. More threateningly still, however, was the involvement of Austria-Hungary and Russia. While the former feared the destabilising effect Serbia might have on its large South Slav population, especially in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the latter was determined to resume her role as protector of Orthodox Christians in the region – if necessary against Catholic Austria-Hungary rather than Muslim Turkey.

With Austria-Hungary and Russia members of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente respectively, their rivalry in the Balkans increasingly threatened to suck the whole of Europe into conflict. Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia in July 1914 following the Serbian-sponsored assassination in Sarajevo the previous month was the spark that lit the conflagration. Russia ordered a general mobilisation, and Germany responded in kind on 1st August, then declared war on Russia and France three days later. The following day, the Germans invaded Belgium, determined to smash the Triple Entente by drawing Britain into the war.

The Aftermath of the First World War:
Source; Norman Stone (2019)

Despite the defeat of Germany and her allies in the autumn of 1918 and the signing of a string of peace treaties in Paris between the victorious allies and the defeated states in 1919 and 1920, it was several years before the boundaries of the new Europe were clearly established. Revolution and civil war plunged Russia, Germany, and much of what had been Austria-Hungary into chaos. The Europe that emerged was radically different. Russia and Germany had shrunk dramatically; the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had disappeared, and a host of smaller states had appeared. In Russia, a communist government now ruled in place of the Tsar. The civil war that followed the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia found counterparts in Hungary (1919), as well as in Germany. The Paris Peace Settlement of 1919-20 left every post-war in central Europe with internal problems and potential border disputes. It proved easier to break up multi-national empires than to replace them with ethnically homogeneous states. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia both had substantial Hungarian minorities, and Romania too had a large Magyar population, concentrated in Transylvania.

Central-Eastern Europe in 1925

Sources:

Christopher Clark (2012), The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. London: Penguin Books.

Norman Stone (2019), Hungary: A Short History. London: Profile Books.

László Kontler (2009), A History of Hungary. Budapest: Atlantisz Publishing House.

Martyn Rady (2020), The Habsburgs: The Rise and Fall of a World Power. London: Allen Lane/ Penguin Random House.

István Lazar (1990), An Illustrated History of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina Books.

Norman Rose (2005), Harold Nicolson. London: Jonathan Cape/ Pimlico.

George Taylor (1936), A Sketch-Map History of Europe, 1789-1914. London: George G. Harrap.

Irene Richards (1938), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War and After, 1914-1935. London: George G. Harrap.

András Bereznay, et. al. (2001), The Times History of Europe: Three Thousand Years of History in Maps. London: HarperCollins.

Featured

Is Hungary’s Appeasement of Putin Justified by its Past Experiences? II

Chapter Two: All Roads Led to Sarajevo – How Austria-Hungary Went to War in 1914:

The Trigger:

On 28th June 1914, the heir to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, paid a visit to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, which had been occupied by Austria-Hungary in 1878, and annexed by Emperor Franz Josef in 1908. The visit was intended to display grandeur to the citizenry of the province, but Franz Ferdinand was not on good terms with its Governor, Oskar Potiorek, of Slovene origin, who had been given the job as consolation for not being Chief of the General Staff because the archduke had preferred Conrad von Hötzendorf in that role. Potierok disliked social events and loathed his own chief of staff, Colonel Böltz, and hardly communicated with him. Security for the visit was handed over to a firm of Budapest private detectives. Seven young Serb conspirators picked up training and weapons in Belgrade, and one of them, Gavrilo Princip, succeeded in assassinating the archduke. Although the object and victim of the attack, together with his wife, Franz Ferdinand himself was one of the few men in the empire who foresaw what disasters would come from a Great War and had he survived, he would certainly have refused to take the empire in one. But killed he was, in an extraordinary chapter of accidents which have been pawed over repeatedly ever since.

Princip, too young to be executed, was imprisoned in the fortress of Theresienstadt, where he died before the war ended. The prison psychiatrist asked him if he had any regrets. He answered, ‘If I had not done it, the Germans would have found another excuse.’ He was probably right in this judgment. Looking back through the prism of two world wars, we may judge that both began with ridiculously disproportionate causes, or rather ‘catalysts’. The tensions that had evolved over four or five decades were released by a trigger. Still, by then Franz Josef and his ministers and advisors in Vienna could see no other answer to the South Slav problem than a demonstration of might against the radical nationalists. Only Franz Ferdinand and his staff disagreed, but ironically, the assassin’s bullets at Sarajevo removed that particular objector to war.

Chess-players & Sleep-walkers:

A British Delegation in Paris. Britain became linked to the Franco-Russian Alliance through the Entente Cordiale (1904).

To properly contextualise the causes and catalysts of 1914, it is necessary to retrace the steps of all the participants over half a century or more. After the ejection of the Austrians from Italy in 1859 and Germany in 1866, the Balkan region became by default the pre-eminent focus of Austro-Hungarian foreign policy. This narrowing of focus coincided with an era of growing volatility across the Balkan peninsula. The underlying problem was the waning of Ottoman authority in south-eastern Europe which created and exposed a zone of tension between the two remaining great powers with an interest in the region. Russia and Austria-Hungary felt historically entitled to exercise hegemony in areas where the Ottomans withdrew. The House of Habsburg had traditionally been the guardian of Europe’s eastern gate against the Turks. In Russia, the ideology of pan-Slavism asserted a natural commonality of interest between the emergent Slavic (especially Eastern Orthodox) nations of the Balkan peninsula and the patronage of St Petersburg. The Ottoman retreat also raised questions about the future control of the straits controlling the access to and from the Black Sea, an issue of acute strategic importance to Russian diplomats. At the same time, the emerging Balkan states had conflicting interests and objectives of their own. Christopher Clark (2011) has characterised the Austro-Russian rivalry as like chess players hoping with each move to cancel out or diminish the opponent’s advantage (p. 78).

Until 1908, cooperation, self-restraint, and the demarcation of informal spheres of influence ensured that the dangers implicit in this state of affairs were contained. In the revised Three Emperors’ League treaty of 1881 between Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany, Russia undertook to ‘respect’ the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina authorised in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin and the three signatories agreed to ‘take account’ of each other’s ‘interests in the Balkan peninsula’. Further Austro-Russian understandings in 1897 and 1903 reaffirmed the joint commitment to the Balkan status quo. The complexity of Balkan politics was such, however, that maintaining good relations with Austria-Hungary was not enough to ensure tranquillity. During the reign of the Austrophile, Milan Obrenovíc, Serbia remained a docile partner in Vienna’s designs, acquiescing in its claims to regional hegemony. Vienna, in return, supported Belgrade’s claim to be recognised as a kingdom in 1882 and promised diplomatic support if Serbia chose to expand south into Ottoman Macedonia. As the Austro-Hungarian foreign minister, Count Gustav Kálnoky von Köröspatak, informed his Russian counterpart in the summer of 1883, that good relations with Serbia were essential to the success of the empire’s Balkan policy.

In 1883, the King of Serbia created a commotion in Vienna by proposing to abdicate and allow the empire to annex his kingdom. At a meeting in the Austrian capital, he was dissuaded from this course of action and sent back to Belgrade. Kálnoky later explained to President Taaffe that a flourishing and independent Serbia suits our intentions… better than the possession of an unruly province. (Memorandum cited in Bridge, From Sadowa to Sarajevo, p. 149.) Only months later, however, King Milan suddenly and unexpectedly invaded neighbouring Bulgaria, Russia’s client state. The resulting conflict was shortlived because the Serbian army was easily beaten back by the Bulgarians, but great power diplomacy was required to prevent this temporary incursion from ruffling the feathers of the Austro-Russian détente. Milan’s son, however, declared intemperately and publicly in 1899 that the enemies of Serbia are the enemies of Austria-Hungary, raising eyebrows in St Petersburg and causing considerable embarrassment in Vienna. But he was also tempted by the advantages of a Russophile policy; by 1902, after the death of his father, King Alexandar was energetically suing for Russian support; he even declared to a journalist in St Petersburg that the Habsburg monarchy was ‘the arch enemy of Serbia’. There was therefore little regret in Vienna at the news of Alexandar’s premature death, although the politicians there were as shocked as everyone else by the brutality with which he and his line were exterminated.

Only gradually did it become clear to the Austrians that the regicide of June 1903 marked a real break. The foreign ministry in Vienna hastened to establish good relations with the usurper, Petar Karadjordjevic, whom they mistakenly viewed as an Austrophile. Austria-Hungary became the first foreign state to formally recognise the new Serbian régime. But it soon became clear that the foundations no longer existed for a harmonious relationship between the two neighbours. The management of political affairs passed into the hands of men openly hostile to the dual monarchy and the policy-makers in Vienna studied with growing concern the nationalist statements of the Belgrade press, now freed from government restraints. In September 1903, the Austrian minister in Belgrade reported that relations between the two countries were ‘as bad as possible’. Vienna rediscovered its moral outrage at the regicide and joined the British in imposing sanctions on the Karadjordjevic court. Hoping to profit from this loosening of the Austro-Serbian bond, the Russians moved in, assuring the Belgrade government that Serbia’s future lay in the west, on the Adriatic coastline, and urging them not to renew their long-standing commercial treaty with Vienna.

At the end of 1905, these tensions broke out into open conflict with the discovery in Vienna that Serbia and Bulgaria had agreed on a ‘secret’ customs union. Austria-Hungary’s demand early in 1906 that Belgrade repudiate the union proved counter-productive; among other things, it transformed the Bulgarian union, which had been a matter of indifference to most Serbs, into a major platform of Serbian national opinion. The general outlines of the 1906 Crisis have been set out above. Still, it is worth noting here that what worried the politicians in Vienna was not so much the commercial significance of the customs union, but the political logic underlying it. What if the Serbo-Bulgarian trade alliance were merely the first step in the direction of a ‘league’ of Balkan states hostile to the empire and receptive to promptings from St Petersburg? It is easy to write this question off as prompted by Austro-Hungarian paranoia, but the policy-makers of the dual monarchy were not far off the mark: the customs union was, in fact, the third of a sequence of secret alliances between Serbia and Bulgaria, of which the first two were already clearly anti-imperial in orientation; a Treaty of Friendship and a Treaty of Alliance, signed in Belgrade in 1904. Vienna’s fear of Russian involvement in these was well-founded, as it turned out. St Petersburg was now clearly working towards a Balkan alliance, notwithstanding the Austro-Russian détente and the disastrous war with Japan. On 15 September 1904, the Russian ambassadors in Belgrade and Sofia were secretly and simultaneously presented with copies of the Treaty of Alliance by the foreign ministers of Serbia and Bulgaria respectively.

One difficult aspect of the Austro-Hungarian Balkan policy was the deepening inter-penetration of domestic and foreign issues. These issues were most likely to become entangled in the case of those minorities for whom there was an independent ‘motherland’ outside the boundaries of the empire. This included the three million Romanians in the Duchy of Transylvania. Due to the nature of the dual monarchy, there was little Vienna could do to prevent the oppressive Hungarian cultural policies from alienating the neighbouring Romanian kingdom, a political partner of great strategic value in the region. Yet it proved possible, at least until 1910, to insulate the empire’s relations with the kingdom from the impact of domestic tensions. The government of the kingdom, an ally of Austria and Germany, made no effort to foment or exploit ethnic discord in Transylvania. However, this could not be said for the Kingdom of Serbia after 1903 and its relations with the disparate Serbs within the empire. Just over forty per cent of the population of Bosnia-Hercegovina were Serbs, and there were large areas of Serbian settlement in Vojvodina in southern Hungary and smaller ones in Croatia-Slavonia. However, no such sovereign external nation-state existed for the Czechs, Slovenes, Poles, Slovaks, and Croats.

After the regicide of 1903, Belgrade stepped up the pace of irredentist activity within the empire, focusing particularly on Bosnia-Hercegovina. In February 1906, the Austrian military attaché in Belgrade, Pomiankowski, summarised the problem in a letter to the chief of the General Staff. He declared that it was certain that Serbia would number among the empire’s enemies in a future military conflict. The problem was less the attitude of the Serbian government and more the ultra-nationalist orientation of the political culture as a whole. even if a ‘sensible’ government were in control, Pomiankowski warned, it would be in no position to prevent the all-powerful radical chauvinists from launching ‘an adventure’. More important than Serbia’s ‘miserable army’ however, was:

“The fifth-column work of the Radicals in peacetime, which systematically poisons the attitude of our South Slav population and could, if the worst came to the worst, create very serious difficulties for our amy”

Pomiankowski to Beck, Belgrade, 17 February 1906, cited in Günther Kronenbitter, Krieg im Frieden, Die Führung der k.u.k. Armee und die Grossmachtpolitik Österreich-Ungarns 1906-14 (Munich, 2003), p.327.

The ‘chauvinist’ irredentism of the Serbian political forces came to occupy a central place in Vienna’s assessments of its relations with Belgrade. By the summer of 1907, the Austrian Foreign Minister, von Aehrenthal conveyed a sense of how relations had deteriorated since the regicide. Under King Milan, the Serbian crown had been strong enough to counteract any ‘public Bosnian agitation’, but since the events of 1903, everything had changed. It was not just that King Petar was too weak to oppose the forces of ultra-nationalism, but rather that he had begun to exploit the national movement to consolidate his own position. For their part, the empire’s diplomats left the king in no doubt that Austria-Hungary regarded its occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina as ‘definitive’. In the summer of 1907, the Foreign Minister instructed his envoy to Belgrade not to be put off by the usual official denials, such as:

‘The Serbian Government strives to maintain correct and blameless relations, but it is in no position to hold back the sentiment of the nation, which demands action, etc. etc.’

Cited in Solomon Wank (ed.), Aus dem Nachlaus Aehrenthal, 1885-1912, Graz, 1994.

This official instruction captures the salient features of Vienna’s attitude to Belgrade: a belief in the primordial power of Serbian nationalism, a visceral distrust of its leading statesmen, and a deepening anxiety over the future of Bosnia, concealed behind its natural air of imperial superiority.

Thus, the stage was set for the annexation of Bosnia and Hercegovina in 1908. There had never been any doubt, either in Vienna and Budapest or in the capitals of the other great powers, that the occupation of 1878 was intended to be permanent. In one of the secret articles of the renewed Three Emperors’ Alliance of 1881, there had been an explicit statement that Austria-Hungary had the right to annex these provinces at whatever moment she shall deem opportune and this claim was repeated at intervals in the Austro-Russian diplomatic agreements. Nor was it contested in principle by Russia, though St Petersburg reserved the right to impose conditions when the moment for a change of status arrived. The advantages of a formal annexation were obvious enough: It would allow Bosnia and Hercegovina to be integrated more fully into the political fabric of a provincial parliament. It would create a more stable environment for inward investment and, most importantly, would signal to Belgrade and the empire’s minority Serbs the permanence of Austria-Hungary’s possessions.

Yet, in 1905 the empire found itself dogged by bitter infighting between the Austrian and Hungarian political élites over the administration of the armed forces. By 1907, Aehrenthal had begun to favour a tripartite solution to the monarchy’s problems; the two dominant power centres within it would be supplemented by a third entity incorporating the southern Slavs (Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs). This was a proposal that enjoyed a considerable following among the southern Slav élites, especially the Croats, who resented being divided between Cisleithania, the Kingdom of Hungary, and the province of Croatia-Slavonia, also ruled from Budapest. If only Bosnia-Hercegovina were fully incorporated into the structure of a reformed trialist monarchy, Aehrenthal’s hope was that this third entity would provide an internal counterweight to the irredentist activities of Belgrade.

The clinching argument for annexation was the Young Turk Revolution that broke out in Ottoman Macedonia in the summer of 1908. The Young Turks forced the Sultan in Constantinople (Istanbul) to proclaim a constitution and the establishment of a parliament. They planned to subject the Ottoman imperial system to a root-and-branch reform. Rumours circulated to the effect that the new Turkish leadership would shortly call general elections throughout the Ottoman Empire, including the areas occupied by Austria-Hungary, which currently possessed no representative organs of their own. Hoping to capitalise on the uncertainties created by these rumours, an opportunist Serb-Muslim coalition emerged in Bosnia calling for autonomy under Turkish suzerainty. The danger was now that an ethnic alliance within the province might join forces with the Turks to push the Austro-Hungarians out.

To forestall such complications, Aehrenthal moved quickly to prepare the ground for annexation. The Ottomans were bought out of their nominal sovereignty, and the Russians had no objection to the formalisation of Austria-Hungary’s status in Bosnia-Hercegovina provided St Petersburg received something in return. The Russian foreign minister, Alexandr Izvolsky, supported by Tsar Nicholas II, proposed that the annexation should occur in exchange for Austria-Hungary’s support for improved Russian access to the Turkish straits. Izvolsky and Aehrenthal were both after the same thing: gains that would be secured through secret negotiations at the expense of the Ottoman Empire and in contravention of the Treaty of Berlin. Despite these preparations, Aehrenthal’s announcement of the annexation on 5th October 1908 triggered a major European Crisis. Izvolsky denied ever having reached an agreement at Schloss Buchlau in Moravia and subsequently denied that he had been advised in advance of their September meeting. He demanded a formal conference to clarify the status of Bosnia-Hercegovina, but Aehrenthal continued to evade this demand while the crisis dragged on for months and escalated as Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary mobilised and counter-mobilised their armies. The situation was only resolved by the ‘St Petersburg Note’ of March 1909, in which the Germans demanded that the Russians at least recognise the annexation and urge Serbia to do likewise. Chancellor Bülow warned that if they did not do this, events would ‘take their course’. This hinted not just at the possibility of an Austrian war on Serbia, but, more importantly, at the possibility that the Germans would release the documents proving Izvolsky’s complicity in the original annexation deal. Izvolsky immediately backed down.

Aehrenthal has traditionally carried much of the blame for the annexation crisis, but this may not be an accurate assessment. Certainly, the foreign minister’s manoeuvres lacked transparency. He used the tools of the old diplomacy; confidential meetings, the exchange of pledges and secret bilateral agreements, rather than attempting to resolve the annexation issue through a round table conference involving all the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. This made it easier for Izvolsky to claim that he, and by extension Russia, had been hoodwinked by the ‘slippery’ Austro-Hungarian minister. Yet the evidence suggests that the crisis took the course that it did because Izvolsky lied most extravagantly to save his job and reputation.

Russian & Turkish Dimensions:

The Russian foreign minister had made two serious errors of judgement. He had assumed, firstly, that London would support his demand for the opening of the Turkish Straits to Russian warships. He had also greatly underestimated the impact of the annexation on Russian nationalist opinion. According to one account, he was initially perfectly calm about the annexation when the news came through to Paris on 8th October. It was only during his stay in London a few days later, when the British proved uncooperative and he heard of the press response in St Petersburg, that he realised his error, panicked, and began to reconstruct himself as Aehrenthal’s dupe.

In any case, the Bosnian crisis represented a significant turning point in Balkan geopolitics. It devastated what remained of Austro-Russian readiness to collaborate on resolving Balkan questions; from this moment onwards, it would be much more difficult to contain the negative energies generated by the internecine conflicts among the Balkan states. It also alienated its closest neighbour and ally, the Kingdom of Italy. There had long been friction between the kingdoms, especially over minority rights in Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia, and political rivalry in the Adriatic was a further bone of contention. The annexation prompted calls for Italy to be compensated, kindling Italian resentments to a heightened pitch of intensity. In the last years before the outbreak of the Great War, it became increasingly difficult to reconcile Austro-Hungarian and Italian objectives along the Adriatic coast. The Germans were initially noncommital on the annexation question, but they soon rallied to Austria-Hungary’s support, which had the desired effect of dissuading the Russian government from attempting to extract further capital out of the annexation crisis. However, in the longer run, it reinforced the sense in both St Petersburg and London that Austria was the satellite of Berlin, a perception that would play a dangerous role in the crisis of 1914.

In Russia, both the government and public opinion interpreted the annexation as a brutal betrayal of the understanding between the two powers, an unforgivable humiliation and an unacceptable provocation in a sphere of vital interest. In the years that followed the crisis, the Russians launched a programme of military investment so substantial that it sparked a European arms race. There were also signs of a deeper Russian political involvement with Serbia. In the autumn of 1909, the Russian foreign ministry appointed Nikolai Hartwig, a fiery fanatic in the old Slavophile tradition, to the Russian embassy in Belgrade. Once in office, Hartwig worked hard to push Belgrade into taking up a more assertive position against Vienna, sometimes exceeding the instructions of his managers in St Petersburg. Therefore, The annexation crisis further worsened the relations between Vienna and Belgrade, exacerbated by political conditions inside the dual monarchy. For several years, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had been observing the activities of the Serbo-Croat coalition, a political faction that had been emerging from within the Croat Diet at Agram (Zagreb), capital of Hungarian-ruled Croatia-Slavonia, in 1905. After the diet elections in 1906, the coalition secured control of the Agram administration, embracing a ‘Yugoslav’ agenda seeking a closer union of the South Slav peoples within the empire, and fought long battles with the Hungarian authorities over issues such as the requirement that all state railway officials should be able to speak Magyar. What really worried the Austro-Hungarians was the suspicion that some or all of the deputies of the Agram administration might be operating as a fifth column for Belgrade.

Escalating Eastern Tensions & Equilibrium:

During the crisis of 1908-9, these apprehensions escalated to the point of paranoia. In March 1909, just as Russia was backing down from a potential confrontation over Bosnia, the Habsburg administration launched an astonishingly inept judicial assault on the Serbo-Croat coalition, charging fifty-three mainly Serb activists with treason for plotting to detach the South Slav lands from Austria-Hungary and join them to Serbia. The treason trial at Agram dragged on for eight months, quickly collapsing into an unmitigated public relations disaster for the government. All thirty-one convictions handed down were subsequently crushed on appeal in Vienna. Quite naturally, these events led to a worsening of diplomatic relations between Vienna, Belgrade and St Petersburg during 1910-1912. Aehrenthal died suddenly from leukaemia in 1912, leaving behind a legacy of bitter personal animosity, especially with Izvolsky, which was identified by the quality press in Vienna, in the aftermath of the Bosnian crisis, as an impediment to the improvement of relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia. After Aehrenthal’s death, Forgách left Belgrade a staunch Serbophobe, remaining on the scene as one of a cohort of officials who helped shape the policies of the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry. Miroslav Spalajkovic served as the Serbian minister in Sofia and was subsequently transferred to the Serbian legation in St Petersburg. Here his task would be to interpret the intentions of the Tsar and his ministers to the government in Belgrade. Nikolai Hartwig, the new Russian minister, had become Spalajkovic’s close personal friend during his time in Belgrade and subsequently developed an intimate relationship with the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikola Pasic. It was a key factor in the July Crisis of 1914 that so many of its individual actors had known each other for so long. Beneath the surface of many of the key rivalries lurked long-term personal antipathies.

Vienna could, in theory, offset Serbian hostility by seeking better relations with Bulgaria. But pursuing this option also involved finding a way around the border dispute between Bulgaria and Romania. Cosying up to Sofia brought the risk of alienating Bucharest, which was undesirable due to the large Romanian minority in Hungarian Transylvania. If Romania were to turn away from Vienna towards St Petersburg, the minority issue might become a question of regional security. Hungarian politicians and diplomats warned that a ‘Greater Romania’ would pose as great a threat to the dual monarchy as a ‘Greater Serbia’. However, in March 1909, Serbia formally pledged that it would desist from further covert operations against Austro-Hungarian territory and maintain good neighbourly relations with the empire. In 1910, Vienna and Belgrade even agreed on a trade treaty ending the Austro-Serbian commercial conflict. A twenty-four per cent rise in Serbian imports during that year bore witness to improving economic conditions. Austro-Hungarian goods began to reappear on the shelves of shops in Belgrade, and by 1912, the dual monarchy was once again the main buyer and supplier of Serbia. But despite assurances of goodwill on both sides, a deep mistrust continued to affect relations which was difficult to dispel. Although there was talk of an official visit by King Petar to Vienna, it never happened. Citing royal ill-health, the Serbian government moved the visit from Vienna to Budapest, then postponed it and then put it off indefinitely in April 1911. Yet later the same year they pulled off a highly successful visit to Paris.

Behind the scenes, the work to redeem Bosnia-Hercegovina continued. Narodna Odbrana, a Serb cultural organisation, proliferated after 1909 and spilt over into the two provinces. The Austrians stepped up their monitoring of Serbian agents crossing the border while Dragomir Djordjevic, a reserve lieutenant in the Serbian army, combined his ‘cultural work’ with the management of a covert network of Serb informants. He was spotted returning to Serbia for weapons training in October 1910. In a report filed on 12 November 1911, Forgách’s successor in Belgrade as Austro-Hungarian minister, Stefan von Ugron zu Abránfalva, notified Vienna of the existence of an association supposedly existing in officer circles that was currently the subject of press comment in Serbia. At this point, ‘nothing positive’ was known about the organisation, except that it called itself the Black Hand and was chiefly concerned with regaining the influence over national policies that the army had previously enjoyed. Press rumours to the effect that the Black Hand had drawn up a hit list of politicians to be assassinated in the event of a coup against the current government. It appeared that the conspirators planned to use legal means to remove the ‘inner enemies of Serbdom’, and ‘turn with unified force against its external foes’. The Austro-Hungarians recognised that Narodna Odbrana aimed at the subversion of Habsburg rule in Bosnia and ran networks of activists in the Habsburg lands. They presumed that the roots of all Serbian irredentist activity within the empire led back to the pan-Serbian propaganda of the Belgrade-based patriotic networks, but their understanding of the precise nature of the links between these networks and the Black Hand was poor. Nevertheless, the key elements that would shape Austro-Hungarian thought and action following the events at Sarajevo were all in place by the spring of 1914.

The Balkan Wars destroyed Austria-Hungary’s security position on the Balkan peninsula and created a bigger and stronger Serbia. The kingdom’s territory expanded by over eighty per cent. During the Second Balkan War, the Serbian armed forces under their supreme commander General Putnik displayed impressive discipline and initiative. The Habsburg government had often adopted a dismissive tone in its discussions of the military threat posed by Belgrade. In a telling metaphor, Aehrenthal had once described Serbia as a ‘rascally boy’ pinching apples from the Austrian orchard. A General Staff report of 9th November 1912 expressed surprise at the dramatic growth in Serbia’s striking power. Improvements to the railway network, the modernisation of weaponry and a massive increase in the number of front-line units, all financed by French loans, had transformed Serbia into a formidable combatant. Moreover, Serbia’s strength could only be strengthened by the 1.6 million who lived in the territories conquered in the two Balkan Wars. In a report of October 1913, the empire’s military attaché in Belgrade, Otto Gellinek observed that while there was no need for immediate alarm, no one should underestimate the kingdom’s military prowess. Henceforth, it would be necessary when calculating the dual monarchy’s defence needs to match all Serbian front-line units man-for-man with Austro-Hungarian troops.

The question of how to respond to the deteriorating security situation in the Balkans divided the key decision-makers in Vienna and Budapest. Should Austria-Hungary seek some sort of accommodation with Serbia, or contain it by diplomatic means? Should Vienna strive to mend the ruined entente with St Petersburg? Or did the solution lie in military conflict? It was difficult to extract unequivocal answers from the multi-layered networks of the Austro-Hungarian state. The dualist constitution required that the Hungarian prime minister be consulted on questions of imperial foreign policy and the intimate connection between domestic and foreign problems ensured that other ministers and senior officials also laid claim to a role in resolving specific issues. So open was the texture of the imperial system that even quite junior figures – diplomats, for example, or section heads within the foreign ministry – might seek to shape imperial policy by submitting unsolicited memoranda that could on occasion play an important role in focusing attitudes within the policy-making élite. Presiding over it all was the Emperor, whose power to approve or block the initiatives of his ministers was still absolute. But this was a largely passive rather than a proactive role – he responded to, and mediated between the loosely assembled power-centres of the political élite. Against the background of this polycratic system, three figures were especially influential: the chief of the Austrian General Staff, Fieldmarshal Lieutenant Franz Baron Conrad von Hötzendorf; the heir to the Habsburg throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and the joint foreign minister from 1912, Count Leopold von Berchtold.

Under the energetic supervision of a gifted head of personal staff, Major Alexander Brosch von Aarenau, the Military Chancellor was reorganised along military lines; its military information channels served as a cover for political data-gathering and a network of friendly journalists pummeled political opponents and attempted to shape public debates. Processing ten thousand pieces of correspondence per year, the Chancellory matured into a political ‘think tank’, a power centre within the system that some saw as a ‘shadow government’. An internal study of the operations of this ‘think tank’, concluded that its chief political objective was to hinder any ‘possible mishaps’ that could accelerate the ‘national federal fragmentation’ of the Habsburg Empire. At the heart of this concern about political fragmentation was a deep-seated hostility to the Hungarian élites who controlled the eastern half of the empire. The Archduke and his advisers were outspoken critics of the dualist political system forged in the aftermath of Austria’s defeat at the hands of Prussia in 1866. This arrangement had, in Franz Ferdinand’s eyes, one fatal flaw: it concentrated power in the hands of an arrogant and politically disloyal Magyar élite, while at the same time marginalizing and alienating the other nine Habsburg nationalities. Once installed with his staff at the Lower Belvedere, Captain Brosch von Aarenau built up a network of disaffected non-Magyar intellectuals and experts, and the Military Chancellery became a clearing house for Slav and Romanian opposition to the oppressive minority policies of the Kingdom of Hungary.

The archduke made no secret that he intended to restructure the imperial system after he acceded to the throne. His key objective was to break or diminish Hungary’s hegemony in the eastern part of the monarchy. For a time, Franz Ferdinand favoured strengthening the Slavic element in the monarchy by creating a Croat-dominated (and Catholic) ‘Yugoslavia’ within the empire. It was his association with this idea that aroused the hatred of his Orthodox Serbian enemies. By 1914, however, it appears he had dropped this plan in favour of a far-reaching transformation by which the empire would become a ‘United States of Great Austria’, comprising fifteen member states, many of which would have Slav majorities. By diminishing the status of the Hungarians, the archduke and his advisers hoped to reinforce the authority of the Habsburg dynasty while at the same time rekindling the loyalties of the lesser nationalities. Whatever one thought of this programme, and obviously Hungarians didn’t think much of it, it did identify the archduke as a man of radical intentions whose accession to the throne would bring an end to the habit of muddling through that seemed to paralyse Austrian policy in the last decades before 1914. It also placed the heir to the throne in direct political opposition to the reigning sovereign. The Emperor refused to countenance any tampering with the dualist Compromise of 1867, which he regarded as the most enduring achievement of his own early years in office.

Franz Ferdinand’s most influential ally was the new Habsburg foreign minister, Leopold Count Berchtold von und Ungarschitz, Fratting und Pullitz. Berchtold was a nobleman of immense wealth, an urbane, patrician representative of the landed class that still held sway in the upper reaches of the Austro-Hungarian administration. By temperament cautious, even fearful, he was not an instinctive politician. His willingness to follow a diplomatic career had more to do with his loyalty to the Emperor and to Foreign Minister Aehrenthal than with an appetite for personal power or renown. His reluctance when invited to accept posts of increasing seniority and responsibility was unquestionably genuine. He believed that harmonious relations with Russia, founded on cooperation in areas of potential conflict such as the Balkans, were crucial to the empire’s security and maintaining peace in Europe. He derived great personal pride from being able to play a crucial role in St Petersburg in the consolidation of good relations between the two powers. When Aehrenthal departed for Vienna, Berchtold gladly accepted the post of ambassador, confident in the knowledge that his own views of the Austro-Russian relationship were entirely in step with those of the new minister in Vienna. It was a shock to his system, therefore, to find himself on the front line when Austro-Russian relations took a drastic turn for the worse in 1908.

The Bosnian Crisis & Balkan Wars, 1908-13:

The first eighteen months of Berchtold’s new posting had been relatively harmonious, but the Bosnian Crisis destroyed any prospect of further collaboration with the Russian foreign minister and undermined the policy of détente. Berchtold deeply regretted Aehrenthal’s willingness to risk Russian goodwill for the sake of Austro-Hungarian prestige. In a letter to the minister of 19th November 1908, Berchtold offered an implicit critique of his former mentor’s policy. In light of the pathological escalation of pan-Slav-influenced Russian national sentiment, he wrote, the continuation of the Austro-Hungarian Balkan policy would inevitably have a further negative impact on our relationship with Russia. Recent events had made his work in St Petersburg ‘extremely difficult’, so he closed his letter with a request to be recalled once the situation returned to normal. He remained in St Petersburg until April 1911, but his spell of recuperation was to last only ten months. On 19th February 1912, the Emperor summoned him to Vienna and appointed him Aehrenthal’s successor as minister for foreign affairs. His policy, announced to the Hungarian delegation on 30th April 1912, would be ‘a policy of stability and peace, the conservation of what exists, and the avoidance of entanglements and shocks.’

The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 would test this commitment to breaking point. In the attempt of the Serbian government to secure a swathe of territory connecting their country’s heartland with the Adriatic coast. Successive Serbian assaults on northern Albania triggered a sequence of international crises. The result was a marked deterioration in Austro-Serbian relations. This hostility was reinforced in the autumn of 1913 by dark tidings from the areas conquered by Serbian forces. The Austrian Consul-General Jehlitschka in Skopje submitted reports of atrocities against the Muslim populations of ten villages. These were not spontaneous acts of brutality, he concluded, but rather a cold-blooded and systematic elimination or annihilation operation that appeared to have been carried out on orders from above. Austria-Hungary’s minister in Belgrade was amused to see leader articles in the Viennese press advising the Serbian government to go easy on the minorities and win them over with a policy of conciliation. Such advice, he observed in a letter to Berchtold, might well be heeded in ‘civilised states’. But Serbia was a state where ‘murder and killing have been raised to a system.’ At the very least, these reports underscored in Vienna’s eyes the political illegitimacy of Serbian territorial expansion.

Nevertheless, even a local war between Austria and Serbia did not appear likely in the spring and summer of 1914. The mood in Belgrade was relatively calm that spring, reflecting the exhaustion following the Balkan Wars. The instability of the newly conquered areas and the civil-military crisis that racked Serbia during May gave grounds to suspect that the Belgrade government would be focusing mainly on tasks of domestic consolidation for the foreseeable future. In a report sent on 24th May 1914, the Austro-Hungarian minister in Belgrade, Baron Giesl, observed that although Serbian troop numbers along the Albanian border remained high, there seemed little reason to fear further incursions. Three weeks later, on 16 June, a dispatch from Gellinek, military attaché in Belgrade, struck a similarly placid note. Although the Serbian army was being kept at a heightened state of readiness, there were no signs of aggressive intentions towards either Austria-Hungary or Albania. All was quiet on the southern front.

Yet, on the diplomatic front, the Matscheko Memorandum, drawn up by a senior Foreign Office section chief in consultation with Forgách and Berchtold and passed to the foreign minister’s desk on 24th June, was not an optimistic document. Matscheko notes only two positive Balkan developments: signs of a rapprochement between Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, which had finally awoken from the Russian hypnosis, and the creation of an independent Albania. Everything else was negative. Serbia, enlarged and strengthened by the Balkan Wars, represented a greater threat than ever before, Romanian public opinion had shifted in Russia’s favour, raising the question as to whether it would break formally with the Triple Alliance and align itself with Russia, and Austria was confronted at every turn by a pro-Russian policy – in Paris, for example. Now that Turkey was no longer a European power, the only purpose behind a Russian-backed Balkan League could be the ultimate dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire itself, at least in its eastern and southern parts.

The memorandum focused on four key diplomatic objectives. First, the Germans must be brought into line with Austrian Balkan policy – Berlin had consistently failed to understand the gravity of the challenges Vienna faced on the Balkan peninsula and would have to be educated towards a more supportive attitude. Secondly, Romania should be pressed to declare where its allegiances lay. The Russians had been courting Romania, hoping to gain a new ally against Austria-Hungary. If the Romanians intended to ally themselves with the Entente, Austria-Hungary needed to know as soon as possible, so that arrangements could be made for the defence of Transylvania and eastern Hungary. Thirdly, an effort should be made to expedite the conclusion of an alliance with Bulgaria to counter the deepening relationship between St Petersburg and Belgrade. Finally, attempts should be made to woo Serbia away from its confrontation policy using economic concessions. However, Matscheko was sceptical as to whether these would be enough to overcome Belgrade’s antipathy.

There was an edgy note of paranoia in the memorandum, in keeping with the mood and cultural style of the early twentieth-century Habsburg empire. But there was no hint in it that any of the imperial diplomats regarded war as imminent, necessary or desirable. On the contrary, the focus was firmly on diplomacy following Vienna’s self-image as the exponent of a ‘conservative policy of peace’. Only Conrad, who had been recalled to the post of chief of staff in December 1912, remained committed to a war policy. But his authority was on the wane and he soon became implicated in a military spy scandal which threatened to end his career. Franz Ferdinand was still the most formidable obstacle to a war policy. The archduke, Conrad was informed, would countenance ‘under no circumstance a war with Russia’; he wanted ‘not a single plum tree, not a single sheep from Serbia, nothing was further from his mind.’ After further angry exchanges at the Bosnian summer manoeuvres of 1914, Franz Ferdinand resolved to rid himself of his troublesome chief of staff. Had the archduke survived his visit to Sarajevo, Conrad would have been dismissed from his post. The ‘hawks’ would have lost their most resolute and consistent spokesman.

In the meantime, there were signs of an improvement in diplomatic relations with Belgrade. The Austro-Hungarian government owned a 51 per cent share of the Oriental Railway Company, an international concern operating on an initially Turkish concession in Macedonia. Now that most of its track had passed under Serbian control, Vienna and Belgrade needed to agree on who owned the track, and who should be responsible for the cost of repairing war damage. Since Belgrade insisted on full Serbian ownership, negotiations began in the spring of 1914 to agree on a price and conditions of transfer. They were still ongoing when the archduke travelled to Sarajevo.

Ten forty-five a.m., 28 June 1914. Franz Ferdinand and Sophie leave the Sarajevo Town Hall, He is wearing a plume of green ostrich feathers, and it’s their wedding anniversary. Five minutes later they were both dead.

The Widening Circles of Mistrust:

Meanwhile, a transition of profound significance was taking place in the big picture of the European alliance systems: Britain was gradually withdrawing from its century-long commitment to bottle the Russians back into the Black Sea by sustaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. To be sure, British suspicion of Russia was still too intense to permit a complete relaxation of vigilance on the Straits. Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, refused in 1908 to accede to Izvolsky’s request for a loosening of the restrictions of Russian access to the Straits, notwithstanding the Anglo-Russian Convention signed the previous year. Meanwhile, underlying the disarray of the Triple Alliance was a development of far more fundamental importance. In the 1850s, a concert of powers had emerged to contain Russian designs on the Ottoman Empire – the result had been the Crimean War. This group had reconstituted itself in a different form after the Russo-Turkish War at the Conference of Berlin in 1878 and had regrouped during the Bulgarian crises of the mid-1880s, In the opening phase of the Italian war, the Ottoman Empire had sought a British alliance, but London, reluctant to alienate Italy, did not respond. The two Balkan Wars that followed then broke the concert beyond repair.

Right up until 1914, the Ottoman fleet on the Bosphorus was still commanded by a Briton, Admiral Sir Henry Limpus. But the gradual loosening of the British commitment to the Ottoman Empire created by degrees a geopolitical vacuum, into which Germany equally gradually slipped. In 1887, Bismarck had assured the Russian ambassador in Berlin that Germany had no objection to seeing the Russians as ‘masters of the Straits, possessors of the entrance to the Bosphorus and of Constantinople itself.’ However, after the departure of Bismarck in 1890 and the slackening of the traditional tie to Russia, Germany’s leaders sought closer links with Constantinople. Kaiser Wilhelm II made lavishly publicised journeys to the Ottoman Empire, and from the 1890s German finance was deeply involved in Ottoman railway construction, first in the Anatolian Railway, later in the famous Baghdad Railway, begun in 1903, which was supposed to connect Berlin via Constantinople to Iraq. The gradual replacement of Britain by Germany as the guardian of the Straits at this particular pre-war juncture was of momentous importance because it happened to coincide with the sundering of Europe into two alliance blocs. The question of the Turkish Straits, which had once helped to unify the European concert, was now ever more deeply implicated in the antagonisms of the bipolar system.

By the time the Ottomans sued for peace with the Italians in the autumn of 1912, the preparations for a major Balkan conflict were already well underway. At the time of the second Serbian invasion of northern Albania, with Conrad arguing, as usual, for war, Berchtold again agreed in general terms for a policy of military confrontation as did, unusually, Franz Josef. At this point, Franz Ferdinand and Tisza, for widely differing reasons, remained the only doves among the senior Austro-Hungarian decision-makers. The success of the ultimatum in securing the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Albania was itself seen as vindicating a more military style of diplomacy. This more militant attitude coincided with a growing awareness of the extent to which economic restraints were starting to limit Austro-Hungary’s strategic options. The partial mobilisations of the Balkan Wars had imposed immense financial strains on the monarchy. The extra costs for 1912-13 came to 390 million crowns, as much as the entire yearly budget for the Austro-Hungarian army, a serious amount at a time when the economy was entering a recession. Generally, the empire spent very little on its army; of the great powers, only Italy spent less. Austria-Hungary called up a smaller proportion of its population each year (0.27 per cent) than France (0.63 per cent) or Germany (0.46 per cent).

The years 1906-12 had been boom years for the empire’s economy, but very little of this wealth had been siphoned into the military budgets. The empire fielded fewer infantry battalions in 1912 than it had done in 1866, when its armies had faced the Prussians and Italians, despite a twofold increase in population over the same period. ‘Dualism’ was one reason for this, since the Hungarians consistently blocked military expansion, and the pressure to placate the minority nationalities with expensive infrastructural projects was another. To make matters worse, mobilisations in summer and/or early autumn seriously disrupted the agrarian economy, since they removed a large number of the rural workforce from harvest work. In 1912-13, the critics of the government could argue that peacetime mobilisations had incurred huge costs and disrupted the economy without doing much to enhance the empire’s security. Such tactical mobilisations were no longer an instrument the monarchy could afford to deploy. Hence the government’s flexibility in handling crises on the Balkan periphery was gravely diminished. Without the intermediate option of purely tactical mobilisations, decisions to advance would simply become matters of war or peace along extensive fronts.

A crucial precondition for these calculations was the refusal of the other powers – whether explicit or implicit – to allow Austria-Hungary to exercise its right to defend its close-range interests as a great power. The French and British were vague about the precise conditions under which a quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia might arise. French foreign minister, Poincaré, made no effort to define such criteria in his discussions with Ivzolsky, yet pressed for aggressive action in the winter of 1912-13, despite there as yet being no Austrian assault on Serbia. The British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, was a little more ambivalent and sought to differentiate: in a note to ‘Bertie’ in Paris, written on 4th December 1912, the same day as he issued a warning to Lichnowsky, the Russian foreign minister, Grey suggested that British reaction would depend upon ‘how the war broke out’:

‘If Servia provoked Austria and gave her just cause of resentment, feeling would be different from what it would if Austria were clearly aggressive.’

Grey to Bertie, London, 4th December 1912.

However, in an environment as polarised as central Europe in 1912-14, it was difficult to agree on what degree of provocation justified an armed response. The reluctance to integrate Austro-Hungarian security imperatives into the calculation was further evidence of how indifferent the other powers had become to the future integrity of the Dual Monarchy, possibly because they viewed it as the lapdog of Germany with no autonomous geopolitical identity, or because they suspected it of aggressive designs on the Balkan peninsula, or because they accepted the view that the monarchy had run out of time and must soon make way for younger and better successor states. One irony of this situation was that it made no difference whether the Habsburg foreign minister was a forceful character like Aehrenthal or a more emollient figure like Berchtold. The former was aggressive, the latter seemed subservient to Berlin. There was also a rose-tinted ‘Western’ view of Serbia as a nation of freedom fighters to whom the future had already been vouchsafed. In particular, the long-standing policy of French financial assistance continued. In January 1914, another large French loan, amounting to twice the Serbian state budget in 1912, arrived in Belgrade to cover Belgrade’s immense military expenditures. Pasic, simultaneously, negotiated a substantial military aid package with St. Petersburg, claiming (falsely) that Austria-Hungary was delivering similar goods to Bulgaria.

Grey adopted a latently pro-Serbian policy in the negotiations at the London Conference of 1913, favouring Belgrade’s claims over those of the new Albanian state, not because he supported the cause of a Greater Serbia but because he viewed the appeasement of Serbia as a key to the durability of the Entente. The resulting borders isolated half of the Albanian population outside the newly created Kingdom of Albania. Many of those who fell under Serb rule suffered persecution, deportation, mistreatment and massacres. Yet British ministers with links to the Serbian political élite at first suppressed and then downplayed the news of atrocities in the newly conquered areas. When this evidence mounted up, there were intermittent internal expressions of disgust, but nothing strong enough to modify a policy oriented towards ‘keeping the Russians on board’.

Eve of War – The Balkan ‘Trigger’:

Two further factors heightened the sensitivity of the ‘Balkan trigger’. The first was Austria-Hungary’s growing determination to check Serbian territorial ambitions. As already noted, decision-makers in Vienna gravitated towards more hawkish solutions as the situation in the Balkans deteriorated. The mood continued to fluctuate as crises came and went, but there was a cumulative effect: at each point, more key policy-makers aligned themselves with aggressive positions. The politicians also faced financial issues and the challenge of declining domestic morale. As the money ran out for peacetime mobilisations and anxieties grew about their effects on minority national recruits, Austria-Hungary’s repertoire of options narrowed, and its political outlook became less elastic. The last pre-war strategic review, the Matscheko Memorandum, prepared for Berchtold in June 1914, made no mention of military action as a means of resolving the many problems Austria faced on the peninsula.

The Second factor was Germany’s dependency on, and pursuit of, a ‘policy of strength’. This antagonised its neighbours and alienated potential allies, but as long as the policy continued to generate a deterrent effect to exclude the possibility of a combined assault by the opposing camp, the threat of isolation, though serious, was not overwhelming. By 1912, the massive scaling up of Entente military preparedness undermined the long-term feasibility of this approach. But if we conclude that Russia was looking for a preventative war with Germany, then the arguments for avoiding one in 1912, through politically costly concessions would have appeared much weaker. If there was no question of avoiding war, but only of postponing it, then it made sense to accept the war being offered by the antagonist at this point, rather than wait for a repetition of the same scenario under what would probably be much less advantageous circumstances. These thoughts weighed heavily on the German decision-makers during the ‘July Crisis’ that followed the assassinations at Sarajevo.

In the New Year of 1914, the Russian military journal Razvechik, widely viewed as the organ of the Imperial General Staff, offered a bloodcurdling projection of the coming war with Germany:

‘Not just the troops, but the entire Russian people must get used to the fact that we are arming ourselves for the war of extermination against the Germans and that the German empires must be destroyed, even if it costs us hundreds of thousands of lives.’

Cited in Hermann von Kuhl, Der deutsche Generalstab in Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Weltkrieges (Berlin, 1920), p. 72.

Semi-official verbal belligerence of this kind continued into the summer. What particularly alarmed policy-makers in Berlin was that this rhetoric was inspired by the Russian minister of war, Vladimir Sukhomlinov. A further article, We Are Ready, France Must Be Ready Too, appeared in the daily Birzheviia Vedmosti on 13th June and was widely reprinted in the French and German press. It sketched an impressive scenario of the immense military machine that would fall upon Germany in the event of war: the Russian army, it boasted, would soon number 2.3 million men, whereas Germany and Austria-Hungary would have only 1.8 million between them. In addition, thanks to the rapidly expanding strategic railway network, mobilisation times were plummeting. However, Sukhomlinov’s primary purpose was not to terrify the Germans, but to persuade the French government of the scale of Russia’s military commitment to the alliance and to remind his French counterparts that they too must carry their weight. All the same, its effect on German readers was disconcerting. One of these was the Kaiser, who splattered his translation with the usual spontaneous jottings, including the following:

‘Ha! At last the Russians have placed their cards on the table! Anyone in Germany who still doesn’t believe that Russo-Gaul is working towards an imminent war with us … belongs in the Dalldorf asylum!’

Wilhelm II, marginal notes to the translation of the same article, ibid., doc. 2, p. 3.

The German Foreign Secretary, Gottlieb von Jagow, believed that although Russia was not yet ready for war, it could soon ‘overwhelm’ Germany with its vast armies, Baltic Fleet and strategic railway programme. General Staff reports from 27th November 1913 to 7th July 1914 provided updated analyses of the Russian strategic railway programme, accompanied by a map on which the new arterial lines, most with numerous parallel rails, reaching deep into the Russian interior and converging on the German and Austro-Hungarian frontiers, were marked in stripes with brightly coloured ink. Intertwined with these concerns about Russia were doubts about the strength and reliability of Germany’s alliance with Austria-Hungary.

But then, at the end of June, came news of the events in Sarajevo, which were bound to have serious implications for Serbia. The independent kingdom was protected by Russia, and only Germany could help Austria-Hungary in that case. On the 5th of July, the Germans urged their allies to mobilise. They did so because they saw this as the last moment at which they could deal with Russia, and the diary of the German Chancellor’s secretary spells it out: if war now, we will win; if later, not. These diaries of the diplomat and philosopher, Kurt Riezler, Chancellor Bethmann’s closest advisor and confidant, convey the Chancellor’s thinking on 6th July 1914:

‘Russia’s military power growing swiftly, strategic reinforcement of the Polish salient will make the situation untenable. Austria steadily weaker and less mobile…

‘The Chancellor speaks of weighty decisions. The murder of Franz Ferdinand. Official Serbia involved. Austria wants to pull itself together. Letter from Franz Joseph with enquiry regarding the readiness of the alliance to act.

‘It’s our old dilemma with every Austrian action in the Balkans. If we encourage them, they will say we pushed them into it. If we counsel against it, they will say we left them in the lurch. Then they will approach the western powers, whose arms are open, and we lose our last reasonable ally.’

Karl Dietrich Erdmann (ed), Kurt Riezler; Tagbücher, Aufsatze, Dokumente (Göttingen,1972), diary entry, 7 July 1914, pp. 182-3. See also Clark’s note, p. 643.

During a conversation with Riezler the following day, Bethmann remarked that Austria-Hungary was incapable of ‘entering a war as our ally on behalf of a German cause’. (ibid., p. 182) By contrast, ‘war from the east’, born of a Balkan conflict and driven by, in the first instance, Austro-Hungarian interests, would ensure that Vienna’s interests were fully engaged. ‘If war comes from the east, so that we enter the field for Austria-Hungary and not Austria-Hungary for us, we have some prospect of success’. (ibid., diary for 8 July, p. 184). This argument mirrored exactly that of the French policy-makers, that a war of Balkan origin would engage Russia fully in a joint enterprise against Germany. Neither the French nor the German policy-makers trusted their respective allies to commit fully to a struggle in which their own country’s interests were not principally at stake. Now the Germans felt able to tell the Austrians to provoke a war. The Austrian Crown Council deliberated, and the Hungarian premier, István Tisza, alone, spoke against it. The Romanians, he said, would come in, and, in any case, the Empire did not need any more Slavs, such as would accrue if Serbia were crushed.

To be continued…(sources to be listed at the end of the next chapter/appendix).

Featured

Is Hungary’s Appeasement of Putin Justified by its Past Experiences?

Introduction:

The recent attempted assassination of the Slovak Prime Minister, Robert Fico, reminded many Hungarians, along with other Central Europeans, of the events leading to the outbreak of the First World War which ended with the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Hungary’s loss of two-thirds of its 1914 territories (as part of the ‘Dual Monarchy’ of Austria-Hungary) by the terms of the Treaty of Trianon (1920). Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, wasted little time in blaming this assassination attempt on what he has called ‘the EU’s war strategy’ of supporting Ukraine in its defensive war against Putin’s aggressive invasion of the country. Both Fico and Orbán have consistently opposed NATO sending weapons and armaments to Ukraine, and have prevented those from member countries from transiting through Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has also consistently resisted the EU’s imposition of economic sanctions on Russia. He has referred to those within Hungary and the rest of Europe who support the EU and NATO in these policies as ‘warmongers’: He has accused European leaders like Macron, Schulz, and Ursula von der Leyen of forming a ‘European War Party’ ahead of the EU elections in June and failing to learn the lessons of ‘the drift to war’ before the two world wars of the last century. My father was born in 1914 and my maternal grandfather in 1900; he was one of only a handful of recruits who survived the 1917 influenza epidemic in camp at Catterick and never made it to Flanders before the war ended. His uncle and elder brother, both named Alfred, joined the Navy. Uncle Alfred died on HMS Vanguard at Scapa Flow in 1916 and Brother Alfred survived, returning to service in the second war, training naval gunners. My wife’s family members survived the Second World War, the Nazi occupation of Hungary and the Holocaust. I was therefore keen to discover more about Hungary’s role in the origins and outbreak of these wars and to make an informed judgment as to whether these events can be described as a ‘drift’ to war and whether the leaders can be accurately described as ‘Sleepwalkers’.

Chapter One: The Dual Monarchy & the Origins of World War I

The Habsburg Empire before & after The Compromise of 1867:

Two military disasters defined the trajectory of the Habsburg Empire in the half-century to its demise. At Solferino in 1859, French and Piedmontese forces prevailed over a hundred thousand imperial troops. Then, at Köningratz on 3rd July 1866, the Prussians destroyed an Austrian army of 240,000 soldiers, ejecting the empire from the ambit of the emergent German nation-state. As a result, Austria became excluded from the German Confederation, which it had hoped to dominate. To the Hungarian premier, Ferenc Deák and his followers this, at first, seemed an undesirable outcome: they had calculated that if Austria had become preoccupied with its ‘Western mission’ again, Hungary would have acquired a better chance to recover its full autonomy within the Monarchy. However, on the other hand, they did not intend to weaken Habsburg power, from which they expected protection against German and Russian expansionism. Without the Austro-Germans, they would find themselves in a rump of the empire in which they were the most numerous ethnic group, but constituting less than half of the whole population. They therefore came to accept the idea that they would be better off in a two-state empire in which the western half would be transformed into a state, like Hungary, under one nation’s leadership. Then the positions of both leading nations in both halves of the empire would be consolidated by lending each other mutual support.

Ferenc Deák – a painting by Bertalan Székely, 1869. Déák (1803-1876) was a descendant of a family of medium estate owners in Transdanubia (Western Hungary) and a law graduate. He was a matchless figure both as a politician. He sought the framework, form, and formula for the compromises he served. Hundreds of anecdotes preserved his moral integrity and character; he was a witty conversationalist and debater. His published writings were on law and public life, but the many volumes represent a small fraction of the tremendous intellectual activity he displayed in his political life.

Gradually, Franz Josef himself started to prefer constitutional dualism to the alternatives of retaining the centralised structure and the federal reorganisation of the empire, as suggested by Slav national leaders and Prime Minister Count Richard Belcredi. In addition to Queen Elisabeth, whose pro-Hungarian sentiments have been subject to romantic exaggerations in Hungarian national legends, but were real enough, it was Baron Ferdinand Buest, Imperial Foreign Minister in 1866 and then Prime Minister (February 1867) who finally convinced the Emperor that the domestic precondition of revanche in Germany was compromise with the Hungarians. Thus, the cumulative effect of the military disasters transformed the inner life of the Austro-Hungarian lands as the absolutist Austrian Empire transformed into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Under the Compromise hammered out in 1867, power was shared between the two dominant nationalities. As Clark has described it,

‘What emerged was a unique polity, like an egg with two yolks, in which the Kingdom of Hungary and a territory centred on the Austrian lands and often called Cisleithania (meaning ‘the lands on this side of the River Leithe’) lived side by side within the translucent envelope of the Habsburg dual monarchy.’

Clark (2012), p. 65.

But first, Buest needed a Hungarian partner to negotiate with. Deák paved the way to the Compromise and had a party in the Hungarian Parliament to push it through, but was determined to remain an eminence grise at most in the new era. The Hungarian delegation that negotiated the Compromise in January and February 1867 was headed by Count Gyula Andrássy, who enjoyed the complete confidence of Deák and the Hungarian liberals, as well as the royal couple, even though he was on the list of émigrés hanged in effigy in 1849. Having returned to Hungary in 1857, he was an experienced politician with an instinctive skill for brilliant improvisations. Andrássy was appointed Prime Minister on 17th February. Besides him, the most important member of the delegation was Eötvös, who represented continuity with 1848 and became Minister of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs. Liberal commoners as well as aristocratic magnates were represented in Hungary’s third responsible ministry.

Devised by Ferenc Deák, the Compromise gave Hungary independence while keeping it in the Habsburg Empire; it also gave the kingdom its own government and parliament, with an upper house of dignatories and an elected Lower House, but the emperor as the king of Hungary appointed the government. To satisfy Hungarian demands, Transylvania was also fully absorbed into Hungary, and Hungarian law replaced the Austrian civil code. In June 1867, Franz Josef and Elisabeth were crowned king and queen of Hungary, and she too was invested with the royal sceptre and orb, an honour never before given to a queen of Hungary. That same year, Franz Josef published constitutions for both halves of the empire. From this point onwards, the Habsburg empire comprised two equal parts – a Hungarian part and a part for all the rest, which included the Austrian lands, Bohemia, Polish Galicia, the Adriatic coastline, and so on. The second had no obvious name and was officially known as the Lands and Kingdoms represented in the Imperial Council, and unofficially as ‘this side of Leitha’ (Cisleitha: the River marked Hungary’s western border).

Franz Josef and his family at Gödöllő, A lithograph, 1871. Elisabeth’s first journey to Hungary turned tragic. Her first-born daughter Sophia became ill in Debrecen and died suddenly. But the otherwise very sensitive queen stayed ever more gladly in Buda after the Compromise and coronation in 1867, especially at the palace in Gödöllő, which had been rebuilt as a royal summer residence. Later, as Elisabeth became increasingly estranged from her husband, she preferred to go to the Mediterranean in the summer, especially to the island of Corfu.

Predictably, Lajos Kossúth, the former Protector of Hungary, in exile since 1849, wrote an open letter, known as the Cassandra letter, to Ferenc Deák, his old associate, in which he claimed that the Dual Monarchy represented a sham independence. Kossúth was one of a minority who were unimpressed by the Compromise. In a series of open letters addressed by ‘the hermit of Turin’ to his countrymen, published on 26th May in a Pest journal, he argued that Deák’s policy culminated in abandoning Hungary’s claim to be an independent state, at a time when the 1866 crisis created the most auspicious circumstances to obtain independence. Köningrátz demonstrated that Austria was a dilapidated structure bound together merely by the Habsburg dynasty and doomed to collapse in the age of the nation-state. The Compromise involved a trap. Hungarian self-determination suffered irreparably from involvement in foreign policies that might be contrary to the nation’s interests, and might also throw it into conflict with the two Great Powers against which Deák sought protection and her neighbouring peoples whose friendship was essential for Hungary’s own wellbeing. Hungary lost the ‘mastery over her future’ and it would never be able to take advantage of the ever more frequently arising occasions to gain complete independence.

Kossuth was right in a very profound and prophetic sense, namely that Hungary’s twentieth-century history rather fatefully verified some of his predictions. At the same time, Deák was undoubtedly also right in pointing out that the ‘expected event’ (that is, the ultimate collapse of Austria) might not occur before it was too late ‘for our harrowed nation’ to take advantage of it. Deák never pretended that the Compromise was the best of all solutions, but he was convinced that it was the best of all possible ones. It corresponded to the social and national relations of power in 1867 and laid the foundations of a political establishment that was to last for half a century. On 8th June, Franz Josef I took the coronation oath on a mound constructed at the Pest side of the Chain Bridge from pieces of earth from all over the country, before being crowned on the Buda side in the Mátyás Cathedral, which had once been a Mosque under Ottoman occupation. It had been restored, and Franz Liszt (see the picture below) composed a Mass for the Coronation; the great aristocracy was present, in ornate national costume, and the master of ceremonies was Count Andrássy, trusted both by the Court and and the Habsburg politicians. Together with the Cardinal Archbishop, he was responsible for placing King István’s Crown on Franz Josef’s head. The Emperor sanctioned the sixty-nine Articles of Compromise four days later. A rebellious nation and an autocratic ruler seemed to have been reconciled and its status had been restored.

Ferenc Liszt giving a concert before the royal family in Buda Castle. A whole series of Central European artists, mainly musicians, and painters, were often identified as being of Austrian or German identity when they were really of Hungarian nationality and birth. Ferenc (or ‘Franz’) Liszt (1811-86) constantly claimed that he was Hungarian, albeit in broken Magyar. His virtuosity as a pianist made him internationally famous, a friend to Richard Wagner. Many Viennese Hungarian artists, together with Croatians and Czechs, used German as their common language. Liszt’s compositions were both startlingly modernistic and full of traditional Hungarian motifs, his real heir being Béla Bartók.

In one sense, and in retrospect, the coronation might seem like an act of decolonisation, the first of modern times, with all the pageantry of flags and anthems. At the time it was not thought likely to last. Without an army of its own, Kossuth argued, Hungary would be caught up in the interests of Germany. This was true, but if the new Monarchy could be made to work, it would protect Hungary. The existence of a united imperial army, under dynastic insignia and with German as the language of command, evoked resentment, and was only suffered because a separate Honvéd (along with the Austrian Landwehr) was also set up. The other delicate issue between Vienna and Budapest was the ‘economic compromise’: the customs union, commercial agreement, common currency, postal service, transport system, and the share of the two halves of the empire in the expenditure for common affairs, known as ‘the quota’ (30% in 1867; revised to 36.4% in 1907). To be renegotiated every ten years, the economic compromise was the only flexible element in what was otherwise a politically rigid settlement, one which held out the promise of redressing the supposedly unfavourable aspects of 1867 for both partners. The language of command in the armed forces and the quota system were constant causes for grumbling about the ‘constitutional issue’ (the relationship between the emperor and Hungary), which supplied the terms in which the rather shallow patriotism of the parliamentary opposition to the shape, though not the essence of the Compromise, was expressed through most of the fifty-one years of the Dual Monarchy.

Hungary was now the fourth European country, after Romania, Italy, and Germany, to get a form of national unification between 1859 and 1871. This development ended French hegemony as the new countries became, implicitly at first, part of a German one. In the two generations that followed, Hungary flourished. Where the Compromise went wrong was in Austria, which had been saddled with a centralising parliament with a rigged German majority, and all local grievances could be raised there. Bureaucratic rules were drawn up in such detail that only lawyers could handle them. There were seven thousand of them in the Austrian Empire, compared with 162 in late Victorian Britain. Hungary also developed a workable parliament and a programme of national modernisation.

Nevertheless, the two halves of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the new official name of the new state in 1868, remained, ‘inseparable and indivisible’. Foreign policy and the army were regarded as ‘common matters’ and were overseen by ‘common ministries’ of foreign affairs and war, to which was added a third ministry of finance, with responsibility for funding the other two. In all other respects, the two governments were separate, with the prime minister of Hungary regarding his counterpart as a ‘distinguished foreigner’. Since Hungary now had its own government, the name of the empire changed from the Austrian Empire to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (or Austria-Hungary for short). This came about, with symbolic significance, because in trade treaties the term ‘Austro-Hungarian Monarchy’ had to be used. The ‘Austro’ referred to all the Habsburg lands, including Hungary, and all imperial officials bore the title kaiserlich-königlich (‘imperial-royal’), referring to all the ‘kingdoms’, including Bohemia and Croatia, later changed to Kaiserlich und königlich, which recognised the special status of the Kingdom of Hungary.

Above the ministries sat the Crown Council, made up of three common ministers, the prime ministers of Hungary and Cisleithania, and whomever Franz Josef chose to invite. The Crown Council was the emperor’s instrument for keeping control of foreign policy and the army. The new ‘dual monarchy’ had parliaments and Cisleithia also had elected diets, but its governance was not parliamentary. The emperor conducted his own foreign policy and military deployments, with minimal parliamentary oversight. Franz Josef also retained the right to legislate by decree, again with few constraints, which meant that he could bypass or substitute for the parliamentary process. He also had the power to dissolve the Vienna parliament, though not the one in Budapest, and to impose ministries without parliamentary approval. To that extent, absolutism survived.

Queen Elisabeth – A painting by Gyula Benczúr, 1861. She was one of the most beautiful women of her time, and her enigmatic sadness only served to enhance her sex appeal. Her love-marriage could not possibly succeed, at least not for the other party. Her husband was ultra-conservative, and although a dual monarch, petty bourgeois in his outlook on life, pedantic and small-minded, contrasting sharply with the sensitive and freedom-loving nature of the accomplished Elisabeth. In addition, she was somewhat neurotic, a temperament she transmitted to her son Rudolph, the heir to the throne. Although liberal in outlook and open to modernisation, it was her temperament and disposition to suicide that Rudolph inherited, with tragic consequences.

More importantly, the empire survived, but it was not just a matter of finding a constitutional formula to satisfy Hungarian aspirations. Franz Josef was unloved in Hungary, not least for killing the kingdom’s generals, but ‘Sisi’ had the glamour and passion for Hungary that reconciled Hungarians to Habsburg rule. She was their queen, who spoke their language, wore their national dress, and went to hunt in their fields. Back in 1866, she had asked Franz Josef to buy her Gödöllő Palace, to the east of the capital. He had grumpily refused, explaining that ‘in these hard times, we must save mightily.’ The following year, the newly installed Hungarian government led by Count Andrássy bought it for her, as the nation’s gift on her coronation. Andrássy had no doubt of Sisi’s contribution to the 1867 settlement between the monarch and Hungary. However, for the other nationalities of the new Austro-Hungarian Empire, Sisi showed little empathy, being particularly disdainful of Czechs and Italians. However, her inconsistencies and eccentricities should not conceal how her intervention in Hungarian affairs fitted into a larger pattern of queenly conduct. Despite recollections of Maria Theresa and the example of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), there were fewer regnant queens than in previous centuries, and females had been expressly barred from succession in France, Spain, Sweden, and Prussia. Instead, it was as consorts that queens became influential, particularly in rebuilding the monarchy’s image. The closest parallel to Sisi was Queen Alexandra, the consort of Britain’s Edward VII (1901-1910), who was elegant, striking in appearance, and a meddler in politics.

The dualist compromise had many detractors at the time and has had many critics since. In the eyes of ‘hardline’ Magyar nationalists, it was a sell-out that denied Hungarians the full independence they had fought for. At the time, some claimed that Austria was still exploiting Hungary as an agricultural colony. Moreover, Vienna’s refusal to relinquish control over the armed forces and permit the creation of a separate and equal Hungarian army was particularly contentious, with a constitutional crisis over this in 1905 leading to the political paralysis of the Empire. On the other hand, Austrians argued that the Hungarians were freeloading on the more advanced economy of the Austrian lands, and ought to pay a higher share of the empire’s running costs. This conflict was now built into the dual monarchy because the Compromise required the two halves of the imperial system to renegotiate the customs union by which revenues and taxation were shared between them. The Hungarians’ demands increased with every review of the union until there was little left in it to continue to recommend it to the political élites of the other national minorities, who had in effect been placed under the domination of the two ‘master races’. The first post-Compromise prime minister, Gyula Andrássy, captured this aspect of settlement when he commented to his Austrian counterpart, “You look after your Slavs and we’ll look after ours.” (Cited in Alan Sked, The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, 1815-1914. New York, 1991: p. 190.)

Ethnic Minorities within the Austro-Hungarian Empire of 1868:

The Court wanted revenge against Prussia and looked for alliance with the south German states; a former Prime Minister of Saxony, Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust, who detested Bismarck, was now in charge of foreign affairs. He had pushed for the Compromise because his programme needed taxes and recruits and wanted the Hungarian problem out of the way. The German liberals, thanks to the electoral system, could now dominate a purely Austrian parliament that would not include Hungarian deputies. They were now free to realise their programme, to ignore the Bohemian grandees with their ‘claptrap’ about Bohemian state rights, to put Czech nationalists back in their box, and to cut back the powers of the Church. They meant to create a progressive state, as their counterparts were doing elsewhere, together with the centralising bureaucracy, schools, inheritance taxes, laws, law degrees, and lawyers. The Hungarians, on their side, also wanted wide autonomy so that they could remake the nation in their way, without reference to Austrian centralisers, who were always encouraging the non-Magyar peoples of Hungary to demand rights. Laws were passed from 1867 to 1869 in both parliaments to further establish the new arrangements.

It was well understood in Austria that the Compromise was arguably the only way to preserve the great power status of the Habsburg Monarchy and that in Hungary it not only increased the chances of national survival but also offered a means to partake of that great power status. Though none of the defence ministers, and few in the high command of the armed forces of the Dual Monarchy were Hungarian, thirty percent of the diplomatic corps and four out of ten foreign ministers were subjects of the Hungarian Crown. It is therefore not surprising that, in an age when nationalism was dominant in the attitudes and ambitions of powers great and small, Hungarian nationalists became dazzled by the prospect of governing a demi-empire, whose economic and demographic dynamism might soon shift the intra-imperial balance of power in their favour and even compel the Habsburg dynasty to remove its residence from Vienna to Budapest. On the domestic front, there was certainly a convincing argument in favour of the Compromise that for the two leading nations of the Habsburg monarchy, it did represent a shift from absolutist to liberal representative government, albeit with shortcomings, and for the bulk of the Hungarian liberals some of these made it more attractive than potential alternatives. The strong personal power of the ruler was not one of these, however, and the discretionary powers reserved for Franz Josef maintained his influence in the domestic affairs of both states, whereas his Cabinet and Military bureaus played roles equal to that of the joint ministries in common affairs. Relying on a broad network of unofficial advisors, whose loyalty he could rely on, he exerted a personal influence across a wide range of policy matters.

At the time, Hungary had a population of some thirteen million, mostly either illiterate or literate in a language other than Magyar. There was a country to build, and there was a formula at hand as to how this should be done: it was the ‘Age of Progress’ and classical liberalism, and an accompanying optimism dominated thinking in the 1860s. The British example was plain for travelers to see; Gladstonian liberalism, emphasising the rule of law through parliament was in its heyday and so was the Gold Standard, controlled by an independent central bank. Mass education was important, and the schools of that era were built along Greek and Roman lines. Town planning and public health and hygiene were developing, and doctors were being fully consulted. The ‘limited company’ was becoming increasingly important for commerce, encouraging competition and free trade. Classical liberalism could develop more easily in the framework of nation-states in a decade that started with national unification in Italy and ended with Bismarck’s ceremony at Versailles setting up the German Empire.

At its inception, liberalism in Hungary was the creation of noblemen, largely directed to offset, moderate, or exploit the effects of capitalist development in a predominantly rural society. After the waning of the enthusiasm of the Age of Reform and the Revolution of 1848, the dismantling of feudalism took place. Relations of dependence and hierarchy and the traditional respect for authority were preserved in attitudes. Liberal equality remained a fiction even within the political élite. The Compromise was, after all, a conservative step, checking whatever emancipationalist momentum Hungarian liberalism could still muster. Instead, it became increasingly confined to the espousal of free enterprise, the introduction of modern infrastructure, and, with considerable delay, the secularisation of the public sphere and the regulation of state-church relations. Political remained in the hands of the traditional élite, with which newcomers were assimilated, with roughly eighty percent of MPs permanently drawn from the landowning classes. The franchise, extending to about six percent of the population throughout the period, was acceptable at its beginning, but grossly anachronistic by its end in comparison with much of the rest of Europe. Since most rural districts fell under the patrimony of local magnates and their groups, elections were, as a rule, ‘managed’ and there was large-scale patronage at all levels of administration. Hungary’s political liberalism during the time of Kalman Tisza’s premiership from 1875 to 1890 resembled that of England during Walpole’s ‘whig oligarchy’ of a century and a half earlier. Yet, since the Hungarian parliament was largely independent of the crown, it was ‘more free’ than any other east of the Rhine.

The development of European nation-states required strong national armies, and the example for building these was Prussian. Instead of taking recruits on an indenture of twenty-five years, Prussia had instituted a system of conscription, giving peasant boys three or more years’ training, after which they went into a reserve that could be called up in wartime. This had the great advantage of making the conscripts feel part of the nation. Austria-Hungary introduced conscription in 1868, and Russia in 1874. The Habsburg Empire still counted as a great power with a large and newly reformed army, which also enabled it to cooperate to keep the peace.

It was in these circumstances that the Hungarians took their place within the Habsburg state; Gyula Andrássy became Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1871, and Hungarians had more than their due share of ambassadors and ministers. In 1867 there was an air of euphoria in Budapest as a cabinet of magnates took office. At this time many of the great aristocrats took their national role very seriously, following the example of the British House of Lords, which produced many experts in economics and social reform. In Hungary, Count Lónyay turned out to be an excellent Finance Minister. The English journalist Henry Wickham Steed, who wrote a classic on the Habsburg Monarchy, had reservations about Hungary, but he did notice the rise in intelligence that occurred as the Danube steamer moved from Vienna, with its smug aristocracy, to Budapest.

Gyula Andrássy was the first Prime Minister, and among his first tasks was to make a new capital. The Chain Bridge had linked Buda and Pest, and these two, with Óbuda, were conjoined in 1873 as Budapest, with a powerful mayor, strongly supported by commercial interests. The new Hungary was self-consciously liberal and adopted various arrangements accordingly. Now that there was a proper Hungarian finance ministry, and now that laws and courts guaranteed investment, Austrian capital flowed in. The city’s situation, with the hills of Buda on one side of the Danube, and the plain of Pest on the other, was magnificent, and the roads were laid out sensibly with two concentric rings of boulevards, Andrássy and Rákóczi, cutting across them. The intersection of the great boulevard (Teréz) and Andrássy Avenue was an eight-sided square, the Oktogon, with fashionable cafés, and beyond it the avenue was studded with enormous villas, often occupied by embassies. The opera house was added in 1884, and there were endless theatres, as the city’s cultural life showed much vigour. In the earlier period, the architecture tended to copy the Austrian styles, but after 1890a distinctly Hungarian note was struck as both Budapest and several provincial cities were given ‘Secessionist’ (Art Nouveau) makeovers. By 1900, Budapest was heading to become a million-strong city, and much of it was a building site. As the country’s showcase capital, it was a dramatic triumph.

Ethnic Minorities in Imperial Hungary in the Nineteenth Century:

The particular engine of growth was the railway, which eventually made the fortunes of the estate holders. If they had a station near their lands, they could load agricultural produce, mainly grain, and sell it to the ‘captive’ Austrian markets. Proto-industrialisation meant food processing, particularly flour production, and distilling; then came true industrialisation with the growth of textiles and machinery. Austrian Germans and Czechs made up a quarter of the skilled artisans and railwaymen, while the overwhelming majority of Magyars were peasants. In 1900, five million of them were without land, seven million had some land, a third of whom had less than the seven acres needed for subsistence. The new Hungary was therefore dominated by estate owners, magnates of the Eszterházy-Károlyi class in the Upper House, or gentry with middling-sized estates who occupied most parliamentary seats. This was a gentlemen’s parliament, with clubs where men could meet informally. In the first years, under Andrássy, enlightened laws were passed like those of 1868 concerning the non-Magyar minorities, providing them with schools and law courts, which were rewards for the way they had accepted the Compromise. József Eötvös did much for education, especially teacher training. An attempt was made to curb the power of the counties: now that Austrian interference was no longer to be expected, that autonomy, so often associated with pig-headed provincialism, would just be a nuisance for governments.

Besides the many-sided tensions involved in the settlement of Austro-Hungarian relations, others arose from the limited blessings of constitutionalism and did not satisfy those citizens of Austria and Hungary who did not belong to either of the two leading nations. In the Austrian sphere, ‘dualism’ was unacceptable to the Czechs, who either demanded the federal reorganisation of the empire, or hoped for ‘trialism’, and could not be placated by the mere transfer of the Czech coronation insignia from Vienna to Prague. The less ambitious claim of autonomy voiced by the Poles of Galicia was refused, lest it should provoke Russian resentment. Austro-German hegemony was thus preserved in Austria, just as Hungarian supremacy survived in Hungary.

The Royal Habsburg Coat of Arms, from the Biblioteque Nationale de France.

The case of the Croats was unique, similar to that of the Czechs beyond the Leitha on account of the ‘historical legitimacy’ of their claims of self-government. After the Compromise, their status was put on a new footing in the Hungarian-Croat constitutional agreement (Nagodha) of 1868. Like the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, it was a treaty of union, but unlike its counterpart, this was a union of unequal partners. Croatia was acknowledged as a ‘political nation with a separate territory, and an independent legislature and government in its domestic affairs.’ However, the latter were confined to internal administration, the judiciary, and educational and ecclesiastical affairs. As regards the common affairs of the empire as a whole, Croats were represented by six members of the Hungarian delegation. In the common affairs of Hungary and Croatia, the forty-two deputies of the Croatian Sabor in the Hungarian parliament constituted a minority that could be easily outvoted. Also, while the Ban of Croatia was responsible for the state sabor, his appointment by the monarch required the Hungarian government’s approval, thus restricting Croatian autonomy. Although the agreement secured important elements of statehood and a broad range of opportunities to develop national cultural and political institutions, it is little wonder that the Croatian Sabor had to be dissolved repeatedly before a pro-Hungarian majority could be secured to get the Nagodba voted through.

This was still far more than the other nationalities felt they received in what was at that time, ironically, the only comprehensive piece of legislation in Europe apart from Switzerland that addressed the respective status of ethnic groups within the polity, and a remarkably liberal one. Although the endeavour to satisfy the ‘reasonable’ demands of the nationalities was a frequent theme in public discourse on the eve of the Compromise. Law XLIV of 1868 became established on the principle that ‘all Hungarian citizens constitute a nation in the political sense, the one and indivisible Hungarian nation’, that is, on the fiction of a Magyar nation-state on the Western European model. It denied the political existence, and thus the claims to collective rights and political institutions, of the national minorities, for whom the assertion that ‘every citizen of the fatherland … enjoys equal rights, regardless of the national group to which he belongs’ was meager compensation. At the same time, in granting individual rights the law was thoroughly liberal, even surpassing in some respects the demands of the nationalities themselves. It gave extensive opportunities for the use of their native tongues in the administration, at courts, in education, and in religious life; the right of association made it possible to establish cultural, educational, artistic, or economic societies and schools using any language; and the law even required the state to promote primary and secondary schooling in the mother tongue and the participation of the ethnic minorities in public service.

The Repolarisation of Europe, 1887-1907:

By comparing the diagrammatic maps above and below for 1887 and 1907, the outlines of a transformation can be discerned. The first map shows a multi-polar system, in which a plurality of forces and interests balance each other in a precarious equilibrium. The conflicting interests in the Balkans gave rise to tensions between Russia and Austria-Hungary, Italy and Austria were rivals in the Adriatic and quarreled intermittently over the status of Italophone communities within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There were also rivalries and tensions between Britain, France, Italy, and Germany over northern Africa. These pressures were held in check by the patchwork of the 1887 System. The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (20th May 1882) prevented the tensions between Rome and Vienna from breaking into open conflict. The (defensive) Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and Russia (18th June 1887) contained articles deterring either power from seeking its fortunes in war with another continental state and insulated the Russo-German relationship against the fallout from Austro-Russian tensions. However, both also agreed that neutrality would not apply if Germany attacked France or Russia attacked Austria-Hungary. The Russo-German link also ensured that France would be unable to build an anti-German coalition with Russia. Britain was loosely tied into the continental system by the Mediterranean Agreement of 1887 with Italy and Austria – an exchange of notes rather than a treaty, whose purpose was to thwart French challenges in the Mediterranean and Russian ones in the Balkans or Turkish Straits.

By 1907, the picture had changed utterly into one of a bipolar Europe organised around two alliance systems. The Triple Alliance was still in place, though Italy’s commitment to it had weakened considerably. France and Russia were conjoined in the Franco-Russian Alliance (drafted in 1892 and ratified in 1894), which stipulated that if any member of the Triple Alliance should mobilise, the two signatories would ‘at the first news of this event and without any previous agreement being necessary,’ mobilise immediately the whole of their forces and deploy them ‘with such speed that Germany shall be forced to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West’. It would be some years before these loose alignments tauten into the coalitions that would fight the First World War in Europe, but the profiles of two armed camps were already visible by 1908.

The polarisation of Europe’s geopolitical system was a crucial pre-condition for the war that broke out in 1914. At the same time, though, it is almost impossible to see how a crisis in Austro-Serbian relations, however grave, could have dragged all the major powers into a continental war. The bifurcation into two alliance blocs did not cause the war; indeed, it did as much to mute as to escalate the conflict in the pre-war years. Yet without the two blocs, the war could not have broken out in the way it did. The bipolar system structured the environment in which crucial decisions were made. To understand how that polarisation took place, it is necessary to answer four interlinked questions: Why did Russia and France form an alliance against Germany in the 1890s? Why did Britain decide to throw in its lot with that alliance? What role did Germany play in bringing about its own encirclement by a hostile condition? To what extent can the structural transformation of the alliance system account for the events that brought war to Europe and the world in 1914?

Looking after the Slavs:

At first, the opponents of the Nationalities’ Law (XLIV) of 1868 criticised its shortcomings, but later they mainly complained because it was increasingly neglected by the Hungarian authorities. Its major drawback was that it contained no guarantees. Contrary to the spirit of Eötvös and Deák, their successors interpreted the concept of the equality of all Hungarian citizens meant that all non-Magyars who assimilated with Magyars would be considered as equal. From the 1880s on, Magyarisation was no longer merely ‘encouraged with all legally permissible means’, but also enforced with some means that evaded or violated the law of 1868. The relationship between the two halves of the empire, the archaisms of the political system, and the nationalities’ question were ‘time bombs’ that the Compromise had placed in the structure of dualist Hungary. Nevertheless, it took a long time, and the effect of international events, for these bombs to explode. Dualism in Hungary is generally reckoned to have been in a crisis during the whole of the second half of the period of the Monarchy, yet the stirrings on the ‘constitutional issue’ were not sufficient to shake it, and the dynamism of economic and cultural progress did much to blunt the edge of the social and the nationality issues from the 1890s through to the 1910s. As a result, the inertia of the peculiarly- modernised Magyar old régime lasted only until its military defeat in the First World War. For these reasons, the tension-ridden era also had an atmosphere of ‘perma-crisis’.

The most significant international events of the period revolved around the independent Balkan states, especially Serbia, and their impact on the Slav nationalities in the southern and eastern parts of the dual monarchy. Debates on internal economic issues in Austria-Hungary took place against a background of seemingly permanent unrest in the Balkans. In 1873, urged by Bismarck who wanted to surmount the diplomatic isolation of Germany resulting from its previous wars, and contrary to the personal intentions of Andrássy who had hoped to use the Habsburg Monarchy to prevent the expansion of Russia, the Three Emperors League was concluded. Not even after the outbreak of an anti-Ottoman uprising in Hercegovina and Bulgaria in 1875 brought the conflicting interests of Russia and Austria-Hungary to the surface. After the defeats of the revolts and the intervention of Serbia and Montenegro in their favour by the Turks, the two powers defined and separated their interests in protracted negotiations, as a result of which Russia could also count on the neutrality of Austria-Hungary in the war it declared on the Ottoman Empire in 1877. However, Russian arms proved too successful, and the Russians were deterred from marching on Constantinople by the appearance of the British fleet. In March 1878 they concluded the Peace of San Stefano, practically ending Ottoman rule in the Balkans and creating Greater Bulgaria, which was unacceptable to any of the Great Powers.

It was on the insistence of Andrássy that the Berlin Congress convened in July 1878 to revise the settlement in the Balkans. Russia was forced to make concessions: Bulgaria’s growth was checked, while the full independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro was acknowledged, and Austria-Hungary was entrusted with the occupation and administration of Bosnia-Hercegovina. The diplomatic gain could only be made real on the ground by a three-month campaign with several thousand casualties. This gave rise to intense debate in Austria-Hungary, with some politicians demanding annexation rather than mere occupation and others being concerned about a further increase in the Slav element in the population of the Dual Monarchy. Although in 1881, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia signed a secret agreement guaranteeing the status quo in the Balkans, Russia no longer figured in the diplomatic imperial schemes. The cornerstone of its foreign policy was the Dual Alliance with Germany in 1879, expanded to the Triple Alliance with the inclusion of Italy in 1882. There was also a network of Russian agreements with the Balkan states (Serbia in 1881 and Romania in 1883) that ensured the Monarchy’s hegemony in the peninsula. As for Bosnia-Hercegovina, it was relegated to the status as the province of the Common finance minister and was pacified in the early 1880s when that post was occupied by the Hungarian Béni Kállay, an expert in southern Slav relations. However, through its expansion in the Balkans, the empire got entangled in a web from which it was never to escape. The occupation was immediately and immensely unpopular in Hungary and, in the face of uproar in parliament, PM Kalman Tisza’s cabinet resigned, though Tisza himself was retained in office by the monarch until 1890.

As Christopher Clark has written in his recent book Sleepwalkers (2012), Serbia’s commitment to the redemption of its lands, coupled with the predicaments of its exposed location between two land empires, endowed the foreign policy of the Serbian state with… distinctive features (Sleepwalkers: 24). The first of these was the indeterminacy of geographical focus, by which Cook meant that the principle of commitment to a Greater Serbia did not indicate where exactly the process of redemption should begin. There were various alternatives: Vojvodina, in the Kingdom of Hungary; Ottoman-controlled Kosovo; Bosnia and Hercegovina, never part of Serbia’s empire but containing a large Serbian minority (43 percent of the 1878 population), or Macedonia in the south, also still under Ottoman rule. The mismatch between the vision of ‘unification’ and the meager resources available to the Serbian state meant that Belgrade policy-makers could only respond opportunistically to rapidly changing conditions on the Balkan peninsula. As a result, Serbian foreign policy swung like a compass needle between 1844 and 1914, from one point on the state’s periphery to another.

The logic of these opportunistic oscillations was, as often as not, reactive. In 1848, when the Serbs of Vojvodina rose up against the Magyarising policies of the Hungarian revolutionary government, the Serbian government chose to assist them with volunteer forces. In 1875, all eyes were on Hercegovina, where Serbs had risen against the Ottomans under their military commander and future king Petar Karadjordjevic. After 1903, following an abortive local uprising against the Turks, there began intensified interest in ‘liberating’ the Serbs of Macedonia. In 1908, when the Austrians formally annexed Bosnia and Hercegovina, having occupied them since 1878, these annexed territories became the main priority for Serbian nationalists. Still, by 1912-13, Macedonia once more topped their agenda.

Serbian foreign policy had to struggle with the gap between the visionary nationalism that dominated the country’s political culture and the complex ethnopolitical realities of the Balkans. Kosovo was, and still is, at the centre of Serbian mythology, but it was not, in ethnic terms, a purely or even mainly Serb territory. Muslim Albanian speakers have been in the majority there since at least the eighteenth century, although the exact population of ‘Old Serbia’ (comprising Kosovo, Metohija, Sandzak, and Bujanovac) is unknown. Many of the Serbs whom Vuk Karadzic counted in Dalmatia and Istria were, in fact, Croats, who had no wish to join a greater Serbia. Bosnia and Hercegovina, two provinces under Hungarian occupation, contained a combined majority of Catholic Croats (20%) and Bosnian Muslims (33%). The mismatch between national visions and ethnic realities made it highly likely that realising Serbian objectives would be a violent process. Some statesmen met this challenge by trying to package these within a more generous ‘Serbo-Croat’ political vision encompassing the idea of multi-ethnic collaboration.

The last decades before the outbreak of the Great War were increasingly dominated by the struggle for national rights among the empire’s eleven official nationalities. Besides the Germans, Hungarians, and indigenous Slav minorities, these also included Poles and Italians. How these challenges were met varied between the two halves of the empire. The Hungarians dealt with nationalities’ problems as if they didn’t exist. The result was that the Magyar deputies, although representing just over 48 per cent of the population, controlled over 90 percent of the parliamentary seats. The three million Romanians in Transylvania, the largest of the kingdom’s national minorities, comprising fifteen percent of its population, held only five of its four hundred seats. Furthermore, as already noted, from the late 1870s, the Hungarian government pursued a campaign of aggressive Magyarisation through which education laws imposed the use of the Magyar language on all state and church schools and even kindergartens. Teachers were required to be fluent in Magyar and could be dismissed if they were found to be ‘hostile to the state’. This degradation of language rights was underwritten by harsh measures against ethnic minority activists. As also already noted, Serbs from Vojvodina in the south, Slovaks from the northern counties, and Romanians from Transylvania did occasionally collaborate in pursuit of minority objectives, but with little effect, since they could muster only a few mandates.

In the Austrian lands, by contrast, successive administrations tampered endlessly with the political system to accommodate minority demands. Franchise reforms in 1882 and 1907 (when virtually universal male suffrage was introduced) went some way towards leveling the political playing field. At the same time, however, these democratising measures merely heightened the potential for national conflict, especially over the sensitive question of language use in public institutions such as schools, courts, and administrative bodies. So intense did the nationalities’ conflict become that in 1912-14 multiple parliamentary crises crippled the legislative life of the monarchy. The Bohemian Diet had become so difficult for the Austrians that in 1913 their prime minister, Count Karl Stürgkh, dissolved it, installing an imperial commission to run the province. Czech protests against this brought the imperial (Cisleithanian) diet to its knees in March 1914, so Stürgkh dismissed this too, and it was still suspended when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in July so that Cisleithania’s was in effect being run by an absolutist administration when war broke out. Meanwhile, in Hungary in 1912, following protests in Zagreb and other southern Slav cities against an unpopular governor, the Croatian Diet and constitution were suspended; in Budapest itself, the last pre-war years witnessed the advent of a kind of parliamentary absolutism focused on protecting Magyar hegemony against the challenge posed by minority national opposition and the demand for franchise reform.

Clark has argued, however, that while the apparent chaos in the Austro-Hungarian Empire might appear to support the view that it was a moribund polity, whose disappearance from the political map was merely a matter of time, in reality, the roots of Austro-Hungary’s political turbulence (Clark, 2012: p. 68) were less deep than those appearances suggested. Certainly, there was intermittent inter-ethnic conflict – riots in Ljubliana in 1908 and Czech-German brawls in Prague – but it never came to the levels of violence experienced in the contemporary Russian Empire. And, despite the obvious political turmoil, the Habsburg lands also passed through a last pre-war decade of strong economic growth with a corresponding rise in general prosperity, an important point of contrast with the contemporary Ottoman Empire. Free markets and competition across the empire’s vast customs union stimulated technical progress and the introduction of new products. The scale and diversity of the dual monarchy meant that new industrial plants benefited from sophisticated networks of cooperating industries underpinned by an effective transport infrastructure and a high-quality service and support sector. These economic effects were particularly evident in Hungary. In the 1840s, Hungary had been the ‘larder’ of the empire – 90 percent of its exports to Austria were agricultural products. But by the years 1909-13, Hungarian industrial exports had risen to 44 percent, while the constantly growing demand for cheap foodstuffs from the Austro-Bohemian industrial region ensured that the Hungarian agricultural sector survived in the best of health, protected by the ‘Habsburg common market’ from Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian and American competition.

For the Monarchy as a whole, most economic historians agree that the period 1887-1913 saw an ‘industrial revolution’, or at least a ‘take-off’ into self-sustaining growth, with the usual indices of expansion. In the last years before the world war, Austria-Hungary in general, and Hungary in particular, with an average growth rate of 4.8 percent, was one of the fastest-growing economies in Europe. Even a critical observer like the Times correspondent in Vienna, Henry Wickham Steed, recognised in 1913 that the “race struggle” in Austria was, in essence, a competition for shares within the existing system:

“The essence of the language struggle is that it is a struggle for bureaucratic influence. Similarly, the demands for new Universities or High Schools put forward by Czechs, Ruthenes, Slovenes, and Italians but resisted by the Germans, Poles or other races, … are the demands for the creation of new machines to turn out potential officials whom the political influence of Parliamentary parties may then be trusted to hoist into bureaucratic appointments.”

Henry Wickham Steed, The Hapsburg Monarchy (London, 1919), p. 77.

Each of the two territories had its own parliament, but there was no common prime minister or cabinet. Only foreign affairs and defence were handled by ‘joint ministers’ who were answerable directly to the Emperor. Matters of common interest could not be discussed in a common parliamentary session because that would have implied the inferiority of the Kingdom of Hungary within the ‘dual monarchy’. Instead, an exchange of views took place between ‘delegations’ of thirty deputies from each parliament meeting alternately in Vienna and Budapest.

There was, moreover, slow but discernable progress towards a more equitable policy on nationality rights. The equality of all the subject nationalities and languages in Austria was formally recognised in the Basic Law of 1867. Throughout the last peacetime years of the empire’s existence, the Cisleithian authorities continued to adjust the system in response to national minority demands. The Galician Compromise agreed in the Galician Diet in Lemburg (now Lviv in western Ukraine) in January 1914, for example, ensured a fixed proportion of mandates in an enlarged regional legislature to the under-represented Ruthenes (Ukrainians) and promised the imminent establishment of a Ukrainian university. After that, even the Hungarian administration was showing signs of a change in attitude towards minorities as the international climate worsened. The southern Slavs of Croatia-Slavonia were promised the abolition of extraordinary powers by the Hungarian state and a guarantee of freedom of the press, while a message went out to Transylvania that the government in Budapest intended to grant many of the demands of the Romanian majority in the province.

These case-by-case adjustments to specific demands suggested that the system might eventually produce a comprehensive framework of guaranteed nationality rights. There were signs that the administrations of the dual monarchy were getting better at responding to the material demands of their minorities. Of course, it was the Habsburg state that performed this role, not the beleaguered parliaments. The proliferation of school boards, town councils, county commissions, and mayoral elections ensured that the state intersected with the life of ‘ordinary’ citizens more intimately and consistently than political parties and legislative assemblies. It slowly metamorphosed from a constant instrument of repression into a broker among manifold social, economic, and cultural interests. But most of the empire’s subjects still associated the state primarily as the provider of good government: public education, welfare, sanitation, the rule of law, and the maintenance of a sophisticated infrastructure. This meant that the Habsburg bureaucracy was costly to maintain – expenditure for domestic administration rose by 336 percent during the years 1890-1911. Nevertheless, the memories of this period of civic pride and apparent prosperity lingered long after the empire’s demise and well into the 1920s, when the writer and engineer looked back on the empire in the last peaceful year of its existence as one of …

white, broad, prosperous streets … that stretched like rivers of order, like ribbons of bright military serge, embracing the lands with the paper-white arm of administration.

Robert Musil, Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Hamburg, 1978, pp. 32-3.

Finally, Clark points out that most minority activists acknowledged the value of their Habsburg commonwealth as a system of collective security. The bitterness of inter-ethnic conflicts between minority nationalities – Croats and Serbs in Croatia-Slavonia, for example, or Poles and Ruthenians in Galicia, suggested that the creation of separate national entities might cause more problems than it resolved. Moreover, it was difficult to envisage how a patchwork of nation-states would survive without the empire’s protection. In 1848, Czech nationalist historian Palacky had warned that dismantling the Habsburg Empire, far from liberating the Czechs, might provide the basis for ‘Russian universal monarchy’. This argument was echoed in 1891 by Prince Charles Schwarzenberg when he asked a young Czech nationalist:

“If you and yours hate this state, … what will you do with your country, which is too small to stand alone? Will you give it to Germany, or to Russia, for you have no other choice if you abandon the Austrian union.”

Cited in May, Hapsburg Monarchy, loc.cit., p. 199.

Radical Nationalists & Habsburg Patriots:

Until 1914, radical nationalists seeking full separation from the empire were few and far between. In many areas, nationalist political groups were counterbalanced by networks of associations – veterans’ clubs, religious and charitable groups, associations of bersaglieri (sharp-shooters) – nurturing various forms of ‘Habsburg patriotism’. The sense of the monarchy’s permanence was personified in the imperturbable, bewhiskered figure of Emperor Franz Josef. But his family had suffered many private tragedies. The Emperor’s son Rudolf had killed himself in a double suicide with his mistress at the family hunting lodge at Mayerling in the Vienna Woods. His wife, Elisabeth (‘Sisi’), much beloved of Hungarians, had been stabbed to death by an Italian anarchist on the shores of Lake Geneva, his brother Maximilian had been executed by Mexican insurgents and his favourite niece had burned to death when her dress caught fire. Throughout all of these, the Emperor remained stoical. He also demonstrated great skill in managing the complex machinery of state, balancing opposing families to maintain an equilibrium of well-tempered dissatisfaction. He involved himself in every phase of constitutional reform, yet by 1914 he had become a force for inertia, backing the Magyar premier, István Tisza, against minority demands for franchise reform. As long as the Kingdom of Hungary continued to deliver the funds and votes Vienna needed, Franz Josef was prepared to accept the hegemony of the Magyar élite in all the lands of its kingdom.

Whatever the concerns about his age (eighty-three) and increasing detachment from the contemporary life of his subjects, the Emperor remained the focus of powerful political and emotional attachments. By 1914, he had been on the throne for longer than most of his subjects had been alive, but it was widely acknowledged that his popularity was anchored outside of his constitutional role in widely shared popular emotions. He even made regular appearances in the dreams of those subjects, especially because his portrait was hung in hundreds of thousands of public buildings, offices, taverns, and railway stations. Prosperous and well-administered, the empire, like its elderly sovereign, exhibited a curious stability amid growing turmoil. Crises had come and gone without threatening the existence of the system as such.

The treatment of the national minorities within Hungary before the First World War could be described as ‘relatively tolerable’, especially compared with contemporary Eastern and South-eastern Europe as a whole. The security of the law was provided to all who were prepared to observe the principle of the ‘unitary Hungarian political nation’. Nevertheless, in the pursuit of grandeur, the impatience of Hungarian nationalism led to the imposition of an even greater number of Hungarian lessons in schools and the vigorous promotion of Magyar in all areas of public life. While about ninety percent of civil servants spoke the language as their first language, only a quarter of the country’s non-Magyar inhabitants could use it. There was also legislation Magyarising the names of localities, and individuals were encouraged to do the same with their own family names. Administrative and juridical action was taken against those leaders of the nationalities who not only protested against the breaches of the 1868 law, but also criticised it for its failure to recognise the rights of non-Magyar peoples, and who campaigned for national recognition and territorial autonomy.

Franz Josef, circa 1885, by Carl Pietzner.

From 1881, a united Hungarian and Transylvanian Romanian National Party demanded a separation of Transylvania from Hungary and a reinstatement of its former autonomous status. In 1892, with the support of the Romanian King Charles I, the Party addressed a Memorandum to Franz Josef listing its grievances and claims. The ruler forwarded the letter, unread, to the Hungarian government, and it was also made public by its authors, providing a pretext for the authorities to raise a lawsuit against them on the basis that they were spreading subversive propaganda, resulting in harsh sentences. Libel suits and police harassment afflicted many activists from the national minorities after the Congress of Nationalities in Budapest in 1895, which also rejected the concept of the Hungarian nation-state and demanded territorial autonomy.

The dimensions of ‘forced Magyarisation’ have often been exaggerated, even though the ratio of Magyars within the population of Hungary (excluding Croatia) climbed from 41% to 54% between 1848 and 1910; and nationalism was as intense among the the non-Magyars as among Hungarians. The difference was that the latter had the state machinery at their disposal to promote the realisation of the Hungarian nation-state. The school law of 1907 known as the ‘Lex Apponyi’ obliged non-Hungarian schools to ensure that by the end of the fourth form (at age ten), their pupils could use Hungarian. In the same year, gendarmes killed twelve Slovak protesters in the village of Csernova in northern Hungary who wanted to prevent their new church from being consecrated by a priest other than their own Slovak speaker. News of the ‘massacre’ spread across the West, doing great damage to Hungary’s reputation. There was also agitation among the Serbian minority: The Serbian PM, Novikovic, claimed in February 1909 that the Serbian nation included the seven million Serbs who lived ‘against their will’ in the Habsburg Monarchy. This was an angry response, shared by Russia, to the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The Anomalous Case of Bosnia-Hercegovina:

The Western Balkans, 1878-1908.

Bosnia-Hercegovina posed a special and anomalous case. Still under Ottoman suzerainty in 1878, the Austrians had occupied it on the authorisation of the Treaty of Berlin and had formally annexed it thirty years later. It was a land of harsh terrain and virtually non-existent infrastructure. The condition of these two Balkan provinces under Habsburg rule had long been the subject of controversy. There the population was made up of ten percent Catholic Croats, fifty percent Orthodox Serbs, and the rest Muslim, a legacy from Ottoman times, though speaking Serbo-Croat. The Bosnian Muslims still looked to Ottoman Turkey but were otherwise content with the status quo. The Austro-Hungarians looked to the Balkans and the ports of the former Ottoman Empire, with railway projects already in mind. These involved Bosnia, but in any case, existing Habsburg rule over the South Slavs also implied expansion into the territory. In 1878 Austria-Hungary occupied it, making it a colony with a military governor.

Thirty years later, Habsburg Foreign Minister Alois Aerenthal, who wanted to rival the power policy of Germany, the Monarchy’s ally, in the only region suited for Austria-Hungary’s purpose, the Balkans, cheated Russia. He had concluded a deal with his Russian counterpart Alexander Ivolsky regarding the annexation in return for supporting Russia’s claim for free access to the Turkish Straits. He had announced the annexation without waiting for Russia to prepare the ground with the other great powers. Despite some Hungarian hopes that, due to medieval precedents of overlordship, Bosnia-Hercegovina would be placed under Hungarian jurisdiction, it became an imperial province.

Serb nationalists still regarded it as Serbia, however, and wanted it to be taken into union with Serbia. In 1908 Franz Josef formally annexed the territory in defiance of the nationalists. Croats also continued to dream of a Greater Croatia or ‘Yugoslavia’ with its capital at Zagreb, and Franz Ferdinand was inclined to agree with this solution. However, he never had the chance to put these plans into action. The young Serb terrorists who traveled to Sarajevo to kill the heir to the Imperial throne in the summer of 1914 defended their actions by referring to the oppression of their brothers in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Historians have sometimes suggested that the Austro-Hungarians themselves were to blame for driving the Bosnian Serbs into the arms of Belgrade by a combination of oppression and maladministration. The Habsburg administration bore down hard on anything that smelled like nationalist mobilisation against the empire, sometimes with a heavy and discriminating hand. In 1913, Oskar Potoriek, military governor of the two provinces, suspended most of the Bosnian constitution of 1910, tightened government controls of the school system, banned the circulation of newspapers from Serbia, and closed down many Bosnian Serb cultural organisations, in response to an escalation in Serbian ultra-nationalist militancy. Another vexing factor was the political frustrations of both Serbs and Croats just across the borders to the west and north in Croatia-Slavonia, and to the east in Vojvodina, both ruled from Budapest under the restrictive Hungarian franchise.

One great question mark remains over why Hungary blocked the creation of a Habsburg Yugoslavia and continued to do so until the end of the Monarchy in 1918. Croats and Serbs had enough in common for it to work and Bosnia was already providing evidence for a Triune Kingdom. However, the Hungarian government did not want a co-partner, and its PM, István Tisza angrily reiterated his opposition to this solution in September 1918 when, in Sarajevo, a South Slav delegation asked for unification. His response was:

“… impertinent … Do they think Hungary will collapse? We might but before that we will still be strong enough to crush her enemies.”

Cited by Gábor Vermes, István Tisza (New York, 1985), pp.436-7.

Finally, at the very end of the Monarchy, when most Croats were still adhering to the idea of Yugoslavia, Catholic loyalists managed to get the Hungarian government to agree to the Triune Kingdom, but by then it was too late to save the empire.

However, this was, all in all, a relatively fair and efficient administration informed by a pragmatic respect for the diverse traditions of the ethnic groups in the provinces. With hindsight, though there were many severe critics of the Habsburg state, these included contemporaries like Steed, who had defended it on the eve of the July Crisis leading to the Great War. He wrote in 1913 that he had been unable in ten years of constant observation and experience to perceive any sufficient reason why the Habsburg monarchy should not retain its rightful place in the European Community. He concluded that its internal crises are often crises of growth rather than crises of decay. It was only during the War that Steed became a propagandist for the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and then an ardent defender of the post-war settlement in Central Europe. In 1927 he wrote that …

“… the name ‘Austria’ (was synonymous with) every device that could kill the soul of a people, corrupt it with a modicum of material wellbeing, deprive it of freedom of conscience and of thought, undermine its sturdiness, sap its steadfastness and turn it from the pursuit of its ideal.”

Tomás G. Masaryk, The Making of a State, Memories and Observations, 1914-18. London, 1927 (Czech and German editions appeared in 1925). Preface.

By contrast, the Hungarian scholar Oszkár Jászi, one of the foremost experts on the Habsburg Empire, was originally highly critical of the dual monarchy. In 1929, he wrote that the World War was not the cause, but only the final liquidation of the deep hatred and distrust of the various nations. Yet twenty years later, after a further world war and a calamitous period of dictatorship and genocide in his home country, and having been in exile in the US since 1919, Jászi struck a different note. He wrote that in the old Habsburg monarchy, …

… the rule of law was tolerably secure; individual liberties were more and more recognised; political rights continuously extended; the principle of national autonomy growingly respected. The free flow of persons and goods extended its benefits to the remotest parts of the monarchy.

Oskár Jászi, Danubia: Old and New; Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 93/1. 1949, pp. 1-31.

While the euphoria of national independence encouraged some who had once been loyal Habsburg citizens to impugn the old dual monarchy, others who were vigorous dissenters before 1914 later fell prey to nostalgia. In 1939, reflecting on the collapse of the monarchy, the Hungarian poet Mihály Babits wrote:

“We now regret the loss and weep for the return of what we once hated. We are independent, but instead of feeling joy, we can only tremble.”

Mihály Babits, Kerész életemen. Budapest, 1939.

Featured

War, Peace & Justice in Judaism: Epilogue – Three Faiths, Two States & One World.

Hope for a Future without Children Dying:

The prospect of a better future like that in Isaiah’s vision can tempt us to lose sight of the tasks of the present. Hope for a future in which no more children die can be a sin if we meanwhile neglect to do our duty for children dying in the current violent conflict in Israel and Palestine, either from bombing, shelling and gunfire or from being hopelessly undernourished or brutally terrorised in body and/or in mind. A world in which ‘peace’ reigns in each and every conceivable sense of the word, a ruler representing the quintessence of justice is a ‘vision’ which seems anything but ‘radical’, but some consider it simply a product of naive and wishful thinking. This vision has never caused any of the powerful of the world, whose loss of power is (at least) implied here, one sleepless hour. Perhaps this is true, because, as Karl Marx suggested, religion is the opium of the people.

Yet, the Old Testament prophets fought for the enforcement of justice in this world long before Marx and his followers did. But Jews and Christians still await a just society they believe God will create without their active involvement. The effect of religion in the Middle East today seems far from that of an opiate, however. Rather it seems to be used to fuel ethnic discord across the region and into North Africa, so much so that many see it as a large part of the problem rather than contributing to the solution. Are those who wait for a future in which Jews, Christians and Muslims – the people of ‘the book’ – can live together on the same piece of earth, prepared to ‘fight’ for the shared humanitarian conditions that would make this attainable?

The future awaited by the majority of Judaeo-Christians seems to have meant that, for the last fifty years or more, they have been prepared to ‘reconcile’ themselves to the continuation of this present imperfect world. They have not ‘quarrelled’ with that immediate destiny, preferring to simply settle down in the world as it is and await the solution of all its problems on ‘Judgement Day’. But those who think that way are simply turning the hope of the divine into no more than a shabby pacifier. But whether we are Jews, Muslims or Christians, the message of the Kingdom of God should activate not only our hope but all our energies; we are called upon to build the world we inhabit now into the awaited future, toward the promised final condition of mankind and the whole created order. It is in this spirit that, in 1974, Rabbi Hirsch ended his study for the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, with a slightly paraphrased version of the Sam Shalom, the traditional prayer for peace:

Grant us peace, thy most precious gift, O thou eternal source of peace, and enable Israel to be its messenger to the peoples of the earth. Bless our country that it may ever be a stronhold of peace, and its advocate in the council of nations. May contentment reign within its borders, health and happiness within its homes. Strengthen the bonds of friendship and fellowship among the inhabitants of all lands. Plant virtue in every soul, and may the love of thy name hallow every home and every heart. Praised be thou, O Lord, Giver of peace.

R. G. Hirsch (1974), Thy Most Precious Gift: Peace in the Jewish Tradition. New York: UAHC.

Israel, Gaza, and the Christian Communities in Crisis:

Even before the Hamas attacks on Israel on the 7th of October, the massive demonstrations in Israel and the seeming breakdown of national cohesion had captured headlines in Israel and around the world. What began as protests against the Judicial Reform legislation evolved into broader confrontations between religious and secular Israeli Jews as well as a wave of attacks on minority communities. One highly publicized aspect of this crisis had been a wave of attacks on Christians, including churchmen, religious leaders, and foreign pilgrims. The government’s response to these attacks had been ineffective as the attacks continued in several Israeli cities. As this internal drama was unfolding, Hamas took the opportunity to launch its savage terrorist strike inside Israel that has led to mass casualties, both Israeli and later Palestinian. It is worth reminding ourselves, in seeking a resolution to the current conflict – that in religious terms – there are three faiths involved, although it is not in any sense a religious war.

‘Islamism’ is not a religion; it is an ideology based on distorted interpretations of the doctrine of ‘Jihad’. The Israeli Government is fighting a defensive war to protect all its citizens, regardless of their religion. Besides Islam and Judaism, there are also significant minority groups of both Israeli and Palestinian Christians. In addition to the innocent civilian victims of the bombing, missile and mortar fire, mosques, churches, schools and hospitals run by Christian charities operating in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. Some of this destruction, resulting from IDF’s indiscriminate actions, clearly falls outside what is permissible in the Torah and Talmud, never mind in international humanitarian law. However, that remains to be tested and, if necessary and appropriate, in international courts of law. The charge of genocide against Israel in the sense of a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing does not seem appropriate in this situation, but there are clearly charges of war crimes that will need to be brought, certainly against Hamas and its associated terror groups, and also perhaps against the IDF.

Conclusion – Restoring Religion & Humanity:

Certainly, Hamas’s attack on Israel was completely outside any religion’s teaching on war. It was unjustifiable in any terms, religious or secular. It was nothing more than an act of terrorism, and as such beyond the bounds of any concept of humanity. In response, Israel’s leaders referred to its bestiality and were criticised for doing so. It was the critics who were wrong, however, since no species of animal kills its own by inflicting pain and suffering or seeks to gain pleasure from doing so. The evidence received so far suggests that this was what the Hamas terrorists set out to do. Not satisfied with causing terror, they also tortured and raped their victims before killing them and dismembering their bodies. In particular, the horrific sexual violence against women has gone without condemnation from international women’s rights groups and UN organisations.

No animal known to mankind behaves like this. Israel’s initial response was entirely justifiable and proportionate and was supported by many nations. It was not an act of revenge, but one of an obligatory, defensive war, fought under strict rules of engagement based on the Hebrew scriptures and doctrines as well as on international law. However, the ‘slaughter of the innocents’ which has followed, and especially the indiscriminate aerial bombing and shelling of civilian areas, cannot be justified in these terms. The means are never justified by the ends; they are always inherent in them. The war can only be brought to an end by a comprehensive armistice (not a ‘sustainable ceasefire’) beginning with the release of all the hostages and leading to a diplomatic peace process ensuring the long-term security of the state of Israel and the international recognition of an independent, sovereign state of Palestine.

That said, and having returned to both Muslim and Judaistic juridical texts in detail since 7th October, it can also be said that the Israeli forces have tried, at least in their ground combat, to remain within their ‘rules of engagement’, based on the ethics of the Torah and the Talmud. Israel claims that its Defence Force is just that, a force designed to provide security for its people, not an aggressive force. Its role is, therefore, to fight defensively, not to launch incursions and invasions, like it did in 1956. Neither is it supposed to fight ‘preventative wars’, except in purely defensive situations. It is also claimed to be ‘the most moral force’ in the world since its strategies and tactics are guided by a ‘military rabbinate’ of ‘chaplains’. On the other ‘side’, it is difficult to understand which doctrine of ‘Jihad’ is being applied by Muslim countries and Palestinian Muslims to the current situation in Palestine, and why the ‘mullahs’ and imams are not calling for Hamas to lay down arms and face justice for their crimes against humanity, if not against Islam itself. Instead, Hamas and other Islamist groups seem to be able to conduct themselves as Islamic State did in Syria and Iraq, with impunity.

Neither do I understand why many among my feminist and humanist friends of many years, and even some of my fellow Christians, were so slow to condemn Hamas and so quick to produce ‘apologies’ and justifications for its actions, some erroneously quoting the Bible in applying its texts to the current situation. Their sympathies for the violated Israeli families were synthetic and rang hollow, and they remain so, despite the horrific details we now know about the Hamas attacks of ten weeks ago. With the end of Hannukah, we were told today that there will be no lights in Manger Square this Christmas, and no tree. The Light seems to have gone out of this world: But, as the Carol ‘Little Town of Bethlehem’ suggests, there may yet be enough ‘meek souls’ to rekindle it.

Featured

War, Peace & Justice in Judaism: Part Two – ‘Shalom’ & Resistance:

Traditions of Shalom:

Emerging from the Judaistic readings of the Hebrew Bible, which I dealt with in part one of this two-part article, there was a strong biblical tradition, both in the Psalms and among the prophets, from the earliest to the latest times of the kingdoms of Israel, that the Lord is a god who puts an end to war:

From end to end of the earth, he stamps out war:

he breaks the bow, he snaps the spear

and burns the shield in the fire.

Ps. 46: 9

I will break bow and sword and weapon of war

and sweep them off the earth,

so that all living creatures may lie down without fear.

Hos. 2: 18

There is also a strong biblical tradition, especially in the Psalms, that the people of God should rely on him rather than on military power:

Some boast of chariots and some of horses,

but our boast is in the name of the Lord our God.

They totter and fall,

but we rise up and are full of courage.

Ps. 20: 7-8.

A King is not saved by a great army,

nor a warrior delivered by great strength.

A man cannot trust his horse to save him,

nor can it deliver him for all its strength.

The Lord’s eyes are turned towards those who fear him.

Ps. 33: 16-18.

The Lord sets no store by the strength of a horse

and takes no pleasure in a runner’s legs,

his pleasure is in those who fear him,

who wait for his true love

Ps. 147: 10-11.

There is, in fact, among both the prophets and psalmists, a strong commitment to peace, the Hebrew word for which is shalom. It does not just mean an absence of war: Jeremiah fulminates against those who cry ‘Peace! Peace!’ where there is no real peace to be found. The Hebrew word comes from a root meaning ‘wholeness’; it indicates a total condition of well-being. So, for instance, Micah (4: 3) spells out the state where swords shall be beaten into ‘mattocks’. The exaltation of this form of comprehensive, universal peace runs throughout the Hebrew scriptures. The psalmist calls on his people to turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it (Ps. 34: 14). This exhortation for Israel to make peace is repeated in subsequent psalms:

Let me hear the words of the Lord:

are they not words of peace,

peace to his people and his loyal servants

and to all who turn and trust in him?

Deliverance is near to those who worship him,

so that glory may dwell in our land.

Love and fidelity have come together;

Justice and peace join hands.

Psalm 85: 8-10.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:

“May those who love you prosper;

peace be within your ramparts

and prosperity in your palaces.”

For the sake of these my brothers and my friends,

I will say “Peace be with you.”

For the sake of the house of the Lord our God

I will pray for your good.

Psalm 122: 6-9.

‘Peace be upon Israel’ is a refrain from some of the later psalms, and there is no more astonishing passage than the messianic vision of Isaiah (9: 6-7). His ‘Prince of Peace’ is almost an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Plenty of idealised heroes were ‘God-like’ in battle, but a ‘prince of peace’ was something entirely new. A vision of permanent peace had crept up on a previously warlike, conquering but small developing nation with a primary concern for its territorial integrity and security at a time of increasing power and competition between the various empires of the region.

Allegorical Interpretations of the ‘Old Testament’:

Most modern theologians have been careful not to read their beliefs back into the texts of the Hebrew Bible. But some early Christian writers, from the writers of the gospels, acts and letters in the first century to Origen, writing in the third century CE, thought of the texts of the Old Testament as containing veiled allusions to the sacrifice of Christ. This is just as the Letter to the Hebrews implies: The ‘old covenant’ in its mundane form had ceased to be, but it lived on in the realm of symbol. For these writers, especially Origen, Judaism had ceased to have any independent validity, and Christianity had taken over its texts and read them as foreshadowing the true reality, that of Jesus Christ. That was what most of the ‘Christian Fathers’ believed, and it presents a problem today for Christians who wish to affirm the continuing importance of Judaism, and/or to reject the idea that it has been superseded by Christianity. What Origen calls the ‘spiritual’ reading of the Old Testament, decontextualises it as far as John Barton is concerned. He points particularly to a striking instance of this in Origen’s discussion of Psalm 137:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator,

Happy they shall be who pay you back

what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones

and dash them against the rock!

Psalm 137. 8-9.

Origen sought to interpret this seemingly brutal verbal attack by the psalmist in symbolic terms:

Blessed is the one who seizes … the little ones of Babylon, which are understood to be nothing else but these ‘evil thoughts’ that confound and disturb our heart. For this is what Babylon means. While these thoughts are small and just beginning, they must be seized and dashed against the ‘rock’ who is Christ (1: Corinthians 10: 4), and by his order, they must be slain, so that nothing in us ‘may remain to draw breath’ (Joshua 11: 14).

Origen, Homily on Joshua, 15: 3.

‘Allegorisation’ removes a scandalous aspect of this psalm, its apparent encouragement of killing babies in times of war. Still, the price is that the psalm is lifted out of its ancient Israelite context and brought into the Christian ambit with its concentration on ‘spiritual’ matters. There were those contemporaries of Origen who opposed allegorising readings of the Old Testament and making some passages less offensive to Christian sensibilities. Still, they lost the debate and Origen was able to build on their defeat and undertake a systematically allegorical reading of the Old Testament texts. However, as Barton points out, Rabbinic interpretation of the Psalms is seldom as allegorical as Origen’s, though it rests on the desire to see the whole as containing a religiously acceptable meaning. While killing babies was, and is, clearly unacceptable, the psalm does offer a counter-weight to the metaphors of peace in other later psalms. Despite the promises of Isaiah, the psalmist’s hateful language about Babylon demonstrates that the people of Israel were still weeping bitter tears by its waters, or rising up in Judah.

Peace, Justice & Prophetic Visions:

The call of the Prophets for social justice remained largely unheard in their own times. Political and economic ‘necessities’ prevailed, although they were not to avert catastrophe. Both Jeremiah and Amos pointed out how the nation of Israel would be punished for their sins of commission and omission:

“Their houses shall be turned over to others,

Proclaim to the strongholds in Assyria

and to the strongholds in the land of Egypt, and say,

“Assemble yourselves upon the mountains of Samaria,

and see the great tumults within her,

and the oppressions in her midst.”

“They do not know how to do right,” says the Lord,

“those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds.”

Therefore thus says the Lord God:

“An adversary shall surround the land,

and bring down your defences from you,

and your strongholds shall be plundered.”

Amos 3: 9-11.

Did God’s purpose for his people fail? Is brotherhood as a standard of relationships among people an unattainable ideal? In the following passages from Psalm 72, the Psalmist looked to a future in which justice and politics would no longer be irreconcilable. He could hope for this future because he trusted God to carry out his intention. But when he prayed for the just king, was this any more than simply a pious wish? Or did he know that God would achieve his purpose through his people:

Give the king thy justice, O God,

and thy righteousness to the royal son!

May he judge thy people with righteousness,

and thy poor with justice!

Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,

and the hills, in righteousness!

May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,

give deliverance to the needy,

and crush the oppressor! …

May all kings fall down before him,

and all nations serve him!

For he delivers the needy when he calls,

the poor and him who has no helper.

He has pity on the weak and the needy,

and saves the lives of the needy.

From oppression and violence, he redeems their life;

and precious is their blood in his sight. …

May his name endure forever,

and his fame continue as long as the sun!

May men bless themselves by him,

all nations call him blessed!

Psalm 72: 1-4, 11-14, 17.

In the well-known prophetic vision of a ‘new world’ in Isaiah, the God of Israel becomes the guarantor of human hope. The expectation of a better future could fill the suffering with consolation and confidence:

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;

and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

But be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create. …

No more shall there be in it an infant

that lives but a few days,

or an old man who does not fill out his days,

for the child shall die a hundred years old,

and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

They shall build houses and inhabit them;

they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

They shall not build and another inhabit;

they shall not plant and another eat;

for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,

and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

They shall not labour in vain,

or bear children for calamity;

for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord,

and their children with them.

Before they call I will answer,

while they are yet speaking I will hear.

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,

the lion shall eat straw like the ox;

and the dust shall be the serpent’s food.

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,

says the Lord.”

Isaiah 65: 17-18, 20-25.

A similar passage earlier in Isaiah (11: 1-9) ends poetically with: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah’s vision of peace thus connects closely with God’s reconciliation with the whole of his ‘created order’, his oikoumene in Greek.

Warfare in Ancient Israel:

The first standing army in Israel was established by David. Before this, the different tribes contributed their levy of soldiers when the need arose. In command of the whole army was the Captain of the host, and there were captains each in charge of divisions of a thousand men, and further divisions of hundreds, fifties and tens. The army consisted only of infantry until Solomon introduced chariots. In New Testament times, Roman soldiers were stationed in Palestine as in all other parts of the empire. Four legions, including the famous Tenth Legion, were stationed in the province of Syria, which included Palestine (see the map below). Local men from the provinces might also serve in the Roman army. A Centurion was in command of a ‘century’, or a hundred soldiers, six of whom made a ‘cohort’ or ‘band’ of which there were ten of these in a legion. A Quaternion was a guard of four soldiers.

The Temple Guard was a small force of Levites under the control of the Captain of the Temple. It was effectively a Jewish police force which carried out guard duties at the temple, but could also be used by the Jewish authorities to make arrests (as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, outside Jerusalem as well as within) and to execute punishments. Weapons included slings, darts and javelins, bronze or iron-tipped spears; short, dagger-like swords with iron blades (sometimes two-edged); bows and arrows, strung with ox-gut and battle-axes, clubs of hard wood studded with iron spikes. Until the Romans, the armour of ordinary soldiers, including coats of mail, helmets and shields was made of leather and wood (senior officers had bronze).

Siege weapons included battering rams, catapults and other artillery. Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes the Romans as catapulting stone missiles weighing half a hundredweight over a distance of four hundred yards. Building a ramp of earth to the height of the walls of fortifications or, as at Masada, Herod the Great’s palace on the rock fortress in the wilderness by the Dead Sea, constructing a wooden tower on which to mount siege engines were two other methods of siege warfare that developed in later centuries. In Masada, Herod’s aqueducts enabled huge underground cisterns to be stored for the hundreds of people living at his palace and later by the Zealot resistance. Fortifications were an important factor in the siting and construction of every city, town and large village. Cities in key positions, like Megiddo, commanding the pass in the Carmel Range, would have extra strong fortifications. Fortified cities often had double walls with projecting bastions and angled entrances. The walls were usually constructed of stone (occasionally brick), while the gates were wooden, though sometimes covered with bronze.

Resistance to Greece & Rome – Model ‘Freedom Fighters’?:

Judas Maccabeus, facing the Greek armies, exhorted his men:

“Do not be afraid of their great of their great numbers or panic when they charge. Remember how our fathers were saved at the Red Sea, when Pharaoh and his army were pursuing them. Let us cry now to Heaven to favour our cause, to remember the covenant made with our fathers, and to crush this army before us today. Then all the Gentiles will know that there is One who saves and liberates Israel.”

1 Macc. 4: 8-11.

The resistance of the Maccabees to Antiochus Epiphanes and their attempt to establish Greek culture and override Jewish religious susceptibilities provides a standard testimony for those who seek examples of the Jewish religion’s involvement in the military forces of that time. While recognising this, observing other aspects of the resistance at the time of Maccabees is also important. Undoubtedly, there was active resistance, but there was also passive resistance by flight. Many went into the wilderness with ‘their sons, and their wives, and their cattle’, not as an act of ‘guerilla warfare’, but as an act of withdrawal; they lived ‘after the manner of wild beasts in the mountains’. The result was a fall-off in tax revenues, the active policy of the government in seeking to bring them back, and eventually an amnesty. Secondly, those who turned to violence became violent. Judas Maccabees actually fell into a civil war against his own people, and, significantly, he is never mentioned in the Talmud. It has been supposed by some that this was due to Roman disapproval of the guerillas. But it may equally have had to do with the rabbinic emphasis on shalom. The festival of Hannukah celebrates the Maccabean deliverance. Today it is sometimes an occasion occasion of nationalistic and militaristic fervour. But the passage for reading on the Sabbath of Hannukah is from Zechariah: ‘Not by might and not by power but my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.’

A ‘menorah’.

As Israel fell under Roman power, what kind of future did the Jews hope for? And how did they expect that it would come about? Some thought of a better time to come, and of the means of its achievement, in ordinary, this-worldly terms, while others indulged in hopes of a more supernatural kind. Often the two ways of looking at the future merge and intermingle. The Zealots cherished this-worldly hopes, looking for a time when God alone would rule Israel, and this meant that his holy land must be taken out of the hands of the Romans. Nor were they the only people to hope for the end of Roman rule in Palestine. In one of the Psalms of Solomon, composed in Pharisaic circles after the first conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans in 63 BC, we find the following prayer for the expected messianic king:

‘ And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample her down to destruction’

Ps. Sol. 17: 24.

The conquest of Israel’s enemies was a necessary prelude to the betterment of her situation. And high hopes were entertained of her future glory. In another first-century work, the Assumption of Moses, we have this description of Israel after the punishment of the Gentiles:

And God will exalt thee,

And he will cause thee to approach to the

heaven of the stars,

in the place of their habitation.

And thou shalt look from on high and shalt

see thy enemies in Gehenna.

Ass. Moses, 10: 11.

This testifies to Israel having reached ‘the height of national, political and spiritual success’. In addition, it is expected by the author that the Jews of the Dispersion will return to Palestine and that all ‘God’s People’ will be endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and purified from evil. How did the Jews suppose that a better future would be brought about? They took it for granted that, fundamentally, it would be God’s doing. There were, however, differing views as to how he would choose to act. The Zealots believed in initiating and precipitating political and military action themselves. But they were also convinced that if they took the initiative in provoking a revolt against Rome, then God would fight with them and for them, and would win them a miraculous victory. Had they not believed this, they would would never have taken up arms at all. Nevertheless, a realistic appraisal of the military situation would have made it obvious to them that a small subject nation such as Israel could not possibly hope to stand up to the organised might of imperial Rome.

In the Psalms of Solomon, however, a human agent of the divine will enters the narrative. He is to be a king chosen and endowed with authority by God, and a descendent of the royal house of David. He is often called the Messiah or ‘the anointed one’, who will secure both the political and spiritual well-being of the nation of Israel. There is an impressive description of such a Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon. It describes him driving the Gentiles from Jerusalem and setting up a great kingdom which would be the centre of the whole world, and all the heathen peoples are to serve him. All this suggests that it will be a kingdom of military might, but yet the Psalm clearly states that he will not put his trust in weapons of war but in God. There is also a suggestion that he asserts his supremacy using moral and spiritual force:

‘For he shall not put his trust

in horse and rider and bow,

nor shall he multiply for himself

gold and silver for war.

… …

The Lord himself is his king, the hope of him

that is mighty through his hope in God.

All nations shall be in fear before him.

For he will smite the earth with

the word of his mouth for ever.

… …

He will rebuke rulers, and remove sinners

by the might of his word’

Ps. Sol. 17: 37-39, 41.

The Messiah, the Psalm claims, will be righteous and holy, ruling justly and caring for his people as a shepherd for his flock. But he will do all this because God has endowed him with the power of his Spirit. The Qumran sect also believed in a Davidic messiah who would conquer the heathen, a military leader of the community in the final war against their enemies. This war, however, had a twofold character. It is certainly a war against earthly foes, the heathen nations, and here the Messiah, also called the prince of the congregation, has his his part to play. But at the same time, it is a war on the supernatural plane, between the prince of light and the angel of darkness. It is the archangel Michael who fights against Belial on behalf of God’s elect and the Messiah himself begins to take on a supernatural personality, as he appears to be closely connected with the angelic hosts. This reveals that there did exist in some Jewish circles, the idea of a transcendent messiah who would appear at the end of time and take part in the judgment, and with whom the blessed elect would dwell eternally. In the book of Enoch, this supernatural being is called ‘the Elect One’ and also ‘the Son of Man’ (1 Enoch 46: 1). He is enthroned in glory and he will judge all the nations and their rulers (1 Enoch 62: 14).

This eschatological discussion of Jewish hopes gives the impression that they were chiefly concerned with their own national misfortunes and obsessed with dreams of future bliss for themselves as God’s elect. But what their best Hebrew theological minds were concerned with was a genuine problem which is also with us two thousand years later: if God is Lord of the whole world, why is the present state of the world so obviously contrary to his will? The fundamental hope was that, in the end times, he would fully establish his authority over his creation and demonstrate his absolute sovereignty. This is what is meant in the New Testament by the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Chronologically, however, in the first and second centuries CE the people of Judaea did indeed rise against Rome. The Jewish scene in the New Testament period was a continually changing one, hardly surprising given the earth-shaking events which took place in the period. In AD 70 the Temple in Jerusalem, the central symbol and focal point of Judaism, was destroyed, with many far-reaching consequences. During the first century, the foundation of a new form of Judaism began with the emergence of the Rabbis, their codification of the religious traditions and their approval of an authorised canon of Jewish Scripture. There was constant conflict with Rome, the occupying imperial power, to the point of savage battles; and there was an increasing conflict with the followers of The Way, or ‘Christianity’ as it later became known, which arose from the heart of Judaism and whose growing success posed a great many urgent questions. The Judaism that emerged from this turbulence was as united as it ever had been.

Politically, the Pharisees were ‘quietists’; they were advocates of non-resistance to Rome. The chief characteristic of the Zealots, who had much in common with the Pharisees, was their approval of violence in defence of their faith. There were probably connections between the Zealot movement and the Maccabees, but its beginning is usually taken to be a revolt against the census of Quirinius in 6AD. Judas, the leader of the revolt, was a Galilean, the son of Eleazar who was executed by Herod; his son led the last stand of the Zealots at Masada. The Zealots refused to pay Roman taxes, but they took their name from their zeal for the temple and the Law, which is amply illustrated in the writings of Josephus. He wrote very disapprovingly of them and labelled them sicaríí (assassins).

Nazareth in the 1960s.

When we come to the story of Jesus of Nazareth contained in the first four books of the Christian New Testament, the Gospels, we encounter a narrative we shall never understand unless we place it firmly against the background of the time in which he lived, in a country occupied by Roman troops whose presence provoked not only a general feeling of resentment and frustration but also the bitter activities of a resistance movement, the Zealots. Jesus was not a rootless individual; he grew up in Galilee where the Resistance Movement was very much alive. Therefore, Jesus likely grew up in a strong atmosphere of resistance. We have learned much in our own last two centuries about resistance movements, from Ireland to Africa and the Middle East. Most recently, this is how ‘Hamas’ sees itself, though many ‘western’ countries regard it as a ‘terrorist’ organisation. We have learned, through painful and often first-hand experience, how they come to dominate and determine the mind and mood of a people under the apparent calm of ordinary life, giving them an indisputable authority over the lives of ordinary people. Their clandestine, violent character only becomes apparent and acute when full-scale fighting breaks out.

It is against such a background that the ministry of Jesus must be seen; his sayings and actions take on new meaning when set against it; the brevity of his ministry and his extra-judicial execution outside Jerusalem become intelligible. His criticism of the common assumptions of his day, arising as they did from his own experience and meditation on the history and scriptures of his people, made him suspect, when his beliefs and attitudes became clear, with the Resistance and the Jewish government alike, as well as with many of his former friends (John 6: 66). Jesus’ ministry falls midway in the three hundred years’ Jewish war for religious and political freedom. It began with the Maccabaean rebellion of 168 BC and ended with Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 132. Its story Is the theme of Josephus’ The Jewish War, in which we may find,

‘… set down both clearly and accurately the main course of events … the long-drawn agony of the war (AD 66-70) and the happenings which preceded it, with such a wealth of detail that his work is a major contribution to the history of a critical century.’

Quoted in Walton (ed.), p. 266.
Source: The History of Christianity (A Lion Handbook)

The Gospels were church books, written for the guidance of the early Christian communities and concerned with their religious life. These communities, after AD70, were predominantly non-Jewish in their membership; for many Christians, the incidents in Palestine from AD 30 to 70, were mere episodes in a far-off province of the Roman Empire. But the story of what had happened pushes through these religious records. It is the critical context against which the meaningfulness of Jesus’ ‘Good News’ is to be grasped - even his phrase ‘the kingdom of God’ may have been the watchword of the Zealots. What he did and said were meant for men and women there and then; only because this was so could it also have a meaning for all mankind. In the following passage, Josephus tells a story which gives us a feeling of what it was like to live under Roman rule in Palestine in the middle of the first century AD:

As procurator of Judaea, Tiberius sent Pilate, who during the night secretly conveyed to Jerusalem the images of Caesar known as ‘signa’. When day dawned this caused great excitement among the Jews; for those who were near were amazed at the sight, which meant that their laws had been trampled on – they do not permit any graven images to be set up in the City – and the angry city mob were joined by a huge influx of people from the country. They rushed off to Pilate in Caesaria, and begged him to remove the signa from Jerusalem and to respect their ancient customs. When Pilate refused, they fell prone all around his house and remained motionless for five days and nights.

The next day, Pilate took his seat on the tribunal in the Great Stadium and summoned the mob on the pretext that he was ready to give them an answer. Instead he gave a pre-arranged signal to the soldiers to surround the Jews in full armour, and the troops formed a ring three deep … Pilate, declaring that he would cut them to pieces unless they accepted the the images of Caesar, nodded to the soldiers to bare their swords. At this the Jews as though by agreement fell to ground in a body and bent their necks, shouting that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the Law. Amazed at the intensity of their religious fervour, Pilate ordered the signa to be removed from Jerusalem forthwith.

Josephus; Quoted in Walton (ed.), p. 267.

This story underlines the fierce anger and resentment against the occupying forces which groups like the Zealots were able to exploit. The political divisions within and throughout the nation fed on a social climate of hatred and suspicion. Yet Jesus was not afraid to take risks to demonstrate the inclusivity of his mission and its purpose of reconciliation. Luke’s list of Jesus’ twelve apostles includes Simon Zealotes, ‘the Zealot’ (Luke 6: 15; Acts 1: 13); the parallel passages in Mark (3. 18) and Matthew (10: 4) call him ‘the Cananaean’, which is the Aramaic form of the same word. The presence of a Zealot among Jesus’ followers, coupled with recorded actions of Jesus like the cleansing of the temple and the fact that he was crucified by the Romans on a quasi-political charge has prompted elaborate theories about his connection with the sect. In his book, Portrait of Jesus, Alan T. Dale uses his literary imagination combined with knowledge of the contemporary Jewish context to interpret some of these theories in a parallel narrative to the gospels:

‘Fighters from Childhood:

‘The villages in the Galilean hills seemed … to be quiet sleepy places. But behind the quietness there was a very different story to tell – as we soon have found out if we had joined in the conversation, on a Saturday morning, after worship in the synagogue or sat talking in the evening with some of the villagers. We would have quickly learned that there was trouble afoot – and dangerous trouble at that – in this northern border province. …

‘We soon begin to understand why the name ‘Galilean’ meant, to the people in the south, something like ‘rebel’ or ‘anarchist’, why Galilee was a home of the Zealots or freedom fighters, and why the Galileans were called ‘born fighters’. The war with the Romans broke out thirty years later. The Tenth Legion marked down Japha town – and nearby Jotapata – and destroyed it in some of the bloodiest fight of the war.

Incident in the hills:

‘From early light the streets of the small lakeside fishing port – Capernaum – were crowded with men and loud with gossip and argument. The soldiers at the small Roman outpost in the town were wondering what was afoot. Somebody suddenly noticed a small boat putting out. … The boat was making heavy weather – an onshore wind was blowing.

‘Jesus climbed out. He knew the crowd: farmers from hill villages, fishermen from the lakeside towns. They were the men of the Resistance Movement – ‘Zealots’, nationalists -farmers or fishermen by day, ‘freedom fighters’ whenever the chance came. … a leaderless mob, an army without a general.

‘He went with them into the hills, to a lonely spot out of sight and reach of the Roman garrison. The talk went on and on. They wanted him to be their leader – their ‘king’. Jesus would have no part in their plans. … He got everybody to share a common meal together, a meal in which they promised again to live as God’s people.

‘The men – under command – sat down in sat down in compliance in companies of fifty and a hundred each, rank by rank. He got his friends to go back in the boat and across the Lake. He then said goodbye to the men and got them to go home. He himself, under the darkening sky, climbed the hillside. He wanted to think things out alone in God’s presence – alone.

‘The Issue at Stake:

‘There were almost as many points of view as men arguing about them. But all would agree that their people – the Jewish people – were a special people called by God to take a special part in the history of the world. Jesus would have no quarrel with that. But everything turned on what was meant by the words being used… by the words ‘God’s People’. It wasn’t enough just to use the words, as though it was quite plain what they meant. It wasn’t plain and they didn’t agree. This was what the great debate was about. They were using the same words, but making them mean very different things.

‘Everybody knew, however, that things could not go on as they were. The situation in which the Jewish people found themselves – subjects of a foreign empire – was really intolerable. The only people who thought it wasn’t were members of the aristocratic government in Jerusalem -they owed their very existence to their Roman overlords. The common people and their leaders – and, most of all, the best among them – longed for a great change. They felt that the root of the problem was that they were an occupied country; if only they were free and independent, the ‘good time’ they all longed for would come. It was the presence of unbelieving foreigners – Roman soldiers, Greek citizens, foreign landlords – that made living as ‘God’s People’ impossible.

‘Most people believed in… keeping themselves ‘separate’, having nothing to do, as far as possible, with foreigners. Lots of ordinary people, of course, simply could not avoid meeting foreigners and having to deal with them – using their money with its hated image of the emperor on it, carrying army baggage, working on foreign estates, selling market produce in Greek cities. Religious people, like Pharisees and Zealots, had as little to do with foreigners as possible. They would not enter a house owned by a foreigner and they certainly wouldn’t have a meal with him. The word ‘Pharisee’ was believed to mean ‘separatist’.

Foreigners, however, were not the only trouble. Living as ‘God’s People’, the Pharisees and Zealots believed, meant keeping God’s laws. … Many people believed that it was because they had not kept God’s laws that God had allowed the Romans to occupy their country. … The Zealots wanted to go much further. They believed that things could only be put right by a Holy War, the violent overthrow of the Romans. They could point to many stories in the Bible to prove it. … Something had to be done. Somebody had to take a stand. The leadership of the Jewish people was at stake. Who was to lead them in this crucial moment in their history? The Pharisees? The Zealots? John (the Baptist)? Who?

Freedom Fighters:

‘Galilee was a home to many of the freedom fighters, and Japha, the mother town of Nazareth (hamlet) – only two miles away – was probably a Zealot town. There were many good men among the Zealots, men who were driven by desperation to believe that violence was the was the only way God’s People would win their proper freedom. There were among them, of course, as in any extreme movement, many who were no more than thugs and gangsters, hiding their bloodthirstiness behind the fine language of religion; but most were sincere men.

‘The memory of what had happened in 63 BCE was still vivid and bitter. … But the Zealots looked further back than the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans … The Old Testament itself – their Bible – was full of stories of wars against foreigners. They were described as God’s Wars. This was surely enough to prove that this was God’s way. Was not God called ‘God of the armies of Israel’? The war against Rome was a ‘Holy War’. The ‘Holy Land’ was not the private property of the emperor … ; it was God’s – he alone was king there.

‘The Zealots cared for social justice too. When … they actually captured Jerusalem in AD 66 in the war with Rome, one of the first things they did was to destroy all the legal documents there, abolishing Jewish debts to Rome, breaking up the great landed estates and setting all slaves free. They were ‘thugs’ and ‘murderers’ in the eyes of the Roman authorities and the aristocratic Jewish government in Jerusalem, they were patriots to their own people.

‘But Jesus had come to believe that violence was not God’s way – especially the rough violence of the Zealots. He was bound to be their critic and the critic of all those who sympathised with them. Many of his stories were aimed at them as well as the Pharisees. It needed a brave man to be as outspoken as Jesus, if he was to be true to himself and his convictions. It took some courage to talk like this in an occupied country:

“If a Roman soldier forces you to carry his baggage for a mile along the road, go two miles along the road with him” (Matthew 5: 41)

Dale, pp. 5-8, 11-13, 17-19.

The Resistance Movement was not a bid for mere political freedom. Politics and religion were, for Jews, two sides of the same coin. Hence among the people of the country, many different religious movements made a bid for their allegiance – Pharisees who were popular with the common people, groups such as those in Qumran (in the Jordan Valley), Sadducees (wealthy priestly families) in Jerusalem, and followers of John the Hermit on the west bank of the Jordan. The common people had their own varying, ambiguous and changing attitudes. But it was the political situation that gave all these movements their focus. The Zealot rising which began in AD66, was disastrous, as Jesus of Nazareth prophesied that it would be (Matthew’s Gospel, 24: 1-2), along with other voices. Jesus had predicted that it would result in the destruction of the temple, as it did four years after the Rising began. As he shared a common meal with the Resistance leaders in the Galilean hills, he had made it clear that he could play no part in it, that its ideals and methods had no meeting place with his own. He was already looking beyond the parochialism of his people to the wider world of God’s mission to the Gentiles. The Fourth Gospel tells us that from that point on, ‘many of his disciples withdrew and no longer went about with him’ (Jn. 6: 66).

The nature of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21: 1-9) is of some importance to our understanding of how he saw his mission in respect of nonviolence. He quietly accepted his disciples’ recognition of him as the Messiah, but immediately went on to teach about a new way, that of suffering. His triumphal entry into the city was the entry of a king; the clothes spread along the road were a sign of homage; the title ‘Son of David’ is a royal title; the palm branches (Jn. 12, 13) recalled the rising of the Maccabees. Indeed, the attitude of the crowd recalls a passage from The Psalms of Solomon:

‘Behold, O Lord, and raise up their King, the son of David,

at the time thou hast appointed, O God,

to reign over Israel thy servant.

Gird him with strength to shatter wicked rulers.

Cleanse Jerusalem from the Gentiles who trample it and destroy.

‘In wisdom, in justice, may he thrust out sinners from God’s heritage,

crush the arrogance of the sinner like a potter’s crocks,

crush his whole substance with an iron mace;

blot out the lawless Gentiles with a word,

put the Gentiles to flight with his threats.’

The Psalms of Solomon, 17: 23-7.

The relevant Gentiles were the Romans, and possibly the Greeks. But Jesus rejected that part of the scriptural tradition that depicted the Messiah as buckling on his sword and riding out to war on a white charger. He chose that part of the prophecy from Zechariah which depicts the Messiah coming to Jerusalem humbly, mounted on an ass. The next verse runs:

‘He shall banish chariots from Ephraim

and war-horses from Jerusalem;

the warrior’s bow shall be banished,

He shall speak peaceably to every nation,

and his rule shall extend from sea to sea,

from the River to the ends of the earth.’

Zechariah, 9: 9-10.

Jesus was a different kind of Messiah, standing not for war and military victory but for disarmament and peace. Only a handful of them remained loyal, and when he was taken captive by the Chief Priest’s guards, even they took flight and abandoned him. The following passage from the gospel depicts the moment when Jesus fulfilled the choice he had laid before his disciples at Caesarea Philippi:

‘At that moment one of those with Jesus reached for his sword and drew it, and he struck at the High Priest’s servant and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, “Put up your sword: All who take the sword die by the sword.” ‘

Matthew 26, 51-2.

At this moment in the Garden of Gethsemane, he could have raised the standard of violent revolt: He did not do so, but chose the way of suffering and of the cross. In the end, he cut a lonely figure and, when he died alone save for two ‘bandits’ (possibly Zealots), it seemed his ‘movement’ had died with him.

There were collaborators as well as guerillas among the resistance groups, including the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, though most of them supported his way of passive resistance. There has been interesting speculation among scholars about the motivations of Judas Iscariot. The meaning of the name ‘Iscariot’ is uncertain, but some have supposed it to be a corruption of the Latin ‘Sicarius’, or ‘dagger-man’, a member of the violent resistance. We have noted that Jesus attracted some members of this group, including Simon the Zealot, who hoped they had found the nationalist leader for whom they had been seeking. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas has always been a puzzle since the sum of thirty silver pieces seems paltry for such an act. Some have speculated that Judas was expecting the revolt to come following the triumphal entry at the Autumn festival of Tabernacles, or perhaps after the Cleansing of the Temple the following spring, just before Passover. When Jesus showed no signs of taking a truly insurrectionary initiative, however, Judas decided to try to force his hand. But Jesus accepted arrest and death rather than embark on a violent crusade which he believed was not God’s will or way. Of course, this is pure speculation, but it does make some sense.

But in this passage, Jesus is making a simple statement of fact that violence provokes counter-violence, and the violence provoked often exceeds the initial violence in scope and scale. In other words, violence tends to escalate uncontrollably. This is neither a justification nor condemnation of those provoked, just a simple statement of historical fact. Nonetheless, these words are not spoken to the aggressor in this situation, but to a loyal follower who misguidedly seeks to defend an innocent man from wrongful arrest and violence. They are a clear warning against all wars, however ‘defensive’ or ‘just’. This was how the early church understood these words of Jesus. Tertullian in his treatise On Patience declared that at this moment Jesus cursed the works of the sword forever after. In another treatise, On Idolatry, he spells out the meaning of this more fully:

‘How shall the Christian wage war, how indeed shall he even be a soldier in peacetime, without the sword which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had come to John and received the form of their rule, although even a centurion had believed, the Lord afterwards in disarming Peter unbuckled every soldier.’

Tertullian, On Idolatry.

Here, Tertullian comes close to a statement of Christian Pacifism. In his letter to the Jewish Christians (‘Hebrews’), for whom the suffering of Jesus was a ‘stumbling block’, the writer makes clear that the way of Jesus is the way of love, nonviolence and redemptive suffering. His readers had not yet come to equate the Messiah with the Suffering Servant about whom the prophets had written.

Johanan ben Zakkai is an important figure in the debate between the supporters of violent and nonviolent resistance among the early rabbinic writers. He belongs to the period of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. One story tells how, in despair at the spirit of contention between different partisan groups, he had himself carried out of the city in a coffin to the Roman camp. Certainly, he became persuaded that violent resistance merely contained the seeds of destruction within it. He was given permission by the Romans to establish a new centre at Jabneh Jamnia for the study of the Torah, together with a court of justice. A council of rabbis, meeting at Jamnia in about AD90 managed to successfully reorganise the chaos with which they were confronted. Their measures led to the eventual elimination of competing forms of Judaism and the predominance of a single version, Rabbinic Judaism, the Judaism of today. Johanan’s genius was to turn the leaders of Judaism from politics and acts of war to scholarship, piety and the things of peace, and to show that in so doing they were fulfilling rather than abandoning the central tenets of the faith. The School of Jabneh came to hold an authority comparable to that held earlier by the Sanhedrin.

Division, ‘Diaspora’ & the Development of Rabbinic Judaism:

Throughout the first century, however, these competitors were very much in evidence, so as well as reckoning with a changing historical situation, it is important to bear in mind that there were variations in Judaism from group to group and place to place. First, a geographical distinction has to be drawn between Palestinian Judaism and the Judaism of the Diaspora (the dispersion of Jews throughout the Roman Empire), with its greater contact with the Hellenistic atmosphere of the Mediterranean world. The distinction is by no means a clear-cut one, however, especially in linguistic terms, for Palestine had also been heavily influenced by the Greek language and culture. But since the diasporic Jews lived at great distances from Jerusalem and the temple, and were able to read the Torah in its Greek translation, the Septuagint and not the original Hebrew, they were able to maintain greater diversity in their religion. Secondly, within the two broad categories, there were more specific groupings. In Palestinian Judaism, as noted already, there were Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots to name but a few of the better-known; and there was the obvious split between the educated, bilingual classes and the illiterate monoglot masses. Divisions existed in Hellenistic Judaism, especially in terms of philosophical influences, but they are more difficult to trace.

So thoroughly did Rabbinic Judaism carry out its work of unification that it is often almost impossible to see the views of the movements it replaced, particularly those with which it did not agree. The Rabbinic writings fall, roughly speaking, into four main groups. The Mishna is a compilation of legal requirements, written down at the end of the second century, in the form of legal opinions; the Gemara is a discussion of the Mishna. The two together form the Talmud, of which there are two versions, Babylonian and Palestinian, completed at the end of the fourth century. The third is the Tosefta, which collects sayings which failed to be included in the Mishna, and the Midrash is a term referring to commentaries on the Scriptures, sometimes legal, sometimes theological. However, these sources are lacking in historical context. They contain early material, handed down orally. Still, since they were compiled into compendia later than the council of Jamnia, their view of the material is selective, often hazy and sometimes partisan. For example, nothing in it can be connected with the Maccabaean revolt or the temple’s destruction. The clues they do offer are in the realm of Jewish religious thought and institutions.

For our knowledge of the history of the period, we depend on the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived between 37 and 100 AD (CE), and his two major works, the History of the Jewish War and the Jewish Antiquities. These present a fuller picture of developments in the first three quarters of the century. These books do, however, have their drawbacks. Josephus was a client of the Flavian emperors and therefore had to be diplomatic in his presentation of Judaism; he also had to come to terms with his own position, which other Jews regarded as treacherous not just to the nation but also to Judaism. We therefore have to allow for some bias. Josephus is also silent about Judaism after the end of the war of AD66 and so leaves us completely in the dark about the developments which led to the council of Jamnia. For much of our knowledge of first-century Judaism, we are dependent on the New Testament texts of Christianity. In addition, our knowledge of Hellenistic Judaism is the result of the fact that the early churches preserved the writings of Josephus and of Philo of Alexandria. Otherwise, they would have remained unknown, as would the Jewish books which go to form the Apocrypha. Christianity also preserved the apocalyptic literature between the testaments, as noted above; the Rabbinic writings are essentially non-eschatological.

Christian sources tell us much about Judaism, and chief among them is the New Testament itself. It is often the sole source offering evidence of the details of Roman administration, though historical authenticity and reliability are sometimes difficult to surmise. In the Gospels, we have to allow for both bias and omission of information. In the letters of Paul, we have evidence of the thinking of a first-century Jew, but we know that he was from the eastern Mediterranean and, according to Luke, spent limited time in Jerusalem, Damascus and Antioch before and during his missions in Asia Minor and Greece. Both Luke and Paul himself report controversies between him and both Jews and Christians in Jerusalem and on his missions.

Finally, Palestinian archaeology provided two spectacular finds: the site of the Qumran community and its literature, and the citadel of Masada. Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls have given us an extensive view of the life of a sect previously known only from occasional textual references. Masada illustrates two greatly contrasting times, the luxury of the desert palace at the time of Herod at the beginning of the century and the tragedy of the last stand of the Zealots in AD73; it has also provided the lost original Hebrew text of the book of Ecclesiasticus (previously preserved only in Greek) together with a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, we cannot assume any direct connection between these two sites. Due to the difficulties with all these sources, the brief pictures of first-century Jewish society and religion they give us must be regarded as very approximate reconstructions. Nevertheless, these must be attempted if we are to try to understand the background of the extracts that follow. When we speak of Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes, we must remember that the reliable evidence we have about them is, in reality, quite small. The caricatures of them that have developed since their times do not further our understanding of Judaism in New Testament times and have tended to prejudice Christian relations with Jews to this day.

A scribe at work.

The Rabbinic Tradition – Temple, Torah & Talmud:

After the council of Jamnia, Judaism became known as Rabbinic Judaism, as opposed to the Pharisaic Judaism which existed before in the context of the Sanhedrin. The two are closely connected, however, and it is almost impossible to say where one ended and the other began. At the beginning of the first century, ‘Rabbi’ was not a formal title, but a mode of address meaning ‘my master’, used as a mark of respect. It is used several times in this way in the ‘fourth’ gospel, in remarks to Jesus of Nazareth (Jn. 1: 49, 6: 25). By the end of the first century, however, it had taken on a more formal significance, as is indicated by Matt. 23: 7f., a passage which dates from the time of the early church rather than that of Jesus and his immediate disciples. In the second century, it became firmly established, which is how it is used in Rabbinic literature and synagogues. It was this development which shaped the future of Judaism; the heightened prominence of the Law after the fall of the Temple was accompanied by the growing importance of the institution of the local synagogue as a place of worship and learning, which had been increasing for some time before AD70.

The Temple and its priesthood may have been the most strikingly visible symbols of Judaism until the end of the first century but had they they been its exclusive centre, Judaism could not have survived their fall. The way it adjusted to the situation after AD70 shows that there were other strengths; these strengths had as their common basis the Law and the differing interpretations of it which were brought together in the Talmud. Even while the temple still stood, within Judaea there seems to have been an increasing preoccupation with the scriptures and their implications, and this preoccupation will have been even more characteristic of the Jews of the Diaspora. A movement like that found at Qumran is unthinkable without this development, which comes to full effect in Rabbinic Judaism. The beginnings of this trend are to be found in the Babylonian exile and the period after the return. During this period the Pentateuch took final form and was accorded its place in the Torah, the Law; the Prophets had taken a place beside it by the beginning of the second century BC (BCE) and the writings were recognised during the first century AD (CE).

The Hebrew word ‘Torah’ means ‘instruction’ or ‘doctrine’ rather than ‘law’ and the Pentateuch is more than simply a collection of books of ‘Law’, or laws. Nevertheless, that is what it became as it was made the object of evermore intensive study. As well as considering the parties within Judaism in this process, it needs to be remembered that the New Testament ‘Gospels’, Acts and Paul’s letters present only one picture of first-century Judaism. The other side of ‘the Law’ also requires sympathetic treatment in the context of Hebraic texts which were being edited contemporaneously with the Greek texts of the Christian New Testament and interpreted in the writings of the Talmud. Concerning issues of war and peace, for example, ‘Seek peace and pursue it’ became a central tenet of later Judaism. The first verb is often translated as ‘propose’, emphasising the active state of peacemaking. On the other hand, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ was not, however, related to war, but to civil disputes between citizens, and though it is featured in the NT, it is not found in Rabbinic literature. Instead, the rabbinic expositions defined peace as part of God’s original purpose for mankind. The Talmud points out how many of the commandments of the Law begin with a conditional ‘if’ or ‘when’. If the situation arises, the believer’s duty is clear, but he need not go out of his way to find the situation. Two of the rabbis wrote:

If the heavenly beings who are free from envy, rivalry and hatred are in need of peace, how much more are the lower beings, who are subject to hatred, rivalry and envy, in need of peace.’

Deut. Rabbah 5, 12. Bar Kapparah

‘Great is peace, because peace is to the earth what yeast is to the dough. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not given peace to the earth, the sword and wild beasts would desolate the world.’

Baraíta de Perek ha Shalom.

For these rabbis, peace also takes priority over one of the most solemn and basic of all the commandments, condemning idolatry. This is effectively a condemnation of Jehu, who massacred the Baal-worshippers, and of the Maccabees, for rising in violence against Greek idolatry. In general, peace is said to bring together all the blessings that God would heap on Israel. So too the rabbis liked to put a peaceable interpretation upon stories of violence. So, Nebuchadnezzar’s prisoners of war are reinterpreted as scholars (2 Kings 24: 16) and David is remembered as a poet, musician and scholar rather than as a warrior king. Equally of interest is the treatment of the eight-day festival celebrating the rededication of the altar in Jerusalem after the Maccabean victories (1 Macc. 4: 59; 2 Macc. 10: 6). The rabbis say nothing about the military triumph, stressing that it is a Festival of Lights, recording a legend that eight iron spears into an eight-branched candlestick, the Menorah and that the altar was a symbol of reconciliation between God and mankind, and between Israel and its neighbours.

The rabbis also condemned destructive action and praised constructive transformation. Forgiveness is better than revenge. As the Talmud says, ‘He who avenges himself or bears a grudge against acts as one who has one hand cut by a knife, and then sticks it into the other hand for revenge.’ There is an awareness of the solidarity of mankind and its tendency to escalate violence. But if violence escalates so does goodness, kindness and friendliness. Another general principle is that destructive action must be avoided if a less destructive action will suffice for the good end desired:

If one is able to save a victim at the cost of only a limb of the pursuer and does not take the trouble to do so, but saves the victim at the cost of the pursuer’s life by killing him, he is deemed a shedder of blood and he deserves to be put to death. He may not, however, be put to death by the court because his true intention was to save life; he must be punished rather than put to death.

Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rozeach 1: 13.

That ‘legislation’ is doubly notable in its humanity. All human life is sacred and whoever sheds blood diminishes God’s presence in the world (Gen. Rabbah 34: 14). In Hebrew hymnody there is a famous refrain: Give thanks to the Lord, for it is good, for his mercy endures forever (Ps. 107: 1). The phrase occurs in the account of a muster for battle before King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20: 21), but without the words, for it is good. Why are they omitted? Because the destruction of human beings is not good, because the Holy One, blessed be he, does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked.

War and the destruction of enemy soldiers are thus regarded by the rabbinical interpreters as in some circumstances a ‘cruel necessity’. But rather than set down a set of rules, the rabbis were concerned to provide an ethical framework for the conduct of war. They distinguished between two kinds of war, milchemet reshut, optional war, and milchemet chovah, obligatory war, also called milchemet mitzvah, religious war. This latter type included the war against the seven tribes of Canaan (Deut. 20: 16-18), the war against Amalek, who had been guilty of unprovoked aggression (Deut. 25: 17-19), and defensive war generally. The seven tribes no longer exist: as Maimonides put it, writing in the second century on the Principles of War, ‘their memory has long perished’, though some were found to argue that this justified military measures in establishing the modern state of Israel. The Amalekites have also disappeared, but all tyrants, dictators and oppressors have been considered to be ‘the seed of Amalek’: ‘The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’ (Exodus 17: 16), and many Jews later justified action against Hitler on these grounds. But the main grounds for a just war rest in attack from outside, and such a war is obligatory. There was much discussion among the rabbis as to whether preventative war fell into this category. The majority view was that it did not:

Opinion is divided only when they engage their enemies in war because they are afraid that they will attack them, or if it is known that they are preparing to attack. According to Rabbi Judah it is obligatory and according to the sages it is optional.

Sotah, 44b.

Optional wars are much less clear morally, and the rabbis, though justifying those recorded in Scripture, have been far less ready to extend that justification to later wars. Their standard examples are the conquest of Canaan as an obligatory war and the expansion of the whole kingdom by David and his house as an optional war. Maimonides sums up the whole doctrine concisely:

The primary war which the King wages is a ‘religious war’ Which may be denominated as a religious war? It includes the war against the seven tribes, the war against Amalek, and a war to deliver Israel from enemy aggression. Thereafter he may engage in an ‘optional war’, that is, a war against neighbouring nations to extend the borders of Israel and to enhance his greatness and prestige.

Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Melachim 5: 1.

Maimonides’ Principles of War:

Maimonides was born in 1138 (or 1135) in Córdoba, Andalusia, in the Muslim-ruled Almoravid Empire, during what some scholars consider to be the end of the golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula, after the first centuries of the Moorish rule. His father Maimon ben Joseph, was a Spanish dayyan (Jewish judge). Aaron ha-Kohen later wrote that he had traced Maimonides’ descent back to Simeon ben Judah ha-Nasi from the Davidic line. Maimonides studied the Torah under his father, who had in turn studied under Rabbi Joseph ibn Migash, a student of Isaac Alfasi. At an early age, Maimonides developed an interest in sciences and philosophy. He read those Greek philosophers accessible in Arabic translations and was deeply immersed in the sciences and learning of Islamic culture.

Plaque of Maimonides at Rambam Medical Center, Haifa

In early first century (AD/CE) Judaism, while the King could take full responsibility for declaring a religious war, an optional war required the consent of the Sanhedrin. The Rabbinic tradition thus picked out the elements in the Torah which pointed to mercy and stressed these in their laws of war. Maimonides offered a convenient compendium. For example, there was to be no wanton destruction:

‘It is forbidden to cut down fruit-bearing trees outside a city, nor may a water channel be deflected from them so that they wither, as it is said: “Thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof.” (Deut. 20: 19). Whoever cuts down a fruit-bearing tree is flogged. This penalty is imposed not only for cutting it down during a siege; whenever a fruit-yielding tree is cut down with destructive intent, flogging is incurred. … The law forbids only wanton destruction.’

Ibid. 6: 8.

‘Not only one who cuts down trees, but also one who smashes household goods, tears clothes, demolishes a building, stops up a spring, or destroys articles of food with destructive intent, transgresses the command: “Thou shat not destroy.” He is not flogged, but is administered a disciplinary beating imposed by the rabbis.’

Ibid. 6, 10.

So too a woman prisoner is to be treated as a human being. If she has been widowed or bereaved, she is to be allowed a period of mourning, during which she will appear less desirable. Only then may her captor cohabit with her. But if she is converted to Judaism, then she will be ceremonially purified, and entitled to a legal (re)marriage. And if her new husband, her captor, tires of her, he must let her go freely and is not entitled to enslave her or to sell her (ibid. 8: 5-6). Sometimes the Rabbis went beyond the Torah, as shown in an instructive passage in Maimonides:

‘When siege is laid to a city for the purpose of capture, it may not be surrounded on all four sides but only three in order to give an opportunity for escape to those who would flee to save their lives, as it is said: “And they warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Num. 31: 7). It has been learned by tradition that that was the instruction given to Moses.

ibid. 6, 7.

We do not know where the tradition came from, but it is clearly not in the Book of Numbers. Again, whereas the Bible decrees destruction without remission against Amalek and the seven tribes, the Rabbis dare to contradict the clear word of the Torah:

‘No war is declared against any nation before peace offers are made to it. This obtains both in an optional war and a religious war.’

ibid. 6: 1.

The other party to the conflict are given the option of accepting the ‘seven commandments enjoined upon the descendants of Noah’. These were: to avoid idolatry; avoid blasphemy against the name of God; establish courts of justice; avoid murder, adultery, and theft; and not eat flesh cut from a living animal. As in Jewish tradition, the whole human race was descended from Noah, these commandments were regarded as a code of universal morality, and anyone who would not accept them was seen as subhuman. But any people suing for peace, willing to pay tribute, accept a subject status and accept these commandments must be left in peace:

‘Once they make peace and take upon themselves the seven commandments, it is forbidden to deceive them and prove false to the covenant made with them.’

ibid. 6: 3.

Military service was in principle universal and compulsory, and in a religious war, this applied even to newlyweds. But in optional wars, some exemptions were permitted on compassionate grounds and the three principal grounds were biblically based (Deut. 20: 5-8). They were for those who had built a house, but not yet occupied it; who had planted a vineyard but not yet enjoyed its first fruit, and those who were engaged to be married. Judas Maccabaeus re-established these principles (1 Macc. 3: 56) despite the desperate military needs. Maimonides’ compendium also reasserts them, but in such a way that they cannot be trumped-up excuses.

Interestingly, the rabbis added a further compassionate ground, that the death of one member of a family on military service would exempt all other sons and brothers. However, they might be required for non-combatant duties. More radical than all these exemptions, however, is the Deuteronomic precept that the ‘fearful and fainthearted’ should be allowed to return home (20: 8), since fear is infectious. The words, Rach halevav have been interpreted as a ‘tender conscience’, or a hyper-sensitivity to suffering in others, rather than as simply cowardice. Rabbi Jose the Galilean took the whole phrase to refer to those who were fearful because of their own misdeeds: it was better not to have ‘serious offenders’ in the army. But the more usual view was that taken by Rabbi Akiba:

‘Our rabbis taught: If he heard the sound of trumpets and was panic-stricken, or beheld the brandishing of swords and the urine discharged itself upon his knees, he returns home.’

Sotah, 44ab.

This was a more humane concession to human weakness than military discipline had generally allowed in the ancient world. This was extended even to obligatory wars, where the other exemptions were disallowed. Further, some commentators claim that the priest anointed for war (the ‘chaplain’) was there precisely to assert the rights of this group. Sabbath observance was another circumscription of military activity. It was one of the chief reasons why Jews were exempted from military service by the Romans (Josephus, Ant. 14: 10, 11-19). The strict Jews would not bear arms on the Sabbath and in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes allowed themselves to be massacred rather than profane the Sabbath even in self-defence (1 Macc. 2: 29-38). Once these scruples were known, military commanders opposed to the Jews took advantage of them (2 Macc. 5: 25-6; 15: 1; Jos. Ap. 1, 22: Ant. 13, 12, 4: 18, 9, 2). The Maccabaean guerrillas therefore decided that there was no military future in strict observance of this point and that they would fight defensively on the Sabbath, though they would not initiate battle (1 Macc. 2: 41; 9: 34-49; 2 Macc. 8: 21-8; c.f. Jos. BJ 2, 18, 2). This last remained a severe restriction: for example, the Jewish troops would not destroy siegeworks on the Sabbath, which enabled Pompey to complete his preparations against Jerusalem in BCE 63 (Jos. Ant. 14: 4, 2). Rabbinic tradition did not go much further than prohibiting the declaration of an optional war on the Sabbath.

The title page of The Guide for the Perplexed.

In general, while war was permitted, the rabbis did not allow their disciples to forget that war was justified only if directed to constructive ends, which would be lost if standards of behaviour were allowed to slide. Maimonides put it clearly in his Guide to the Perplexed:

‘It will thus be confirmed in the heart of every one of the Israelites that their camp must be like a sanctuary of the Lord, and it must not be like the camps of the heathen, whose sole object is corruption and sin, and who seek only to cause injury to others and to take their property, whilst our object is to lead mankind to the service of God and to a good sound order.’

Guide to the Perplexed, (3: 41)

One further point in Jewish traditions is that there is a general obligation for the individual to be actively involved on the side of good against evil. He is invited to regard the world as delicately balanced between the two. His action may tip the scale:

‘He who commits a good deed may incline the balance with regard to himself and all mankind towards the side of the good: and he who commits a sin may incline the balance with regard to himself and all mankind towards the side of guilt.’

Tosefta Kiddushin 1: 13.

Therefore, as the Sanhedrin announced, the individual within Judaism has a responsibility to ‘protest’ for peace:

‘Whoever is able to protest against the transgressions of the people of his community and does not do so is punished for the sins of his community. Whoever is able to protest against the transgressions of the entire world and does not do so is punished for the transgressions of the entire world.’

Sanhedrin, 54b.

Judaism thus does not countenance quietism or passivism but fosters active involvement and pacifism:

‘If the man of learning participates in public affairs and serves as judge or arbitrator, he gives stability to the land. But if he sits in his home and says to himself, ‘What have the affairs of society to do with me?… Why should I trouble myself with the people’s voices of protest? Let my soul dwell in peace! – if he does this, he overthrows the world.

Tanhuma Mishpatim.

The Vocation to Suffering:

Across the centuries since the twelfth, when Maimonides was writing, the Jewish people in the diaspora have suffered intensely from persecution. From this has come the idea of a vocation to suffering, of the acceptance of suffering, as a means of changing the world. One great rabbinic dictum was, Be of the persecuted rather than the persecutors (Baba Kamma: 93a). Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, ‘He who gladly accepts the sufferings of this world brings salvation to the world.’ Judah Ha Levi in al Khuzari (11: 44) in the twelfth century wrote that Israel had a mission of suffering. Israel, the heart of humanity, the suffering servant, bears the ills of all, and by this very fact allows God to reveal himself on earth. Simon ben Yochai said: ‘The best which God gave Israel, he gave through suffering.’ Sholem Asch cried:

‘God be thanked that the nations have not given my people the opportunity to commit against others the crimes which have been committed against it.’

(to be concluded)

Sources (for both parts):

John Barton (2019), A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths. London: Allen Lane.

Alan T Dale (1979), Portrait of Jesus. Oxford: OUP.

Tim Dowley (ed.) (1977), The History of Christianity. Berkhamsted: Lion Publishing.

John Ferguson (1977), War and Peace in The World’s Religions. London: Sheldon Press.

John Ferguson (1973), The Politics of Love: The New Testament and Non-Violent Revolution. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.

Robert C Walton (ed.) (1970), A Source Book of the Bible for Teachers. London: SCM Press.

Featured

War, Peace & Justice in Judaism: Part One – The Hebrew Bible.

Prologue – A Time for Every Purpose:

For everything there is a season,

and a time for every purpose under heaven;

a time to be born, a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what has been planted;

a time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to break down, and a time to build up;

a time to weep, and a time to laugh;

a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

a time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones together;

a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;

… a time to tear, and a time to sew;

a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

a time to love, and a time to hate;

a time for war, and a time for peace.

Ecclesiastes 3: 1-9.

This famous passage from one of the ‘Books of Wisdom’ of the Old Testament was popularised in my generation by the American folk-rock group The Byrds in the 1960s, having been earlier turned into a song by Pete Seeger. Before the first Israeli counter-offence began in the week following the Hamas-led pogrom against the kibbutzim and villages of southern Israel on 7th October, the beleaguered Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted the passage in a press conference. The bombardment which followed certainly represented Israel’s ‘time for war’, but was criticised for its lack of proportion by some of Israel’s ‘Western’ allies, not to mention its regional Arab neighbours.

Therefore, as Israel continues to conduct its ‘counter-offensive’ against Hamas following the week-long truce which enabled the exchange of Jewish hostages for Palestinian Arab prisoners and the importation of humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip, in this, my fourth article on the religious and historical background to the current conflict, I want to reflect and focus on whether or not there is a Biblical basis for the Israeli strategy to defeat, degrade and dismantle Hamas’ network of terror. Certainly, the ‘secular’ basis for the support of Israel’s ‘right to self-defence’ remains clear, but in what sense can the bombing of Gaza, with its consequent civilian deaths, be justified in Judaistic terms?

John Barton’s recent book, A History of the Bible, has shown how the narratives of the Hebrew Bible (the ‘Old Testament’ to Christians) only occasionally provide direct advice on how people should live moral lives. The Bible does, however, contain material that gives advice or even instructions in a much more unequivocal way. Two of its other genres can be seen to do this: wisdom and law. It has long been traditional to group certain books in the ‘OT’ under the heading ‘wisdom’: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job, as well as those in the Apocrypha like the Wisdom of Solomon. These, like the passage quoted above, contain many short sayings or aphorisms, summing up the Hebrew experience or giving explicit advice on how to behave. Many seem to reflect life in a village community and draw ‘morals’ from its daily activities. But some sayings seem better suited to the royal court than the Israelite village:

Wise warriors are mightier than strong ones,

and those who have knowledge than those who have strength;

for by wise guidance you can wage war,

and in abundance of counsellors there is victory.

Proverbs 24: 5-6.

This has led to a consensus among biblical scholars that the collection of proverbs into books probably occurred at the king’s court in Jerusalem, rather than in rural communities, and the books were most likely the work of scribes who made a living in royal employment. Assuming this context, E. W. Heaton paints a portrait of the person described in Proverbs as an early practitioner of ‘non-violence’:

‘The man of Proverbs is an open, cheerful character, who speaks his mind and does everything in his power to promote neighbourliness in the community at large… The way to deal with enemies, he believes, is not by revenge but by the same sort of generosity a man ought to show to everybody in need. … ‘

Heaton, Solomon’s New Men, pp. 124-6.

Ecclesiastes is even more the product of a kind of Hebrew scepticism than Job, often considered the most typical book of that genre. Overall, the book is concerned with the possibility of finding a profound meaning in life, denying that any can be found. Like Job, the book often quotes proverbs which suggest that there is order and worth in what happens on earth, only to point out the futility of human striving. Because it is attributed to a ‘son of David’ it is often thought to have been authored by Solomon, but this could simply mean that it was written by a king of the Davidic line. Ecclesiastes contains a few short stories to illustrate how human affairs turn out badly and make no ultimate sense:

‘There was a little city with few people in it. A great king came against it and besieged it, building great siege-works against it. Now there was found in it a poor, wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that poor man. So I said, “Wisdom is better than might; yet the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded.”

Ecclesiastes 9: 14-16.

It seems that some of these tales contain veiled references to events in the history of Israel, but they are anonymized to make them appear typical of the vanity of human wishes. An editor has added an epilogue to the book to wrench its teaching back into line with biblical orthodoxy:

‘The end of the matter: all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.’

Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14.

Wisdom literature invites the reader into a dialogue about human life and its patterns, rather than ‘laying down the law.’ It tends to be open-ended rather than dogmatic: if it offers insight into the human condition, proposing proverbs and wise sayings to ponder, not rigid diktats to be adhered to. Proverbs 30: 29-31 refers to three things that are stately in their stride, including a king striding before his people. It does not tell us whether it is a good thing for a king to stride ahead of his people, though we may assume that this means that this is better than him standing behind them in battle. But the statement itself is simply an observation to be registered. We do not know who the authors of the books of wisdom were, though the Proverbs may derive from court scribes who collected both folk and professional wise sayings. But the writers of Ecclesiastes seem to be sophisticated individuals, even though we do not know their names. Their social context is tantalizingly obscure to us, but there must have been some setting in which such works could be read and discussed, but there is no evidence of philosophical schools such as existed in ancient Greece. We only have the evidence of the works themselves.

Deliverance – The People of the Lord & their Laws:

John Ferguson, writing in the 1970s as a theologian on the place of Judaism among the world religions on the questions of war and peace, took a historical view of the religion in this respect. He argues that Judaism began with the ‘deliverance’ of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and the subsequent covenant at Mount Sinai. In the Psalms, it is one of the constant praises of the Lord that he brought his people up from Egypt. This was a military deliverance:

The Lord is a warrior: the Lord is his name.

The chariots of Pharaoh and his army

he has cast into the sea;

the flower of his officers

are engulfed in the Red Sea.

The watery abyss has covered them,

they sank in the depths like a stone.

Thy right hand, O Lord, is majestic in strength:

thy right hand, O Lord, shattered the enemy.

Exodus 15: 3-6.

So, too, with the entry into Canaan. Joshua puts an extended historical narrative into the mouth of the Lord. He records the deliverance from Egypt and continues to describe the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan:

“Then I brought you into the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan; they fought against you but I delivered them into your hands: you took possession of their country and I destroyed them for your sake. The King of Moab, Balak son of Zippor, took the field against Israel. He sent for Balaam son of Boor to lay a curse on you, but I would not listen to him. Instead of that he blessed you: and so I saved you from the power of Balak. Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, but I delivered them into your hands. I spread panic before you, and it was this, not your sword or your bow, that drove out the two kings of the Amorites. I gave you land on which you had not laboured, cities which you had never built; you have lived in those cities and you eat the produce of vineyards and olive-groves which you did not plant.”

Josh. 24: 8-13.

The ‘historical’ books of the Hebrew Bible are full of such battles in which the Ark of the Covenant represents the very presence of the Lord in the campaign (1 Samuel 4: 1-11). The Israelites were undoubtedly a military people at that time; they believed in all the mystical powers of The Almighty. If Pharoah’s heart was hardened, God had hardened it: if God had not hardened it, it could not have been hardened. If Israel conquered in battle, it was through the will of the Lord. So he is ‘the Lord mighty in battle’ (Ps. 24: 8). He is the Lord of Hosts. David is sent out to challenge Goliath ‘in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the army of Israel which you have defiled’ (1 Sam. 17: 45). David becomes, in many ways, the heroic soldier-king, despite the corrupting effects of power which led, for example, to the elimination of Uriah so that the king could enjoy his wife. As the culmination of his career, he hoped to ‘build a house as a resting place for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord which might serve as a footstool for the feet of our God’. He made preparations to build it, but God put an abrupt stop to his plans by telling him:

“You shall not build a house in honour of my name, for you have been a fighting man and you have shed blood.”

1 Chron. 28: 2-3.

The prohibition here arises not from David’s unjust acts, but simply from the fact that he has been a soldier. The far less admirable and attractive Solomon, ruler of a heavily armed state, but not himself on the front line, as other kings beside David had been, is granted the privilege of building the first temple. Clearly, while warfare was regarded as justifiable, if not inevitable, it was not something that could be rewarded or combined with building houses of worship, emphasising that it was not something to be entered into lightly and certainly not wantonly. Even more telling of God’s attitude to ‘massacres’, is the story of Jehu, the renowned chariot-riding warrior king of Israel, who with the apparent support of the prophet Elisha, massacres the apostate house of Ahab and the Baal-worshippers (2 Kings 9-10). The prophet Hosea denounces these same actions as a crime to be punished by God, who tells him:

“Call him Jezreel: for in a little while I will punish the line of Jehu for the blood shed in Jezreel and put an end to the kingdom of Israel.”

Hos. 1: 4.

Elisha, as shown by this story, was not always the most compassionate of God’s servants. The Aramaeans tried to capture him, no doubt to exact revenge for his role in Jehu’s atrocity against the House of Ahab. But they were deluded and led into Samaria. However, when the King of Israel cried out “My father, shall I smite them?”, Elisha told him to let them eat and drink before returning to their master. After that, the raids on Israel ceased. So, alongside the military fervour there developed a rich compassion for the penitent nations. It is notable that at the end of the book of Jonah when Jonah has denounced Nineveh, and proclaimed its destruction, the people repent and the Lord withholds the threatened disaster, for he is…

‘a god compassionate and gracious, long-suffering, ever constant and true, maintaining constancy to thousands, forgiving iniquity, rebellion and sin, and not sweeping the guilty clean away’

Exodus 34: 6.

Jonah is not pleased with this, but the Lord asks him,

“Should not I be sorry for the great city of Nineveh, with its hundred and twenty thousand who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”

Jonah 4: 11.

The classic example of the Lord’s power is the destruction of Sannacherib’s army (2 Kings 19: 1-36; 2 Chron. 32: 1-23; Isa. 37: 1-38). Hezekiah says of Sennacherib, ‘He has human strength, but we have the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles’ (2 Chron. 37: 8). Here there was ‘deliverance’, but a very violent one. At the same time, however, most of the references in the historical books are to specific battles and campaigns. They were not part of a general divine plan for the Israelites to drive the native ethnicities of Canaan into the Mediterranean Sea.

Contrary to the popular view of ‘the Ten Commandments’ as given in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 1-21, there is no reference to collective acts of violence, including warfare, in either version of the Decalogue. In fact, the often mistakenly quoted ‘thou shalt not kill’ as the sixth commandment, should correctly be translated as ‘thou shalt not murder’. Warfare may be justified, as the narrative and prophetic books of the Old Testament amply demonstrate, while murder is never sanctioned by Yahweh. In fact, the murder-adultery-theft section reflects older prophetic texts such as Hosea 4:2 and Jeremiah 7: 9. In the following explanatory text in Exodus 21: 12-14; … if someone wilfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. In this passage, there are four characters: the ‘slayer’, the ‘slain’, the ‘lawgiver’, who reveals himself through the reference to ‘my altar’ and the addressee, who is drawn in as a participant via the command, ‘you shall take…’

Some experts have stressed that legal reflection is therefore more like reading and musing on narrative than it is like enforcing a rule. But in the Book of the Law (Deuteronomy 20: 3-4) we do find instructions for what the priest should say before battle:

“Hear, O Israel, this day you are joining battle with the enemy; do not lose heart or give way to panic in the face of them; for the the Lord your God will go with you to fight your enemy for you and give you the victory.”

When Nehemiah restores the walls of Jerusalem, with half the men building and half standing to arms, and himself keeping hold of his sword, he tells his people, ‘Wherever the trumpet sounds, rally to us there and God will fight for us’ (Neh. 4: 16-23). The Israelites differed from the surrounding peoples because, in the first place, they were linked to Yahweh, the Lord, by a covenant. He was not a mere projection of their image onto the infinite but was an independent and all-powerful being. Chemosh was the god of Moab; if Moab ceased to exist, Chemosh ceased to exist (apparently). But the God of Israel was indissolubly linked to the nation. If Israel ceased to exist, Yahweh did not, for his relation to the nation was covenanted, not organic. If Israel was defeated that was due to the Lord’s (temporary) withdrawal of support from his ‘chosen people’; He was not defeated. This further meant that what he was to Israel he could also be to all people. The covenant bore with it the seeds of universalism. Therefore, Amos proclaims the judgement of the Lord on Moab for atrocities committed not against Israel but against Edom (Amos 2: 1-3) and cries:

“Are not you Israelites like Cushites to me? says the Lord.

Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,

the Philistines from Caphtor, the Aramaeans from Kir?

Amos 9: 7.

Non-Jews in the Old Testament periods often regarded the Jews with suspicion, particularly because they did not revere the same gods, but insisted on their own, single God to the exclusion of all others. This made them singular and peculiar in the eyes of other nations. The reaction of the Jews was to insist that they were the truly universal ones since they acknowledged a set of norms that surpassed all the ideas of other nations, and in these norms, set out in the Torah, true wisdom could be found. This second difference, the association of the covenant with a moral code, simple but exalted, the Ten Commandments, demonstrated how the Lord made moral demands on his people. As the prophets interpreted the word of the Lord to his people, those moral claims became more profound and more demanding. So while the way of warfare existed constantly in relations between ancient Israel and its neighbours, it stood under judgement.

Wisdom and Law in the Hebrew Bible combined thus came nearest to providing the guidance for how to live that many people still turn to. Yet neither of these types of books supplies a timeless code; both are deeply rooted in the institutional life of ancient Israel. Nevertheless, both exemplify moral principles that were shared with other peoples of the Near and Middle East at that time, including those set down in Mesopotamia. These principles can often be seen to inform modern discussions of ethics and can be applied to modern warfare. However, the rootedness of these books in ancient times does make any direct application of biblical teachings difficult and suggests the need for a more nuanced relationship between them and the modern Jewish and Christian faiths in the region as well as further afield.

For example, in the light of the New Testament, Christians understand that ‘God’s people’ of the Old Testament were a model: Israel was not chosen from all the peoples of the earth for its own sake but for the salvation of the world. Being chosen means receiving, and expecting, one’s life solely from God. It is not meant for the individual or the individual nation, in isolation. It is meant for the whole community, and the individual as part of that community. The social character of Israelite law is based on this communal ‘election’. The right to life that God bestows on his people is meant for all, without distinction, not for the privileged few. Where God alone is Lord, people become brothers and sisters of the same ‘Father’. That is the fundamental law of brotherhood, justice and equity that lies behind the following specific statements of ‘law’ from Leviticus 19:

‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God. You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another …’ (vv 9-11)

‘You shall not oppress your neighbour or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. … You shall do no injustice in judgement; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall judge your neighbour. …’ (vv 13-15)

‘You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself; I am the Lord. …’ (v 18)

The Law told Israel what God’s choice of them must mean in the life of the people, but what was the reality of how this was upheld? For an answer to that question, we need to turn to the prophets, who unanimously complained about serious social abuses: according to the evidence contained in their many books, the rich and powerful oppressed and mercilessly exploited the poor, the ‘meek’ sought their rights in vain before judges who themselves belonged to or were dependent on the propertied classes. Those responsible could assert in response to these reproaches that they were acting under the force of political and economic necessity. Actually, it was not only a moral problem, but also a question of the constantly endangered existence of Israel as a state. The introduction of kingship was an attempt to protect the people more effectively against enemies. But it led to the creation of a military and administrative hierarchy and – with the introduction of a money economy – those conditions against which the prophets protested.

Prophets of Doom, Destruction and Restoration:

My beloved had a vineyard

on a very fertile hill.

He digged it and cleared it of stones,

and planted it with choice vines;

and he looked for it to yield grapes,

but it yielded wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem

and men of Judah,

judge, I pray you,

between me and my vineyard.

What more was there to do for my vineyard,

that I have not done in it?

When I looked for it to yield grapes,

why did it yield wild grapes?

And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard.

I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured;

I will break down its wall,

and it shall be trampled down.

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts

is the house of Israel,

and the men of Judah

are his pleasant planting;

and he looked for justice,

but behold, bloodshed;

for righteousness,

but behold, a cry!

Isaiah 5: 1-7.

Prophecy as a social phenomenon existed throughout ancient Mesopotamia, and there are many texts about people we would identify as prophets. A prophet is a person (man or woman) who has ‘privileged access’ to the gods because of special psychic powers, and who is consulted by rulers when planning some major undertaking, such as a military campaign, for example. They often took the role of warning or exhorting them either to engage or abstain from warfare. Few, however, went so far as to oppose their king outright, as was the case in Israel and Judah. Prophets in Israel, whom we encounter in the narrative books of Samuel and Kings, match the patterns found in other books from the Middle East, like the texts found at Mari on the Euphrates. Letter Seven from Mari has a prophet opposing the making of a peace treaty by King Zimri-Lim with Eshunna. The Israelite texts, however, differ in two important ways. First, their prophets sometimes talk not of the outcome of one particular battle or campaign, but of the future of the nation or of the ruling dynasty as a whole:

‘Samuel said to him (Saul), “The LORD hath torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day, and has given it to a neighbour of yours (David), who is better than you”.

1 Samuel 15: 28.

In this way, the text explains the fateful division of Judah and Israel. But more significant still, the Hebrew prophets sometimes step out of their role as political advisers to comment on the morals and general behaviour of the kings of the two kingdoms in a manner unparalleled anywhere else in the ancient Near East. Elijah uses his privileged position as a prophet to denounce and condemn King Ahab and his wife, Jezebel, anoints Jehu as king over Israel and even consecrates another prophet, Elisha, whose task is to help eliminate Ahab’s dynasty (1 Kings 21: 20-24; 1 Kings 19: 15-17). These accounts may be greatly exaggerated: our knowledge of the dynastic struggles in ninth-century BCE Israel and Judah is sketchy. But they have seemed plausible to later readers, implying that such actions were credible where important prophets were concerned. Other prophetic figures, such as the earliest of the Minor Prophets, Amos, in the eighth century BCE were also social critics and foretellers of disaster in the entire nation. He appears to have prophesied just as a period of relative prosperity for Israel was about to end, with the rise of Assyria. Far from being consulted by kings, Amos spoke entirely unbidden, denouncing the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam II, and predicting the downfall of his dynasty, or royal ‘house’:

Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to King Jeroboam of Israel, saying, ‘Amos has conspired against you in the very centre of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos has said,

“Jeroboam shall die by the sword,

and Israel must go into exile

away from his land.”

Amos 7: 10-11.

Amos also denounces not only a sequence of foreign nations (1: 3 – 2: 3) – a standard prophetic task – but also Israel itself (2: 6-8; 3: 10; 5: 21-4). He presents the social misdeeds in Israel (oppressing the poor by various ‘legal’ ruses) as the moral equivalent of the war crimes committed by surrounding nations, and foretells the complete collapse of Israel (Amos 2: 6-8). A similar message can be found in Amos’ younger contemporaries, Hosea (who also worked in the north), in Micah and Isaiah, prophets in Judah, and from the next century in Jeremiah, Zephaniah and Ezekiel. All criticise the corrupt and debased conduct they see around them and prophesy the fall of the nation under the onslaught of the Assyrians and later, the Babylonians. During and after the sixth century (BCE) exile, we find prophets foretelling restoration and peace for the Jews. This is part of the message of later oracles in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, both of whom lived through the disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the king and ruling classes. This is at its clearest in Zechariah, who worked around 520 BCE when the first few steps were being taken to rebuild the ruined Temple, and who predicted blessings from God upon the renewed nation:

‘Thus says the LORD, I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion; my house shall be built in it, says the LORD of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. Proclaim further: Thus says the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’

Zechariah 1: 16-17.

‘Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets.’

Zechariah 8: 4-5.

Most scholars believe that the early Old Testament prophets were ‘prophets of doom’, especially Amos, Isaiah and Micah, whose message was later lightened by later editors. In a passage from Jeremiah 4: 27 we can see this process very clearly:

‘For thus says the LORD: The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end. (my emphasis).

The tendency of prophets to teach ‘good tidings of great joy’ is, in reality, a post-exilic development, read back into earlier prophecy. This has influenced some modern uses of the words ‘prophet’ and ‘prophetic’ to refer not to prognosticators but to those who provide a critique of the ‘sins of society’ in the present. The great prophets of Israel were probably not so far removed from the normal role of the ancient prophets of Mesopotamia. Rather, they were politically better informed than most of their contemporaries and therefore able to foresee potentially dangerous events ahead and explain these impending ‘troubles’ as the result of national sin. Whether the prophets thought disaster could be averted is a moot point. Amos seems to hold out little hope for any national salvation, while Hosea predicts at least some kind of restoration after disaster even if not before it. Isaiah is so complex a book that it is almost impossible to know which way the prophet’s own teaching went. With Jeremiah, at least, we can feel sure that he spoke in terms of contingent results from the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians: if Judah surrendered they would surely escape actual destruction, whereas if they did not, inevitable carnage would ensue – as it did.

The Book of Isaiah is probably the work whose composition spans the longest time among the prophetic texts. There is no reason to doubt that parts of it genuinely go back to the prophet Isaiah, who worked in Jerusalem in the days of the Kings Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, beginning in 742 BCE and continuing until at least 701, when Jerusalem was besieged by the Assyrian King Sennacherib. The siege is described in Isaiah 36-39, and this narrative was also exported into 2 Kings 18-19. There were several political crises in which Isaiah seems to have been involved, doubling as a prophet and a royal counsellor or civil servant. The first crisis was in the 730s when there was an alliance forged between the northern kingdom of Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus, which Judah was pressured to join. This is the background of Israel, where we find King Ahaz of Judah tempted to appeal to the Assyrians themselves to resist the threats from the north and Isaiah strongly opposing such a move. Apparently, he argued that the coalition would be snuffed out by the Assyrians anyway, without any need for Judah to draw attention to itself through diplomatic interventions. In the event, Ahaz did not listen to the prophet and approached the Assyrians and the alliance was duly defeated. During the first crisis, at the time of the coalition, he is reported as telling Ahaz:

‘Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smouldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Because Aram – with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah – has plotted evil against you, saying “Let us go up against Judah and cut off Jerusalem and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it”; therefore thus says the LORD GOD:

“It shall not stand,

and it shall not come to pass …

“If you do not stand firm in faith,

you shall not stand at all.”

Isaiah 7: 3-7, 9b.

From then on, the Assyrians took an interest in Judah. Following the collapse of northern Israel in the 720s, during the years after circa 710, the remaining small states around Judah were enticed into anti-Assyrian politicking, involving the Philistines and the Egyptians. Isaiah advised King Hezekiah against getting drawn into this, telling him Egypt was ‘a broken reed’ and could do its eastern allies no good. But his words fell on deaf ears, and by 701 the Assyrians had invaded and were at the gates of Jerusalem itself. The details of what happened are obscure. On the one hand, Hezekiah had to pay tribute to King Sennacherib and lost a considerable measure of his independence (2 Kings 18: 13-16). On the other hand, Jerusalem was not sacked, and the Assyrian army withdrew. Stories grew up that God had intervened, slaughtering the Assyrian army, a story retold in the poem ‘The Destruction of Sennacherib’ by Lord Byron (1788-1824), beginning with the line, The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold:

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,

And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed,

And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,

And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,

And the idols are broke in the temples of Baal;

And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,

Hath melted like snow in the glance of the LORD!

But Isaiah’s part in all this is unclear: did he counsel capitulation and predict disaster if the king did not listen, or did he (rightly) foretell a great deliverance? Was he a prophet of doom, as many Old Testament scholars have believed, or was he a ‘normal’ ancient Middle Eastern prophet of salvation? The answers to these questions depend on their decisions as to which of the sayings attributed to him in the Assyrian crises are his own words, and which are the work of later editors with theories of their own. The text of Isaiah is a muddle. The name he gave to his son, Shear-jashub, meaning ‘a remnant will remain’, often taken to be a positive prophecy, could also be interpreted as an ill omen. If the people of Judah thought that Ahaz’s policy of appeasing Assyria was likely to result in peace and prosperity, then his prophecy could be heard or read as ‘only a remnant of the nation will continue to exist’. In Isaiah 6: 13, we read:

Even if a tenth part remains in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains standing when it is felled.

But if there was indeed a general fear and dread, then it is possible that Isaiah was trying to offer a crumb of comfort by prophesying that at least a remnant would survive, though the comfort at its best would still be somewhat cold. Indeed, in Isaiah 10: 20-23, the two possibilities are juxtaposed, firstly expressing Hope and Comfort, and the second adopting a more threatening tone:

On that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on the one who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.

‘For though your people Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. For the LORD GOD of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in all the earth.’

Taken all together, there would appear to be real sayings of Isaiah in chapters 1-8 and 28-31. But the book seems to have been largely written by scribes who edited and embellished the book, sometimes by writing continuations of the prophet’s own words; sometimes by adding whole blocks of sayings that are anonymous in origin. The extensions belong to the verses added to give Isaiah’s originally negative message a more positive ‘spin’, as with the other, older prophetic books. For example, in Isaiah (2: 2), there is an ‘oracle’ about the universal salvation of the nations:

‘In days to come

the mountain of the Lord’s house

shall be set over all other mountains,

lifted high above the hills.

All the nations shall come streaming to it.

Further additions take the form of several collections of oracles that amount to more than two-thirds of the book. These are of various kinds, the first of which are oracles against foreign nations, also found among the works of other prophets, for example, in Amos 1-2. But in the book of Isaiah, they stretch beyond Israel’s immediate neighbours to Babylon, which was not a power that emerged as a threat until the late seventh century, many days after the death of the prophet. Babylon was important in later thought, containing the taunt that the king of Babylon is like the god of the morning star (Lucifer), who fell from heaven which, combined with other Old Testament and later material about Satan and various demons, resulted in the Christian idea of fall of the devil. The prediction of the fall of Babylon in chapters 13-14 is thus very unlikely to go back to Isaiah himself. The book is therefore a heterogeneous collection of oracles, most reflecting later circumstances.

Secondly, chapters 24-7 have long been recognised as a collection of passages with an apocalyptic tone, dubbed ‘The Isaiah Apocalypse’. These could be as late as the third century or even the second century BCE: they reflect the sorts of ideas found in the Book of Daniel, with judgement in heaven as well as on earth, and even hints of an afterlife, a late arrival in Israel’s literature:

On that day the LORD will punish…

on earth the kings of the earth…

For the LORD of hosts will reign

on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,

and before his elders he will manifest his glory.

Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise…

For your dew is a radiant dew,

and the earth will give birth to those long dead.

Isaiah 24: 21, 23; 26: 19.

The prophecy of a literal resurrection may be a symbolic way of talking about the revival of the nation, but there are parallels to be drawn with Ezekiel’s famous ‘valley of dry bones’ (Ezekiel 37) and Daniel’s prophecy that ‘Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake’ (12: 2). Later in Isaiah, there is a looking forward to the restoration of Israel:

These are the words of the Lord God the Holy One of Israel;

Come back, keep peace, and you will be safe;

in stillness and in staying quiet, there lies your strength.

Isaiah 30: 15-16.

Thirdly, everything in the Book of Isaiah after chapter 40 makes sense only in the period when the Jews in exile looked to the arrival of Cyrus II, the Persian king, to overcome Babylon and give the Hebrews permission for a resettlement of their own Land. Cyrus is referred to by name in 44: 28, and 45:1, and chapters 46-7 present a lengthy taunt against the Babylonians, deriding their gods as nothing but objects of wood and stone that have to be carried around on ‘weary animals’ and contrasting them with Yahweh who, on the contrary, carries Israel (Isaiah 46: 1-4). ‘Second Isaiah’ is a significant section of the Hebrew Bible for several reasons, one of which is that it speaks almost exclusively of the blessings that will come to Israel, and so represents a new departure after the essentially gloomy message of the pre-exilic prophets up to and including Jeremiah. While it does not play down the prophetic idea that the exile had been a punishment for Israel’s sins, it regards that as now lying in the past:

Rouse yourself, rouse yourself!

Stand up, O Jerusalem,

you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD

the cup of his wrath,

who have drunk the dregs

the bowl of staggering…

These two things have befallen you…

– who will grieve with you? –

devastation and destruction, famine and sword –

who will comfort you?…

Thus says your Sovereign, the LORD,

your God who pleads the cause of his people…

you shall drink no more

from the bowl of my wrath.

Isaiah, 51: 17, 19, 22.

Second Isaiah predicts not only a return of the exiles from Babylonia but a ‘gathering-in’ of Jews from all points of the compass, an influx so great that the walls of Jerusalem cannot contain the new inhabitants. This can be called the first manifestation of Zionism in the Bible:

Enlarge the site of your tent,

and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out;

do not hold back; lengthen your cords

and strengthen your stakes.

For you will spread out to the right and to the left,

and your descendants will possess the nations

and will settle the desolate towns.

Isaiah 54: 2-3

Critical for later Jewish and Christian theological thinking, Second Isaiah contains the first explicit formulations of Jewish monotheism, the belief that the God of Israel is the one true God and that all other pretended gods are nothing at all: not rivals, not even impotent rivals, but simply non-existent:

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel

and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

I am the first and I am the last;

besides me there is no god.

Isaiah 44: 6

This was a remarkable claim: Yahweh, who might have been thought to have been defeated by the gods of Babylon, is, in reality, the only God, and actually controls both the Babylonians and Cyrus, their eventual conqueror. It became the bedrock for later thinking about the nature of God in both Judaism and Christianity. All the prophets are implicitly monotheistic, in that they do not reckon with any effective power in the universe other than that of the God of Israel, but Second Isaiah is the first to articulate this so overtly and unambiguously. Third Isaiah is a less unified body of oracles than Second Isaiah and can be divided into several smaller collections. Some of these, for example, 57: 1-13, revert to the older prophetic style of denunciation of the disfiguring of Judaism soon after the resettlement of ‘the Land’ in the 530s BCE. Others, for example, chapters 60-62, continue and even enhance the rapturous tone of the Second Isaiah, speaking of not only exiled Jews but even foreigners streaming into Jerusalem and initiating a new Israelite empire of peace and prosperity for all. This echoes a famous passage from First Isaiah which is probably also from this later period:

In days to come

the mountain of the LORD’s house

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and shall be raised above the hills;

all the nations shall stream to it…

He shall judge between the nations,

and shall arbitrate for many peoples;

they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,

and their spears into pruning-hooks;

nation shall not lift up sword against nation.

Isaiah 2: 2-3, 4.

Zion (Jerusalem) as a focus for salvation to the whole world is a particular vision of this early post-exilic period, when hopes were buoyant and the mundane reality of everyday life in a minor province of the Persian empire had not yet asserted itself. Looked at as a whole, the Book of Isaiah is primarily about Judah and Jerusalem in their history, their disasters and triumphs, and only an allegorical interpretation which transforms Jerusalem into the heavenly city of God can remove this impression, for example in Chapter 15. It can be made into either messianic prediction or ethical instruction, but only by doing a kind of violence to the impression it makes on the reader. But the prophecies of the return of the exiles and the ‘gathering-in’ of foreigners do mesh with later ‘Judaeo-Christian’ ideas of the messianic age, even though a singular Messiah is not mentioned. It could also be argued that, as it stands, the Book presents many ethical teachings that are still relevant for later religious readers: from Isaiah’s denunciations of individual and collective sins, corresponding virtues may be derived:

‘Ah, you … who acquit the guilty for a bribe,

and deprive the innocent of their rights!’

Isaiah 5: 23

The prophetic books, like the pieces of which they are composed, are for the most part subversive entities, undercutting the foundations of established religion, especially the state religious cults of the Hebrew kingdoms in pre-exilic times, and the political machinations of the times just before the exile. When the books are read in their entirety, a clear condemnation of what passed for religion in the national communities the prophets addressed emerges. Their predictions of disasters have been mitigated but not cancelled out by the addition of oracles of hope, which speak of how God will ‘comfort his people, in Isaiah 40: 1, but only after divine retribution has fallen on them, but hardly ever suggest that this can be averted. Their condemnations of the collective sin of the nation are never tempered with any sympathetic understanding of what may have led people to behave so badly but remain stark and clear. The prophets were not helpful to the sinning nations: they do not say ‘Peace, peace’ when there is no peace or justice (Jeremiah 6: 14).

Jeremiah received his call to prophesy in 626 BCE, three-quarters of a century after the great Assyrian crisis at the end of Isaiah’s ministry. The book of Jeremiah is formed from large collections of material which reflect the history of the preservation of the people of Judah. Of first importance is the collection of prophecies in chapters 1-25, which contain the most characteristic of the prophet’s oracles, and in chapters 31-33, there is a collection of ‘assurances’ about Israel’s future, which is often called ‘the Book of Consolation’. Most of the remaining chapters contain prophecies against foreign nations. During the long period of political survival as a vassal state of the Assyrian empire, Judah was sustained by a mixture of patriotic pride and religious fervour. In consequence, the belief was encouraged among its people that God could be relied upon to maintain the protection of his temple and of the city in which it stood.

Jeremiah’s first prophecies were warnings that military and political disasters would soon overtake the land. Jerusalem would be besieged and destruction would come at the hands of a mysterious ‘foe from the north.’ But this did not come about and the prophet openly accused God of having deceived him and made him into a laughing-stock. The passing of the Assyrian empire in 612 BCE, with its reputation for brutality and violence, did not go uncelebrated in Judah, but it did not result in any lessening in foreign domination of Judah, as Egypt asserted its overlordship and in 605 BCE control passed to Babylonia. Jeremiah, now debarred from entering the temple, dictated a scroll to be read out by Baruch, his scribe, in which he interpreted his earlier warning of the ‘foe from the north’ as referring to Babylon. In 601 BCE, King Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon, inviting severe retaliation. This came in 598 when Jerusalem was besieged and forced to capitulate. Jehoiakim died and was replaced by his son, Jehoiachin, who was taken hostage to Babylon, along with several thousand of his leading citizens. Zedekiah, his uncle, was placed on the throne as a puppet ruler.

Jeremiah regarded it as the ‘will of God’ that ‘all the nations’ should serve the king of Babylon (Jer. 27: 1-11). He proclaimed that it was God’s purpose that Nebuchadnezzar should be a ‘world ruler’ and that Judah should submit to him. The alternative was destruction: Serve the king of Babylon and save your lives. Why should this city become a ruin? (Jer. 27: 17). Although it might seem a matter of pragmatic calculation, Jeremiah proclaims it to be religious obedience. In general, we can trace the view put by Zechariah: Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord of Hosts (Zech. 4: 6). However, the nationalistic prophets raised their voices to encourage further rebellion against Babylon, but Jeremiah received a prophetic message from God that reassured him of the folly of such hopes. (28: 12-17).

Zedekiah paid attention to the prophet’s preaching but then allowed himself to be persuaded into supporting the revolt. In 589 BCE, retribution came and two years later, Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed and Zedekiah was forced to witness the execution of his sons before being blinded and exiled. After the fall of the city, Jeremiah was given the choice of going to Babylon with the exiles or remaining in Judah. He chose the latter and became convinced of the coming restoration of Israel under divine grace which would bring about a new covenant with both kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Jer. 30-31). With the final fall of Jerusalem in 587, the last surviving entity of the old nation of Israel broke up. Many of its people were in exile in Babylon, and some had fled to Egypt and other nations.

A large number of Judaeans remained in the land of Judah to face the pitiful sufferings of the devastated Land and to seek to build up afresh the conditions and means of a stable social and economic life. The appalling conditions are well described in the book of Lamentations, which is not from Jeremiah, but from an anonymous poet, or group of poets, who lived in Judah during the period following Jerusalem’s destruction. Aside from the horror of famine and disease, brought about by the ravages of war, there was the theological problem of finding some divine meaning or explanation for catastrophe. Only by accepting the interpretation given by the great prophets that it was divine punishment for Israel’s sins could sense be made out of the dire situation. But other texts in the Hebrew Bible are more optimistic and encouraging. Later Judaism took to heart the warnings of the prophets, just as Christianity heard their critical messages but saw them as heralds of good tidings, proclaiming a coming new dispensation.

Nevertheless, the prophets in all their original harshness have a distinctive witness to provide, and it does not feed easily into either of the two religions that claim them as part of their Scriptures. Prophecy, as we noted at the beginning of this section, was not unique to the nation of Israel, but no other nation seems ever to have been so deeply indebted to them as Israel. Although many prophets were active during the two centuries stretching from the mid-eighth to the mid-sixth centuries BCE, only a few individuals from them had a lasting influence upon human history. By these few, a significant transformation of the religion of Israel was brought about. They laid great stress on upon their ‘divine call’, and so looked beyond their own intuitions and desires, reflecting on the character and destiny of the society in which they lived. They were not looking for intrinsic laws of cause and effect operating in the affairs of men and states. They were threatening direct divine intervention in judgement of his ‘elect’ people and ascribed their message to divine inspiration, and not to their own thoughts and reflections. It was this awareness of divine authority and commission that enabled them to face rejection, opposition and persecution from their compatriots. It also freed them from any self-interested ‘professionalism’ and from any accountability to the religious and political institutions of Israel.

The prophets stand out for their remarkably detailed knowledge of international affairs and for their awareness of the policies and diplomacy of the Judaean and Samarian courts. They displayed a political interest which assumed from the start that God was deeply concerned about the social and economic realities of life in Israel. They argued that God was exercising a controlling influence upon international affairs and that the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah were being brought face to face with God’s judgments in the form of disaster and defeat. They also prophesied eventual deliverance and victory, but it is the negative aspect of judgment which looms largest in their preaching, making their threats a continued series of rebukes against political pride and military arrogance, and sharply condemning Israel’s complacency. The prophets were convinced that no politics could avert the catastrophe which they had to announce as God’s judgment over his people. They believed that the very conditions necessary to guarantee Israel’s continued existence as a state were indeed the cause of the destruction of the state. Only a people completely dependent upon the God who chose them and obedient to the divine election would still have a chance for survival.

In their descriptions of the coming divine judgments upon Israel, the prophets’ widely used imagery of battle and defeat naturally drew on their knowledge of contemporary military practice. Essentially, however, it was the certainty of judgment, rather than its precise details, that the prophets foretold. Nahum could describe the violent overthrow of Nineveh, although in the event the capture of the city by the Babylonian armies was virtually unopposed in 612 BCE. The moral significance was of far greater importance than the military details of the fulfilment of prophecy so such a situation in no way lessens the religious ‘truth’ of what the prophets said. It was not simply their ability to predict the future, but their power to interpret it, which gave the prophets their greatness. They related past, present and future in a consistent story of God’s concern for his chosen people Israel, and they interpreted this story in keeping with the moral purpose for which Israel was called. They did not therefore exclude other nations from their field of vision. Jeremiah was specifically called to be a ‘prophet to the nations’ (Jer. 1: 5), and this was certainly also true of Amos and Isaiah.

The prophets interpreted Israel’s history from a universal purpose of God for which Israel’s election had meaning. The very notion that Israel should be judged received significance in the context of God’s wider concern for the welfare of all nations, and Israel’s responsibility to be a light and a witness to them. The spiritual fruits of the prophetic interpretation in terms of humility in the face of suffering and a passionate concern for social justice, encourage us to believe that the prophets did preach ‘truth’. This truth is not only applicable to ancient Israel but to a longer chronology and a broader social history. Humanity is continuously concerned with issues of nationalism, social injustice and widespread beliefs in the ‘divinely given’ supremacy of certain nations and ethnicities. By their moral interpretation of the belief in Israel’s national ‘election’, the prophets warned against any selfish or material conception of it. The ‘truth’ of prophecy can speak to us in our own generations, with our national hopes, social needs and problems, and our personal responsibilities to one another. A latter-day ‘prophet’, Martin Luther King, put it like this in his speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize:

I believe that what self-centred men have torn down, other-centred can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill proclaim the rule of the land: “And the lion shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.” I still believe that we shall overcome.

Hebrew ‘War Poetry’ & The Psalms:

The ‘historical books’ of the Hebrew Bible are almost entirely in prose, but sometimes the prose narratives contain what seem to be older poems embedded in the story. A famous example is David’s lament over the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan in battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, in 2 Samuel 1: 19-27, with its refrain, How are the might fallen! (this is a statement, an exclamation, for in the previous verse, Samuel has already told us that the king was killed by ‘the bow’):

Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places!

How the mighty have fallen!

Tell it not in Gath,

proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon;

or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice, …

From the blood of the slain,

from the fat of the mighty,

the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,

nor the sword of Jonathan return empty.

Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!

In life and in death they were not divided;

they were swifter than eagles,

they were stronger than lions. …

How the mighty have fallen

in the midst of the battle!

Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;

greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful,

passing the love of women.

How the mighty have fallen,

and the weapons of war perished!

Besides this being recorded in the book of Jashar (Joshua 10: 13) and in the second book of Samuel, there was also the Book of the Wars of the LORD’ (Numbers 21: 14), a book that no longer exists. In addition, some songs have no name or title assigned to them in the text but are regarded by many as likely to be among the older sections of the Hebrew Bible. The major collections of verse in the Bible include the books of wisdom, especially Job and Proverbs, but the classic examples of Hebrew poetry are, of course, the Psalms.

As poetic pieces generally intoned or chanted in worship, Psalms often reflect ceremonies which they accompanied, and even more, the thoughts and beliefs which filled the minds of worshippers. While the setting of many psalms in festal worship is clear, the exact contexts and sequences remain uncertain. However, the psalms do reveal the main ingredients of the festal experience, especially those relating to the autumnal festival in royal Jerusalem. The chief feature of the poetry is called ‘parallelism’; most verses fall into two parts (sometimes three) which are parallel in thought and expression. The wording of the Hebrew poetry is unpretentious since they are ‘lyrics’ set to a specific ‘metre’ or rhythm. Prominent in the experience of Israelite worshippers was the journey, often long, to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. Hardship was offset by the fellowship along the way and above all by the anticipation of a festival so rich in meaning. There are several psalms which scholars think may have been sung on the journey. Although their place may have been primarily within the festival, such psalms certainly tell us something about the pilgrimage and arrival in Jerusalem.

Underlying all the joyful songs which were sung in God’s honour at the festival was the thought that he was appearing fresh from a victory. The battle he had waged was a poetic reconstruction, serving to commemorate and renew God’s mighty work of creation and ancient salvation. The poetic drama of the festival imagined that all the forces which would harm life had risen up together to make chaos and misery prevail, but God had routed them. This poetic vision embraced both ‘Nature’ and ‘History’. It presented the battle as the mighty deeds of the Creator against dragon-led chaos and a dark and raging ocean, but also as God’s victory over raging nations. Thus, every year the worshippers dramatically reassert the basis of their hope in all aspects of life – the power and goodness of God, the king of all. The symbolic victory was further celebrated by an uphill procession into the temple like the victory march of a warrior king leading captives and spoil, heralded by messengers, and greeted by dancing and singing women (Ps. 68).

Qualifying adjectives in the original Hebrew form are rare: a genitive form is preferred, as in ‘king of glory’, ‘fountain of life’, ‘oil of gladness’ and ‘beasts of the forest’. Traditional vocabulary is often ‘borrowed’ and repeated, and ‘moral’ terms are common, revolving around the notion of covenants and bonds, e.g. ‘steadfast(ness)’, ‘love’, ‘mercy’, ‘truth’, ‘peace’, ‘righteous(ness)’, ‘upright’, ‘saints’ etc. The various ‘moral’ qualities usually refer to faithfulness to covenantal promises or loyalty to a particular partner. The words for states of happiness and well-being also refer to the harmony arising from a sound covenant relationship. A difficulty in translation is that, in themselves, the verbs are ambiguous in time reference; the choice of past, present or future in English depends on the interpretation of the whole context, and sometimes uncertainty persists.

The biblical Psalms do not form a separate genre, as do wisdom, narrative and prophecy, but are a miscellaneous collection of poems of many sorts. The majority are prayers to God either by an individual or a group (or both) and are often classified as laments, though in some cases ‘petitions’ might be a better term. The prayer in the psalm may be made in the name of an individual or the collective interest of Israel. Consequently, it is usual to speak of ‘individual laments’ and ‘communal laments’. But personal laments sometimes transmuted into communal ones with a focus, for example, on the destruction of Jerusalem:

You will rise up and have compassion on Zion,

for it is time to favour it;

the appointed time has come.

For your servants hold it stones dear,

and have pity on its dust.

The children of your servants shall live secure;

their offspring shall be established in your presence.

Psalm 102: 13-14, 28.

In this and in other psalms we are dealing with a personification of Israel, an identification of the needs of the individual with those of the nation. The speaker in Psalm 102 identifies his own calamity with that of his people, and vice versa, and sees no incongruity in referring first to one and then the other. Thus, some psalms have a strong sense of unity between individual and communal suffering, such as Psalm 130:

Out of the depths I cry to you, O LORD.

Lord, hear my voice!

Let your ears be attentive

to the voice of my supplications!

If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities,

Lord, who could stand?

But there is forgiveness with you,

so that you may be revered.

I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,

and in his word I hope;

my soul waits for the Lord

more than those who watch for the morning …

Oh Israel, hope in the LORD!

For with the LORD there is steadfast love,

and with him there is great power to redeem.

It is he who will redeem Israel

from all its iniquities.

Psalm 130: 1-3, 5-8.

It seems that an individual prayer for forgiveness has here been augmented with two verses addressed to the nation. A similar pattern can be seen in Psalms 125 and 128, where blessings are pronounced on righteous individuals and their families, but both psalms end, ‘Peace be upon Israel!’ (125: 5, 128: 6). This oscillation between a corporate and an individual focus becomes more complex when we consider how the Psalms were used in ancient Israel. For example, a careful reading shows that some psalms combine both lament or petition and thanksgiving, such as in Psalm 20: 1-6, which petitions for victory in a coming battle:

The LORD answer you in the day of trouble! …

May he grant you you your heart’s desire,

and fulfil all your plans.

May we shout for joy over your victory,

and in the name of our God set up our banners.

May the LORD fulfil all your petitions.

Now I know that the LORD will help his anointed;

He will answer him from his holy heaven

With mighty victories by his right hand.

Interpreted liturgically, this psalm might actually be two psalms, and between the two there might have been an oracle or blessing from a priest or prophetic figure, assuring the worshippers of a succesful outcome.

Psalm 89 speaks of the humiliation of the king of Judah, in apparent contravention of Yahweh’s promises to him (verses 38-45). This is traditionally interpreted as a reflection on the experience of the exile, with the king in question being Jehoiachan or conceivably Zedekiah, both exiled in the sixth century when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. But it may be that no particular Judaean monarch is referred to, but rather that what is meant is the institution of monarchy itself. They would have been humiliated at every New Year Festival under Babylonian occupation, just as they were in Mesopotamia at the akitu festival.There is no reference to any identifiable enemies in the psalm; nothing in the text provides evidence for a specific dating, so that it cannot be read as a reaction to a specific historical event, but may be a reusable text applied to the king in every year. The liturgical texts in the psalms belong in concrete contexts of worship, and may offer us hints for reconstructing those contexts.

The Psalms deal with a wide range of religious issues that are also found throughout the Old Testament. Many of them reflect on the special relationship between God and Israel, recalling the covenants made through Abraham and Moses and celebrating Israel’s status as God’s ‘chosen’ people. Psalm 74 concludes with a plea for God to remember the covenant and equates Israel’s enemies with the hostile forces he overcame in in the creation:

You divided the sea by your mighty arm;

you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.

You crushed the heads of Leviathan …

Have regard for your covenant,

for the dark places of the land are full of the haunts of violence.

Do not let the downtrodden be put to shame;

let the poor and needy praise your name …

Do not forget the clamour of your foes,

the uproar of your adversaries that goes up continually.



Psalm 74: 16-17, 20-21, 23.

Psalm 136 records all the great deeds of God on Israel’s behalf, listing the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the exodus, the parting of the Red Sea and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his army, the conquest of Canaanite kings such as Sihon and Og, and the settlement of Israel in the Land. And in Psalm 115 we hear of God will bless Israel and its component parts, such as the house of Aaron (Psalm 115: 12-13). Throughout the Psalter there is an assumption that Israel is the people of God and that its enemies are the enemies of God:

O that you would kill the wicked, O God,

And that the bloodthirsty would depart from me …

Do not I hate those who hate you, O LORD?

And do not I loathe those who rise up against you?

I hate them with a perfect hatred;

I count them my enemies.

Psalm 139: 19, 21-22.

This equation of the speaker’s own enemies with God’s is one of the major problems for modern Jews and some Christians in using the Psalms. It rests on the idea that God has a ‘favourite’ people whom he fosters and protects, but this belief can make God appear indifferent or even hostile towards other nationalities. In both Judaism and Christianity, there have been strains that have accentuated the theme of divine hostility to outsiders, but also others in which the ‘special relationship’ of God with Israel (or, later, with the Christian community) has been seen as a means for extending that relationship to all humanity, in other words, that Israel has been chosen for service, not for privilege. Despite their sometimes vindictive tone towards other nations, this universalist theme is present even in the Psalms. For example, Psalm 148 runs through all the aspects of creation that are called upon to praise God, including:

Kings of the earth and all peoples,

princes and all rulers of the earth!

Psalm 148: 14.

Evidently, there is no sense here that foreigners are excluded from the possibility of praising God. Nevertheless, the psalm still ends:

He has raised up a horn for his people,

praise for all his faithful,

for the people of Israel who are close to him.

Psalm 148: 14.

Although the primary relationship of God in most of the Hebrew Bible is with the people of Israel collectively, many laments and thanksgivings in the Psalter seem to imply a close relationship with the individual even though, as noted above, the ‘I’ in the Psalms can sometimes stand for the group. Psalm 55 (12-13) seems to reflect a situation that can only be that of an individual:

It is not enemies who taunt me –

I could bear that;

it is not adversaries who deal insolently with me –

I could hide from them.

But it is you, my equal,

my companion, my familiar friend.

It might be expected that the individual in distress would link his own suffering to God’s relationship with Israel as a whole, but there is virtually no evidence of this. Except for Psalm 77, the individual laments seldom contain any reflection on what God has done for the nation. The individual is not seen as a subset of the nation but has a relationship with God unconnected to national fortunes. God is therefore not simply concerned with Israel as a collective entity, but but is also concerned for the welfare of individuals. God is pictured as keeping an account of the sufferings of his worshipper, and there is no suggestion that it is part of any larger national ‘ledger’. Many psalms are pleas to be delivered from suffering by a person who believes in his own goodness, just as there are penitential psalms that ask for forgiveness of sins committed. There are traditionally said to be seven penitential psalms, one for each of the seven deadly sins. But Psalm 6 is an individual lament that makes no mention of anything the Psalmist has done wrong and instead asks for deliverance from attacks by enemies. In fact, the Psalms contain relatively little about the sins of the individual who is cast as the one praying, but far more about the iniquity of his ill-natured enemies.

The God of the Psalms is certainly vengeful, but he is also merciful and forgiving to those who pray for forgiveness of sins. Above all, he is thought to be worthy of ceaseless praise, as the many psalms of praise and thanksgiving bear witness. Several psalms offer extended reflections on God’s character, providence and splendour:

Bless the Lord, O my Soul, and do not forget all his benefits –

who forgives all your iniquity, …

who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy …

Psalm 103: 2-4.

The LORD is gracious and merciful,

slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

The LORD is good to all,

and his compassion is over all that he has made …

Psalm 145: 8-9.

There is here no distinction between the God of creation and providence, who directs the course of the whole world, giving ‘food to all flesh’ (Psalm 136: 25), the God who chooses and protects Israel and the God who cares for the individual worshipper. These functions are not shared among different Gods, as they might be in a polytheist’s pantheon, but all are aspects of the one and only God. In this way, the Psalms are practically and poetically monotheistic without any need for theoretical discourse or dogma.

Two Psalms – 89 and 132 – are explicitly concerned with God’s promises to David, God’s ‘Warrior King’ and the supposed author of many of them. The first psalm recalls God’s promise to the monarch that he would never forsake his line, but then complains, in verses 38-51, that he appears to have done so. Presumably this reference is to the exile and the loss of the monarchy although, as previously noted, some scholars believe that it is connected to an annual ritual humiliation of the king. Other psalms allude more obliquely to David. Psalms 2 and 110 both played a major role in early Christian writing because their references were thought to be messianic, and the New Testament applies them to Jesus of Nazareth:

The LORD says to my lord,

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies your footstool.’ …

Psalm 110: 1, 4.

Here the king is addressed by God and assured of an exalted, almost semi-divine status. The psalm goes on to refer to Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Jerusalem (Genesis 14: 18-20), a reference that is probably meant to signal that the kings of David’s line have inherited all the rights held by the kings of Jerusalem before the Israelites annexed it. The monarch therefore has a high status in the Psalms, and none of them is critical of the institution or those holding the office, in contrast to the books of the Prophets. Closely linked to it is the position of Jerusalem, the ‘city of David’. A number of the psalms glorify it as the citadel of the kingdom, and several refer to the tradition of its impregnability due to God’s permanent protection of it, a belief that is connected to Isaiah’s prophecies. Psalm 48 is the classic exposition of this theme, usually referred to in Old Testament scholarship as the inviolability of Zion:

Then the kings assembled,

they came on together.

As soon as they saw it, they were astounded;

they were in panic, they took to flight.

Psalm 48: 1-2, 4-5.

Psalm 76 refers to Jerusalem more specifically as the place where God broke the flashing arrows, the shield, the sword and the weapons of war (verse 3). We can imagine these psalms being recited just before a battle, or perhaps regularly to reinforce confidence in the royal city. One scholar suggested that there was an annual ‘royal Zion festival’ at which they were sung. The theme of the sacrosanctity and consequent safety of Jerusalem certainly entered the thought of many readers of the Psalms, and this is nowhere more strongly stressed than in Psalm 46, the model for Martin Luther’s famous hymn ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’; ‘A Safe Stronghold our God is Still’:

God is our refuge and strength,

a very present help in trouble …

God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved;

God will help it when morning dawns.

The nations are in an uproar, the kingdoms totter;

he utters his voice, the earth melts.

Psalm 46: 1, 5-6.

These themes cannot be added together as if there were a unified theology of the Psalms, but they overlap a significant number of the themes throughout the Hebrew Bible as a whole. In this respect, we can view the Psalter as the Hebrew Bible in miniature. Christians have tended to read the Psalms, like the other books of what to them is their Old Testament as prophecy, and David, the supposed author of the ‘book’, is often referred to in the New Testament as ‘prophet’. (Acts 2: 25-36; 4: 23-8), and individual verses are singled out as examples of his prophetic powers to foretell the coming of the Messiah in the person of Jesus:

Since (David) was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption’

Acts 2: 30-31 (the quotation is from Psalm 16)

Jews, on the other hand, have tended to assimilate the Psalms to the model of Torah, regarding even verses that address God as essentially divine instruction to Israel. For a modern reader, whether Christian or Jew or neither, the value of the Psalms does not lie obviously in either of these different approaches to their interpretation, but in their coverage of so many biblical themes. They may not be part of a direct divine revelation, but they are deeply revealing about many different aspects of the God of the Bible and of the divine-human relationship, especially concerning the themes of war, justice and peace.

(to be continued…)

Featured

British Labour Leaders, Palestine & Israel, 1929-2019.

Keir Starmer. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images

Recently, Labour leader Keir Starmer (pictured above) has been urged to quit by people within his own party. The immediate source of the discontent has been the Labour leader’s refusal to back calls for a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas.

What is the problem facing the Labour leader?

The calls for Starmer to stand down when on the brink of power will not be heeded. But the outrage voiced by some, including the leader of Burnley borough council, who announced on Monday 6th November that he had decided to resign from the party, highlights the tricky task Starmer faces in keeping something close to unity among his electoral coalition on a subject on which his party has a complicated history.

As it stands, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as well as sixteen Labour frontbench MPs and a third of the parliamentary party, have either called for a ceasefire or shared others’ backing for one on social media. Others, including Labour’s leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, have suggested that Starmer has shown a lack of empathy for the cause of Palestinians in Gaza.

What has been Labour’s historical position on Israel and Palestine?

In 1917 the Balfour Declaration indicated that the British Coalition government favoured a national homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. Labour also called for a Jewish state and eleven party conferences voted in support of this policy before the state was established in 1948. At the time of the Declaration, there were already about fifty thousand Jews living in Palestine, alongside a million Arabs. The potential for conflict between Zionists, not one of which would shrink from making Britain keep its promise, and the displaced Arabs was already obvious. The migrating Jews began to buy land from the Arabs or in some cases simply appropriate it and fence it off. Following the war, the new League of Nations made Palestine a ‘mandated territory’ under British control.

Beatrice & Sidney Webb (later Lord Passmore).

Today the Labour Party seeks to draw a line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that few would have understood a hundred years ago. The Radical anti-imperialists like Hobson (see below) had a direct influence on the development of the early Labour Party’s foreign policy. By the mid-twenties, there were those within the Labour Party, like Beatrice Webb, who began to question the aims of the Zionist movement:

… I admire Jews and dislike Arabs. But the Zionist movement seems to me a gross violation of the right of the native to remain where he was born and his father and grandfather were born – if there is such a right. To talk about the return of the Jew to the land of his inheritance after an absence of two thousand years seems to me sheer… hypocritical nonsense. From whom were descended those Russian and Polish Jews?

The principle which is really being asserted is the principle of selecting races for particular territories according to some ‘peculiar needs or particular fitness’. Or it may be some ideal of communal life to be realised by subsidised migration. But this process of artificially creating new communities of immigrants, brought from many parts of the world, is rather hard on the indigenous natives!

Beatrice Webb in Margaret Cole (ed.) (1956), Diaries, 1924-1932, pp. 217-18.

In her further statements, Beatrice Webb was also quite open about her antipathy for Zionism, as was her husband Sidney Webb (1859-1947). When James Ramsay MacDonald (1866-1937) became Premier of a British Labour government, elected at the end of the previous year with its first overall majority, Sidney Webb, now known as Lord Passfield, became Colonial Secretary in the Labour cabinet. The volume of emigration from Europe was increasing because of the rise of nationalism in Russia and, in particular, Germany, where the Nazis were already campaigning against the Jews. In 1929, this enabled the Zionists to sweep away the hurdle to migration; but in the autumn of 1930, MacDonald’s government said that Jewish immigration to Palestine should be all but stopped. He published a new statement of policy, the Passfield White Paper, which urged the restriction of immigration to Palestine and the sale of land to Jews. It was bitterly denounced by Zionist leaders as it appeared to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and to violate the letter and spirit of the League of Nations Mandate. It was viewed as a provocative act and was greeted by a furore of protests from Zionists worldwide, from Conservative imperialists in Britain and from some Labour MPs. The Labour government quailed beneath the storm and gave way. As a result, control of migration was temporarily taken out of Britain’s hands and the Jewish population of Palestine more than doubled in the five years between 1931 and 1936 This was a crucial decision because, although afterwards, pro-Zionist feeling in Britain was never again as strong.

Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield)

In an attempt to calm the furore, MacDonald wrote a letter which he addressed to Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, on 13 February 1931. The MacDonald letter, while not openly repudiating the Passfield report, gave assurances that the terms of the Mandate would be fulfilled. But it was swiftly rejected by the Arab nations as the ‘Black Letter’. It stated that:

‘In order to remove certain misconceptions and misunderstandings which have arisen as to the policy of his Majesty’s Government with regard to Palestine, as set forth in the White Paper of October 1930, and which were the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on Nov. 17, and also to meet certain criticisms put forward by the Jewish Agency, I have pleasure in forwarding you the following statement of our position, which will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White paper on the matters with which this letter deals. …

..attention is drawn to the fact that, not only does the White Paper of 1930 refer to and endorse the White Paper of 1922, which has been accepted by the Jewish Agency, but it recognises that the undertaking of the mandate is an undertaking to the Jewish people and not only to the Jewish population of Palestine. The White Paper places in the foreground of its statement my speech in the House of Commons on the 3rd April, 1930, in which I announced, in words that could not have been made more plain, that it is the intention of His Majesty’s Government to continue to administer Palestine in accordance with the terms of the mandate as approved by the Council of the League of Nations. ‘

Four Leaders: J. Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee (bottom); Harold Wilson, Tony Blair (top)

Quoting from his April speech, MacDonald claimed that there was no question of the British Government reneging on its international obligations:

‘Under the terms of the mandate His Majesty’s Government are responsible for promoting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

‘… it is the firm resolve of His Majesty’s Government to give effect, in equal measure, to both parts of the declaration and in equal measure, to both parts of the declaration and to do equal justice to all sections of the population of Palestine. That is a duty from which they will not shrink and to discharge of which they will apply all the resources at their command.’

A ‘good deal’ of criticism had been directed at the White Paper because of its inclusion of injurious allegations against the Jewish people and Jewish labour organisations. But MacDonald disavowed any such intention, stating that he recognised that the Jewish Agency had all along given willing cooperation in carrying out the policy of the mandate and that the constructive work of the Jewish people in Palestine had had beneficial effects on the development and well-being of the country as a whole. The British Labour Government also recognised the value of the work done by the labour and trades union organisations in Palestine.

In his letter, MacDonald argued strongly that while the mandate stipulated that the rights and position of other sections of the population, i.e. the non-Jewish community, were ‘not TO BE (his emphasis) prejudiced; that is, not to be impaired or made worse’, and the effect of immigration and settlement on the non-Jewish community could not be ignored, these words were not to be read as implying that existing economic conditions in Palestine should be ‘crystalised’. On the contrary, he wrote, …

‘… the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the mandate and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.’

It had been claimed that the White Paper would place an embargo on immigration and would suspend, if not terminate, the close settlement of Jews on the land, which was a primary purpose of the mandate. Particular stress was placed on the passage in the White Paper which said that ‘it would not be possible to make available for Jewish settlement in view of their actual occupation by Arab cultivators and of the importance of making available suitable land on which to place the Arab cultivators who are now landless.’ MacDonald wrote that it was to these landless Arabs that the Government felt under an obligation but that this in no way detracted from the larger purposes of development… as the most effectual means of furthering the establishment of a national home for the Jews… He believed that this would result in a substantial and lasting benefit to both Jews and Arabs.

On the question of Jewish immigration, the Passfield White Paper misrepresented the Government’s intention as being ‘that no further immigration of Jews’ was to be permitted ‘so long as it might prevent any Arab from obtaining employment.’ MacDonald wrote that this was never their intention and that the Churchill White Paper of 1922 had stated simply that the Jewish immigrants ‘should not be a burden on the people of Palestine as a whole’ and should not deprive ‘any section’ of that ‘present population’ of their employment. From 1920 onward, when the original immigration order came into effect (including the period of the short-lived minority Labour government, led by MacDonald), regulations for the control of immigration were issued from time to time, directed to prevent illicit entry and to define and facilitate authorised entry. This right to regulation had not been challenged until the 1930 White Paper.

In his letter to Weizmann, MacDonald made it clear that his current government was therefore concerned only with the ‘absorptive capacity’ under the prevailing economic conditions in Palestine. There was therefore never any intention on its part to exclude immigrants with prospects of secure employment. If, as a result of the principle of preferential employment of Jewish immigrants by the Jewish Agency, Arab labour was displaced, the ‘mandatory’ would intervene. The British premier concluded his letter with the assurance that the Government had ‘set their hand’ to the mandated tasks and would not withdraw it, and that ‘no solution can be satisfactorily or permanent which is not based on justice, both to the Jewish people and to the non-Jewish communities of Palestine.’ Since the statement of 1922 was issued and up to the publication of the White Paper of May 1939, more than 300,000 Jews had immigrated to Palestine, and the population of the Jewish ‘National Home’ to 450,000, about a third of the entire population of Palestine.

In practice, over that period, the country’s economic absorptive capacity had been treated as the sole limiting factor to immigration, and MacDonald’s February 1931 letter gave this the status of British Government policy. This interpretation was subsequently supported by resolutions of the Permanent Mandates Commission. But in its 1939 White Paper, the Chamberlain Government stated that neither the Statement of 1922 nor the 1931 letter implied that the Mandate required them ‘for all time and in all circumstances’ to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to consideration of the country’s economic capacity. Nor did they find anything in the Mandate or in the subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine could only be effected through the indefinite continuation of immigration. If it had a seriously damaging effect on the ‘political position’ of the country, that was an effect that could not be ignored.

Persecution & Emigration of Jews in Europe, 1933-39:

Anti-Semitism intensified following the Nazi Party’s advent to power in 1932. Many Jews were hounded from office or imprisoned in the first wave of lawless anti-Semitism in 1933. In September, at the Nuremberg Party Congress, the anti-Jewish Laws were pronounced. The subsequent Reich Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935 defined who was and was not a Jew. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour published the same day forbade intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans but also covered relations with blacks, Sinti and Roma. These laws linked the eugenic programme with anti-Semitism. Over the next four years, the Jewish community was gradually excluded from business and the professions, through a programme known as Aryanization, lost citizen status and entitlement to a number of welfare provisions.

The aim of the Nazi régime, at this point, was to encourage Jewish emigration. About half of Germany’s Jews did emigrate between 1933 and 1939, forty-one thousand of them to Palestine under the terms of the Ha’avarah Agreement made with Zionist organisations in Palestine on the transfer of emigrants and their property from Germany. In an unlikely ‘collaboration’ with the SS, training camps were set up in Germany for emigrants to acquire the skills needed in their new life in Palestine. This process slowed down by the late 1930s as the receiver states limited further Jewish immigration. Following the London Conference (1939) on Palestine, the Conservative-led National Government in London published a further White Paper which proposed a limit to Jewish immigration from Europe, restrictions on Jewish land purchases, and a program for creating an independent state to replace the Mandate within ten years.

This was seen by the Zionists as a betrayal of the mandatory terms, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. In response, Zionists organised Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine. Meanwhile, ‘Casual’ anti-Semitism was not restricted to members of the British aristocracy who visited Berlin and Bavaria in the 1930s, neither was it to be found only among Conservatives. It was commonplace across most sections of British society and pre-dated the rise of Fascism across the continent. Many people made casual remarks that today would be deemed quite unacceptable.

By 1937, there was a large influx of refugees from Central Europe, primarily Jewish, into Britain, so large as to be noticed among the crowds on London streets. The number of intellectuals among the refugees was disproportionately large, but it was the ordinary refugees who were unpopular, especially among Mosley’s blackshirts. In addition, there were also echoes of petty anti-Semitism among ordinary Londoners, like a well-known bus conductor on the Swiss Cottage run who expressed his feelings by bawling out ‘Swiss Cottage – Kleine Schweizer-Haus.’ The London intellectual attitude seemed much like that of Duff Cooper when he wrote, although I loathe anti-Semitism, I … dislike Jews. This was also the view of a large section of the British aristocracy at the time.

Respected authors, even radicals such as George Orwell, and highly cultured liberal economists such as John Maynard Keynes, littered their writings with disparaging remarks about the Jews, as did politicians across the spectrum, and even some senior churchmen. There were also continuing strains of these attitudes among the Labour members of the National Government like the anti-Zionist Lord Passfield (Sidney Webb), whose laws restricted Jewish emigration to British-controlled Palestine. Until Kristallnacht in the autumn of 1938, however, these expressions of anti-Semitism were mixed up with anti-German sentiments, which survived among older generations who had directly experienced the 1914-18 war. The children of the Kindertransports of 1938-39, pictured below, generally received a warm British welcome from their foster parents and broader society.

What determined the outcome in Palestine, the creation of the state of Israel on the left bank of the Jordan in 1948, and its subsequent expansion into Arab territory, was the balance of strength on the ground between the two populations, which had changed in favour of the Zionist settlers by 1936. Between the wars, however, Palestine had to remain a mandated territory. The British could not delegate their responsibilities to the Zionist organisation, as many wanted them to do. It remained in the same state as the ‘dependent’ territories within the British Empire, a colony ruled directly from London, like Kenya.

What emerges from these portraits and documents concerning Zionism, imperialism and Palestine in the period 1916-36 is that there was no imperialist conspiracy to create the state of Israel as it existed after 1948. Certainly, there were good relations between leading Zionists and imperialist politicians in Britain, including those in Attlee’s government. Still, it was the confusion of competing claims and rights in Palestine itself, together with the inability to control the flow of migrants and refugees under the terms of the British mandate that led to the development of the country through settlement into the self-governing state of Israel following the handover of the mandate to the United Nations in 1948. It is difficult to imagine how the outcome of these events could have been any different, especially given the refugee crisis created by the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the war and the Holocaust.

After the War – Attlee, Bevin and the Labour Government, 1945-51:

At the end of the War, an Anglo-American Inquiry Committee was appointed in November 1945 to examine the status of the Jews in the former Axis-occupied countries and to find out how many were impelled by their conditions to migrate. Britain, weakened by the war, found itself under growing pressure from Jews and Arabs alike and the newly-elected Labour Government, decided to invite the United States to participate in finding a solution. President Truman welcomed the Report of the Committee and its recommendation that the immigration and land laws of the 1939 White Paper were to be rescinded. On the other hand, Prime Minister Attlee declared that the report would have to be “considered as a whole in all its implications.” Arab reaction was hostile; the Arab League announced that Arabs would not stand by with their arms folded.

The Attlee government’s failure to find any sort of solution to the Palestine question before surrendering the mandate to the United Nations in 1948 can be attributed, at least in part, to Attlee’s personal failure to understand the importance of the issue to President Truman. Attlee refused the President’s request to allow a hundred thousand Jews into Palestine upon taking office in 1945; granting that request would have at least engaged Truman in the political problem at an early stage. Attlee largely left the conduct of foreign affairs to Bevin, though, partly in order to keep him away from Herbert Morrison (Lord President of the Privy Council and Attlee’s deputy), who was dominant on the domestic front. Such was the bitterness of the rivalry between the two senior men that Attlee was worried that it might derail the government as a whole. When he visited Truman for the first time as PM to discuss the Korean War in December 1950, it was only because Bevin was too ill to travel.

According to the Memoirs of the Earl of Kilmuir, published in 1964, Attlee’s Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, stood apart from his cabinet colleagues in ability and sincerity. Certainly, the majority of the members of the Conservative Opposition’s Front Bench had known him well during the war when he had been a loyal, hard-working member of Churchill’s Coalition; they trusted him and had a great personal affection for him. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party did not have this experience of him. Except when he was out of the country, he and Attlee met on an almost daily basis. According to the premier, Bevin was always hopeful that the international situation would improve, but he also stressed the point that the prevention of war was not enough.

There must always be an accompanying, positive policy of raising living standards and dealing with the ‘under-developed’ regions of the world. This would undermine the conditions in which Soviet Communism could thrive.

However, he was regarded by many Jews in Britain, the United States and Israel as an ‘arch-enemy’ of the Jewish people. Most unfairly, at least in the view of Andrew Marr (2009), he is still traduced as an anti-Semite. He had in fact been numbered among the friends of Zionism during the war, until faced with the impossible contradictions in Britain’s position in the Middle East shortly after its end. As well as its ongoing responsibilities for Palestine under international mandate, Britain had wider links to surrounding Arab countries. British officers ran the Jordanian Arab Legion, one of the instruments of Arab anger against Jewish immigration. Yet, British officials were also in charge of the Jewish homeland which became the State of Israel. There is no doubt that the desperate migrations of Jewish refugees from Europe were badly handled, as Britain tried to limit the settlement to a level that might be acceptable to Palestinian Arabs. The worst example of British mismanagement was the turning round of a refugee-crammed ship, Exodus, as it tried to land 4,500 people at Haifa in 1947, and the eventual return of most of them to a camp in Hamburg, an act which caused Britain to be reviled around the world. This was followed by the kidnap and murder of two British soldiers by the Irgun terrorist group, which ten booby-trapped their bodies.

Bevin was pressed very hard by the United States which continued to demand far larger Jewish immigration to Palestine, but his instinct for a two-state solution later seemed sensible. The British forces there were entirely ill-equipped for the guerilla and terrorist campaign launched against them by extreme Zionist groups; in the local and international circumstances of the later forties, Bevin’s diplomatic position proved entirely impossible. His action on the report of the Anglo-American Commission, and again on the resolution of the United Nations Assembly in 1947, his delay in recognising the State of Israel until February 1949, and some bitter remarks he made during the House of Commons debates on Palestine, appeared to confirm the common Jewish view. Lord Straing, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office during a great part of Bevin’s term, suggested that Bevin’s opposition to the creation of the State of Israel was due to his preoccupation with long-term political, economic and strategic considerations:

‘He was disturbed by fear of active Soviet intervention in Middle East affairs, and foresaw that the persisting Arab-Jewish antagonism would be exploited by Moscow to the detriment of vital Western instruments.’

Norman Bentwich (1962), My Seventy Seven Years pp. 218-19.

Bentwich’s talks with Bevin in Paris and London between 1946 and 1948 supported his judgement about the Foreign Secretary’s fear of the Soviet threat. He believed in ‘liberty’ as essential to the building of a fair society, whether in Greece where he directed British troops against Communist insurgents, or in Palestine. Because of his huge wartime powers, he was a great believer in state-building and the creation of an enlarged ‘welfare state’ in post-war Britain. But he once told an American correspondent that he believed it possible to have both public ownership and liberty:

“I don’t believe the two things are inconsistent… (but) if I believed the development of socialism meant the absolute crushing of liberty, then I should plump for liberty because the advance of human development depends entirely on the right to think, to speak and to use reason, and to allow what I call ‘the upsurge’ to come from the bottom to reach the top.”

Alan Bullock (1985), Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary. Oxford: OUP.

The Foreign Secretary was still, therefore, as opposed to Soviet-style socialism as he had been as a trade union leader in the 1930s, and just as opposed to Stalin putting his boot on the Middle East in addition to Eastern Europe. At the same time, he was committed to even-handed diplomacy between the two sides. Bevin was, Bentwich believed,…

“… anxious at the outset to find a solution to the conflict, and confident that he would succeed as he had in many bitter labour disputes. But, at least, when he did recognise the State in 1949, he did his best to foster afresh good relations between Great Britain and Israel; and made a vain attempt to bring Jews and Arabs together.”

Bentwich, loc. cit.

The Ihud (Association) group led by J. L. Magnes and Professor M. Buber, like Bevin, favoured a bi-national solution, equal political rights for Jews and Arabs, and a Federative Union of Palestine and the neighbouring countries. However, they found little support among the Jewish community as a whole. Neither did the proposal find much support on the Arab side of the conflict. Indeed, some of those among the Arab population who expressed sympathy with the idea were assassinated by supporters of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s former Arab ally and co-conspirator in the genocide of the Jews in the war. It is worth recalling that, at the time and subsequently, Bevin was reviled as vigorously by Arab opinion as by Jewish views. On the left of the Labour Party in Britain, he has continued to be vilified for his reluctant role in the establishment of the Jewish State. But at that time, there was no rational alternative to the decisions that were made and no other alternative humanitarian solution.

The State of Israel, 1949-2019 – An Artificial Creation?:

Nazareth in the 1960s

To the left, now as then, the state of Israel was an artificial creation, a ‘mistake’ as Ken Livingstone, the former Labour Mayor of London called it, a few years, ago in an interview on Arabic TV. But that did not and does not match the reality of the emerging patterns of the population on the ground in Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s. However, by the time the Attlee government left office in 1951, anti-colonialism, the international rule of law and the rights of young countries were all issues that enthused the Labour Left generally. The United Nations, NATO and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were still fresh organisations. Five years later, at the time of the Suez Crisis, for the first time in modern British history, large numbers of people came out onto the streets of London to challenge a government going to war. The Suez demonstrations were followed by the great Vietnam clashes of the sixties and the marches against Tony Blair’s decision for Britain to join the Iraq War, but in the fifties, nothing like this had happened before. Suez split Britain down the middle, dividing families and friends. Because of it, a generation of politically aware young people grew up contemptuous of politicians generally, readier to mock and dismiss them. The decline of deference for them would probably have happened anyway, but the events of 1956, 1967 and 1973 in the Middle East hastened that decline.

Nevertheless, a degree of decency towards Israel can be traced through successive Labour leaders to the Blair-Brown governments. Harold Wilson was one of Israel’s strongest supporters when he became Labour prime minister in the 1960s and Michael Foot, the leftwing leader of Labour in the early 1980s, had been an early campaigner for a Jewish home in Palestine. A party that believed in social justice had to protect a people who had been through the Holocaust, it was argued, and in turn, the party’s support of ethnic minority rights made it the natural home for the Jewish vote in Britain for decades.

In recent decades, the Labour Party has needed to accept that the burden of the past century of Middle Eastern history had fallen on its shoulders. Either it continued to support and defend the creation and continued existence of the state of Israel, as Ernest Bevin and Clement Attlee finally did in 1949, or it needed to support the calls for its dismantling, by one means or another, which is what the previous leadership of the Labour Party wanted to do when it was elected in opposition in 2015. The continuing tropes about global capitalist conspiracies between Israel and Jewish individuals/ organisations at the centre of them have been passed down and shared by populist leaders like Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-left supporters, many of whom still remain in the party, despite the ‘defenestration’ of their leader following his defeat in the 2019 General Election.

Imperial theorist J. A. Hobson. Photograph: Elliott & Fry/Getty Images
Corbyn, Anti-Semitism and the Radical Critics of Imperialism:

Jeremy Corbyn was recorded in 2009 describing Hamas and Hezbollah representatives as “friends”. Corbyn spoke later of his regret at that “inclusive” but inappropriate language. On May Day morning 2019 however, another row erupted within the Labour Party over the proximity of its then leader’s ‘world-view’ to those of radical anti-Semites in the party since its beginnings. An article by Danny Finkelstein drew attention to the foreword to a republication of J A Hobson’s influential 1902 ‘Imperialism’, written by Jeremy Corbyn which, apparently, lauded Hobson’s radical critique of imperialism, while failing to acknowledge the problems it raised and continues to raise in respect of the author’s anti-Semitism. Hobson argued in the book that global finance was controlled in Europe by “men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience”, who were “in a unique position to control the policy”. By contrast with Corbyn’s 2011 preface, books written by historians Bernard Porter (1984) and, more recently, by Niall Ferguson (2003) on imperialism have drawn attention to these problems in the context in which Hobson himself was writing (see the appendix below).

What is the current Labour leader’s position?

There is a suspicion in some parts of Labour that Keir Starmer has been led to his current ‘pro-Israeli’ position by a desire to draw a line between himself and his predecessor. But Starmer’s position, as demonstrated above, is consistent with that of every post-war Labour leader before Corbyn. In addition, he has argued cogently that a ceasefire in the current war would simply freeze the status quo and that Hamas’s murder of 1,400 people on 7 October, and the group’s stated intention to strike again and again, make this untenable. Israel must, his argument goes, be allowed to defend itself. Starmer has therefore followed the White House in calling for humanitarian pauses to allow aid to get into Gaza. It may be an unsatisfactory argument to some but it has a clear logic, consistent with long-held policy going back to at least 1923. Labour backs a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine but the immediate threat to life needs to be dealt with.

Above: Image from a map of the world in 1900, showing the extent of the British Empire

As Niall Ferguson has pointed out in his more recent and specific publications on the issue, the liberal imperialism of the late Victorian period was criticised by radicals who revealed themselves as overtly anti-Semitic. The problem for Labour is that the proponents of these modern-day positions tend to see those of a dissenting view as failing to live up to the party’s purpose of promoting social justice. It is also the case that most of the far left of the party, who made Labour unelectable in the 1980s as well as in more recent years, support a ceasefire, though they cannot say who the second party would be, how it could be brought about in practical terms, and how its relative success might be monitored effectively by a third party. They seem to think it is enough to call for Israel to stop firing immediately and fail to explain how and when the terrorist groups responsible for beginning the war would be disarmed. A further complication is that the Muslim vote is important in a number of Labour constituencies. Starmer’s position is seen by some as an electoral risk but – as yet – it doesn’t seem to be an existential one for the party. Neither is there any sign of a transcendent long-term solution, though this is where Starmer, like Bevin before him, could make a considerable contribution as the next Labour PM.

Protesters during a recent march organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London
(PA Wire)

As HM’s leader of the Opposition, he has made some missteps, including when he appeared to support the cutting of water and energy to Gaza in an interview with LBC Radio three weeks ago. He later clarified that this was not his position but it has made it all the harder for him to convince the totality of his party that his stance is truly that of a politician who believes in social justice – and that’s the crux of the problem. Even if they wanted to, the opportunism and ideological determinism of the extreme ‘anti-Zionist’ left would not allow them to accept Keir Starmer’s justification of Israel’s defensive action and to jettison their anti-Semitic tropes. The thin veil of legitimacy of the current pro-Palestinian protests in London and elsewhere is beginning to slip to reveal the ugly beast of resurgent anti-Semitism lying beneath it. Until it does fall away fully, or until its fellow travellers learn to see through it, we are likely to have to endure more unnecessary division and divisive protests. A two-state solution cannot be brought about through the destruction of one of those states through terror and hate.

Appendix: Extracts from Niall Ferguson’s (2003), Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World.

So close was Cecil Rhodes’s relationship with the Rothschilds that he even entrusted the execution of his will to Lord Rothschild, specifying that his estate should be used to fund an imperialist equivalent of the Jesuit order – the original intention of the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford. This would be ‘a society of the elect for the good of the Empire’… Rothschild, in turn, assured;

‘Our first and foremost wish in connection with South African matters is that you should remain at the head of affairs in that Colony and that you should be able to carry out that great Imperial policy which has been the dream of your life’.

Not only was imperialism immoral, argued the critics, but, according to these ‘Radicals’, it was also a rip-off: paid for by British taxpayers, fought for by British soldiers, but benefiting only a tiny elite of fat-cat millionaires, the likes of Rhodes and Rothschild. That was the thrust of J. A. Hobson’s profoundly influential ‘Imperialism: A Study’, published in 1902. ‘Every great political act’ argued Hobson,

‘must receive the sanction and the practical aid of this little group of financial kings… They have the largest definite stake in the business of Imperialism, and the amplest means of forcing their will upon the policy of nations… Finance is the governor of the imperial engine, directing the energy and determining the work.’

H. N. Brailsford, another contemporary radical, took Hobson’s argument further in his ‘The War of Steel and Gold: A Study of the Armed Peace’, (written in 1910, but not published until 1914). ‘In the heroic age,’ Brailsford wrote,

‘Helen’s was the face that launched a thousand ships. In our golden age the face wears more often the shrewd features of some Hebrew financier. To defend the interests of Lord Rothschild and his fellow bondholders, Egypt was first occupied and then practically annexed by Great Britain… The extremest case of all is, perhaps, our own South African War.’

Was it not obvious that the war had been fought to ensure that the gold mines of the Transvaal remained securely in the hands of their capitalist owners? Was not Rhodes merely, in the words of the Radical MP Henry Labouchere, an…

‘… Empire jerry-builder who had always been a mere vulgar promoter masquerading as a patriot, and the figurehead of a gang of astute Hebrew financiers with whom he divides the profits?’

Like those modern conspiracy theories which explain every war in terms of the control of oil reserves, the Radical critique of imperialism was an over-simplification (Hobson and Brailsford little knew what a liability Rhodes had been during the siege of Kimberley). And like those other modern theories that attribute sinister power to certain financial institutions, some anti-imperialism conveyed more than a hint of anti-Semitism. (283-4)

In an article in The Guardian (1 May 2019) another academic historian pointed out how deeply Hobson’s hatred of all forms of imperialism ran, and his book is certainly a compelling read, an essential one for all undergraduates studying the dominant themes and events of the first half of the twentieth century. Taylor, a professor in modern history at the University of York, wrote in his article that:

“He understood the terrible consequences of European conquest overseas like no one before. He described how jingoism and support for empire inveigled its way into popular culture at home via the media and populist politicians. It remains a signature text and influenced Lenin, the philosopher Karl Kautsky, the political economist Joseph Schumpeter and other classics of the anticolonial canon. Hobson himself went on to become an éminence grise within the Labour Party after the first world war, helping draft its economic policy as it entered government for the first time in 1924. He was later tipped for a peerage.

“However, his antisemitism is inseparable from his attack on imperialism. Only alluded to once in the book to which Jeremy Corbyn added his thoughts, Hobson’s virulent assault on Jews is a recurrent theme of another book that first brought him fame and acclaim, 1900’s ‘The War in South Africa’. Sent out to cover the Boer war for this newspaper when it was known as the Manchester Guardian, Hobson let rip his racism. Reporting on his visits to Pretoria and Johannesburg towards the end of 1899, he mocked Judaism, described the control of the gambling and liquor industries by Jews, and their behind-the-scenes influence over the warmongering newspapers. Indeed, “the Jewish factor” received an index entry all of its own in this book. Without ‘The War in South Africa’, and its antisemitism, Hobson would not have shocked his way into the public eye and received the commission for his most famous work of all.”

The Debate Continued: ‘The Jewish News’, 3 May 2019:

‘While a spokesman said this week that Corbyn “completely rejects the antisemitic elements in his analysis”, the veteran MP made no mention of this in his lengthy endorsement. Instead, the Labour leader described Hobson’s book as “a great tome”, and praised the writer’s “brilliant, and very controversial at the time” analysis of the “pressures” behind Western, and in particular British, imperialism at the turn of the 20th century.’

After the Board of Deputies wrote to him to demand an explanation, Corbyn responded yesterday to say he was “deeply saddened” that the…’

…“mischievous representation of my foreward will have caused real stress within the Jewish community” and rounded on the “false accusation that I endorsed the antisemitic content of this 1902 text”.

“While writing the foreword, I reserved praise for some of the broad themes of Hobson’s century-old classic study of imperialism in Africa and Asia. As with many book written in this era, the work contains highly offensive references and observations. I totally deplore the language used in that book to describe Jews and people from colonised countries.

“The accusation is the latest in a series of equally ill-founded accusations of anti-Jewish racism that Labour’s political opponents have made against me. I note that the Hobson story was written by a Conservative Party peer in a newspaper whose editorial policy, and owner, have long been hostile to Labour. At a time when Jewish communities in the UK, and throughout Europe, feel under attack, it is a matter of great regret that the issue of antisemitism is often politicised in this way.”

‘Board of Deputies president Marie van der Zyl wrote to Corbyn, telling him that the …’

… “community is entitled to an apology for this failure to speak out against prejudice against our community when confronted with racism.

“There is ‘an impression that you either do not care whether your actions, inadvertently or deliberately, signal support for racist attitudes or behaviours” …

“Whilst you, quite correctly, explicitly commended Hobson’s criticism of caricatures of African and Asian people, there is a failure to make even a passing reference to the blatant antisemitism in the book that you enthusiastically endorse.”

“In your letter, you claim only to have ‘reserved praise for some of the broad themes’ of Hobson’s book and that you ‘totally deplore’ the antisemitism that was commonplace in ‘this era’.

“However, we note that your lengthy and detailed foreword of over 3500 words, variously describes Hobson’s work as “great”, “remarkable”, “interesting”, “brilliant”, “painstaking”, “very powerful”, “attractive”, “valid”, “correct”, “prescient” and “very prescient”, without any qualification referring to the antisemitism within it.”

‘The Jewish Labour Movement has submitted an official complaint to the party over this week’s revelation and asked the EHRC to include Corbyn’s endorsement of Hobson’s book in any investigation of the party for institutional antisemitism. “A fish rots from the head”, it said in a strongly-worded statement, adding that any other Labour member would have been suspended and calling on Corbyn to consider his position.’

More Tropes & Conspiracy Theories:

Corbyn’s ‘foreword’, written well before he became Labour leader, was not a critical appraisal of Hobson’s work, which would have been scholarly and circumspect, but an uncritical and ahistorical whitewashing of a text which not only criticises the ‘Liberal’ imperialism of the time but also contains anti-Semitic tropes and conspiracy theories which dominated the thinking of many Left-wing theorists within the Labour Party in the early part of the twentieth century. It helped to create a popular intellectual climate which led directly to the persecution of Jews throughout Europe in the years that followed. To this day, Corbyn has failed to acknowledge this and to apologise for his failure to highlight the anti-Semitic tropes in Hobson’s text.

Sources:

Walter Laqueur (ed.) (1976), The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of The Middle East Conflict. New York: Bantam Books.

Michael Clark & Peter Teed (eds.) (1972), Portraits & Documents: The Twentieth Century, 1906-1960. London: Hitchinson Education.

Charles Clarke & Toby S. James (2015), British Labour Leaders. London: Biteback Publishing.

Andrew Marr (2008, 2009), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke & Oxford: Macmillan Pan.

Daniel Boffey, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/06/how-the-israel-hamas-conflict-is-dividing-the-uk-labour-party.

Featured

Terror as a Tree Without Roots: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict – A Short Documentary History, 1941-76.

Berlin, 1941 – Genesis of a Genocide:

Over these past three weeks, there have been many attempts by jihadi propagandists, followed sheepishly by their international apologists and extremists, to excuse or ‘explain’ the pogrom of 7th October by reference to the events of the past seventy-five years of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, in checking through the documents on both ‘sides’, I can find no justification for any direct link to be drawn.

We may be thoroughly familiar with the litany of wars, massacres and ‘intifada’ that have occurred since the establishment of the state of Israel, but there has been no equivalence, to my historian’s mind, since the actions planned and carried out by the Nazis and their fascist allies against the central European Jews and Gipsies in the Holocaust and ‘Final Solution’ of 1938-1944. Haj Amin al Husaini, the most influential leader of the Palestinian Arabs at that time, lived in Germany during the Second World War. According to the official documents on German Foreign Policy, he met Adolf Hitler, Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East. In the record of one of these meetings, on 28th November 1941, Husaini – then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – stated that:

‘The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews and the Communists. They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage but and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent atfirst glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews.

Furthermore, they had had close relations with the Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. … An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany’s victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award victory to an unjust cause. …

‘The Führer replied that Germany’s fundamental attitude on these questions, … was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing but a centre, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the function of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. … Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

‘Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England’s capitalism and Soviet Russia’s communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilise all of England’s power for their ends.

‘Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. … The Führer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Führer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

2. At some moment… not distant, the German armies would would would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

3. As soon as this happened, the Führer would… give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour, the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared.

‘Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov, it would also be the beginning of the end of the British world empire. He… hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. ‘

Walter Laqueur (1976): The Israel-Arab Reader, pp. 80-81: Berlin, November 30, 1941. Record of the Conversation Between the Führer and the Grand Muft of of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.

Following the thwarting of Hitler’s plans at Stalingrad and the defeat of Nazi Germany across Europe, an Anglo-American Inquiry was appointed in 1945 to examine the status of the Jews in former Axis-occupied countries and to find out how many were impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine. Britain, weakened by the war, found itself under growing pressure from both Jews and Arabs alike. The new Labour Government decided, therefore, to invite the United States to participate in finding a solution. The Report of the Committee on Inquiry was published on 1st May 1946. President Truman welcomed its recommendation that the immigration and land laws of the 1939 White Paper be rescinded. Prime Minister Attlee, on the other hand, declared that the report would have to be “considered as a whole in all its implications”. Arab reaction was hostile; the Arab League announced that Arabs would not stand by with their arms folded. The Ihud (‘Association’) group led by Professor Martin Buber favoured a bi-national solution, equal political rights for Arabs and Jews, and a Federative Union of Palestine and the neighbouring countries. But Ihud found little support among the Jewish community, though it had a few Arab sympathisers. However, after some of them were assassinated by supporters of the Mufti, the others withdrew their support for a bi-national solution.

The Partition of Palestine & The 1948 War:

A war-exhausted British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, announced on 14th February 1947 that HM’s Government had decided to refer the Palestine problem to the newly-created United Nations. Tensions inside Palestine had risen, illegal Jewish immigration continued, and there was growing restiveness in the Arab countries: Palestine, Bevin said, could not be so divided as to create two viable states, since the Arabs would never agree to it, the Mandate could not be administered in its present form, and Britain was going to ask the United Nations how it could be amended. The UN set up a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) composed of representatives from eleven member states. Its report and recommendations were published on 31st August 1947. The Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan as the ‘indispensible minimum’, but the Arab governments and the Arab Higher Executive rejected it. On 29th November 1947, the UN General Assembly endorsed the partition plan by a vote of thirty-three to thirteen. The two-thirds majority included the US and USSR, but not the UK.

The United Nations resolution about the partition of Palestine was bitterly resented by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters in the neighbouring countries who were determined to prevent, with force of arms if necessary, the establishment of a ‘Zionist’ state by the “Jewish usurpers”. The terminology used clearly indicated both an anti-Zionist and an anti-Semitic attitude to the foundation of this state. In reality, the two terms now became almost synonymous. On 14 May 1948, The State of Israel Proclamation of Independence was published by the Provisional State Council, the forerunner of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The British Mandate, given by the League of Nations thirty years previously, through which successive British governments had controlled Palestine over the previous thirty years, was terminated the following day and regular armed forces of Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries entered the territory of the former mandate. This attempt failed and Israel, as a result, seized areas beyond those defined in the UN resolution.

Erskine Childers, an Irish journalist had published articles bitterly critical of Israeli policies. The extracts that follow are from an article published in the London weekly, The Spectator (12 May 1961). It provoked a great deal of controversy. Childers, the grandson of a well-known Irish nationalist writer, also worked for the BBC at the time:

‘The Palestine Arab refugees wait, and multiply, and are debated at the United Nations. In thirteen years, their numbers have increased from 650,000 to 1,145,000. Most of them survive only on rations from the UN agency, UNRWA. Their subsistence has already cost ($)110,000,000. Each year, UNRWA has to plead at New York for the funds to carry on, against widespread and especially Western lack of sympathy.

‘These Arabs, in short, are displaced persons in the fullest, most tragic meaning of the term – an economic truth cruelly different from the myth. But there is also the political myth and it too has been soothing our highly pragmatic Western conscience for thirteen years. This is the Israeli charge, solemny made every year and then reproduced around the world, that these refugees are – to quote a character in Leon Uris’s ‘Exodus’ – “kept caged like animals in suffering as a deliberate political weapon.” …

‘Israel claims that the Arabs left left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war. It is also argued that there would today be no refugees if the Arab States had not attacked the new Jewish State on May 15 1948 (though 800,000 had already fled before that date). The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists. …

‘I decided to turn up the relevant… (October 2) 1948 issue of the ‘Economist’. The passage that has literally gone round the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an “incident”. No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly non-belligerant, unarmed Arab village in April 1948, an “incident” – any more than Lidice is called an “incident”. Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist ‘Irgun Zvai Leumi’.

Laqueur, p. 143.

Here, it is important to emphasise that this was a massacre undertaken by a Zionist terrorist group, not Israeli government troops. ‘Irgun’ was an organisation like the Stern Gang, and was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah, who had carried out the earlier bombing at the King David Hotel. Irgun then called a press conference to announce their deed and paraded other captured Arabs through the Jewish quarters of Jerusalem to be spat upon. They were then released to tell their kin of the experience. Arthur Koestler called the “bloodbath” of Deir Yassin, “the psychologically decisive factor in this spectacular exodus”. Nevertheless, the government continued to spread propaganda, long after the event, that the evictions and evacuations were carried out by the Arab states with the help of Arab radio. In fact, both Arabic and Hebrew official broadcasts were reporting appeals for everyone to stay in their homes and at their jobs. Abba Eban, the Chief Israeli representative to the United Nations, who later became Foreign Minister of Israel, in a speech to the General Assembly on 17 November 1958, made the Israeli position clear:

“The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab States against Israel in 1947 and 1948. Let their be no mistake. If there had been no war against Israel, with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.”

Laqueur, p. 151.

An Israeli Government pamphlet of 1958 stated that the Jews tried, by every means open to them to stop the Arab evacuation. But while Haifa’s Mayor, Shabeitai Levi, with tears streaming down his face, implored the city’s Arabs to stay. But elsewhere in the city, as Arthur Koestler wrote, Haganah loudspeaker vans promised the city’s Arabs would be escorted to “Arab territory”. In Jerusalem, the Arabic warning from the vans was, “The road to Jericho is open! Fly to Jerusalem before you are all killed!” The ‘road to Jericho’ brought the refugees from Jerusalem into the Jordan Valley. Childers, writing in 1961, pointed out that some 85,000 were still there, at that time, in a UN camp under the Mount of Temptation. However, although he claims that official Zionist forces were directly responsible for the expulsion of ‘thousands upon thousands’ of Arabs from their villages, the evidence he presented does not appear conclusive.

The Suez Crisis, 1956:

The armistice of 1949 did not restore peace and a Palestinian Arab refugee problem came into being, along with continuing guerilla attacks and retaliations by Israel. Arab guerillas carried even after the armistice agreements had been signed and Israel retaliated in raids beyond its borders. The neighbouring Arab states refused to recognise even the ‘de facto’ existence of the Jewish state which was, in their view, illegitimate. They boycotted Israeli goods and blocked the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqabah. Egypt’s blockage of the Suez Canal led to its war with Britain, France and Israel in 1956. Although this was not directly concerned with Israel’s existence, it temporarily posed a threat to its southern border and worsened its relations with neighbouring states. General Abdel Nasser used this opportunity to make a series of speeches between 1960 and 1963. He had served as an army officer in the 1948 War and saw the ‘liberation’ of Palestine as one of the chief planks in his political programme, though historians have argued about whether there was ever, in this period, a definitive plan for ‘the liberation’. On several occasions, he announced that his army would soon be ready to enter Palestine on “a carpet of blood”. He wrote later that:

‘… when the Palestine crisis loomed on the horizon, I was firmly convinced that the fighting in Palestine was not fighting on foreign territory. Nor was it inspired by sentiment. It was a duty imposed by self-defence.’

Laqueur, loc. cit., pp. 137-38.

In 1963, Nasser helped write a ‘manifesto’ concerning the principles of the new Federal State of the United Arab Republic was published in April 1963. It was prepared in connection with an abortive attempt to establish a federal union in the Arab world and was signed by Gamel Abdel Nasser and the presidents of Iraq and Syria. As a document, it is of interest mainly in view of the reference to Palestine:

‘Unity is a revolution – a revolution because it is popular, a revolution because it is progressive, and a revolution because it is a powerful tide in the current of civilisation… It is profoundly connected with the Palestine cause and with the natural duty to liberate that country. It was the disaster of Palestine that showed the weakness of and backwardness of the economic and social systems that prevailed in the country, released the revolutionary energies of our people and awakened the spirit of revolt against imperialism, injustice, poverty and underdevelopment.’

Walter Laqueur (ed.) (1976), The Israel-Arab Reader, p. 130.
The Six Days’ War, 1967:

After a decade of uneasy truce, there was a new escalation of violence culminating in the Six Days’ War in 1967. On 5th June, Egyptian forces moved against Israel’s western coast and southern territory by air and land. After five days of determined resistance, Israel emerged victorious, according to Nasser himself. When the war ended, Abba Eban made a speech at the Special Assembly of the United Nations on 19th June. He claimed that…

“… in recent weeks, the Middle East has passed through a crisis whose shadows darken the world. … Israel’s right to peace, security, sovereignty, economic development and maritime freedom – indeed its very right to exist – has been forcibly denied and aggressively attacked. This is the true origin of the tension which torments the Middle East. All other elements of the conflict are the consequences of this single cause. … Israel’s existence, sovereignty and vital interests have been and are violently assailed.”

Laqueur, p. 207

The Special GA was principally concerned with the situation against which Israel defended itself on the morning of 5th June. But Eban claimed that these events were not born in a single instant of time. Between the 14th of May and the 5th of June, Arab governments led and directed by President Nasser methodically prepared an assault designed to bring about Israel’s immediate and total destruction. In the following twenty years, there was little if any progress towards a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. No substantial efforts were made to mediate between the two sides, and there was a developing danger of ‘superpower’ involvement (i.e. the USSR), resulting in the transformation of a regional conflict into a potential global crisis. Many members of the UN at the GA in March 1957 had hoped and believed that a period of stability would ensue from the arrangements discussed there for non-belligerency, maritime freedom and immunity from terrorist attacks. These assurances were received from the US, France, the UK and Canada among other states from around the world. They induced Israel to give up positions in Gaza, the Straits of Tiran and Sinai. Looking back from 1967, it was obvious to Eban that, all along, the Arab governments had regarded the 1957 arrangements merely as a breathing space enabling them to renew their strength for a later assault.

In August 1967, the Washington correspondent of twenty-five years, I. F. Stone, published an essay in the New York Review of Books, surveying a special issue of Jean Paul-Satre’s Les Temps Modernes on the ‘Arab-Israeli Conflict’ which went to print just as the Six Day War broke out. It was entitled ‘Holy War’, tracing both the ethnic and religious rivalries of both the Jews and Arabs going back to ancient times. In it, he concluded, somewhat prophetically, that:

‘The path to safety and the path to greatness lies in reconciliation. The other route, now that the West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli jurisdiction, leads to two new perils. The Arab population now in the conquered territories make guerilla war possible within Israel’s own boundaries. And externally, if emnity deepens and tension rises between Israel and the Arab states, both sides will by one means or another obtain nuclear weapons for the next round.’

Laqueur, p. 326.

Stone explained that “as a Jew, closely bound emotionally with the birth of Israel,” he felt “honour bound to report the Arab side, especially since the U.S. press was so overwhelmingly pro-Zionist. He concluded his review with a telling, ironic observation:

‘If God as some now say is dead, He no doubt died of trying to find an equitable solution to the Arab-Jewish problem. … no voice on the Arab side preaches a Holy War in which all Israel would be massacred, while no voice on the Israeli side expresses the cheerful cynical view one may hear in private that Israel has no realistic alternative but to hand the Arabs a bloody nose every five or ten years until they accept the loss of Palestine as irreversible.’

Laqueur, p. 327.
Between Two Wars, 1967-73:

Any discussion of the current prospects for a ceasefire in Gaza, and a longer-term peace between Israel and the Arab countries has to begin by revisiting the history of the Middle East between the Six-Day War of June 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of October 1973. Efforts to reach a peace settlement in those seven years were protracted, highly complicated and ultimately futile. All the many plans that were proposed – the Rogers plan, the Jarring plan and nameless others – seem now merely of interest to academic historians. The story of these negotiations is a melancholy one, not least for the question it raises of possible opportunities missed by the various parties to the conflict, especially Israel. Not that Israel ignored any genuine peace overture from the Arabs; there was none. But, as documented here, an interim accommodation might have been reached with Egypt alone, based on a demilitarisation of the Sinai, which might have lessened the likelihood of a new round of fighting.

In the period between the two wars, the role of the Palestinian organisations also became more significant as a means of galvanising Arab unity in support of the Palestinians. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) had effectively come into being with the drawing up of the National Covenant or manifesto in May 1964, superseding the earlier Draft Constitution. The PLO was the biggest of the Palestinian refugee organisations; its manifesto was modified in several ways and at various times since 1964. The Al Fatah ‘Seven Points’ and the interview with Yaser Arafat, quoted below, were both published in 1969. These offer more recent interpretations of the organisation’s aims. The second of the Seven Points emphasised that:

“Al Fatah, the Palestine National Liberation Movement is not struggling against the Jews as an ethnic and religious community. It is struggling against against Israel as the expression of colonisation based on a theocratic, racist and expansionist system and of Zionism and colonialism.”

Laqueur, p. 372.

In his interview, published in Free Palestine, Yasir Arafat was asked about his movement’s call for the creation of a progressive, democratic state for all, and whether this aim was compatible with the slogan, “Long live Palestine, Arab and Free”. Arafat responded that there was no contradiction between the overall aim for a ‘state for all’ and ‘that state being Arab’. He added that:

“Anyone who has tried to look at the Palestinian problem in its historic perspective would realise that the Zionist State has failed to make itself acceptable because it is an artificially created alien state in the midst of an Arab world.”

Laqueur, p. 373.

He claimed the word ‘Arab’ simply implied a common culture, a common language and a common background, and that therefore the majority of the inhabitants of any future State of Palestine would be Arab since there were 2.5 million Palestinian Arabs of the Muslim and Christian faiths and another and another 1.25 million Arabs of the Jewish faith who lived in what was then the state of Israel. Only a democratic state of Palestine, he said, would guarantee equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of race or religion. To achieve this, the Palestinian organisations wished to ‘liberate the Jews from Zionism’ and to make them realise that the purpose behind the creation of the State of Israel, namely to provide a safe haven for the persecuted Jews, had instead thrown them into a ghetto of their own making.

General Dayan’s speech presented Israeli viewpoints on both the short-term issues involved in the continuing conflict and the longer-term perspectives on it. Moshe Dayan’s address, which he gave to a graduating class at the Israel Army Staff and Command College (reported in the Jerusalem Post on 27 September 1968) focused on what he called ‘the problematics of peace’. After a long survey of the history of Zionism in the 1920s and ’30s, based on the writings of Arthur Ruppin, one of the architects of the Zionist venture, known more generally as “the father of Zionist settlement” in the period 1920-42, Dayan concluded:

“… a year after the war, and despite the fact that we are standing on the Suez Canal and on the River Jordan, in Gaza and in Nablus; despite all our efforts – including a willingness for far-reaching concessions – to bring the Arabs to the peace table – the things which Ruppin said thirty-two years ago still seem sound. It was during the 1936 riots that he wrote:

‘The Arabs do not agree to our venture. If we want to continue our work in Eretz Israel against their desires, there is no alternative but to be in a state of continual warfare with the Arabs. This situation may well be undesirable, but such is the reality.’ ”

Laqueur, pp. 444-445.

The Six-Day War and its aftermath also raised questions for the Arabs and stimulated them to reassess their progress in the conflict. They began to grapple with the question of their objective in the conflict. But there was, as yet, no significant support for a recognition of the state of Israel. This line of thinking was dismissed in the late 1960s as a dangerous delusion by those who claimed to understand Arab political psychology. Such wrestling as took place was primarily concerned with the slogan “Democratic Palestinian State”. Later, it appeared that the terrorist organisations were actually afraid of a more flexible approach, lest it put them out of business. Yasir Arafat, writing in retrospect, commented:

“After the 1967 defeat, Arab opinion, broken and dispirited, was ready to conclude peace at any price. If Israel, after its lightning victory, had proclaimed that it had no expansionist aims and withdrawn its troops from the conquered territories, while continuing to occupy certain strategic points necessary to its security, the affair would have been easily settled.”

Yasir Arafat, quoted in John K. Cooley (1973), Black September (New York), p. 99.

Arafat was, as usual, exaggerating for effect: The affair would not have been easily settled. Still, there was a chance that de-escalation might have worked, and the truth is that those opportunities which did exist were not explored. The reasons for this were manifold. Deep down the Israelis had always inclined toward a ‘worst-case’ analysis of their situation, arising perhaps from an understandable determination (given then-recent Jewish history) not to take any risks with their citizens’ lives. Arab leaders, as already noted, had threatened Israel with extinction for many years, and following two major existential wars in twenty years, these threats could not easily be dismissed as idle. When, in the wake of the Six Days’ War, the Arabs officially opted for a policy of immobility at the Khartoum Conference (“No peace, no recognition, no negotiation”) it was only natural for Israel to react accordingly. Any other course would have been interpreted as evidence of weakness, and it was well-known that Arabs respected strength alone.

From a military and security point of view, the 1967 armistice lines seemed ideal. Before the war, Jordanian territory had extended to within 30km of Tel Aviv, Egyptian territory to within 80km; now the Egyptians were many hundreds of km away, and the Jordanians were beyond the Jordan River. Israeli planes could reach Cairo within a few minutes, so a good case could be made for not withdrawing from these lines. However, no one in Israel expected all the territories taken in the Six Days’ War to be retained, at least not at first. Immediately after the war, Moshe Dayan came out against an Israeli presence on the Suez Canal, Abba Eban warned against “intoxication with victory,” and David Ben-Gurion reiterated that a strong army, although vital, was no substitute for a political solution which in his view should include the return of the West Bank under agreed terms and a mutually satisfactory settlement of the Sinai issue. As time went on, Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir, Israel Galili and other Israeli leaders became increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement.

Meanwhile, among the self-appointed leadership of the Palestinians, there was also some reflection and re-thinking. In the weekly supplement of the Beirut newspaper al-Anwar (8 March 1970), a long symposium was published concerning the meaning of the slogan, “The Democratic State,” in which the views of most of the prominent fedayeen organisations were represented. A translation of extracts from this symposium is quoted below:

“Co-existence with this entity (Israel) is impossible, not because of a national aim or… aspiration of the Arabs, but because the presence of this entity will determine this region’s development in connection with world imperialism, which follows from the objective link between it and Zionism. Thus, eradicating imperialist influence in the Middle East means eradicating the Israeli entity. This is something indispensible, not only from the aspect of the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination, and in its homeland, but also from the aspect of protecting the Arab national liberation movement, and this objective can only be achieved by means of armed struggle. …

“The liberation of Palestine will be the way for the Arabs to realise unity, … The unified State will be the alternative to the Zionist entity, and it will be of necessity democratic, as long as we understand beforehand the dialectical connection between unity and Socialism. In the united Arab State all the minorities – denominational and others – will have equal rights…”

Laqueur, pp. 535-6.

The intention, therefore, was not to set up a Palestinian State as an independent unit, but to incorporate it within a united Arab State which would be democratic because it was progressive, and would grant the Israeli Jews minority rights. Others, however, like Shafiq al-Hut, a leader of the PLO and head of its Beirut office, were not at all interested in guaranteeing Jewish minority rights:

“… there is no benefit in expatiating upon the slogan “Democratic Palestinian State.” … As far as it concerns the human situation of the Jews, … we should expose the Zionist movement which brought you to Palestine did not supply a solution to your problem as a Jew; therefore you must return whence you came to seek another way of striving for a solution for what is called “the problem of the persecuted Jew in the world.” As Marx has said, he (the Jew) has no alternative but to be assimilated into his society.

“Let us face matters honestly. When we speak simply of a Democratic Palestinian State, this means that we discard its Arab identity. I say that on this subject we cannot negotiate, even if we possess the political power to authorise this kind of decision, because we thereby disregard an historical truth, namely, that this land and those who dwell upon it belong to a certain environment and a certain region, to which we are linked as one nation, one heritage and one hope . Unity, Freedom and Socialism. …”

Laqueur, pp. 536-7.

The implication that the Israeli Jews would be allowed to stay in the Democratic State raised distinct difficulties concerning its Arab character. For al-Huq, this was simply a strategy to gain international recognition for the PLO and the Palestinian cause:

“If the slogan of the Democratic State was intended only to counter the claim that we wish to throw the Jews into the sea, this is indeed an apt slogan an effective political and propaganda blow. But if we wish to regard it as the ultimate strategy for the of the Palestinian and the Arab liberation movement, then I believe it requires a long pause for reflection, for it bears on our history, just as (on) our present and certainly our future.

Laqueur, p. 537

A representative of the Syrian fedayeen organisation, as-Sa’iqa, was among those who had thought five years earlier that we must slaughter the Jews. But he now thought it impossible to slaughter even one-tenth of them. That being so, he asked, what shall we do with these Jews? He did not have a ready answer:

“It is a problem which every Arab and Palestinian citizen has an obligation to express his opinion about, because it is yet early for a ripe formulation to offer the world and those living in Palestine.

Laqueur, p. 537.

The slogan of the “Democratic State” was offered to the PLO as an escape from the odium that Article 6 of the 1968 Covenant had brought upon it. It seemed that the difficulties in which the idea of the Democratic State was enmeshed, as expressed in the internal controversies of this symposium, explains why the Covenant was not amended, despite the damage to the Palestinian cause. Nevertheless, the slogan was hailed by Arab statesmen as an all-important innovation demonstrating the liberal-humanitarian nature of the Palestinian movement. Yasir Arafat, seeking to strengthen this impression, even said that the President of the new state could be Jewish. However, scrutiny showed that it was not envisaged as a liberal-democratic state sharing Western values.

The objective of setting up a ‘Democratic Palestine’ was, however, enshrined in the resolution of the Eighth Palestinian National Assembly of early March 1971. The resolution was carefully worded to avoid promising that all Israelis would be allowed to stay, but that the state would be based on equality of rights and obligations for all its citizens. This was quite compatible with the quantitative limitations of Article 6 in the 1968 Covenant. Neither was this a new nomenclature, since autocratic régimes had, since 1945, described themselves as ‘democratic’ or ‘people’s republics’. The Congress that set up the “All-Palestine Government” in Gaza and which unanimously elected the former genocidally anti-Jewish Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husaini, as its president, had proclaimed on 1st October 1948 ‘the establishment of a free and democratic sovereign state’ in which ‘the citizens will enjoy their liberties and their rights.’ But although the slogan was not widely used among Arabs in the later seventies, it was not discarded, as the alternative would have been to fall back on the previous genocidal position. Nevertheless, there were those, especially among the Lebanese Palestinians, who continued to advocate “the complete eradication of the State of Israel.”

Even if the slogan of the “Democratic State” had been free of inconsistency and insincerity, the Israelis believed that they had no less a right to national self-determination than the Palestinian Arabs. They had no wish to become Palestinians of Jewish faith; they wished to remain Israelis. As long as the Arabs were unwilling to talk, Israel had to stand fast. A growing reluctance was felt even to discuss the possible terms of a settlement. The general attitude became that the Arab-Israeli conflict, like every other conflict in history, had to run its full course. At some time in the future, when the Arabs would be psychologically ready to accept the existence of Israel, it would be possible to find mutually accepted solutions to all the outstanding questions, but for the time being Israel had to stand firm. This policy had much to commend it, but it also had several major flaws. It ignored the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict was not purely regional in character and that with regard to the two superpowers involved, an asymmetry existed between US support for Israel and Soviet support for the Arabs: America had to consider other interests in the Middle East whereas the Soviet Union could give all-out assistance to its clients. The USA underrated the effective force of the Arab armies built up by the Russians since 1967.

The Yom Kippur War, October 1973:

The early seventies was a period of both rivalry and ‘détente’ in USA-USSR relations, both of which influenced the next ‘chapter’ in the conflict. The Americans also overrated détente and, above all, it did not take into consideration the growing importance of oil as an economic weapon as a means of isolating Israel on the international scene: as far as Western Europe and Japan were concerned, Israel Israel was expendable but Arab oil was not. The international constellation, in brief, was changing, and not in Israel’s favour. A major power might have stood by and watched these changes with some degree of equanimity; a small country did so at its peril. But Bernard Lewis argued in an essay originally written for Foreign Affairs, that the two main axes of the East-West rivalry and the Arab-Israel conflict, while likely to persist, were not necessarily connected. Towards the end of the “fourth round” of the conflict, on 16th October 1973, the Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat made a speech to the People’s Assembly in Cairo in which he dealt with the prehistory of the war and Egypt’s relations with the Soviet Union and the United States and provided the official Egyptian version of the last phase of the war after Israeli troops crossed the Suez Canal:

“I shall not be exaggerating to say that military history will make a long pause to study and examine the operation carried out on 6th October 1973 when the Egyptian armed forces were able to storm the difficult barrier of the Suez Canal which was armed with the fortified Bar Lev Line to establish bridgeheads on the east bank of the Canal after they had… thrown the enemy off balance in six hours.

“The risk was great and the sacrifices were big. However, the results were achieved in the first six hours of battle in our war were huge. The arrogant enemy lost its equilibrium at this moment. The wounded nation restored its honour.”

Sadat’s speech, 16 October, 1973, Laqueur. p. 464.

The Yom Kippur War began with a concerted attack on two fronts. However, the aggressive initiative by Egypt was broken by the strength of Israel’s Defence Force. Both Egypt and Syria were thrown back, portions of their forces were destroyed and the IDF broke through their front lines and went on the offensive. After the Arab attack, it was noted in Israel that the strategic depth offered by the Sinai was in fact a lifesaver; had the attack been launched from the pre-June 1967 lines it would have threatened Israel’s very existence. But this emphasis was based on the assumption that the 1967 borders were the only feasible alternatives to the Bar Lev Line, when in fact a demilitarized Sinai might have functioned as a more effective warning zone than did the Suez Canal. Nor can it be taken for granted that Egypt’s attack in itself was inevitable, since the country was facing a great many problems at home and abroad, and had some sort of interim agreement been reached on the Sinai, the Egyptians might not have felt such an overriding urgency to recover all the lost territories.

Similarly, a settlement might have been reached with Jordan, though not with Syria, but the latter, acting in isolation could not have caused a great deal of damage. The same applies to Al-Fatah and its rival groups, who would have kept up their sporadic attacks from across the border and the hijacking of planes in any case. In due course, however, the Palestinians might have come to see that they could no longer rely on the Arab governments in their struggle and they too might have to come to accept the existence of the state of Israel.

For Sadat, however, the great mistake Israel continued to make was that its leaders thought that ‘the force of terror could guarantee security’. He claimed that the futility of this theory had been proven on the battlefield and the current Israeli command was acting in opposition to history. Peace could not be imposed; the peace of a fait accomplit could not last and could not be established through terror:

“Our enemy has persisted in this arrogance for the past twenty-five years – that is since the Zionist state usurped Palestine.

“We might ask the Israeli leaders today: Where has the theory of Israeli security gone? They have tried to establish this theory once by violence and once by force in twenty-five years. It has been broken and destroyed. Our military power today challenges their military power. They are now in a long protected war. Their hinterland is exposed if they think they can frighten us by threatening the the Arab hinterland. I add, so they may hear in Israel: We are not advocators of annihilation, as they claim.

“The world has realised that we were not the first to attack, but that we immediately responded to the duty of self-defence. We are not against but are for the values and laws of the international community. We are not warmongers but seekers of peace. ”

Idem., Laqueur, pp. 466-469.

In his speech, Sadat set out a five-point peace plan which he addressed specifically to President Nixon:

“(1) We have fought and will fight to liberate our territories which the Israeli occupation seized in 1967 and to find a means to retrieve and secure respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. …

(2) We are prepared to accept a cease-fire on the basis of the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the occupied territories, under international supervision, to the pre-5th June 1967 lines.

(3) We are prepared, as soon as the withdrawal from all these territories has been completed, to attend an international peace conference at the United Nations, … laying down rules and regulations for peace in the area based on the respect of the legitimate rights of all the peoples of the area.

(4) We are ready at this hour … to begin clearing the Suez Canal and to open it for world navigation…

(5) … we are not prepared to accept any ambiguous promises or loose words… What we want now is… clarity of aims… and of means.

Laqueur, p. 470.

On 22 October, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 338 which called upon all parties in the conflict to cease firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than twelve hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy. It also called upon the parties concerned to implement the 1967 cease-fire Resolution 242, which meant a return to Israel’s borders prior to the Six Days’ War, and the giving up by Israel of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Finally, it called for immediate negotiations to start under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

The next day, Golda Meir made a statement to the Knesset announcing that the Government of Israel had unanimously decided to announce its readiness to agree to a cease-fire according to the UN Security Council’s resolution following the joint USA-USSR proposal. The military forces would therefore hold to their positions at the time that the ceasefire came into effect. This allowed Israel to hold onto lines on the Syrian front which were better than those held on 6th October, giving it a strong northern flank along the Hermon ridge. The Syrian government did not immediately accept the cease-fire resolution, continuing to fight on. Also, although the Egyptians had gained a military achievement in crossing the Suez Canal, the Israel Defence Forces had succeeded in regaining control of part of the Eastern Canal line, as well as a large area west of the Canal, depriving the Egyptian army of its capacity to constitute an offensive threat in the direction of the Sinai and Israel, preventing it from attacking essential installations or areas of Israeli territory.

According to Meir, only a few days had passed after what she called his ‘boastful address’ on the 16th before Sadat agreed to a cease-fire, but not one of the conditions raised by him in his speech (above) was included in the SC resolution. However, his first point was directly referred to, if not as a condition of the cease-fire, in the resolution. Firing on the Egyptian front did not immediately cease, and it wasn’t until 31 October that Egypt’s President gave a press conference in Cairo at which he justified his decision to accept a cease-fire. He said that he had not decided to fight America, but had fought Israel for eleven days. On the Israeli side, following the end of the war, a commission was appointed by the Knesset, to investigate why Israel was taken by surprise on 6th October 1973 and the setbacks suffered during the first days of the war. This commission prepared a detailed report of which only a small portion was published.

Meir also pointed out that since the outbreak of the war on Yom Kippur, the ‘terrorists’ had also resumed activities from Lebanese territory. Up to the morning of her speech, during the period of seventeen days, 116 acts of aggression had been perpetrated, forty-four civilian settlements on the northern border had been attacked and shelled, and some twenty civilians and six soldiers had been killed or wounded by these actions. She commented:

“Our people living in the border settlements may be confident that Israel’s Defence Forces are are fully alert to this situation. Despite the defensive disposition operative on this front, it has been proved once again that defensive action alone is not sufficient to put an ends to acts of terror.”

Laqueur, p. 486.

On both main military fronts, the Israeli forces were holding strong positions beyond the cease-fire lines. However, Meir insisted that Israel wanted a cease-fire and that it would observe the cease-fire on a reciprocal basis, and only on that basis. Israel wanted peace negotiations to start immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire and was willing to support and promote an honourable peace within secure borders. With the end of the 1973 war came a new willingness in Israel to rethink the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to consider new ways of resolving it. A spate of articles and speeches, symptomatic of the confusion caused by war, suggested all kinds of panaceas: a National Security Council, a mutual defence pact with the US, a “charismatic minister of information.”

Searching for Peace in Algiers & Geneva, 1973-75:

Only after an interval of several weeks were serious attempts undertaken to analyse the lessons of the October War in a broader perspective and greater depth. This soul-searching coincided with the electoral campaign in which both parties clarified their policies looking forward. The right-wing Herut claimed that the people of Israel had won a magnificent victory on the battlefield and should not have to pay for the defeat of the Western world in the oilfields of Arabia; but Herut also denied that it was a ‘war party’, asserting that it was much better equipped than the Labor coalition to lead Israel towards peace. The Liberals, Herut’s partners in the Likud coalition, advocated a more moderate line, suggesting Israeli concessions in return for peace; they debated among themselves whether these concessions should be spelt out or not. The Labor alignment had to accommodate conflicting trends in its declared policy, set out in its fourteen points. The preamble to these stated: “Our platform must reflect the lessons of the Yom Kippur War.” Their platform insisted on defensible borders based on a territorial compromise, but they did not support a return to the June 1967 boundaries. A peace agreement with Jordan would be based on the existence of two independent states: Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, and an Arab state to the east; efforts would be made to continue settling Israelis in the occupied territories, ‘in keeping with cabinet decisions giving priority to national security provisions.’ This represented a concession to the “hawks” in the Labor alignment, but the ‘platform’ as a whole constituted a decisive victory for the “doves.”

Almost simultaneously, the Arabs were making their demands known at the Algiers meeting of the Arab heads of state. They stated that the struggle against the “Zionist invasion” was a long-term, ongoing responsibility which would call for many more trials and sacrifices. A cease-fire was not peace, which would come only when a number of conditions had been met, two among them paramount and unequivocal: first, the evacuation by Israel of all occupied Arab territories and above all Jerusalem; second, the re-establishment of full national rights for the Palestinian people. Yet inasmuch as no objections were voiced to negotiations with Israel, something that the 1967 Khartoum Conference had expressly rejected, it appeared to many observers that the ‘moderate’ line of President Sadat had won out in Algiers. The final communiqué stated that the meeting had been a great success, but since Iraq and Libya boycotted the conference, and Syria subsequently decided not to participate in the Geneva Conference at all, Arab unity could by no means be said to be complete.

Yasir Arafat’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 13 November 1974 restated the PLO’s case for a future State of Palestine. In his speech, Arafat stated: “We include all Jews now living in Palestine who choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination.” But as the weeks passed, the Algiers resolution was shrilly rejected by Arab extremists. A broadcast emanating from Baghdad on 21st December 1973, the day the Geneva talks opened, announced:

“The masses will not be bound by the régimes of treason and defeatism at the Geneva Conference. “

Radio Tripoli asked:

“Has our Arab nation become so servile in the eyes of those leaders (i.e. Sadat) that they belittle its dignity and injure its pride without fearing its wrath?”

Israel’s ‘khaki election’ took place on the last day of the old year. If public opinion polls published in September 1973 were to be trusted, the results would have been similar even had the war not taken place. The Labor alignment, deeply split and under fire from within not only because of the military handling of the war but for the lack of flexibility shown by Golda Meir’s inner circle in recent years, lost ground. Were it not for the obvious necessity to preserve the unity of the alignment in view of the international situation, it is quite possible that both Mrs Meir and General Dayan would have had to resign under pressure from large sections of their party. But Likud had no reason to be overjoyed by the results of the elections either; if the party of Menahem Begin could not overtake its rivals in such nearly ideal conditions, it never would – unless, of course, the Labor alignment should disintegrate entirely. The campaign was confused and in the absence of a clear choice between the potential leaders, the outcome of the elections was bound to be inconclusive. Therefore, no clear mandate emerged for any one course of action. The absence of a consensus and the sharp polarisation of public opinion made the task of the Israeli negotiators beyond the first stage of the talks extremely difficult. The effect of the vote, the London Economist wrote, was to block any government from making the vital decisions that the Geneva talks demanded.

The Algiers summit conference proclaimed that the war aim of the Arab states was the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian Arabs, that the PLO was the only legal representative of the Palestinians, and that its interpretation of the ‘national rights’ was binding. That interpretation was, in turn, laid down by the Palestinian National Covenant of July 1968, which claimed that the establishment of Israel was ‘null and void’. The Algiers resolution, in other words, as much as stated that the purpose of any peace conference would be to discuss the liquidation of Israel. In the eyes of some, this meant that it was pointless for Israel to attend the Geneva Conference. However, it opened on 21st December in an atmosphere of cautious optimism. Dr Kissinger, in his opening speech, spoke of a “historic chance for peace”; there were also promising noises from Jerusalem, Moscow and Cairo. All this was based, no doubt, on the undisputed fact that immediately after a war, the prospects almost always seem acceptable after all.

In its first phase, the Conference concentrated on achieving a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. Troop disengagement was achieved in an agreement on 17th January. The Israel-Egypt ‘problem’ did not, at first, seem insurmountable. If Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai were recognised and Egypt was to accept an effective system of demilitarisation, there would then only be the remaining territorial issues. Neither side was particularly eager to accept responsibility for Gaza, though neither would admit it. Israel, however, would not agree to withdraw from Sinai in return for a mere armistice. Egypt has assured its Arab allies that it would under no circumstances make peace with Israel unless it withdrew from all occupied Arab territories and the national rights of the Palestinians were restored. The official interpretation of this formula would however mean the liquidation of the state of Israel. Nevertheless, there were several other interpretations possible.

For twenty-five years Egypt had borne the brunt of the struggle against Israel, yet pan-Arab feeling was less deeply rooted in Cairo than elsewhere in the Arab world. In its struggle against Israel, Egypt had received a great deal of verbal aid and unsolicited advice, but when it came to making war, as in October 1973, it received little practical support from its Arab ‘friends’. Syria and Iraq harboured strong feelings of resentment against Egypt, seeing themselves as the rightful leaders of the Arab world. Colonel Qaddafi of Libya had also, on many occasions, decried Egypt’s “decadence” and “corruption”. For their part, the Egyptians regarded Syria and Iraq as semi-barbaric lands and had always held a contemptuous view of the Palestinians.

There was thus a strong inclination inside Egypt, after the Yom Kippur War, to put Egyptian interests first. The Six Days’ War had come as a great shock to the country as a whole, and there was universal agreement that the shame of 1967 had to be expiated on the field of battle. But with these aims achieved, Egypt no longer needed to feel an overriding obligation to champion the further struggle against Israel. Hundreds of articles and dozens of books had been published in Egypt all proclaiming the inadmissibility of a Jewish state in the Middle East, but these declarations could not necessarily be taken at face value. The prospect of many more years of hard fighting and severe damage to the country had little appeal. It should have been Israeli policy after 1967, and especially after Nasser’s death in 1970, to concentrate on a separate deal with Egypt, but the country was desperately poor and financially dependent on Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states. These countries had a vested interest in prolonging the struggle with Israel, which was tantamount for them to an insurance policy against the radical forces in the Arab world that threatened their own existence.

Sadat’s position was stronger after the Yom Kippur War, certainly, but an Egyptian-Israeli deal was unlikely to mark even the beginning of the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in the event of a new flare-up, the danger would always exist that Egypt might be drawn into the campaign. Finally, an opening to Egypt on Israel’s part would involve a basic psychological reorientation: since 1948 Egypt had been the enemy of Israel. But in the wake of the October 1973 war, the interests of the two countries were not necessarily incompatible, and normal, if not friendly, relations between them were not to be ruled out as a possible future at that time. It was by no means unthinkable that one day Israel would break out of its isolation and align itself with one or more of the Arab countries against one or more of the others. If a settlement with Egypt entailed grave risks, the other alternatives were even more dangerous. One was to give up nothing, the other was to tackle the problem at its core and strive for a settlement which would satisfy the Palestinian Arabs.

The hard-line Israelis argued that a renewed war would involve a protracted and strenuous struggle, but Israel would eventually win and this time its victory would be decisive. A more sophisticated version of this argument was one that maintained that it would be fatal for Israel to act “reasonably” and “responsibly” in the then-current situation, as it was being urged to do on all sides. On the contrary, Israel should be tough, unpredictable and, to a certain extent, irresponsible. This reasoning could not then be dismissed out of hand, but the chances of such a policy being successful in the real world could not, then or now, be rated very high. It underestimated the extent of Israel’s reliance on the United States and exaggerated the American readiness to help Israel in the future. But even more decisively, it was not a policy that the government of a democratic policy could easily pursue.

Others also argued that any Israel withdrawal would be just the first step in the gradual dismemberment of the country as a whole by its Arab neighbours, it would of course be preferable in every respect to make a stand now, rather than later when the boundaries would be harder to defend. Israel was already isolated, according to this view, and there was no further point in trying to appease world opinion by capitulation. The US, in the last resort, could be counted on to remain steadfast, for its prestige was deeply involved and Israel was already, by then, a cornerstone of its foreign policy. This line of thought, if put into action, would almost certainly bring about a new war in the Middle East, perhaps within a few months, for Sadat remained under considerable domestic pressure either to show results or to renew the fighting.

The alternative of reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians was in every way the most ideal solution. If an agreement could be reached on the basis of the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank, Israeli willingness to take back some refugees and the resettlement elsewhere of those for whom a home could not be found, an end would be put to the conflict once and for all. The fate of the Palestinian Arabs was the heart of the matter; without a solution to this issue, there would be no resolution of the wider conflict. Unfortunately, however, the Palestinian issue was the most intractable of all the issues of contention between Israel and the Arab world. A Palestinian state would be economically unviable and the policy of such a state would be dictated not by the forces for peaceful co-existence, but by radical elements who would use the West Bank as a base for the continuation of the armed struggle against Israel. The main Palestinian organisations, Fatah and the PLO denied the Israelis’ right to national self-determination, and their aim remained the destruction of the “Zionist state.” When they spoke of the democratic secular Palestinian State that would replace Israel, they meant, according to Laqueur, an Arab state in which Jews would have the right to be buried in their own cemeteries.

So the slogan of a ‘democratic Palestine’ could still not be easily reconciled with the demand to preserve the Arab character of the State, especially for the Israelis. In his (1970) article, The Meaning of a Democratic Palestinian State, which he republished in 1974, Y. Harkabi analysed this contradiction on the basis of discussions between leading members of the ‘Palestinian Resistance.’ He claimed that the ‘democratic solution’ was presented as a compromise between two chauvinistic alternatives – a Jewish State, and driving the Jews into the Sea – as if these were two comparable propositions‘. Thus, the Geneva Conference could not bring a comprehensive peace settlement to the Middle East. But if the prospects for an overall peace were still remote, there did exist in 1974 – as in 1967 – an opportunity for defusing the conflict and rendering unlikely the renewal of fighting on a large scale. This was done by Israel, principally and eventually, meeting the basic demands of the Egyptians by withdrawing Israeli settlements from Sinai and recognising Egyptian sovereignty there, in exchange for demilitarisation.

The agreement was concluded by the parties on 18 January 1974 within the provisions of Security Council Resolution 338 of 22 October 1973 and the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference. The maps below show the lines which would mark a buffer zone in which the United Nations Emergency Force would continue to perform its peacekeeping duties, and a demilitarized zone further south.

The Next Half Century:

This made less likely a new outbreak of hostilities and the imposition of a ‘peace’ dictated by the superpowers that would have been even more detrimental to Israel’s interests. In the subsequent years, fraught as they were with danger and requiring constant military preparedness and a high degree of diplomatic flexibility, the general outlook was not all that unpromising. As long as the “Zionist menace” overshadowed all other factors in the Arab political consciousness, a certain degree of unity prevailed in the Arab world. But as Israel assumed a lower profile, all the suppressed dissensions among the poorer Arab nations reasserted themselves.

The fact that some Arab countries were able to earn fabulous riches during these decades while others were not, exacerbated existing divisions. In addition, the oil-producing countries were becoming increasingly unpopular all over the world because of their extortionate oil policies. Given that some sort of détente managed to survive through the Second Cold War, the risk of an all-out Arab attack on Israel remained reduced. But in the final analysis, Israel’s fate continued to depend on its own policies and on its own inner character. It required unity, strong nerves and a readiness to compromise, combined with a firm resolve to repel any new threat to its existence. Somehow, this combination of strengths has helped to ensure its survival over the past fifty years.

Postscript – The Non-Arab Involvement:

Both ‘sides’ have now obtained nuclear weapons, though the situation has become complicated by Iran, not an Arab state, having replaced Egypt as the chief protagonist of the anti-Zionist and anti-Western coalition in the Middle East. So far, the ‘Western alliance’ has proved unable to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry and the state of readiness of its programme is unknown. Iran’s clerical rulers have warned Israel of an escalation if it does not end its ‘offensive’ against the Palestinians. The country has traditionally backed Hamas and supports other militant groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Main Source:

Walter Laqueur (ed.) (1976), The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of The Middle-East Conflict. New York: Bantam Books.

Featured

Crying “Jihad” on the Streets of London – Should it be Legal? The Origins of Islamist Extremism.

The Continuing Cries of the terrorists, one year on:

On Monday, October 23rd 2023, John Ware wrote in Jewish News:

Imagine being the Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley today as he gets a dressing down from the Home Secretary about why his officers didn’t arrest a member of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir chanting “Jihad, Jihad, Jihad” during Saturday’s pro-Palestinian demonstration. Next to the man was a banner saying ‘Muslim Armies’.”

The Metropolitan Police has said no offence was identified by the chanting, sparking criticism from government ministers. In his article, Ware commented that Rowley could be forgiven for wanting to tell Suella Braverman to get the hell out of his office… and to curse her predecessor Priti Patel on Braverman’s way out. By then, immigration minister Robert Jenrick had been on TV to complain that what Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) did needed tackling with the full force of the law. Most decent British people would agree with this. Still, Jenrick’s comment ignored the fact that, two and a half years earlier, in February 2021, at the request of the then Counter Extremism Commissioner’s request, Rowley had co-authored a report which addressed exactly the same point. It was called, Operating with Impunity.

The Social Media giant, Meta has designated Hizb ut-Tahrir a “dangerous organisation”, which means it cannot have a presence or co-ordinate on its platforms, with its Instagram page now removed. The Islamist movement’s TikTok account was also banned for violating community guidelines. An Instagram account for Luqman Muqeem, who spoke at the rally and who featured in a video on the Hizb ut-Tahrir website, has also been removed. Following the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October, which killed more than 1,400 people, Mr Muqeem hailed Hamas as “heroes”. He said in a video posted on social media:

“This morning the heroes of Raza [Gaza] broke through the enemy lines of the yahood [Jews].”

“They stormed through the stronghold of the enemies and blackened the faces of the cowardly people. The people of Philistine [Palestine], as well as the rest of the entire ummah [Muslim community] woke up to news which made us all very, very happy.”

Downing Street indicated that there were no plans to change the law, despite concern over footage from the demonstration by Hizb ut-Tahrir on Saturday, which was separate from the main, bigger, London rally in support of Palestinian civilians. Footage at the Hizb ut-Tahrir protest showed a speaker addressing the crowd, asking: “What is the solution to liberate people from the concentration camp called Palestine?” to which chants of “jihad, jihad” were heard. Banners calling for “Muslim armies to rescue the people of Palestine” were also seen. However, the Metropolitan Police said they had concluded no offences were committed as the phrase jihad has “a number of meanings”.

The following day, Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick said: “I think a lot of people will find the Metropolitan Police analysis surprising, and that is something we intend to raise with them and discuss this incident with them.

“The legality is ultimately a question for the police, but the bigger question to me is that there should be a consensus that chanting ‘jihad’ is unacceptable.’”

He added:

“In the context that was said yesterday, that is an incitement to terrorist violence.”

“Ultimately it’s a decision for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but beyond the legality, there is a question of values, and I would hope there would be a consensus that chanting ‘jihad’ is completely reprehensible.”

In the week after Jenrick made his comment, Rishi Sunak indicated the police were unlikely to be given fresh powers and instead said ministers would work to “clarify the guidance” for officers to tackle people who are “inciting violence and racial hatred”. The Prime Minister told the Commons:

“Calls for jihad on our streets are not only a threat to the Jewish community but to our democratic values and we expect the police to take all necessary action to tackle extremism head on.”

Although, apparently in the opinion of the CPS, acting as advisors to the Met while watching the live feed of the demonstrations, the use of the word ‘Jihad’ was not, in itself, a breach of anti-terror or public order legislation, a cursory review of its use in a public place in the UK would suggest otherwise. It is a term which has entered the international lexicon, in English and other European languages, due to its use by modern Islamist movements in Europe over the past half-century. Ever since the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, if not earlier, the word has been associated with Islamist terrorism, hijacking, hostage-taking, bombings and other violent activities.

The Two Meanings of ‘Jihad’:

In its primary, theological meaning in Arabic, ‘Jihad’ simply means ‘endeavour’ or ‘struggle’, so its use in traditional Islamic discourse is far from confined to military matters. Its usual translation as ‘Holy War’ may be misleading, since many forms of activity are included under the term. In the classical religious context, the believer may undertake ‘jihad’ by his heart, tongue and hands; and, in the latter case, also by the sword. But the foremost of these is the first. However, it is important to emphasise what the military side of jihad achieved. It offered the tribes around the initial Medina caliphate the choice between free accession to the ummah (‘community’) of Islam and military subjugation. It led to the substantial enlargement of the Dar Al-Islam, the territory under the political control of Islam.

Nevertheless, the classical doctrine of Jihad, as interpreted politically, does imply that Islam will ultimately be triumphant. Following the logic of jihad, the world is divided into two mutually hostile camps: the sphere of Islam (dar-al-Islam) and the sphere of War (dar-al-harb). Enemies will convert, like the polytheists, or submit, like the Christians and Jews. Those who die ‘in the path of Allah’ are instantly translated into paradise, without waiting for the ‘judgement day’ or the ‘day of resurrection’. They are buried where they fall, without the need for purification. But the global triumph of Islam had to be deferred as the conquest was checked and the divinely appointed order came up against the intransigence of historical reality. In due course, the concept of dar-al-Islam was modified. As the divine law was communal rather than territorial in its application, the jurists disputed whether particular lands were dar-al-Islam or dar-al-hab, or in a state of suspended warfare, dar-al-sulh (‘sphere of Truce’).

As a confessional term in Islam, however, ‘Jihad’ is seen as a collective obligation for Muslims, though not one of the five pillars like prayer, fasting and pilgrimage, which are purely personal obligations. As fard kifaya, it can be undertaken by the ruler on behalf of the whole community and thus becomes, over time, an instrument of policy. Thus the classical doctrine of jihad was formulated during the centuries of conquest when the faith sustained an outward momentum unprecedented in human history. The doctrine was both an expression of Islamic triumphalism and an attempt, comparable to the concept of just war in Roman Law, to limit the consequences of war. Adapting the customs of pre-Islamic Bedouin warfare, an element of chivalry was built into the code: women and children, the old and the sick, were to be spared.

Polytheists were given the ‘choice’ of conversion to Islam or execution, rather like the ‘choice’ given to the pagan Germanic tribes by Charlemagne’s armies with the Pope’s blessings and under the terms of his bulls. Similarly, in parts of Africa and Asia, there are still people in animistic cults who were subjected to forcible ‘conversion by the sword’ under Islamic conquest. But Islam did not of itself force those of other monotheistic faiths into the faith, the Christians of Syria and the Near East especially. There were numerous conversions from Christianity to Islam in Syria and Egypt during this period. Still, preaching and persuasion also formed an integral part of the endeavour for Islam, and the Qu’ran opposed the use of violence as a means of conversion.

By contrast with the treatment of some polytheists, the Peoples of the Book – initially Jews and Christians, later extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus and others – were protected from ‘the sword’ by their payment of taxes. In some commentaries, these dhimmis, the protected minorities, were to be deliberately humiliated when paying taxes, though they were also exempt from military duties and the Muslim rules of marriage. The People of the book who accepted Islamic rule were allowed to practise their religion freely, enjoying a limited form of self-government. This was not religious tolerance following the values of post-Enlightenment liberalism, but the Islamic record of tolerance in medieval and early modern times compares very favourably with that of the medieval church and its appointed empires.

The Muslim World – Now and Then:

Nevertheless, in 661, thirty years after the Prophet’s death, the Medina caliphate ended in blood, and the power shifted to the caliphs of Damascus in the following century, a period of the immense enlargement of the dar-al-Islam. The armies of Islam swept in one direction along the North African coast, and across to Sicily and Spain, and were checked from further advances into Europe only by their defeat at Poitiers in 732. The crossing into Europe was explicitly justified as part of the Jihad, but the Muslim rule in Spain was one of tolerance, not of persecution. Jews who had suffered from Christian intolerance, especially from the Church of Rome, found a refreshing contrast in the attitude of the Muslims. Both Jews and Christians who retained their faiths while offering political loyalty to the Muslim régime were known as Mozarabs or ‘near-Arabs’. It was said of the Muslims in Spain that:

‘… it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country’.

T. W. Arnold

However, according to a well-known hadith (‘commandment’), the Prophet distinguished between the ‘lesser jihad’ of war against the polytheists (not – we should note in passing – monotheists like Christians and Jews) and the ‘greater jihad’ against evil. Despite the success of the early conquests, once they were halted at Poitiers and in India, it was the ‘greater jihad’ which sustained the expansion of Islam in many parts of the world. The dualism of good versus evil, dar-al-Islam against dar-al-harb thus became less of a collective territorial struggle and more of one conducted through legal observance. Therefore, dar-al-Islam was simply where the law prevailed.

In the same period as the Muslims pushed into Spain, armies under Muhammad ibn Qasim reached northern India and established a bridgehead of power in Sind and the Punjab. Somewhat as the Jews of Spain had welcomed the Muslim armies, so the Buddhists welcomed them to northern India, as a relief from Hindu persecution. Qasim tolerated Hindus and Buddhists alike; both had their sacred scriptures and were, therefore, people of a book, and thereby entitled to protection. He was therefore a characteristic combination of military aggression and religious tolerance. Before the military might of the West came to dominate Muslim consciousness over the last two and a half centuries, that law was synonymous with civilisation itself in that collective consciousness, extending via the trade routes through Africa, the northern subcontinent of India and Southeast Asia.

The ‘Ummah’ – ‘Brotherhood’ of Islam:

In Muslim thought, ‘man’ is always a member of a society, and therefore thought of in relation to the ‘community’. This is especially true of the brotherhood of Islam (ummah) which the Prophet compared to a single hand, like a compact wall whose bricks support each other. But although man is a ‘social animal’, he is not by nature socially righteous. The Qu’ran (20; 121) states that ‘men are the enemies of one another’ and to protect them from each other, society takes the form of the state, with authority vested in the Muslim state in the person of the ‘caliph’ or more locally in the ‘imam’:

‘We uphold that prayer for the welfare of the imams of the Muslims and the confession of the imamate; and we maintain the error of those who approve of uprising against them whenever it appeared that they have abandoned the right; and we believe in the denial of an armed uprising against them and abstinence from fighting in civil war.’

Al-Ash’ari Kitab al-Ibana

So internal violence was strictly forbidden even against tyrannous use of authority. If, in the absence of an imam, someone usurped power, his authority was binding on the community and the duty of all Muslims within it was obedience, no matter how unjust the usurper. The maintenance of Muslim unity was paramount. As already noted, there was some debate about whether the Muslim state was national or universal. Pressures from the actual historical situation compelled Muhammad and his successors to introduce legislation linked to Arab traditions, but there is no real doubt that the essential view of the Qu’ran is of a single worldwide community: one God, one mankind, one law, one ruler.

The Philosophy of Jihad:

The chief instrument for the spreading of Islam and for the establishment of a world state was the Jihad. The word means ‘striving’ and not necessarily war. The Muslim jurists in fact distinguished four different types of jihad, as we also noted above. The first is exercised by the individual in his personal fight against evil; the second and third are largely exercised in support of the right and correction of the wrong. The fourth, that of the sword, means war against unbelievers and enemies of the faith. It is part of the obligation of the faithful to offer their wealth and their lives in this war (Qu’ran 61; 11). Muslim expansion was halted at Tours in the West and at the frontiers of India in the East. The world was not, therefore, established as a single theocratic state, but was divided between the dar-al-Islam, the territory of the Faith, and dar-al-harb, the territory of war. In practice, however, most modern Muslims accept the suspension of the Jihad as ‘normalcy’, and Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) saw it as the passage from militarism to civilisation.

It is an important aspect of the Jihad that it maintained and encouraged the traditional belligerence of the Arabs, which, Ibn Khaldun argued, was responsible for courage, self-reliance and tribal unity, while ending the internecine strife between the the tribes. Within the ‘brotherhood’ of Islam, war was strictly outlawed. Belligerence was diverted against the unbeliever. The doctrine of jihad was in its own way a definition of a just war, directed against polytheists, apostates and enemies of Islam, and positively towards the establishment of the universal theocratic state. From time to time, attempts were made to establish jihad among the pillars of Islam, and some groups of scholars did include it. They insist that since the Prophet spent most of his life at war, the faithful should follow his example, that the Islamic state should be permanently organised for war, and that heretics should be forcibly converted or put to the sword. In general, however, Jihad is not among the five pillars. It is almost universally agreed among Muslim jurists that jihad is a collective obligation of Islam, fard-al-kaya; it is laid on the community, and on the state, not on the individual. It is also explicitly stated in the Qu’ran that not all believers should actively participate in war (9, 123).

Ibn Khaldun made an important analysis of war. For him, war was not an accidental calamity or a disease; its roots were in the nature of man – selfish, jealous, angry, revengeful. Wars are of four kinds: tribal wars, feuds and raids, and jihad, wars against rebels and dissenters. The first two are wars of disobedience and unjustified, and the second two are wars of obedience and therefore justified. In these, military victory is dependent on two factors, military preparedness and spiritual insight; the latter includes the dedication of the commander, the morale of the army, the use of psychological warfare, and informed and inspired decision-making.

There were therefore certain rules about participation in a Jihad. The participants must be believers (though some jurists disagreed, and Muhammad’s practice seems to have varied), adult, male, sound in mind and body, free, economically independent, acting with parental support, and endowed with good intentions. They must follow the injunction, Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you. (Qu’ran 4, 62). They must behave honourably and keep their word. They must not retreat except as a last resort. The caliph or imam was responsible for the declaration of war.

The jurists also laid down certain rules of war, and though they offered differing judgements, they all agreed that non-combatants should be spared unless they were indirectly helping the enemy cause. Some jurists held that all the participants in the Jihad could not control should be destroyed; others that inanimate objects and crops should be destroyed, but animals should be spared. Destruction and poisoning of of water supply were permitted. Spoils belonged to participants only, with one-fifth going to the state.

The ‘Mujaddids’:

The process of Islamic expansion in the modern era was organic and self-directing. Since there was no overarching global religious institution like the Catholic or Anglican churches, there was no universal, centrally-directed missionary movement. There was, however, the demonstrable effect of Muslims living literate, orderly and sober lives. The high culture originating from Cairo and Baghdad accompanied a common faith in Allah and his Prophet, a common holy book and common practices. In these ways, the struggle against evil, the ‘greater jihad’, might take a purely moralistic form, but at times of traumatic historical crisis, the ‘lesser jihad’ came back to the fore. The two jihads were, to some extent, interchangeable. The most active movements in the resistance to European imperialism during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were led by mujaddids (‘renovators’), most of whom were Sufi Muslims who sought to emulate the Prophet’s example by purifying the religion of their day and waging war on corruption and infidelity. Not all of these movements were directed against resisting Europeans: the Mahdi Mohammad ibn Abdullah in Sudan originally campaigned against the imperial ambitions of the Egyptians or ‘Turks’ he believed had abandoned Islam to foreigners.

Reformists & Modernists:

Once it became clear that Muslim arms were no match for the overwhelming technical and medical superiority of the Europeans or nominally Muslim governments backed by them, the movement for Islamic renewal took an intellectually radical turn. A return to the pristine forms of Islam would not be enough to guarantee its survival as a civilisation and way of life. The renovators were divided very broadly into ‘reformists’ and ‘modernists’. The former group was more concerned with religious renewal from within the tradition, but while using modern techniques of communication, including the printing press, the postal service and the expanding railway network, they tried to have as little as possible to do with the British and the government of the ‘Raj’ in India. Modernists, on the other hand, were from the political élite and intelligentsia which had had the most exposure to European culture. They recognised that to regain political power they would have to adopt Western military techniques, modernise their economies and administrations and introduce modern forms of education. They also argued for a reinterpretation of Islam in the light of modern conditions. Many adopted Western clothes and lifestyles which separated them from the more traditionally-minded classes. It was from these circles that the leaders of early nationalist and feminist movements were drawn.

However, there were no clear dividing lines between the two tendencies, which merged or divided according to external circumstances. Sayyid Ahmed Khan (1817-98), founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh in India, and reformers like Muhammad Abduh (d. 1906), the founder of the Salafiyya movement in Egypt, argued that for Islam to be capable of reform it needed an institutional hierarchy comparable to that of the Christian churches through which theological and legal reforms could be achieved. But they had no special authority by which they could impose their views on their colleagues, many of whom remained unreconstructed traditionalists up to the present day.

The End of the Ottoman Caliphate:

Mehmed VI (Vahdettin), the final Ottoman sultan, 1918. Library of Congress. Public Domain.

On 11 November 1914, the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph Mehmet V declared a Lesser Jihad or ‘Holy War’ against Russia, France and Great Britain, announcing that it was an obligation for all Muslims, whether on foot or mounted, young or old, to support the struggle with their goods and money. The proclamation, which took the form of a fatwa or religious decree, was endorsed by religious leaders throughout the Sultan’s dominions. Outside the Empire, however, its effect was minimal. Even the Emperor’s suzerain, Sharif Hussein of Makka, the Guardian of the Holy Places, refused to endorse the fatwa publicly. He had already been approached by the British with a proposal to launch an Arab revolt against the Turks, the success of which ultimately ended with Feisal and Abdullah being given the British-protected thrones of Iraq and Jordan. The would-be rulers of Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Hejaz (the western region of the Arabian peninsula, including Saudi Arabia) also preferred freedom to ‘Islamic’ rule, even though for many Arabs that freedom would soon result in a new colonialist domination.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first president of the Turkish Republic, wearing a top hat and white tie, 1925. GL Archive/Alamy Stock Photo.

Then, as in more recent times, pan-Islamic solidarity proved an illusion. The collapse of the Ottoman armies in 1917-18 drove that point home and a revitalised Turkish nationalism under Mustafa Kemal led to the removal of Greek and Allied forces from Anatolia, which was seen as a Jihad. On 19 September 1921, Mustafa Kemal (‘Ataturk’) was formally accorded the rank of Ghazi, given only to those who have participated in a jihad. The National Assembly then took the ultimate step of abolishing the caliphate in 1924. This brought the crisis of Islamic legitimacy to a head, provoking a mass agitation by the Muslims of India protesting about the breaking of the final link between an existing Islamic state and the divine polity founded by the Prophet.

Arbitration & Reconciliation:

One important aspect of Muslim law lies in the concept of arbitration, which has its basis in The Qur’an:

‘Oh you who believe! Obey Allah and the Apostle, and those among you invested with authority; if you differ upon any matter, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and in the last day. This is the best and fairest way of settlement.

The Qu’ran, 4: 62.

Arbitration was a method of settling disputes within Islam to avoid the temptation of internecine strife. Still, Muhammad himself had submitted to arbitration a dispute with a Jewish tribe. This precedent led to the principle that arbitration was permitted between Muslim and non-Muslim communities in matters which did not involve the Faith, a good example being agreements to stop fighting. Although pacifism is virtually unknown in Islam, there has always been an inclination to emphasise the spiritual aspect of the teaching of the Jihad. This is especially strong in the Sufi tradition, which claims that its basis is weaning ‘the Self’ from its habitual ways and directing it contrary to its desires. The jihad of ordinary Muslims consists in fulfilling actions like the purifying of ‘the inner Self’. Al-Jilani (d. 1166) cited the Prophet as saying, ‘We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad’: meaning the conquest of the Self is a greater struggle than conquest over external enemies.

So too the Ahmadiyya movement has stressed the the true meaning of ‘the endeavour’. Thus, the spirit of jihad ‘enjoins… every Muslim to sacrifice his all for the protection of the weak and oppressed whether Muslims or not’. The Ahmadiyyas also emphasise the need for active resistance and not just prayer and meditation. The test of jihad lies therefore not in the practice of war but in the willingness to suffer. They totally disown the concept of a lesser jihad directed at the expansion of Islam. While there may be a necessity for armed defence against aggression, the essence of jihad lies in an active concern for the oppressed. One remarkable demonstration of such beliefs took place in 1930 among the Pathans of northern India, a people with traditions of violence. Abdul Ghaffir Khan, known as ‘the Gandhi of the frontier provinces’, a Puritan reformer, persuaded the Pathans of the power of non-violence. Persecution, imprisonment and execution did not shake them: they persisted for years in a courageous commitment to non-violence, demonstrating that the Islamic jihad can turn into an endeavour for peace and reconciliation.

The Quest for a new Caliphate:

From its very beginning, the Khilafat Movement dramatised the fundamental contradiction between pan-Islamic and national aspirations, including those of the Arab peoples. In India, it represented a turning point in the anti-colonialist movement, as Muslims who had previously been appeased by Britain’s Eastern Policy favouring the Ottoman interest, joined Hindu nationalists in opposition to the Raj. But that coalition proved short-lived, and the momentum generated by the Khilafat movement would eventually lead to a separate political destiny for India’s Muslims in the form of Pakistan. The movement, however, evoked no significant response in the Arab world, where it had become identified with Ottoman rule. Nor was it popular at its former centre in Turkey, where it was associated with a discredited political system.

In Egypt, a highly controversial essay published in 1925 claimed that the institution had no basis in Islam. It argued that the fact that the prophet had combined spiritual and political roles was purely coincidental and that the latter-day caliphate did not represent a true consensus of the Muslim world, since it was based on force. Rashid Rishda, Abduh’s more conservative disciple, though once its supporter, accepted its demise as symptomatic of Muslim decline, though he did not support Turkish secularism. The ideal caliph, he said, was an independent interpreter of the Law, a mujtahid, but given the absence of such a figure, the best alternative was for an Islamic state ruled by an enlightened élite in keeping with the Islamic principle of consultation (shura) with the people, able to interpret the Shari’a and legislate as necessary.

The Muslim Brotherhood:

Many of Rashid Rishda’s ideas were taken up by the most influential Sunni reform movement, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, an Egyptian schoolteacher. The Brotherhood’s original objectives were as much moral as political: it sought to reform Muslim society by encouraging religious observance and opposing Western cultural influences, rather than by attempting to capture the state by direct political action. However, during the mounting political crisis over Palestine in the mid-late 1930s, and after the Second World War, the Brotherhood became increasingly radicalised. In 1948, Prime Minister Nugrashi Pasha was assassinated by a brotherhood member and Hasan al-Basha paid for this with his life in a retaliatory killing by the security services the following year. The Brotherhood played a leading part in the disturbances leading to the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, but after the revolution, it came into conflict with the nationalist forces under the government of Gamal Abdul Nasser. In 1954, after an attempt on his life, the Brotherhood was suppressed, its members exiled or imprisoned, or driven underground.

It was during this period that the Brotherhood became internationalised, with affiliated movements springing up in Jordan, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. They also found refuge in Saudi Arabia, together with financial support, providing funds for the Egyptian underground and salaried posts for exiled individuals. One of their popular doctrines had a profound impact on Islamic political movements. This was the theory that the struggle for Islam was not about the restoration of an ideal past, but for a principle relevant to the ‘here and now’: the vice-presidency of man under God’s sovereignty. The Jihad was therefore not just a defensive war for the protection of Islamic territory but for the waging of war against governments which prevented the preaching of faithful Islam, for the condition of jahiliya, or the ignorance before the coming of Islam, was still to be found in that ‘here and now’. Just as the Prophet had fought the old jahiliya, a new élite among the Muslim youth would be needed to fight the new one. These ideas set the agenda for Islamic radicals throughout the Sunni Muslim world, such as Abd al-Salaam Farraj, who was executed for the murder of President Anwar Sadat in 1981.

The Impact of the Iranian Revolution:

Although the writings of the Islamic Brotherhood have remained an important influence on radical Islamists from Algeria to Pakistan, in February 1979 a significant boost to the movement came from Iran where Ayatollah Khomeini came to power after the collapse of the Shah’s régime. During the final two decades of the twentieth century, the Iranian Revolution remained the inspiration for Muslim radicals or ‘Islamists’ from Morocco to Indonesia. Despite its universalist appeal, however, the revolution never succeeded in spreading beyond the confines of Shi’ite communities and even among them its capacity to mobilise ordinary Muslims remained limited. During the eight-year war that followed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, the Iraqi Shi’ite communities, forming about half of the country’s population, conspicuously failed to come to the aid of their co-religionists in Iran. The Revolution did spread to communities in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but generally proved unable to cross the sectarian divide. The new Shi’a activism in these countries either stirred up sectarian conflicts or stimulated severe repression by Sunni governments, especially in the case of the Marsh Arabs of Iraq.

Within Iran, the success of the revolution rested on three factors, usually absent from the Sunni world: the mixing of Shi’ite and Marxist ideas among the urbanised and radicalised youth in the 1970s, very evident among expatriate students in the West; the autonomy; the autonomy of the Shi’ite religious establishment which, unlike the Sunni ‘ulama, disposed of a considerable amount of social power as an ‘estate’; and the eschatological expectations of popular Shi’ism surrounding the return of the Twelfth Imam. Significantly, the leading exponent of Islamic revolutionary ideology among the Shi’ites was Ali Shari’ati (d. 1977), a historian and sociologist who had been partly educated in Paris and who established an informal academy in Tehran, from where he influenced large numbers of young people from the traditional classes through his popular lectures. These contained a rich blend of ideas from the Muslim mystics with the insights of Marx, Satre, Camus and Fanon. Shari’ati himself translated some of these latter works into Persian. These revolutionary ideas provided a vital link between the student vanguard and the more conservative forces which brought down the Shah’s régime, mobilised by Sayyid Ruhallah Khomeini. In exile in Iraq, Khomeini developed his theory of government, which broke with tradition by insisting that this should be entrusted directly to the religious establishment, i.e. in a theocracy.

The Appeal of Islamism:

Outside Iran, however, the factors that contributed to the Islamic revolution continue to sustain the Islamist movement, accounting for the continuing popularity of their ideologies. The collapse of communism and the failure of Marxism to overcome the stigma of ‘atheism’ has made Islamism seem an attractive ideological weapon against corrupt and dictatorial régimes. In Muslim countries, the recently urbanised underclasses have been radicalised by the messages of populist preachers. At the same time, since the turn of the century, the Islamist movements have earned respect and gratitude by providing a network of services able to plug the gaps caused by government shortfalls and cuts in international aid. The withdrawal of state agencies from some areas has led to their replacement by Islamic welfare organisations and charitable organisations. In turn, these voluntary organisations have found generous sources of funding in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. As the former nationalist rhetoric, whether nationalist or Ba’athist, became discredited, the Islamist groups stepped into the power vacuum to impose their own authority and view of discipleship. Their organisation was not one of popular participation, however, but was based on activists and militants, who patronised the common people as subjects of ethical reform, to be converted to orthodoxy and mobilised in political support.

Veterans of the Afghan War against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s formed the core of armed and trained Islamist groups in Algeria, Yemen and Egypt. At the height of the war, there were said to have been between ten and twelve thousand mujahadin from Arab countries financed by mosques and private contributions from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Many of them, ironically, were reported to have been trained by the CIA. Saudi influence has also continued to operate at religious and ideological levels. Many of the Islamists active from Egypt to Algeria in the 1990s spent time as teachers and exiles in Saudi, where they became converted to the rigid, puritanical version of Islam practised there and tried to impose the jurisprudence of the Hanbali school on their own countries.

Following the Soviet-Afghan War and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, Islamism began to dominate the political discourse in Muslim lands in the 1990s. But before the 9/11 attack of 2001, it seemed unlikely to bring about a ‘clash of civilisations’ or even to effect significant external political change. At that point, the practical effects of Islamisation entailed, not a confrontation with the West, but rather a cultural retreat into the mosque and private family space. Because the Shari’a protects the family, the only institution to which it grants real autonomy, the culture of Muslims seemed more likely to become increasingly passive, privatised, and consumer-oriented. Yet new technologies began to invade the previously sacred space of the Muslim home, and the result, ironically, was increasingly one of global radicalisation of young Muslims via the internet.

On the eve of the new century, existing Muslim estates, even including Iran, seemed to be locked into the international system. Despite the turbulence in Algeria and episodes of violence in Egypt, there were fewer violent changes of government in the Middle East in the last three decades of the twentieth century than in the preceding two decades when different versions of Arab nationalism competed for power. At the same time, the political instability in Pakistan and the continuing war in Afghanistan indicated that ‘Islam’ in its then-current political and ideological forms was unable to transcend its own ethnic and sectarian divisions. The territorial nation-state, though never formally sanctified in the Islamic tradition, was proving highly resilient, not least because of the support the Arab states received through the international system. For all the Islamist protests against Operation Desert Storm, in which the Muslim armies of Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia took part in the autumn of 1990, alongside the USA and UK, it remained the case that where major economic and political were at stake, the existing international order remained intact. Malise Ruthven, in his (1997) Very Short Introduction to Islam, optimistically concluded that:

For all the protestations to the contrary, the faith will become internalised, becoming private and voluntary. In an era when individuals are ever less bound by ties of kinship and increasingly exposed tourban anomie, Muslim souls are likely to find the inner Sufi path of inner exploitation and voluntary association more rewarding than revolutionary politics. Sadly, more blood can be expected to be split along the way.

Ruthven, p. 142.

Red October and its Ongoing Aftermath:

A Palestinian man walks past a mural depicting a masked fighter of the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Hamas movement, next to a missile with a caption reading in Arabic “Oh Jerusalem, we are coming” and the Dome of the Rock, in a street in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip in 2019.
(Photo by SAID KHATIB / AFP)

Several Islamic scholars affiliated with Hamas have called for the killing of Israelis and Jews in the aftermath of the terror group’s onslaught in southern Israel on 7th October, in some cases issuing fatwas, or Islamic legal opinions, commanding Muslims to wage armed jihad. Saleh al-Raqab, a professor of religion at Gaza’s Islamic University and a former minister of religious affairs and endowments in the Hamas government, published an article on 8th October, the day after the brutal assault in which 1,400 Israelis were killed, titled Oh Mujahideen in Palestine. Al-Raqab wrote:

O Allah, grant victory to the fighters in Palestine, guide their strikes to the throats of Jews, make their legs steady and let them stab a knife through the hearts [of the Jews], Enable them to kill the soldiers of the Jews, destroy the weapons of the Jews, and capture Jewish soldiers. O Allah, destroy the Jews completely. Paralyze their limbs and freeze the blood in their veins.

The Palestine Scholars Association in the Diaspora published a fatwa on 21st October permitting ‘jihad’ against the Zionists as one of the main obligations of our religion, with the stated goal being to free the al-Aqsa Mosque and repel Zionists from the Islamic country of Palestine. The fatwa quotes a Qu’ranic verse that says:

You will find that the most bitter enemies of Muslims are the Jews and the polytheists.

The Hamas-affiliated association, which defines itself as an independent body that gathers Palestinian scholars who reside abroad to serve the Palestinian cause and establish an Islamic legal framework for it, was founded in Beirut in 2009 and is today based in Istanbul. The fatwa also described the Palestinian mujahideen (jihad fighters) led by Hamas as the best mujahideen on earth and urged followers to refute claims that their jihad amounts to terrorism.

Hezbollah supporters in Beirut protest against Israel’s attack on Gaza (Photo: Bilal Hussein/AP)

In another fatwa published on 20th October, the association commanded every capable adult Muslim to be ready to fight, while those who can’t are enjoined to support Hamas financially. It lashed out at Muslim countries that have normalized relations with Israel, stipulating that normalization agreements are void and do not entail any obligations. In a legal response published on October 24, a member of the Yemenite branch of the Scholars Association named Aref bin Ahmed al-Sabri wrote that Jews and their property are legitimate targets as long as they fight against Muslims. He further called on Arab countries around Israel to intervene to repel Jews from Palestine, stating that the land belonged exclusively to Muslims, and not an inch of it may be given up.

Meanwhile, the UK’s ‘Levelling Up’ Secretary Michael Gove is understood to have ordered officials to draw up a new official definition of extremism in a move to counter antisemitism. The work is understood to have started before violence flared up again in the Middle East. Ministers are reviewing the definition of extremism in a move that could reportedly allow councils and police forces to cut off funding to charities and religious groups found to have aired hateful views. The 2021 report, referred to in the introduction, urged ministers to do more to eradicate extremism, with the official watchdog, the Commission for Countering Extremism, concluding then that gaps within current legislation had left it harder to tackle “hateful extremism”.

On Saturday 28th October, nine people were arrested in central London during a second, mainly peaceful pro-Palestine demonstration, with at least a hundred thousand protesters calling for a ‘ceasefire’ in the Israel-Hamas war. Seven of the arrests were alleged public order offences, a number of which are being treated as hate crimes, while two are for suspected assaults on officers. The Metropolitan Police on X, formerly Twitter, confirmed it was reviewing a potential “hate crime incident” in Trafalgar Square following chanting that referenced the Medieval Battle of Khaybar, referring to a massacre of Jews in the year 628 by Islamic forces. Officers also followed up on reports that a pamphlet was being sold along the route of the march that praised Hamas, the force confirmed on social media. Hamas is a proscribed terror organisation in the UK, with expressions of support for it therefore banned. Separately, The Sunday Telegraph has reported that the Home Office is examining potential changes to terrorism legislation.

Secondary Sources:

Malise Ruthven (2000), Islam: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

John Ferguson (1997), War and Peace in the World’s Religions. London: Sheldon Press.

Featured

The Brambled Road to 1948: Health, Poverty & Welfare in the South Wales Valleys, 1928-48.

Unemployed miners getting coal, Tredegar patches, the late 1920s.
The Condition of the People of the Valleys:

Most reflective articles relating to the National Health Service I have read or heard in this seventy-fifth anniversary year have seemed to concentrate on those years since its foundation, almost as if it suddenly materialised fully formed from Aneurin Bevan’s mind. Apart from limited and brief references to the Tredegar Scheme as the source of inspiration for Bevan’s national scheme in 1948, very little has been written about its long-term motivations in the broader social and demographic changes affecting Great Britain during the inter-war years. Over the decade since the Great War, the population growth accompanying industrialisation had already been slowing significantly. The population of England and Wales had almost doubled, despite relatively high levels of outward migration. The growth rate between the wars was only about a third of that experienced throughout the Victorian era and only half of that about a third of that of the Edwardian period (1901-1914). This deceleration in Britain as a whole increased the drift of the population to the Midlands and South East of England and had it not been for the degree to which South Wales stood out against this trend by maintaining a high rate of natural increase throughout the period, the effect of the scale of out-migration could have been far more catastrophic. Indeed, this was an observation made by those entrusted with planning for the post-war reconstruction of the Welsh economy, the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council (WRAC), in their First Interim Report (1944: pp. 13-14).

A deeper cause for concern was reflected in the age structure of the population. For the first twenty years of the twentieth century, South Wales possessed the youngest population in Britain. Due to its high birth rate, a third of the 1911 Welsh population was to be found in the 0-14 age range and, largely due to the influx of large numbers of young, economically active people, a further forty-seven per cent was located in the 15-44 age range. By comparison, twenty-eight per cent of the British population was under fifteen in this year, forty-seven per cent was between fifteen and forty-four, and twenty-five per cent was forty-nine and over. The inter-war years saw, throughout the whole of Britain, a steady increase in the older age range and a marked decline in the number of young dependents resulting from the falling birth rate and, as might be expected from the above statistics, continuing proportionate growth of the economically active section of the population. The full extent and impact of this can be judged from that, by the end of the inter-war period there was one additional potentially productive member of the national community for every ten such people in 1871. These population changes meant that, while the country’s capacity for consumption increased by eighteen per cent between 1911 and 1938, its human capacity for production increased by twenty-seven per cent. This led one commentator to the conclusion that…

… at least from the point of view of material well being, the composition of Britain’s population in 1938 was more effective than it was a generation earlier.’

Mark Abrams, The Condition of the British People, 1911-1945: A Study Prepared for the Fabian Society. London: 1945, p. 22.

However, this benefit was not evenly distributed throughout Britain. Between 1921 and 1938 the South and Midlands experienced a loss of 12.5% in the 0-14 age range, a gain of 3% in the 15-24 age range, and a gain of 22% in the 25-44 age range. The respective, comparative figures for Wales showed a loss of 27%, a loss of 20% and no change in the latter group. By 1938 South Wales had been relegated from having the youngest population in Britain to a position where it had fallen behind the national average, and well behind the Midlands and South East in terms of the proportion of its population made up of 15 to 34-year-old males. Clearly, the inheritance of the pre-war years had been quickly lost.

There were five factors involved in the changing age structure of the population and the unevenness of these changes between regions. Here I wish to identify and examine four of these – birth and death rates, infant and maternal mortality. These were all directly though not exclusively connected to the general health of the population, as well as more indirectly to the fifth – migration – which I have dealt with in other articles on this site, based on my original research. Firstly, it is worthy of note that even in the trough of the Depression, in 1931, South Wales, along with Scotland, Northumberland and Durham, still had the highest birthrates in Britain. While their birth rates were declining significantly compared to what they had been in 1911, they were able to sustain their overall population throughout the interwar period and beyond through these comparatively high levels of fertility.

This was also an observation made by contemporaries, such as J. D. Evans of University College, Cardiff, when he reported to the Nuffield College Reconstruction Survey in 1942. In particular, he pointed to the way in which the ‘voluminous outflow of youth from the distressed areas of South Wales was offset by the high fertility of the people.’ In 1934, South Wales still possessed a birthrate per thousand of 16.1 compared with 15.4 in the West Midlands and 13.9 in the South East, at a time when both the English regions were emerging prosperous from the Slump, though the Coalfield was still experiencing high levels of mass unemployment. It was not until the years 1937-39 that the rate of births among women in South Wales fell below those among West Midland women.

Quite clearly, this decline in the birth rate, coupled with the continued migration of nearly half a million people between 1920 and 1940 would have inverted the age structure of South Wales from what it had been at the beginning of the interwar period, had the Second World War not intervened. What is remarkable is that the birth rate continued at such a high level throughout the depression years. These regional disparities cannot be explained in terms of relative economic security. Historians have pointed to the involvement of women in the manufacturing industry of the West Midlands and Lancashire as an important element in spreading effective birth control techniques; the highest birth rates continued to be recorded, throughout the period, in those industrial areas where employment was mostly dominated by men.

During the interwar years, the annual death rate for Britain as a whole remained at around twelve per thousand of the population. However, when corrections are made for the changing age composition of the population, it becomes apparent that the rate had fallen by approximately twenty-five per cent between 1911 and 1939. On the surface of it, this represented a substantial improvement in the health of the country as a whole, but once again a national average figure disguised marked regional differences. Mark Abrams summed these up as follows:

‘In the three years before the outbreak of this war, regional differences were so great that a train journey of less than a hundred miles was sufficient to take one of the areas with something like the lowest death rate in Europe, to areas where the returns were little better than those for Britain as a whole in the first decade of this century’.

Mark Abrams (1945), p. 26.

The crude death rates are insufficient to reveal this disparity. A truer picture can be gained by comparing actual deaths with expected deaths. These calculations demonstrate that deaths were well above average in the comparatively youthful populations in the North of England and South Wales, average in the Midlands and below average in the South East of England. In reality, in the period 1937-39, South Wales had a mortality rate seventeen per cent higher than that for England and Wales as a whole, and thirty-one per cent higher than that in the South East. This difference was almost as great as that between Britain in 1911 and in 1939, giving further evidence of there being ‘two Britains’ not far apart in physical distance but nearly three decades apart in terms of the relative physical health of regional populations.

In 1938, Richard Titmuss published his groundbreaking study, Poverty and Population: A Factoral Study of Contemporary Social Waste, in which he attempted to assess the extent, character and causes of social waste and to relate the findings to the problem of an ageing and diminishing population. Titmuss set out to analyse two factors which he considered to be significant in this process. Firstly, those regions suffering from ‘economic under-privilege’ and most exposed to malnutrition contained by far a higher proportion of children and secondly, it was only higher fertility that prevented a calamitous fall in the size of the population. Titmuss produced statistics showing that in 1936 over a tenth of deaths in South Wales were of children under the age of four, compared with 8.5% in the South East, and that more than half the deaths in South Wales occurred before the age of sixty-five, compared with forty-seven per cent in the South East.

Infant mortality was also much higher in South Wales, at sixty-three per thousand, from which he calculated that there were five thousand excess deaths of infants under the age of one in the North of England and South Wales during 1936, or approximately thirty thousand surplus deaths since the depth of the slump of 1931. Deaths from measles were proportionately twice as high in Wales as for England and Wales as a whole, implying a widespread prevalence of rickets, malnutrition and poverty. In the years 1931 and 1935, whilst the South East showed a considerable improvement in the numbers of infant deaths, in South Wales, there was a continuing deterioration.

Similarly, maternal mortality rates in the region were well over twice those in the South East, and Titmuss felt able to state that if the maternal mortality rates in the region had been the same for Greater London, the lives of 586 mothers would have been saved. Female deaths from tuberculosis in the fifteen to thirty-five age group in South Wales were seventy per cent above the average for England and Wales. Titmuss went on to calculate that the number of avoidable, premature deaths in the North of England and Wales in 1936, a year of relative prosperity, was 54,000 and that the cumulative number over the previous ten years was of the order of half a million. The high levels of infant, child and maternal mortality, taken together, can only be fully appreciated when it is realised that forty per cent of the total child population in England and Wales was situated in the two older industrial regions, whereas the proportion of the adult population located there was little more than a third.

Unemployment & Health:

However, though the regional contrasts are striking, it is difficult to isolate relative poverty from other factors such as climate, housing conditions, and quality of medical and social services. H. W. Singer’s (1937) study for the Pilgrim Trust on Unemployment and Health is helpful in this respect by isolating the effects of the general trade depression, or ‘slump’ of 1929-34, and correlating the unemployment statistics during these years with a range of indices of health for seventy-seven boroughs throughout England and Wales. In this way, the differences between these localities in terms of regional variations in other conditions could be eliminated. Through this process, Singer was able to identify a correlation between rising unemployment and a rise of twenty per cent in both infant mortality and maternal mortality.

None of the data examined by Singer failed to exhibit some sort of correlation with unemployment, and it was certainly the view of those who visited South Wales and gave anecdotal evidence that there was a direct correlation between the economic distress of its population and their health. Levels of voluntary Health and welfare provision across South Wales were considered greatly inferior to those in other regions, though varying greatly across the region itself. Philip Massey, in his (1937) Portrait of a Mining Town, argued that the majority of the unemployed in Blaina and Nantyglo could be described as having a diet which was inadequate according to the standard set by Medical Officer of Health, Sir John Orr, published in his Food, Health and Income the previous year. Those whose weekly expenditure on food was five to seven shillings per head had a diet which was adequate only in total proteins and total fat; this category also included many families whose ‘head’ was in work. Those in work could afford expenditure of up to nine shillings per head ön food, but perhaps the majority of ‘wage-earning’ families, would have a diet adequate in energy value, protein and fat, but below standard in minerals and vitamins.

Evidence of the effects of this poverty of diet is found in the information given in the reports of the local Medical Officers and school authorities. In a joint report for the Ministry of Health entitled Distress in Wales, J. Llewellyn Davies, Pethwick-Lawrence and Evans provided stark evidence of the impact of poverty on families in the Monmouthshire valleys. The children of Abertillery in 1928 were said to be suffering from a lack of ‘tone’ and had less ‘grip’ than previously. The average weight of the girls showed a falling off at all ages. Despite the provision of free meals to ‘necessitous children,’ non-attendance had risen from about six per cent in the winter of 1926-7, to about nine per cent in the winter of 1927-8. In nearby Blaina, a medical examination in that same year had found 423 out of 3,245 children to be physically subnormal from lack of nourishment. In the case of 250 of them, or nearly eight per cent, their condition was attributed directly to poor family conditions. It was also reported that 247 school weeks were lost in the last quarter of 1927 due to a lack of boots, stockings, and other clothing, unemployed families having ‘literally no means except private charity’ from which clothing could be obtained. Without this help, the child population of Blaina, Nantyglo and Abertillery would have had no boots and the rest of their clothing would have been ‘worn to shreds.’

Whilst the provision of basic welfare services on a voluntary basis may have mitigated their effects on some children, they were inadequate in assisting impoverished families as a whole. Indeed, such services as did exist were often under great financial pressure themselves. For instance, in 1928 a small deputation led by George Hall M. P. pressed the case of Blaina Hospital to the Ministry of Health. The hospital’s income was dependent upon contributions paid weekly by miners so the effect of the general closure of pits in the district was disastrous. Its account was overdrawn to the extent of Ł2,000, and, whilst income for the year was estimated at Ł2,500, costs were expected to be of the order of Ł4,000. This was not an isolated case, according to reports. Clearly, the many hospitals in the valleys of South Wales and Monmouthshire funded through voluntary schemes would struggle to survive prolonged stoppages in the coal industry.

The combination of long-term unemployment, the resulting poverty, poor housing and overcrowding experienced by the communities at the heads of the valleys took a heavy toll on the health of their population. In Merthyr in the late 1930s, the number of women suffering from tuberculosis was nearly two-and-a-half times the standardised average for England and Wales as a whole; among men, it was one-and-a-half times. One infant in every five died before the age of five, and malnutrition, rickets, diphtheria and pneumonia were widespread among schoolchildren. Already by 1932, the average age of death in the borough was down to forty-six years.

In 1937, a further official survey on the health of boys at the Blaina Boys’ School, quoted by Philip Massey, revealed that, though the condition of many children was better than in the previous report from the town, there were still serious problems in many families. On the wet day when the inspectors made their visit, forty-three per cent of the boys had damp or wet feet. More than a quarter of the two hundred or so at the school had clothing which was ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ whilst only four had clothing which could be described as ‘good’. Those deemed to have nutrition which was ‘slightly subnormal’ or ‘bad’ amounted to 28%, as compared with the national average which showed only 11.5% in these groups for 1935. The Medical Officer also noted that there were a number of undersized boys.

Massey also confirmed the view of Titmuss, Singer and others, that it was the women in these communities who suffered most from ill health, and in a variety of ways. Whilst the men seemed to look their age, with the exception of those suffering from industrial diseases, the women generally looked older than they were due to the hour-by-hour strain and the lack of holidays or any opportunity to leave the home apart from the weekly shopping trip or the occasional visit to the cinema. Women were often reluctant to admit themselves to the hospital, in cases of childbirth or illness, as they thought that the household would get into a muddle in their absence. Massey also noted that there was no birth control clinic in the district and that many women, fearful of having to rear more children on the dole, would undermine their health by using aperients.

The fact that South Wales maintained a relatively high birth rate and a lower-than-average crude death rate throughout the 1930s, enabling it to end the decade with an age structure roughly comparable to that of England and Wales as a whole, should not blind social historians, as it did some contemporaries, to the fact that, according to R. M. Titmuss, as many as sixty-five thousand of its inhabitants may have died ‘avoidable’ deaths in the period 1926-36. There certainly was a good deal of contemporary complacency, as other ‘surveyors’ of the coalfield testified. Hilary A. Marquand of University College, Cardiff, who was to succeed Nye Bevan as Health Minister, warned against this in his (1936) book, South Wales Needs a Plan, and M. P. Fogarty followed this more optimistic, though measured analysis with his post-war report on Prospects of the Industrial Areas of Great Britain.

Contemporary Images of the Coalfield Communities:

But the quantitative evidence only tells part of the story of the decline in health and well-being of the valley communities. Recent historians of inter-war South Wales (over the past half-century) have had to deal with a variety of optimistic and pessimistic definitions and images provided by contemporary social investigators as well as immediate post-war historians. They have written using the familiar tropes of ‘The Distressed Coalfields’, ‘The Depressed Areas’, ‘The Unemployed’, ‘The Black Spots’ and so on. These frequent ‘turns of phrase’ need to be seen alongside the complex realities of life experienced by the coalfield communities and the families and individuals that composed them, which have become blurred into popular images in print and film.

Within a British context, South Wales in the 1930s was viewed as a ‘problem’, a ‘depressed area’ or latterly and more euphemistically, a ‘special area’, following the growing acceptance of the need for ‘Planning’ by leading economists and politicians from the Spring of 1937 onwards with the publication of the journal of the same name by the new forum, Political and Economic Planning. For them, it was a ‘problem’ to be dealt with by national agencies, whether voluntary or state-managed. The ground of the argument was about how to deal with the problem, and most of these agencies arrived in South Wales with a prescription of one type or another, having already made their diagnoses from afar. They then made sure to make that the symptoms fitted these diagnoses. After all, the statistics were now available and formed the bedrock for the formulation of policy.

The professional and commercial strata of South Wales society were umbilically attached to a notion of progressive imperialism. The deputation of churchmen who, in July 1937, met Neville Chamberlain, who was steeped in the same Liberal Imperialism that the Birmingham Unitarian dynasty had been for the previous half-century, reflected this:

‘They were there because the community of which they were a part was slowly breaking up… It was a great community and they did not think that the British Empire could afford to see it passing.’

Western Mail, 23 July 1937.

During the 1930s, Hollywood captured the masses in its films, which increasingly appealed to critics and intellectuals. Educated film-goers in Britain were also beginning to appreciate those qualities which the masses had always detected and in particular they were at last spotting that there were forms of ‘social realism’ in American cinema. Peter Stead has written an essay (in Wales, The Imagined Nation: 1986 – see ‘Sources’) about how, together with this realisation, there came a new awareness that it was precisely this quality that was missing in British films. By the late 1930s, there was a crescendo of demand for a fuller sense of Britain in British films. The constant sniping of the critics, the dissatisfaction of directors and the relaxation of censorship all sanctioned the emergence of ‘social cinema’. This was a real turning point in the history of the British film industry, but, hardly surprisingly, it was Hollywood that both inspired and encouraged the change. The dark days of the Great Depression in the United States had taught Hollywood that there were audiences for films that admitted that not all was right with the world.

The British studios duly noted that there were audiences for ‘social problem’ films and that, in any case, the censors were becoming more lenient. Following the 1937 Quota Act, American companies began to establish their own studios around London so that they could make ‘British’ films, and it was under these arrangements that MGM made The Citadel in 1938. Several British critics thought that this was one of the best British films ever made and comments followed about the very apparent American production values, as well as about the emergence of Robert Donat as a Hollywood star. The film also offered an authentic sense of London and South Wales. Hollywood loved middle-brow best-sellers, with libraries and bookshops providing free publicity, and A. J. Cronin was very keen for his story about the ideals of a young doctor to be filmed. He could never have foreseen that the film would be so well made; there were some early location sequences which rooted the film in the South Wales valleys that the documentary directors Ralph Bond, Donald Alexander and John Grierson had already ‘discovered.’ In The Citadel, besides the first-class acting of Donat, Ralph Richardson and Emlyn Williams, who contributed some authentic Welsh dialogue, there was a convincingly detailed denunciation of the evils of private medicine.

Britain was ripe for a socially mature Hollywood film, and the Director, King Vidor, was well known in ‘tinsel town’ for making socially realistic films that reflected his own brand of rural populism: he was very much for the common man and very much against the sharp practices of all corporations and vested interests. The Citadel offered a fuller view of South Wales than any previous feature film, though it made use of the area for the purposes of the narrative, combining Cronin’s melodrama with Vidor’s own philosophy. The film was mainly concerned with the salvation of its hero: the Christian knight, or Anglo-Saxon individualist who had to discover his true self by pointing the masses towards a higher goal. There was, however, no room in the scenario for organised protest or trade unions and so the ‘stupid’ miners are shown to be passive in support of medical progress, held back by the Aberalaw Medical Aid Society, which becomes the metaphor for all the evils associated with any guild or syndicate of workers. At one point, the young doctor’s wife comments, “Did anyone ever try to help the people and the people not object?”

Diagnosing Depression – The ‘Celtic Complex’:

By contrast, the social survey writers frequently set about their task as if they were embarking upon an anthropological expedition. The editor of the journal Fact, prefacing Philip Massey’s Portrait of a Mining Town, asserted the need for ‘an attempt to survey typical corners of Britain as truthfully and painstakingly as if our investigators had been inspecting an African village. ‘ This, apparently, was why a mining ‘town’ was chosen. He stated that, like African villages, mining communities are isolated and relatively easy to study. Clearly, it was this image of geographical isolation which attracted many of these investigators, as it did film directors; it is hardly surprising that their findings, therefore, tended to reflect this image, even though it was not an entirely accurate one in reality. Many of the philanthropists of the 1930s used the image of ‘isolation’ to justify their concept of social service ‘settlements’ in the valleys, as a means by which the outlook of the coalfield communities could be ‘broadened’. They were attempting to infuse a notion of ‘citizenship’ of a wider community extending far beyond the natural boundaries of the valley.

This liberal-nationalist image of the coalfield was essentially that of a society in which industry had distorted nationality and that, to their regret, this had given the South Wales collier a greater affinity to his fellow colliers in Durham and Yorkshire than, for example, to the tin-plate workers of west Wales. This, to them, was to be lamented, and its fundamental cause was seen as the incursion of an alien people bringing with them an alien culture, infecting the very psyche and mentality of the colliers against their better nature. These people, it was claimed, never shared in the inheritance of Welsh culture and Welsh life. They were alien accretions to the population who had gradually stultified the natural development of native culture.

At a time when pseudo-scientific ideas of eugenics dominated political ideas on the continent, the authors of pamphlets and papers on public health and social service in Wales contrasted the Welsh-speaking miners of the anthracite districts of the western coalfield with the recent immigrants in the Eastern Sector who formed a more or less alien population. This, they claimed, accounted for the acceptance by South Wales miners of economic theories and policies which would appear to cut across Welsh tradition. In a similar vein, the ‘old Welsh colliers’ of Welsh-speaking Rhymney were contrasted with those of Blaina by James Evans, General Inspector to the Welsh Board of Health in his paper to the Welsh School of Social Service Conference at Llandrindod Wells in 1928:

‘In this and other districts where the native Welsh culture most strongly persists and the influences of the Methodist revival… are still felt, there is a noticeable difference in the character and outlook of the people as compared with the districts where the industrial revolution submerged the populace and introduced an economic doctrine and a philosophy of life both of which are strange and unsatisfying to the Celtic Complex’.

James Evans, Report on Conditions in South Wales, 24 March, 1928.

The ‘old Welsh collier’ was seen as being ‘independent in spirit’, the last to apply to the Board of Guardians for relief. These ‘liberal-nationalist’ elements within the Ministry of Health were keen to support the work of the Industrial Transference Board, established by the Ministry of Labour in 1928 because they saw in it the means of removing what they viewed as an alien, disruptive element from the coalfield. They, therefore, helped to ensure that the local authorities kept their levels of relief sufficiently low to encourage the acceptance of transference. James Evans, as General Inspector to the Welsh Board of Health, disapproved of the action of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians in Blaina and Nantyglo, in giving out grants of boots, suits of clothes, underclothes, bedclothes and dress material, besides the usual relief in cash and food.

Evans felt that by doing so they were spreading ‘demoralisation’ throughout the district and that there was general agreement among those competent to judge… that the district should, as far as possible, be evacuated. One of the reasons for his support for this proposal was that, in his view, this district was not as Welsh as other areas of the coalfield, where the people were of a ‘better type’. He wrote to H. W. S. Francis, Chamberlain’s Assistant Secretary, urging him to keep to the transference policy and not to give further funds for additional ‘out-relief’. Writing his internal report for the Ministry of Health, Evans was just one among those who believed that the native population of the region had been corrupted by immigrants with an alien culture and ideology. In 1930, The Rev. W. Watkin Davies, the Minister of Edgbaston Congregational Church in Birmingham published his travelogue, A Wayfarer in Wales. In it, he described the coalfield communities as outposts of hell itself with their inhabitants almost to a man, supporters of the left wing of the Labour Party. Nevertheless, he was pleased to find elements of the ‘Celtic Complex’ still finding a ‘congenial home’ in the Rhondda, most notably through the Eisteddfod and in the rendering of Welsh hymn-tunes – and all this despite the ‘admixture of aliens’ in the valleys. He described Merthyr, after a brief visit, as a hideous place, dirty and noisy, and typical of all that is worst about the South Wales Coalfield.

For many of these commentators clinging to the cultural emblems of nonconformist Wales, the coalfield was either a grimy foreign country made up of things which, and people who ‘in no true sense belong to Wales’, as Watkin Davies put it or it was a once noble and pure society which had been desecrated by Mammon and his hosts. Contemporary novelists, especially Richard Llewellyn, saw industrialisation and the resulting immigration into the valleys as a ‘problem’ for the continuity of older Welsh traditions. The central theme of Llewellyn’s (1939) novel, How Green Was My Valley, which was also made into a Hollywood film (1942), is testimony to the widespread acceptance of this explanation of the division between the ‘Coal Complex’ and ‘Celtic Complex’ in the region’s ‘fall from grace’. At the Llanmadoc Conferences held during the war, Welsh ministers were still propagating this image of a coalfield defiled by immigration and industrialisation. Rev. J. Selwyn Roberts of Pontypridd spent only a few lines of his speech dealing with the effect on his community of a decade of large-scale unemployment and emigration, before returning to the theme of the dissolution of the ‘Celtic Complex’ by immigration from the other side of the Severn estuary:

“In addition to those recent losses of its indigenous population by emigration the community life in Wales by emigration, the community life of Wales has also suffered from alien accretions in the past. … The workers who came in from surrounding counties were in the main people who neither brought any definite culture of their own, nor were able to fit into the culture of the Welsh community. This tended to make the bond of community life nothing more than the bond of economic interest, a condition which is fatal to true community life… It is clear that for the last two generations there have been alien factors at work which have almost completely overcome the traditional conscience and spirit of the Welsh people…

Quoted in Pennar Davies et. al., (n. d.), The Welsh Pattern.

Another identifiable set of images was created by a group of ‘propagandists’, and it was these images, in photographs, film and print, which have subsequently been used by historians of the period. Some of them were products of coalfield communities; others were visitors to it. The latter came to the coalfield with a specific purpose in mind, shaped by a belief in a class struggle in which the colliers were in the vanguard. For writers like the avowed Communist Allen Hutt, whose books were intended as propaganda for the times, the South Wales miners were the cream of the working class… the most advanced, most militant, most conscious workers. To add to this neat definition, he gave an equally neat explanation of why they did not rise up against their ‘suffering’:

‘One of the obstacles confronting the revolt of the workers in South Wales is precisely that degradation of which Marx spoke as the accompaniment of the growth of impoverishment under monopoly.’

A. Hutt (1933), The Condition of the Working Class in Britain. London, pp. 44-45.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 001-1.jpg

Recent historians have demonstrated how this imagery tended to dominate much of the contemporary discourse, literature, newsreel footage and photography of ‘The Hungry Thirties’ in the coalfield, leaving us to separate the mythology from the real matter of the society itself. The writer Gwyn Thomas, in his (1979) lecture, The Subsidence Factor, described the ‘exodus’ from the Rhondda Valleys, as remembered from his childhood, in a nuanced way, as being like a Black Death on wheels conducted with far less anguish. Historian Dai Smith has written of the socio-economic stereotypes who, black-faced, unemployed or militant, stalk our fictional worlds. In particular, the propagandists’ preconceptions tended to create and perpetuate what may be termed, ‘the myth of the unemployed man’. The stereotyping of ‘the unemployed’ as a uniform group, a ‘standing army’ within British society served the purposes of those who saw the causes of unemployment as correspondingly straightforward. Thus, John Gollan began a chapter on unemployment in his (1937) book, with the following statement:

‘What is unemployment? We would be fools if we thought that unemployment depended merely on the state of trade. Undoubtedly this factor affects the amount of unemployment is absolutely essential for capitalist industry, while under socialism in the USSR it has been abolished completely. Modern capitalist production has established an industrial reserve army – the unemployed; and the existence of this reserve army is essential in order that capital may have a surplus of producers which it can draw upon when needed. Unemployment is the black dog of capitalism …’

J. Gollan (1937), Youth in British Industry: A Survey of Labour Conditions Today. London, p. 155.

Poverty, People and Policy:

By 1929, the number of long-term unemployed was already sizeable in the ‘depressed areas’. In his report to Parliament that February on The Coalfield of South Wales and Monmouth, Neville Chamberlain, then Minister of Health, remarked that many miners had not worked since the 1926 stoppage and that some had not been down a pit since 1921. He commented that even now there are men who regard it as in the natural order of things that they should for all time be provided with the necessities of life without working for them. The intervention of the state in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930, which took effect in March under the Labour Government, made it possible for large numbers of workers to survive long periods of unemployment without providing evidence that they were ‘genuinely seeking work’. Its provisions continued in effect until 30 June 1934 when the National Government’s Act establishing the Means Test came into effect.

That this ‘phenomenon’ of long-term unemployment was almost entirely without precedent is shown by Chamberlain’s description of the situation as without parallel in the modern history of this country. He suggested that even ‘the nearest parallel’, that of the Lancashire cotton famine of 1862-64, was ‘not a close one’. Prolonged mass unemployment, distinctly regional in character, was a new social phenomenon which created major problems for ‘Labour’ and ‘Capital’ alike. Given its novelty, it is not surprising that ‘social investigators’ and ‘propagandists’ alike should choose to focus on the long-term unemployed. However, few contemporaries showed any significant awareness of the varying social conditions of unemployed people.

In his (1940) book, Unemployment and the Unemployed, H. W. Singer was scathing about the generalisations in this respect, arguing that there were was no ‘unemployed man’, but only ‘unemployed men’, that there was ‘no uniformity but an intense variety’. He went on to list sixteen independent causes of unemployment and to point out that because work enforced a common routine on the people who took part in it, it was reasonable to expect that when people became unemployed their suppressed individuality would reassert itself. Poverty, the dole queue and the Means Test might all restrict diversity, but that did not mean that the unemployed could be described as:

‘… a uniform mass of caps, grey faces, hand-in-pockets, street-corner men with empty stomachs and on the verge of suicide, and only sustained by the hope of winning the pools…’

H. W. Singer, loc. cit., London, Chapter I, passim.

To begin with, Singer divided Gollan’s ‘reserve army’ into two camps, a ‘stage army’ and a ‘standing army’. Those in the former were the short-term unemployed, out of work for under three months and those in the latter were the long-term unemployed, out of work for twelve months or more. Those in the former category could therefore include workers moving from one form of employment to another, and those ‘laid-off’ or ‘temporarily stopped’ for two or three days a week from the collieries. When temporary unemployment was characterised by the experience of three days’ work and three days’ dole it could be both economically and psychologically more destabilising than being wholly unemployed. One of the few authentic coalface writers, B. L. Coombes commented in his influential (1939) book, These Poor Hands: The Autobiography of a Miner Working in South Wales, that when the Colliery managers called them for a fourth shift, their feelings were not very pleasant, because they knew that had they not been called they would have been able to claim three days’ dole. Despite working all spring and summer, he was not a penny better off than if he had been on the dole. But, he wrote, his case was ‘an average’ one; the older men with big families who had a shilling a day to pay for bus fares were actually losing money by working four days a week.

Men like Coombes who were either young or fit enough to keep working continued to work in the hope that their colliery would soon return to working six shifts, and they would be paid a full-time wage. At the same time, they had to adapt to new methods of coal-cutting by machine. Coombes was a skilled machine operator and well-adapted to the ‘speed-up’ which was happening throughout the coalfield by the mid-thirties. Those who ran a high risk of being relegated to the ranks of the ‘standing army’ of the long-term unemployed were the older colliers who found it harder to get back to the coal face after a temporary stoppage because of their comparative lack of experience using mechanised coal-cutters. The introduction of these did much to destroy the craftsman spirit in the mines and reduced the number of miners required for a specific job, plus it did little to provide higher wages and better conditions for those remaining in the industry. In fact, wages remained depressed throughout most of the period and the ‘speed-up’ that mechanisation entailed led to the repeated claim that conditions were becoming ‘murderous’.

Those among these older colliers who were no longer able to find a ‘place’ underground worked under the constant fear of joining the dole queue on a permanent basis, as did those men advancing towards middle age. Their fear, and the manner in which they tried to hide their poor health as a result, is vividly illustrated by the following passage from Coombes’ book:

‘I sympathise with the older men, and watch their struggle to keep up. I listen to the labour of their dust-clogged chests when they climb the drift to go out. They climb a few steps, pause to regain their breath and watch the younger ones hurry past. Down that coal-drift rushes a current of air that is forced and always ice-cold. This meets the sweating men as they come up and chills them to their insides. It tells on chests that are already weakened by clogging dust and the rush of work.

‘I watch how the few men who are old come to work; how weary they look; how their faces seem almost as grey as their hair; how desperate they are that the officials shall not think they are slower at work than the younger men. I can read the question that is always in their minds:

“How many more times can I obey the call of the hooter? And after I have failed, what then?”

Coombes, loc. cit., p. 222.

For the twenty thousand who were over fifty and were considered to have ‘failed’ and were unlikely to work again, there was a threefold problem. They had lost their sense of purpose as skilled, active workers and bread-winners for their families; relationships with younger, working members of the family became more difficult, particularly if these members were working away from home, and thirdly, they found it impossible to make any kind of provision which would enable them to keep up the home’s standard of living when they reached the old age pension age. The effect of the high level of unionisation in the Coalfield had kept the wage rates much higher than in many other areas of Britain, but the unemployment allowance system on which the long-term unemployed depended, took little account of regional variations.

A jobless man with his children at home in Aneurin Bevan’s constituency of Ebbw Vale, 1936.

A skilled collier in prosperous times may have brought home the equivalent of a wage of anything up to eight pounds per week, and when multiple members of the family were earning the economic standard of the family might well have been higher than an ordinary lower middle-class family such as a shopkeeper’s family in coalfield communities. The maintenance system, however, would mean an immediate drop in income of at least a pound a week, even starting from the more precarious levels of pay which existed in the mining industry in the 1930s. The contrast with the older collier’s memory of the relatively prosperous early twenties:

It is just the extent of this drop … which will largely determine an unemployed man’s attitude to unemployment … It is, therefore, the skilled men… that are feeling the edge of their condition of unemployment most keenly, because it is these people that are in fact being penalised by the existing system of ‘welfare’.’

Singer (1940), op. cit., pp. 15, 95-6, 112.
The Break-up of the Coal Complex:

In addition to the problems of the older colliers, youths no longer had the opportunity of learning the craft under skilled colliers, and in many districts, considerable numbers of them were dispensed with some time between their eighteenth and twenty-first birthdays. Moreover, the operation of the Seniority Rule often discriminated against younger men, thus providing them with a strong motive for migration. An array of sources provide evidence that there was a growing antipathy towards coal mining among both young men and their parents.

In his visit to South Wales in June 1929, an official at the Ministry of Labour found that parents were increasingly in favour of their boys migrating rather than working underground, despite the fact that the employment situation had improved to the point where there was a fresh demand for juvenile labour. Another report that year revealed that boys had refused the offer of underground employment in the hope of securing employment in England. In January 1934, the Juvenile Employment Officer for Merthyr reported that of the boys due to leave school at the end of term, less than seventeen per cent expressed a preference for colliery work. A quarter of them stated that they had no particular preference but invariably added that they did not want to work underground. By comparison, a quarter wanted to enter the distributive trades and ten per cent stated a preference for engineering.

This new attitude was shared by parents and offspring alike. In Abertillery, it was reported that most of the boys leaving school in 1932 were anxious to obtain employment other than mining and that their mothers were ’empathetic’ that they should not face the same hardships and unemployment as their fathers… It was the changed nature of the work involved as well as its current insecurity which promoted a preference for migration or transference. The evidence from government enquiries was well supported by impressionistic evidence from social investigators. In his survey of Nantyglo and Blaina, Philip Massey reported that migration was playing its role in the broadening of the minds of the population. He detected the erosion of what he called the coal complex.

A further ‘Investigation’ into the matter by the Ministry of Labour in 1934 found that there were 148 boys unemployed in areas where there were unfilled local vacancies in coal mining. Although only twenty-nine of these boys had stated that they were unwilling to accept mining employment, the report concluded that this antipathy was widespread. The shortage of boys wishing to enter coal mining was most marked in the Ferndale employment exchange area, although managers of all the South Wales exchanges covered by the enquiry reported this changed attitude towards pit work.

Few writers attempted to let ‘the unemployed man’ speak for himself, however, let alone their wives and children. James Hanley did so deliberately in his 1937 work, Grey Children: A Study in Humbug. A number of those interviewed by Hanley also reflected this erosion of the Coal Complex and the concurrent desire of young people in the community to ‘better themselves.’ This desire was often prompted by the extensive reading which lengthy unemployment provided time for. The following quotations from Hanley’s witnesses reveal this connection between migration, a growing disenchantment with coal mining and a broadening industrial consciousness among young men in coalfield communities:

John Jones, forty-six-year-old unemployed miner:

“Lots of them like the open-air life and have come to hate the mine and all it stands for. Many miners refuse to let their boys go below. It’s worrying the owners a lot, I can tell you. There’s a generation that’s grown up now with their eyes wide open, and it looked around and it saw things, and it has seen too the lousy deal that miners have had ever since mines were sunk and they’re having nothing of it… just look at the large-scale emigration from these valleys… most of the young fellows have gone south to England. Just look at Slough and Oxford and London.” It’s not only the absence of work for their fathers and themselves, it’s the… instinctive knowledge that all they’ll get out of it will be the same deal as their fathers had…

“…young fellers … see us who’ve spent a lifetime at it, and they say to themselves, B- it, if that’s what you get out of a lifetime of hard toil under the earth, then to hell with it … the best blood in the land has flowed elsewhere…

A lad who had walked to Oxford and back again, looking for a job at the Morris works, and trying this or that factory or foundry on his way down, but all without successs… : “I’d rather get a job anywhere than in a pit. I wish my family would leeave Wales altogether. It’s so miserable.”

Hanley, loc. cit., pp. 20-21, 131-2, 205-7.

Similarly, the American writer Eli Ginzberg recorded that many of those who left Wales looked forward in a spirit of adventure to settling in communities where coal mining was not the sole occupation. He traced the break-up of the Coal Complex to the summer of 1926, and the freedom from the mines which the stoppage provided. This had prompted many, he argued, to question the advantages of coal mining, a questioning which was intensified by the worsening conditions and reduced pay which followed the return to work at the end of the six-month lock-out. Moreover, the social tensions and divisions which followed the strike, such as in the Garw District, made men more willing to break away and start anew in strange surroundings. Respect for the traditional solidarity of the coalfield communities had been undermined. Migration was therefore not simply a response to unemployment in the coal mining industry, but a rejection of the industry itself. In London, Miles Davies found that the sole factor keeping many immigrants from returning to Wales was their antipathy for colliery work:

Nearly all those who said they would prefer to live in the valleys, made it clear that that they would only return to a job as good, or in the same trade as the one they now hold, and that on no account would they return to work underground. One man in the discussion told how struck he had been on returning to his home village on holiday after several years absence, with the exhaustion of the men he met going home from the pit. He attributed this to the ‘speeding-up processes’ which have been introduced in recent years.

NCVO/NCSS papers; typescript report on Migration to London from South Wales, n.d.
Mothers & the Means Test – its Operation & Opposition:
Woman carrying a baby ‘Welsh Fashion, Rhondda c. 1930.

Women became even more antipathetic to the mines as a result of their struggle to manage falling and uncertain wages, and they sought other occupations for their sons. Among those quoted by Hanley was John Williams, who commented on his wife’s mental health:

‘ “My missus is in a mental home. We had a nice little lad, and were not doing so bad until I lost my job, and that and one thing and another, well, I suppose it got to her in that way.” ‘

James Hanley, loc. cit., pp. 9-10.

An unemployed miner’s son also told Hanley of the effect that the introduction of the Means Test had on housewives:

‘ “We’re on the Means Test now. Yesterday I was sitting in the kitchen when the man came in. It made me mad the way he questioned my mother. She got all fluttery and worried, I thought she was going to run into the street. She’s not used to it … Mother is very good in spite of the conditions. It’s wives and mothers who are the real heroines. …” ‘

Hanley, loc. cit., pp. 12-15.

John Gorman wrote in the introduction to his Photographic Remembrance of Working Class Life (1980), that if the means test was synonymous with poverty, then poverty was synonymous with South Wales. In Merthyr in 1936, unemployment was almost sixty per cent nine thousand), and more than seventy per cent of the unemployed were subjected to the means test. Clothes were threadbare, he went on, boots a luxury, soup kitchens a necessity and prosperity a fantasy. Public opinion against the ‘wickedness’ of the principle of means-testing families reached its crescendo in the second half of that year. The iniquitous and petty economies of the National Government that brought acrimony and family division to the tables of the poor were hated across Britain, particularly by those subjected to the bureaucratic inquisition involved. A worker with a newborn child would claim the allowance, only to be asked whether the child was being breastfed. If the answer was yes, the benefit was cut. A fourteen-year-old ‘errand’ boy had his earnings counted and the family benefit was cut accordingly because the son was expected to keep his unemployed father. Mothers deprived themselves of food to feed their children, who went without boots since there was not enough money for food and boots. In the winter months, coal had to be bought for four pennyworths at a time as families struggled to exist without the miner’s allowance and on means-tested benefits.

A Welsh contingent of eight hundred took part in the biggest and most united of the hunger marches against the means test in November 1936. Two postcard-sized photographs are shown above. The first appeared in Michael Foot’s biography of Aneurin Bevan (Vol. 1), and was taken by Trevor Roberts, an unemployed miner who marched with the Mountain Ash column and is seen standing next to the banner from the Aberdare Valley with a portrait of Keir Hardie and emblazoned with 1936, Poverty amidst Plenty. This group photograph, taken at Abercynon station on departure to Cardiff for the assembly point, includes officials from the trades councils in the Cynon Valley and Labour councillors. When the South Wales marchers, carrying the Cynon Valley banner reached Slough, they were met by eleven thousand, for by that time Slough had become a ‘little Wales’, peopled by those who had fled the ‘valleys of death’. The marchers joined the quarter of a million at a huge demonstration in Hyde Park. The speakers included Aneurin Bevan who said:

“The hunger marchers have achieved one thing. They have for the first time in the history of the Labour movement achieved a united platform. Communists, ILPers, Socialists, members of the Labour Party and Co-operators for the first time have joined hands and we are not going to unclasp them.”

Quoted in Gorman (1980), p. 28.

The second photograph (above) shows some of the Welsh marchers lining up at Cater Street School, Camberwell, where they had spent the night prior to the march to the Hyde Park rally. Clement Attlee, newly elected as Labour leader, also spoke at the rally, moving the resolution:

‘The scales (of unemployment benefit) are insufficient to meet the bare physical needs of the unemployed…’

Ibid.

A contingent of women marchers is shown below:

Photograph by Amos Mouls, from the collection of Maud Brown, who took part in the march herself (Gorman, p.154).
The Drivers of Migration & the Obstacles to Transference:

But by the winter of 1936-37, it was no longer simply the appalling conditions accompanying long-term unemployment that drove people out of the valleys to Slough, Oxford and beyond. This author’s own oral interviews in the early 1980s with Welsh exiles in England also bear out the importance of the break-up of the ‘coal complex’ as a major factor in prompting migration. Some individuals who moved did so because they had ‘had enough’ of the mines, whether or not they were unemployed at the time. Despite having members working, some families decided to move to keep younger members from working underground. Young girls were allowed to leave home in larger numbers to go into domestic service, as they had done in Edwardian times because their parents did not want them to marry miners. The post-war shortage in ‘domestics’ led to the advertisement pages of the South Wales press being filled with exaggerated claims about the prospects awaiting young women in English towns as well as in Cardiff and Swansea. Many of the realities failed to these claims, but there is little evidence to suggest that reports of poor conditions or even deaths from tuberculosis restricted the flow of girls from the valleys.

In 1934, 67% of girls about to leave Merthyr’s schools expressed a preference for domestic service. Some would treat this employment as a short-term experience, after which they would go home to play a new role in the family or get married. This tendency was often strengthened by the erosion in the health of their mothers. At the same time, many young men, despite strong pressures to return, would not do so even when the coal industry recovered and jobs became available for them in the collieries. Nevertheless, many others saw their migration as a short-term experience, like that of their sisters. They left home out of a sense of boredom or frustration, often with vague plans. Those who stayed in the new areas often did so having moved on from temporary domestic service or distributive jobs to more lucrative employment in the manufacturing industries.

Despite all the financial incentives for young people to transfer under state supervision, the numbers doing so were very small compared to the volume of those who moved under their own devices and on their own terms, in keeping with the traditions of migration within these communities. To have accepted dependence on the state would, for many, have been an acceptance of their own demoralisation. The purpose of migration was, after all, to escape from what Hanley described as this mass of degradation, and the stink of charity in one’s nostrils everywhere.

In his first Industrial Survey of 1931, Professor Hilary Marquand commented that so large a volume of migration had already taken place, it followed that the surplus which remained consisted mainly of persons whom it was especially difficult to transfer. These included men who needed a long period of ‘reconditioning’ to make them fit for regular work. One of the most significant obstacles to both transference and migration was the widespread ill health bred by poverty and malnutrition. During the first year of the Industrial Transference Scheme, Ministry of Labour officials recognised that, among the men transferred from the depressed areas, there were many who proved unfit for the employment which was found for them and many more who developed sicknesses in their new jobs, due to the fact that long periods of unemployment had sapped their strength.

In the Autumn of 1929, the Ministry interviewed 35,715 workmen in the depressed areas aged between eighteen and forty-five who had been unemployed for at least three months. Of these, 17,262 (48%) were from the South Wales coalfield, and 27% were said to be ‘reconditioning’ prior to transfer, compared with 25% of the workmen in five areas overall. Of the Welsh sample, 85% in this condition were coal miners, compared to 76% in the five areas as a whole and it was evident from these findings that continuous unemployment had pressed even more seriously upon miners than upon other workers in the heavy industries. Moreover, a further sizeable proportion of the unemployed was deemed completely unfit for transfer, though it is impossible to quantify this precisely because the survey grouped these together with those who were ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ to transfer.

The health problems did not just affect the older segments of the insured population. In 1938 the Merthyr Juvenile Employment Committee (JEC) expressed its concern that out of twelve boys who went for medical examination before being transferred, only one was passed physically fit. Nine others were sent for reconditioning to the Llandough Junior Training Centre, leaving two deemed unfit for transfer. The Junior Transference Centre which was established at Llandough Castle near Cowbridge for boys who had already accepted transference to another area. They remained at the centre for a period of six to twelve weeks, during which time they were they were treated for malnutrition under the direction of the Centre’s own Medical Officer, and their physical training took the form of sporting activity rather than the hard, manual labour that adult transferees were subjected to at the Instructional Centres. King Edward VIII had visited Llandough in November 1936, with the boys on the scheme lining the route, banging the tools of the trades that they were learning: shovels, saws, dustpans and brushes. The centre also trained fourteen-year-old girls to go away into domestic service. This form of transference led to dislocation and loneliness for thousands of juveniles. The Merthyr JEC, however, received a glowing report on the Llandough Centre in its minutes for September 1939:

‘There are rooms for educational activities, metalwork, woodwork, a common room and also a large glass-covered hall which is suitable for light physical training during inclement weather… A small bathing pool has been constructed in the wooded section of the grounds where the boys swim if they so desire… they were very happy and agreed that the conditions and food were very good.’

Merthyr Education Committee Minutes, 19 September 1939.

By contrast, the poverty of diet that had been endured by many young transferees, many of them already forced to live away from their parental home due to the operation of the Means Test, is revealed by Hanley’s less formal enquiries:

It has already been seen that young people who have left Wales and gone elsewhere and have got work and gone into lodgings, have vomited up whatever first wholesome meal they have had served up to them by their landladies. I verified five instances of this.

Hanley, loc. cit., p. 130.

There were thus a number of secondary economic and cultural factors involved in the complex causation of migration, many of them connected with physical and mental health. Deteriorating housing, unhealthy and overcrowded living conditions combined with high rents and rates together with depressed incomes all played an essential part in the decision-making of potential migrants. The following quotation from Hanley’s interview with an unemployed miner, John Jones, is revealing in this respect:

‘ “Now we’re Welsh. We’re a proud people and also have a code of manners that the English quite misunderstand … when I was in work nobody interfered with me … From being just an ordinary working miner I’ve become quite an important person. We’ve all become quite important you might say. Just look at the number of people who and associations who are concerned about us! I draw the dole; well there’s quite an army of officials there, … when my benefit ceases, I go to the public relief offices. … Then there’s my union, my lodge, the welfare centres, the means test officials, the housing inspectors … An unemployed man is just ringed around with all kinds of officials and all kind of people interested in in his welfare … I want work and I want to be left alone.” ‘

Hanley, loc. cit., pp. 91, 162.

There is here a direct refusal to become demoralised, despite the pressure from officials and ‘voluntary’ social workers. In this context, both the miners’ lodges and their institutes played a significant role in upholding morale from the 1926 lock-out to the stay-down strikes against company unionism of the late 1930s. An American visitor to the coalfield, Eli Ginzberg, wrote Grass on the Slag-heaps: The Story of the Welsh Miners (New York, 1942), described how the threat to the miners’ institutes from the new social service centres was, in part, self-induced by the failure of the lodges and ‘the Fed’ failed to come to terms organisationally with the sudden impact of mass, long-term unemployment.

‘Removing’ or ‘Reviving’ the Blackspots:

Many of the communities which experienced the highest levels of long-term unemployment were at the heads of the valleys, like Dowlais, Merthyr, Brynmawr, Nantyglo and Blaina forming, according to Marquand’s second (1937) Survey (Vol. III), a melancholy line of semi-derelict communities along the Merthyr to Abergavenny road. But much of the Survey on Brynmawr, led by the Quaker Hilda Jennings, was coloured by a eulogy of the rural heritage of the Welsh people. J. Kitchener Davies, reporting on the Welsh Nationist Party’s Summer School, held in Brynmawr, contrasted the town with its more urban neighbours:

‘ “Brynmawrsuffers from the advertisement of its poverty which had made us expect distress writ larger over it than over any other mining community. This is not so… (it) has a lovely open country, easily accessible, and this… reflected in the faces of the people, made a contrast with those of more hemmed-in communities.” ‘

The Welsh Nationalist, September 1932, p. 6.

P. B. Mais, a traveller along the Highways and Byways of the Welsh Marches in the late thirties, seemed to go into ‘culture shock’ as he came down from the Brecon Beacons (Bannau Brycheiniog) to discover the town, with these unbelievably narrow, wedged rows and rows of miners’ cottages huddled in a land where there was so much room.

ill-nourished children playing in the over-heated, crowded streets, or in the filthy, offal-laden, tin-strewn streams at the backs of the houses with little strips of backyards that make the Limehouse backyards look like the Garden of Eden.

P. B. Mais (1939), op.cit.

Mais could not believe that Merthyr people could live in such conditions:

Are they not sprung from hillsmen, farmers, men and women who regard air and space to breathe as essentials of life? Why then, do these people go on living here? All of these South Wales mining villages want wiping out of existence, so that the men and women can start again in surroundings that are civilised, and not so ugly as to make one shiver even in memory.

Idem.

Fenner Brockway, who may be described as a contemporary ‘propagandist’, at the opposite pole of public opinion, nevertheless seemed to share this view of the town, as he used the town for his 1932 study, Hungry England (London, pp. 144, 158). His chapter naturally painted the bleakest possible portrait of the poverty and ill health among the borough’s people. Three years later, the Government appointed two commissioners to go to Merthyr, gather evidence and produce a report and recommendations on whether Merthyr should have its county borough status taken away from it. Public Assistance was costing well over half the Corporation’s yearly expenditure and twice its rateable value. The loss of rates from the closing of the Dowlais Steel Works alone amounted to Ł30,000 per annum. Since it received only minimal grants from the central government, it was forced to cut services. John Rowland of the Welsh Board of Health presented the following image of the coalfield society as one of impoverishment and demoralisation within the Borough as minatory to the health of ‘the old Welsh stock’ living there:

The prevailing impression after all my dealings with Merthyr Tydfil is of the real poverty that exists. This poverty is visible everywhere, derelict shops… and deplorable housing conditions. Merthyr is inhabited by many worthy of old Welsh stock, hard-working and religious… it is very hard to see such people gradually losing their faith in the old established order and turning to look for desperate remedies.

Recommendations of the Royal Commission; Report of John Rowland of the Welsh Board of Health.

A very different image of the Borough and its people was given by the local MP, S. O. Davies on behalf of the Trades Council. He articulated the self-image from within the community as one of communal resilience in the face of worsening conditions. This resilience would be undermined by the removal of the Borough’s civic powers. He commented that…

… there is not an institution in this borough today, whether it is a chapel or a church or anything else, that is not with the local authority contributing with a view to mitigating the worst consequences of poverty. … if the authority administering the area is to be removed twenty or thirty miles away, then I say that that … human interest, the whole of what is best in the borough, shown in its children, and those who are most impoverished, will undoubtedly be impaired very considerably…

Royal Commission Minutes of Evidence, Merthyr Library copy p. 38, statement of evidence by S. O. Davies, M. P.

Thomas Jones, the archetypal establishment Welshman, parodied the approach of many of the ‘social investigators’ with whom he came into contact by suggesting that the entire population of South Wales should be transferred out of the region so that the valleys could then be flooded, or used as an industrial museum, or for bombing practice.

Besides their fixed outgoings for rent and rates, many people throughout the valleys also made regular contributions towards their own health care, continuing to do so in spite of the impact of the depression on their incomes. It may have been that they felt the conditions imposed on them by increasing impoverishment and dilapidating housing even more essential. In his report to the Nuffield College Reconstruction Survey in 1942, mentioned above, J. D. Evans found a widespread feeling that the existing National Health Insurance Scheme provided inadequate cover in times of sickness. Independent Medical Aid Societies and hospital contributory schemes continued to be popular throughout the coalfield. Nowhere was there better evidence of this than in the Garw Valley where there were more than 3,500 insured contributors to the local Medical Society, with a further 2,800 dependants standing to benefit from this.

This form of self-help was the valley’s means of survival during the Depression years. Due to being geographically hemmed in, the community felt the need to provide for itself a complete range of health, social and cultural services. This did not mean that it lacked a ‘wider outlook’ but rather that it used its home-grown institutions as a basis on which it could relate to the outside world on its own terms, and as a means by which it could interpret and respond to the gargantuan economic and social forces which had brought it into being and now threatened to crush it. The people of the Garw may have contained fewer members of ‘the old Welsh stock’, much eulogised by liberal nationalists, than the people of Merthyr and the other heads-of-the-valleys communities who could trace their attachments back through four or five generations, but they showed no less commitment to the abundant and vibrant institutions which had been created in the valley by the mid-1920s.

Turning the Screw Too Tight? – Resisting Transference:

Simultaneously, an intensive campaign began to encourage employers in prosperous areas to take on men and boys from depressed areas. Baldwin himself made a direct appeal for them to approach the nearest Labour Exchange, but the results of this were not as great as the Government had hoped, and Chamberlain admitted his disappointment to the South Wales Miners’ Federation (SWMF) delegation which met with both him and the Minister of Labour, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, in October 1928. The miners’ leaders were accompanied by seven Labour coalfield MPs. Morrel and Richards, President and General Secretary of ‘the Fed’, argued that the situation in South Wales was becoming ‘dangerous’ and this point caused some nervousness among the ministers and officials present who were sensitive to the possibility of a recurrence of the ‘disorder’ which had occurred during the 1926 Lock-out. In a memorandum on the meeting, one official wrote to the ministers that:

The issue is whether the screw may not have been turned too tight in the South Wales areas, as a result of our attempts… to secure the the administration of relief on sound lines and to induce local authorities their financial coat according to the available cloth… a bad winter would be a serious thing in such a such conditions of worklessness and depression as have so long prevailed in some parts of South Wales. If anything untoward should occur in these places in the winter, … there would be a risk of panic action minatory to the whole of our recent poor law policy.’

HLG 30/63: Deputation from the South Wales Miners’ Federation to the Ministers of Health and Labour, Minutes and Memoranda, 31 October 1928.

This official nervousness was further reflected by the reaction of James Evans when he heard of a proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to the coalfield in the New Year. He urged caution, and Arthur Lowry, later to head the Commission on Merthyr, was dispatched to South Wales to report on the conditions there which were recovering by the time the winter of 1928-29 came due to a recovery in the Coal trade. Both Steel-Maitland and Chamberlain echoed the view of James Evans that the provision of further relief on a long-term basis would result in further ‘demoralisation’. Steel-Maitland made this clear to the Cabinet:

‘… To leave them in their villages … involves steady demoralisation, an apalling waste of manpower and the continuance of a canker, the evil effects of which spread far beyond the locality … Relief works in the depressed areas have long exhausted their usefulness; indeed they are positively harmful in so far as they encourge men to remain where they cannot hope for continued employment.’

CAB 24/198: Industrial Transference Schemes: Report on work done and comments on objections to transference policy; CP 324, Memo by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, with appendices, 1 November 1928.

Some government ministers did, however, attempt to bring relief of a different kind to the depressed areas. Winston Churchill was responsible for major sections of the Local Government Act of 1929 which reformed the Poor Law and brought about de-rating and a system of block grants. He clearly saw this as a means of relieving industry in these areas and combating economic depression. In a speech on the Bill in the House of Commons, he argued that it was…

‘…much better to bring industry back to the necessitous areas than to disperse their population, at enormous expense and waste, as if you were removing people from a plague-stricken or malarious region.’

LAB 23/75: Special Areas of South Wales – Burden of local rates.

Clearly, this view was not shared by Chamberlain who saw the Bill as a means for the careful central control of local authorities, rather than as a means of equalising the effects of the low rateable values on these areas. When Lowry submitted his report to Chamberlain in February 1929, the Minister saw in them no cause to call for a change in central policy. Speaking on the report in Parliament later that month, he took up the same theme of the dangers of demoralisation that would result from further relief funding, though he was not as optimistic as the Minister of Labour regarding the length of time required for the policy of transference to achieve results. He estimated that seven years was needed, rather than the three Steel-Maitland had suggested.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Labour Government of 1929-31 tried to abandon the Transference policy. However, they did not consider that its continuance should exclude attempts to attract industries to the depressed areas or to develop public works schemes. However, the widespread nature of unemployment in these years, the lack of imagination and ineptitude of J. M. Thomas as Minister for Employment, the resistance of officials, the innate conservatism of Philip Snowden at the Exchequer and the general economic crises which beset this administration precluded the possibility of a radical response to the problem of mass unemployment.

Between 1931 and 1937 the National Government continued to uphold transference as the solitary cure for long-term unemployment in depressed areas. For most of this period, they also continued to enjoy the support of local authorities in operating the policy. A 1931 memorandum on the Distribution of Juvenile Employment reported that all fourteen of the Juvenile Employment Committees in Wales recommended transference as the only solution to local unemployment and urged the use of public funds to assist with the maintenance and travelling expenses of juveniles.

Serious Welsh opposition to the policy only became significant in May 1936, when The South Wales and Monmouthshire Council of Social Services (SWMCSS) held a special ‘Conference on Transference’ at the YMCA in Barry. The SWMCSS was founded in 1919 as part of the National Council of Social Service. As well as drawing representatives from the proliferating voluntary societies of the time, it also worked very closely with successive governments in the twenties and thirties. Nine Departments were represented, including the ministries of Health and Labour, the Home Office and the Board of Education. Up to this point, the Council had played a major role in the Government’s strategy, with a number of its leading members and workers being involved in both the social administration of the transference scheme at a regional level and the government-sponsored voluntary work in the valleys.

Most of the prominent figures in the Social Service movement across the region attended the Barry Conference. Church leaders and MPs also took part. Rev. T. Alban Davies argued that the ‘national conscience’ was being roused against the break-up of communities which represented the history and traditions of Wales and that unless the Social Service movement came out clearly in opposition to the scheme, its ameliorative involvement could be seen as evidence of its support for it. Aneurin Bevan, MP for Ebbw Vale since entering Parliament in 1929, also called for an end to the policy, and attacked the complacency of those who purported to be the leadership of the ‘Welsh Nation’:

‘… If the problem was still viewed as complacently as it had been, this would involve the breakdown of a social, institutional and communal life peculiar to Wales. The Welsh Nation had adopted a defeatist attitude towards the policy of transference as the main measure for relief of the Distressed Areas in South Wales, but objection should be taken as there was no economic case for continuing to establish industries in the London area rather than the Rhondda.’

LAB 23/102: Report of Conference on Transference, convened by the SWMCSS, 15-16 May 1936.

The reason for this complacency was made apparent by one speaker who replied to Bevan’s remarks by suggesting that East Monmouth had no Welsh Institutions or traditions likely to be damaged by large-scale transference, as most of its people were originally immigrants who had not been absorbed into local life. However, most of those present was that what was taking place was expatriation and not repatriation. Elfan Rees, who as Secretary to the SWMCSS was invited to speak to the third major Welsh conference of the year, developed this theme in his ‘Survey of Social Tendencies in Wales’ which he presented to the Welsh School of Social Service in Llandrindod Wells in August. The ‘School’ had been established by Lleufer Thomas in 1911, in a bid to ‘take back control’ of the valleys from the trades unions and socialists who were seen as ideological aliens, disruptive of the ‘Celtic Complex’. Appealing to the liberal nationalists in his audience, he pointed out that those leaving the coalfield were not the ‘rootless undesirables’ who had moved into it in the previous generation, but the young, the best and the Welsh:

‘… If transference was repatriation it might be a different story, but it is expatriation. It is the people with the roots who are going – the unwillingness to remain idle at home -the essential qualification of the transferee again, are the qualities that mark our own indigenous population. And, if this process of social despoilation goes on, the South Wales of tomorrow will be peopled with a race of poverty-stricken aliens saddled with public services they haven’t the money to maintain and social institutions they haven’t the wit to run. Our soul is being destroyed and the key to our history, literature, culture thrown to the four winds.’

Elfan Rees, ‘A Survey of Social Tendencies in Wales, 1935-36’ in Public Health in Wales, addresses delivered at the the Welsh School of Social Service, Llandrindod Wells, 10-13 August 1936.

Despite this growing opposition to the policy, the appointment of the Barlow Commission into the Distribution of the British Population and the establishment of the Special Areas Relief Association (SARA), there was no immediate end to the Transference Policy, and certainly no diminution in the numbers migrating voluntarily. In fact, 1937 was the peak year in the operation of the scheme. A deputation from the Welsh Churches, the University of Wales, and the Welsh Parliamentary Party, together with sections of the Social Service movement met Chamberlain, now Prime Minister, towards the end of July. They were clearly impatient about the continuing lack of balance in unemployment policy:

‘Did it require much imagination to realise what this process meant to the life and continuity of a comporatively small community? It was being denuded of its best manhood, its very life blood was being drained, and unless a bold and resolute venture were undertaken South Wales as they had known it would cease to be. For eleven years this plague had ravaged the life of that area…’

Western Mail, 23 July 1937.

However, the editor of the Western Mail rejected such arguments. How, he asked, could the Government refuse young men the opportunity to work elsewhere? With the onset of war, there was a heightened emphasis on the need for industrial planning, not just for the production of armaments and military materiel, but for a better future following the end of the conflict. During the war, the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council referred to the determination never again to endure such a wholesale frustration of human desires and ideals and the fear that such conditions will inevitably return unless there is adequate preparation to counter them. The concept of ‘Post-War Planning’ had, as the WRAC report suggested, a special personal significance for the people of Wales (their emphasis).

Tredegarising Medical Services – The Founding of the NHS:

The free National Health Service was paid for directly through public money. Bevan had been inspired by the Tredegar Medical Aid Society in his hometown, where residents would pay a subscription to fund access for all of the town’s inhabitants to have free access to medical services such as nursing or dental care. This system proved so popular that twenty thousand people supported the organisation during the 1930s. In 1947, Bevan stated:

“All I am doing is extending to the entire population of Britain the benefits we had in Tredegar for a generation or more. We are going to Tredegar-ise you.”

The Attlee Government created the modern welfare state, with comprehensive sickness and unemployment cover introduced by the 1946 National Insurance Act. Attlee brought the creative best out of Aneurin Bevan by appointing him as Minister of Health and Housing. Bevan painstakingly negotiated with the British Medical Association and the National Health Service was introduced in 1948. Income was increased for the welfare state expenditure by a large increase in marginal tax rates for wealthy business owners, as part of what the Labour government largely saw as the redistribution of the wealth created by the working class from the owners of the large-scale industry to the workers.

Having been a member of the Tredegar Cottage Hospital Management Committee around 1928 and serving as chairman in 1929–30, Bevan had received an insight into the management of health services by local authorities, which proved to be the bedrock of his work in founding the National Health Service.

The Welfare State appears as the end-product of a long history, its origins far back in the Edwardian past, but this is a rather technical definition, amounting to little more than the expansion of social services by the state. Bédarida (1979) argued that in post-1945 Britain, the phrase stands as the symbol of the period, and of a society with a mixed economy and full employment, where individualism is tempered by State intervention, where the basic right to work and a basic standard of living are guaranteed, and the working-class movement, now accepted and recognised, find its rightful place in the nation. Labour’s ‘revolution’ must therefore be seen in the context of the ‘evolution’ of the welfare state. The key concept of this evolution was ‘social justice’. The ‘revolution’ found its main inspiration in two Liberals: Beveridge and Keynes. These were the two masterminds whose ideas guided Labour’s actions, though the ideas themselves had their origins in the Nonconformist conscience and Christian Socialism. It was also the child of the Fabians in that it developed legislative, administrative and centralizing methods to the detriment of local workers’ control. The creation of the NHS, which Beveridge had thought was essential to his wider vision, was an example of this.

As we have seen in the case of South Wales, Britain had a system of voluntary hospitals, raising their own funds, which varied greatly in size, efficiency and cleanliness. Later, it also had municipal hospitals, many growing out of the original workhouses. Some of these, in growing cities like London, Birmingham and Nottingham were efficient, modern places, whose beds were gradually kept for the poor. Others were squalid. Money for the voluntary hospitals came from investments, gifts, charity events, payments and a hotchpotch of insurance schemes. By the time the Second World War finished, most of Britain’s hospitals had been brought into a single national emergency medical service. The question was what should happen to them in peacetime – should they be nationalised or allowed to return to voluntary control?

Clement Attlee had calmly awaited the result of the 1945 Election at Transport House.

A similar question hung over family doctors. GPs (General Practitioners) depended on private fees, though most of them also took poor patients through some kind of insurance scheme. When not working from home or surgery, they would often double up by operating in municipal hospitals, where, as non-specialists, they sometimes hacked away incompetently. Also, the local insurance scheme often excluded many elderly people, housewives and children, who were therefore put off visiting the doctor at all, unless they were in the gravest pain or danger. The situation was the same with dentistry and optical services, which were not available to anyone without the money to pay for them. Labour was determined to replace this hotchpot with the first free system of medical care in any Western democracy.

Bevan talking to a patient at Park Hospital, Manchester, the day the NHS came into being.

On the ‘appointed day’, 5 July 1948, Bevan’s National Health Service Act 1946 came into force. On that day, Bevan attended a ceremony at the Park Hospital, Trafford (now Trafford General), at which he symbolically received the keys to the hospital. The scheme was achieved having overcome political opposition from both the Conservative Party and from within his own party. There was a fierce confrontation with the British Medical Association (BMA), led by Charles Hill, who published a letter in the British Medical Journal describing Bevan as “a complete and uncontrolled dictator”. Members of the BMA had dubbed him the “Tito of Tonypandy”. For Bevan, the foundation of a Service which was free at the point of delivery to all was simply the practical expression of a just and equitable society:

The collective principle asserts that … no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.

 Aneurin Bevan, In Place of Fear, p. 100

Simplicity was a great weapon, so Nye Bevan’s single greatest decision was to take all the hospitals, the voluntary ones and those run by local councils into a nationalised system. It would have regional boards but it would all come under the control of the Ministry of Health in Whitehall. This was a heroic piece of self-confidence on Bevan’s part but, in taking ultimate personal responsibility for almost every hospital across Britain, he was attacked from within his own party, for stamping on any form of libertarian organisation of society. As Bédarida pointed out, Labour laid itself open to a charge that would weigh heavily on it in the future, namely that of wanting to impose a bureaucratic form of socialism. Herbert Morrison, the great defender of municipal socialism, was against this nationalisation but was brushed aside by Bevan.

Soon after the NHS opened for business, however, there was a flood of people to surgeries, hospitals and chemists. Fifteen months later, Bevan announced that 5.25 million pairs of free spectacles had been supplied as well as 187 free prescriptions. By then, 8.5 million people had already had free dental treatment. At the same time, there was much anecdotal evidence of waste and misuse. The new bureaucracy was cumbersome. It is also possible to overstate the change since, as we have seen, most people, even some of the poorest, had had access to some kind of affordable health care before the NHS, though it was patchy and working-class women had particular difficulty in getting treatment except in near-natal services (I have written about these in Coventry in another article on my website). But the most important overall change was the removal of fear. Before comprehensivisation, millions at the bottom of the pile had suffered untreated hernias, cancers, toothache, ulcers and all kinds of illness rather than face the humiliation and anxiety of being unable to afford treatment. If there was a single domestic good that the British took from the sacrifices and sufferings of the war, it was a health service free at the point of use.

The continuing division in the Labour government over the comprehensive nationalisation of health service and its costs had far-reaching consequences. Bevan’s resignation from the government on 23 April 1951 was the first public symbol of disagreement at the top of the Labour Party on its future direction in the post-war era. Michael Foot’s (1963) two-volume biography of his predecessor as MP for Ebbw Vale is an unashamedly partisan book from which Bevan emerges as a kind of Celtic giant, like something from the Medieval saga of the Mabinogion. But it is far from being a reliable text, especially in the second volume in its portrayal of Gaitskell as a traitor to socialism. However, Foot’s account of Bevan as a socialist tribune in his early years, and especially his pioneering creation of the National Health Service is a magnificent account of his truly heroic achievement.

In his so-called ‘crusade’ to establish the NHS, Bevan received the support of many local figures, not just in the valleys, but also in the major cities to which many of his compatriots had migrated in the late twenties and thirties. William Tegfryn Bowen had worked as a miner in the Rhondda between 1916 and 1926 before moving to Birmingham in 1927, where he became a car worker at the Austin Motor Company, also enrolling in a course in economics, social services and philosophy at Fircroft Adult Education College in Selly Oak. Sacked from the Austin works for his trade union activity, he endured various spells of unemployment before becoming a City Councillor in 1941, and an Alderman in 1945. Between 1946 and 1949 he was both Chairman of the Council Labour Group and Chairman of the City Health Committee. This latter position led to his appointment as a member of the Executive Council of the NHS and a member of the Regional Hospital Board. On becoming Lord Mayor of Birmingham in 1952, Bowen was asked to account for the Labour hold on a city which, under the Chamberlains, had been a Tory stronghold before the Second World War. In his answer, he referred to the large influx of workers from other areas with a different political outlook. The National Health Service of 1948 was therefore built on local institutions which the working classes built for themselves.

The brambles of poverty, though dense and piercing in places, did not grow evenly throughout the Coalfield in the late twenties and thirties. They did not even grow evenly in the same street, on the same terrace, and neither did they ensnare one individual in quite the same way or to the same degree as the next. They wove themselves into patterns which were not always common and were frequently tangled. They grew at different rates in differing places. This diversity had much to do with the variety of the places where they grew. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the intricate cultural and institutional web of coalfield society before judgements can be made about how impoverishment may or may not have led to demoralisation and immiseration.

In order to do so, it is imperative that historians should move away from the stereotypical images of contemporary social investigators and political propagandists, and seek out how coalfield communities were redefining and representing themselves during the period. It was already evident that, during the earlier part of the century, coalfield society had developed its own autonomous culture and institutions alongside the received ones. This sub-culture or counter-culture rejected many of the values which did not coincide with those which stemmed from the community’s own sense of economic and social solidarity. In Workers at Play: A Social and Economic History of Leisure, 1918-1939, S. G. Jones (London, 1986) has provided a useful summary of the historiographical debate on working-class culture, advancing an argument in favour of the concept of a ‘negotiated culture’ as descriptive of the experience of the British working class between the wars. It was this culture that created the Tredegar Medical Aid Society and many societies like it throughout the South Wales Coalfield.

Sources:

John Gorman (1980), To Build Jerusalem: A Photographic Remembrance of British Working Class Life, 1875-1950. London: Scorpion Publications.

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents and Debates: Twentieth-Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Andy Chandler (1982), ‘The Black Death on Wheels: Unemployment and Migration – The Experience of Inter-War South Wales’ in Tim Williams (ed.), (1982), Papers in Modern Welsh History 1 (The Journal of the Modern Wales Unit, formerly the Research Unit for the History of Industrial South Wales). University College, Cardiff (Department of History).

Dai Smith (1984), Wales! Wales? Hemel Hempstead: Allen & Unwin.

Tony Curtis (ed.) (1986), Wales: The Imagined Nation; Essays in Cultural & National Identity. Bridgend: Poetry Wales Press.

Andrew James Chandler (1988), ‘The Re-Making of a Working Class: Migration from the South Wales Coalfield to the New Industry Areas of the Midlands, c. 1920-1940. Cardiff: Unpublished PhD thesis.

Bill Jones & Beth Thomas (1993), Teyrnas y Glo: Golwg Hanesyddol ar Fywyd ym Meysydd Glo Cymru/ Coal’s Domain: Historical Glimpses of Life in the Coalfields. Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru/ National Museum of Wales: Caerdydd/ Cardiff.

Andrew Marr (2008), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Denys Blakeway (2010), The Last Dance – 1936: The Year Our Lives Changed. London: John Murray (Publishers).

Charles Clarke & Toby S. James (eds.) (2015), British Labour Leaders. London: Biteback Publishing Ltd.

Galleries:

Featured

The Raven & the White Rose – The Plantagenet Pretender in Buda: Richard de la Pole.

The Growth of the Great Central European Empire:
Portrait of Sigismund, whose fifty-year reign was the longest of any medieval Hungarian ruler, played a major role in European political affairs. The culture of chivalry flourished in Hungary during his reign.

Sigismund of Bohemia, pictured above, became Holy Roman Emperor in 1433, an event which marked the establishment of the great Central European Empire under Habsburg rule, through his daughter’s marriage, until 1918. As Emperor, he acted as an intermediary between Henry V of England and the King of France. From this time onward Anglo-Hungarian relations entered a new phase. The menace of Ottoman expansion loomed large over Europe and the English and Hungarian armies joined again in a common cause. Following Sigismund’s death in 1437, the Austrian-Bohemian-Hungarian alliance collapsed during the rule of his son-in-law. But in the southern borderlands of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, a general emerged who stamped his own charismatic personality on the age more effectively than any of the crowned kings and princes of these countries. Although held to be a Transylvanian-Romanian, his family had solid Hungarian origins and he was regarded as Sigismund’s natural son. But it was his deeds which qualified him as the protector and Regent of St. Stephen’s crown lands. From a warrior of low rank, he rose to become the most eminent general of fifteenth-century Europe. At the end of his life, he owned two million hectares of landed estates, the income from which he spent almost exclusively on his campaigns against the Ottomans.

Emperor and King: Sigismund of Luxembourg at the helm of his army. Altarpiece by Tamás Kolozsvári, Garamszentbenedek, 1427.

After the humiliating defeats suffered by the Hungarian-led knights, including some English Hospitallers, at Nicopolis in Bulgaria, and the 1444 defeat at the Battle of Varna (see picture above), János Hunyadi became Regent in 1446 and tried on several occasions to bring the small Balkan territories together to resist the Ottoman expansion. But despite further losses against the Turks, he gradually restored the integrity of the country and consolidated his authority among the nobility. As a result, even Frederick III acknowledged his governorship, which only came to an end in 1452 when the Austrian estates rebelled against Frederick while he was visiting Rome to get himself crowned Emperor. Hunyadi had to relinquish his position, which had made him almost equal to the King when Wladislas V came of age, which coincided with the revival of the Turkish threat. In 1456, three years after he captured Constantinople, Sultan Mohammed II led a formidable army of some hundred thousand men against Belgrade, the key fortress of Hungary’s southern defensive system.

Vajdahunyad Castle in Transylvania was the centre of the Hunyadi family’s estates. János Hunyadi’s father Vajk obtained the former modest castle from the king and the son built up the Gothic fortifications, whose magnificence was unmatched in all of Central-Eastern Europe.

The panic that had been caused by the fall of Constantinople gave rise to rather ineffective countermeasures both from within and outside Hungary. The Christian princes of Europe failed to respond to the call of the Pope for a Crusade. As Mehmet’s well-trained and well-equipped professional army set off to besiege Nándorfehérvár (Belgrade) in early July, the defenders could only expect relief from the soldiers mobilised by Hunyadi from his estates and retinue, and insurrectionists from among the commoners of southern Hungary. Hunyadi’s army for the city’s relief was a mixture of three elements; his mercenaries, the insurgent nobles and the commoners, who responded to his call to arms despite recent rebellions against their landlords. They were recruited, in part, by an impassioned Franciscan friar of strict morals, Giovanni Capistrano who was Hunyadi’s right arm. Combined, these forces equalled less than half of those of the besiegers.

And yet, the ‘Crusader’ army gained a decisive victory in the battle, during which his guards rescued the wounded Sultan half-dead. When he had recovered, he decided to retreat., and although the opportunity for a counter-offensive was missed, this ‘triumph’ halted the Ottoman advance into Europe for several decades. Hunyadi’s immediate achievement was to secure the southern system of defence, the most important legacy of Sigismund: no Turkish attempt of similar dimensions took place until sixty-five years later. Even today, in cities, towns and villages throughout Central Europe, the pealing of bells at noon reminds people of the victory achieved on 22nd July 1456. Pope Callixtus proclaimed a Christian holiday and is said to have issued the decree for the pealing, but according to another version, he had already given instructions for bells to be rung to warn of the impending battle. In any event, the pealing of the bells at noon turned into a permanent event and certainly played an important role in the universal victory celebrations that took place throughout Christendom after the battle. Hunyadi’s exploits against the Turks were reported in contemporary records in English and subsequently influenced Elizabethan literature. Before he died, Hunyadi dispatched a special courier to England with news of his splendid victory at Nándorfehérvár in 1456. The good news was joyfully received in Canterbury, and the students celebrated the victory of the great Hungarian captain-general with the pealing of bells. We also know of three Hungarian knights who went to England during Edward IV’s reign (1461-83) to participate in tournaments.

However, barely a couple of weeks after the battle, the bells rang out again to mark the sudden death of János Hunyadi, struck down, not by the sword, but by the outbreak of plague in the encampment. Later that year, Capistrano also died from it. Hunyadi’s charisma and popular belief in his mission became strengthened his followers, thus paving his son’s path to the throne. But this path was not to be a smooth one; for the time being, Hunyadi’s death signalled an opportunity for his adversaries to weaken his ‘party’ and unleash another round of civil strife. Therefore, the loss of these two great leaders once more plunged the country into anarchy. Two influential families vied for power around the weak king and Cillei was appointed captain-general. He demanded that Hunyadi’s sons abandon the royal castles and revenues. László Hunyadi, the elder of the two, pretended to give in, but his men murdered Cillei as he marched into Nándorfehérvár. Most of Cillei’s supporters, outraged by this treachery, took sides with the king, who invested the new Hunyadi clan leader with the position of captain general, promising him impunity. In reality, however, he was only waiting for an opportunity to retaliate, and this came in March 1457 as both Hunyadi brothers were in Buda, where, in one of the bloodiest ‘episodes’ of this civil war of changing fortunes, Wladislas, aged seventeen but already a debauched, neurotic lout, had László arrested, court-martialled and brutally beheaded. Hunyadi’s widow and brother-in-law, Mihályi Silágyi responded rapidly by rising up in arms. The King then fled, first to Vienna and then to Prague, dragging with him the younger Hunyadi son, Mátyás (Matthias), as a hostage.

Matthias Hunyadi Corvinus – Hungary’s Renaissance Prince:

The golden medallion from the Philostratus Codex (c. 1487-90), shows Matthias Corvinus’ portrait.

Ironically, by the end of the year, however, the plague had also disposed of Wladislas V, who died in Prague, not yet having reached his eighteenth birthday. His successor was the hostage himself, who quickly regained his freedom and acquired such a rekindling of his father’s reputation that he was able to advance his claim to the vacant throne. The mightiest members of the court party, Garai and Újláki soon realised that they had no chance to obtain the throne or rule the country as oligarchs, nor was there any foreign pretender who could put down the powerful Hunyadis and undertake the expensive extensions of the defences against the Ottomans at the same time. Thus they were compelled to make a compromise with the Szilágyis to arrange for the retention of their own influence in return for having Matthias, the only suitable candidate, elected King of Hungary. The lesser Hungarian nobility encamped in Pest and chose Matthias Hunyadi Corvinus (1458-1490) as their king, in a romantic fashion on the ice of the frozen Danube below the castle, though the discussion and debate about this had already happened within its walls and before that among the greater families.

Born in 1443, Matthias received a princely education from his tutors, such as János Vitéz, who introduced him not only to letters and languages but also to the rudiments of new humanist learning. He had already acquired a measure of expertise in statecraft, diplomacy and the art of war from his father and he also had the considerable prestige and economic, political and tary resources of the Hunyadi party at his disposal. If the de facto interregnum of 1444-1452 and the subsequent anarchy of Wladislas V’s reign amidst the Ottoman menace risked the disintegration of the Kingdom of Hungary, the acclamation of the son of the hero of Belgrade as king by the nobility on the frozen Danube near Pest on 24 January 1458, bode well to recover the country from that risk. Hungary had a national king once again, although the Hunyadi family acted as guardians for the fifteen-year-old until he gained his majority. Yet even before he came of age, the young Matthias had proved himself to be worthy of the family’s heraldic symbols, including the raven. The young monarch – who had been released by his Bohemian counterpart, George Podébrady, after the death of Wladislas in return for the promise of Matthias’ marriage to his daughter, Catherine – set to restoring order and central authority with great vigour. Relying mainly on the advice of his tutor, Vitéz, who had become his chancellor too, he thwarted Szilágyi’s hopes of becoming regent and replaced the barons with his own noble supporters as heads of the central law courts, the treasury and the newly-established court tribunal which administered the royal estates. The laws of the diet of June 1458 also benefited the nobility.

The disappointed barons, led by Garai and Újláki, invited and elected emperor Frederick III as king, and he attacked to make good his claim by attacking Hungary in the spring of 1459. Demonstrating skilful diplomacy, however, Matthias divided his enemies and Frederick then suffered a setback when the protracted peace talks resulted in the compromise treaty of 1463. In return for eighty thousand florins, the Holy Crown was surrendered to Matthias, who retained the title of King of Hungary, but Frederick and his successors were entitled to inherit the should Matthias die heirless. The treaty thus became the basis for the later Habsburg succession in Hungary. For the time being, however, it enabled Matthias to be crowned in 1464 and secured his place on the throne for the rest of his reign. Matthias also displayed an indulgent attitude towards the aristocracy; despite a rebellion and a conspiracy in which they were deeply implicated, he did not have any of them executed. But whereas early in his reign, Matthias enlisted the support of the nobility against the barons, later he often played the barons against the nobles or one baronial faction against another, while continually extending his own authority and reducing the circle of those on whom he depended. This is shown, among other things, by decreasing the frequency of new appointments.

Matthias has often been credited with centralising the country’s administration and even with laying the foundations of an absolute monarchy. It is tempting to draw parallels between him and some of the near-contemporary Western European monarchs who consolidated their realms after turbulent times through centralising measures, like Louis XI of France and Henry VII of England. It is also true that, especially in the latter half of his reign, his new style of governing with the pretension that he had ‘absolute power’ and was ‘unbound by the law’, made him highly unpopular and earned him denunciations as a tyrant among his most powerful subjects. However, Matthias’s centralisation undoubtedly arose out of the personal abilities and aspirations of a singularly gifted ruler, rather than from the specific conditions of late fifteenth-century Hungary. The royal council, far from becoming a group of officials trained in the law, remained the same feudal body it had been for centuries. It was in the administration of justice that professionalisation progressed most. The lesser nobles and commoners, a few of them trained at universities, but most of them only through practising the customary and statute law of the realm in everyday business, raised to the central courts after an apprenticeship in the local administration or in the lower courts, constituted the first significant stratum of the secular intelligentsia in Hungary.

Towards the end of the reign, important steps were taken towards the standardisation of the law codes across the country. The comprehensive statute book of 1486, for instance, not only expanded the authority of the palatine as well as the counties but also clarified procedural law. As a result of his judicial reforms, a rudimentary sense of the rule of law and security under the law emerged; for his personal efforts to suppress corruption and overbearing local potentates, the king was rewarded with the byname ‘Matthias the Just’ and became a popular, romantic hero of folk anecdote travelling incognito among his subjects in order to detect and punish evildoers He was…

…’the Just One, who, walking in the land in disguise, condemned fraudulent judges, shamed the greedy rich, and succoured the poor; he made love to full-blooded shepherdesses and ingenious maidens’.

István Lázár (1992), p. 54.

However, these judicial changes were second in significance to the fiscal and military reforms of Matthias’s reign, which in turn served his ambitious foreign policy. On his accession, the revenues of the crown were a rather miserable 250,000 florins per year, hardly enough to cover even the bare necessities of the defence of the country. To remedy this situation, Matthias embarked on a far-reaching reform of financial administration. He levied an ‘extraordinary’ subsidy (usually one florin per porta) over forty times during the thirty-three years of his reign and had it collected with increasing efficiency after he had consolidated his power. Exemptions from the ordinary taxes (e.g. the salt monopoly and the custom) were abolished in 1467, and they were magisterially administered by János Emuszt, a Jewish merchant who had converted to Christianity and a brilliant financial expert who later became Lord Chief Treasurer. The treasury officials were often men of humble origins and therefore owed their positions solely to the king and were therefore scrupulously loyal to the monarch. As a result of these reforms, Matthias more than doubled the revenues of the crown, and in years when the irregular subsidy was applied, if the income from the provinces conquered by him in the second half of his reign were also added, the amount might approach one million florins.

However, some of the historiographical comparisons between Matthias’s fiscal achievement and the incomes of Western countries, France or England, for instance, are based on slightly earlier data from the latter, in which revenues also doubled in the second half of the fifteenth century. Most importantly, the revenue of the Ottoman Empire in 1475 amounted to 1,800,000 florins; at least two, but even three times as much as that of Hungary and far more than any European kingdom at that time. In light of this enormous disparity, it is understandable that nearly all the surplus raised by Matthias was immediately spent on his army. In other words, while he filled out the treasury, he also left it empty at the end of his reign and burdened the country’s economy excessively. While he continued to rely on the royal and baronial banderia, the militia introduced by Sigismund, Matthias was also able to maintain a mercenary army, which he started to build up by hiring ex-Hussites pacified in northern Hungary in 1462. The multi-ethnic ‘Black Army’ consisted of heavy cavalry and Hussite-type war wagons and artillery, and, combined with the banderia and the light cavalry and infantry from the counties and banates, could be successfully employed to apply traditional Hungarian hit-and-run tactics.

Nevertheless, Corvinus maintained a largely defensive attitude against the Ottomans, not trying to push them back as his father had done. Having pillaged Western Serbia, Mehmed II took Jajce, the most important castle in Bosnia after a long siege and they conquered the territory by the end of 1463. But Matthias was successful in taking back northern Bosnia and three Hungarian banates were set up so that the territory was effectively divided between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. From then onwards Corvinus’ main attention was directed towards the West. The treaties of 1463 with Venice and Frederick III put an end to Matthias’s international isolation. With his standing army, he hoped to gain the crown of Bohemia and become Holy Roman Emperor.

Bohemia remained divided as a result of the Hussite troubles under its Hussite ruler, George of Podébrady, who had been excommunicated and proclaimed a usurper by the Pope in 1466. George’s daughter, Catherine, Matthias’s wife, had died in 1464 and Matthias severed his ties with his former father-in-law. In 1468 obtained Papal support to conduct a crusade against him. This led to the partition of the Bohemian kingdom in which Corvinus obtained Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia as well as the title ‘King of Bohemia’, which he was elected to in May 1469 by the Czech Catholic barons. But he did not gain its territory. He continued to be opposed by the Habsburg emperor, Frederick III (1440-93), the German electors and the Polish Jagiellos. Prince Wladyslaw, son of Casimir IV of Poland, accepted the Bohemian crown offered to him according to the wishes of Podébrady before his death in 1471.

Meanwhile, Matthias faced difficulties at home. Having quelled a revolt of the Transylvanian estates caused by the fiscal measures of 1467, he came under severe criticism from his former confidants János Vitéz and his nephew, the humanist poet and Bishop of Pécs, Janus Pannonius, claiming that the king had neglected Ottoman front and wasted the country’s resources on futile wars in the north. They were also concerned about Matthias’s pretensions to ‘arbitrary rule’ and they plotted to replace him with Casimir, the youngest of the Jagiello princes, but by the time the latter invaded Hungary in 1471, Matthias had stifled the criticisms by returning from Bohemia and appearing among his barons and nobles at the diet. In 1474, the leaders of the Austrian-Czech-Polish coalition missed a golden opportunity to break the ambition of the Hungarian king, surrounded by far superior forces in the Silesian city of Breslau (Wroclaw). In the subsequent Peace of Olmütz in 1478, Matthias once more gained Moravia, Lusatia and Silesia, while Wladyslaw retained only Bohemia. The treaty settled the affairs of the region on a lasting basis.

For most of the rest of Matthias’s reign, there were only minor skirmishes and occasional Turkish raids, such as the one culminating in the Battle of Kenyérmző in southern Transylvania in 1479, in which the Turks were beaten by the legendary commander, Pál Kinizsi. The reorientation of Hungarian foreign policy by Matthias has been an object of controversy among historians. As we have seen, even in his own lifetime he was criticised for neglecting the Turkish threat for the sake of his quest for personal glory in the West. But some historians have suggested that because he received practically no external help against the Turks, he sought to offset the massive superiority of the Ottoman Empire in terms of territory and manpower by uniting the resources of East-Central Europe, where the tradition had already been established of forging confederations of regional states through personal unions. As the archetypal founder of a dynasty, power-hungry as he certainly was, he was indignant at being considered an upstart among the more established dynasties of the region. The success of arms could earn what legitimacy denied him. To some extent, this was also true of his lavish patronage of the arts and learning.

The Original Depiction Hunyadi-Corvinus Coat of Arms.

Matthias’s Renaissance court, whether held at Buda Castle or the palace at Visegrád, became known for its richness and soaring spirit. Many leading Humanists attended the court, and some even settled there. They regarded Matthias as one of the most patrons of the period, alongside the Sforzas of Milan, Federico da Montifeltro of Urbino and even Lorenzo de’ Medici of Florence. Enjoying luxury and culture equally, Matthias was a passionate book collector and customer, and among his purchases were codices, which he also commissioned. His library, the Biblioteca Corviniana, developed into the best collection in Europe, the first among many newly-founded libraries. The name derives from the byname first assigned to Matthias by Italian humanists. It was the name of an ancient Roman family, often associated with the raven (Lat. ‘Corvus’) in the Hunyadi coat-of-arms, but also possibly deriving with the village on the lower Danube, Corvino vico referred to by Bonfini as the home of the Hunyadis.

Towards the end of his life, his library collection reached a thousand titles and was ‘declared protected’, though it was depleted in the Jagiello period that followed. During their occupation of Buda, the Turks guarded what remained for a time, then transferred part of it to Constantinople. Today, about 170 ‘Corvinas’ are known to exist worldwide, only fifty of which are found in Hungary. For the grandson of an immigrant knight from Wallachia, his own erudition – he spoke several languages and not only collected but also read books – and the nearly one hundred thousand florins he spent on artistic patronage were excellent propaganda.

The Royal Renaissance Couple: King Matthias I & Queen Beatrice (Relief by Lombard artist, c. 1485. Matthia married Beatrice, the daughter of the King of Naples, in 1474. She brought many Italian artists and learnéd men with her to join Matthias’s cultivated royal court.

In the early 1480s, Matthias continued the campaign begun by his father against the Turks, who were once more seriously threatening at that time. But he also wished to protect his rear from the West either through alliances or force, by competing for the thrones of both Bohemia and Austria, to found a strong and powerful Danubian empire. Matthias’s marriage in 1476 to Princess Beatrice, daughter of King Ferdinand I of Naples had provided him with influential new allies in Italy. His ultimate aim was the imperial throne and in 1482 he declared war. In the first half of 1485, he captured Vienna and then two years later Wiener Neustadt when he also celebrated his taking complete possession of Lower Austria with this victory by holding a magnificent review of his troops. During these years, he moved about time and time again, holding court in Vienna and almost converting it into a second capital. By 1487, with his forces far superior to those of the emperor, Corvinus occupied most of Lower Austria and Styria, transferring his capital to Vienna and assuming the title Duke of Austria. Although the German electors chose Frederick’s son Maximilian as King of Rome, heir to the imperial throne, Matthias had succeeded in securing a sizeable empire of his own.

King Matthias Hunting at Vajdahunyad (Hunedoara) in Transylvania, which was the residence of the Hunyadi dynasty and seat of the immense family estates.

At the muster of 1487 at Weiner Neustadt, it was estimated that Matthias’s standing army numbered twenty thousand horsemen and eight thousand foot soldiers, with nine thousand war wagons, an impressive figure by the European standards of the time. There were another eight thousand soldiers permanently garrisoned in the fortresses of the superbly organised southern line of defence. Matthias was attempting to secure the succession to the throne for his bastard son, John Corvin, a Viennese commoner. His second wife, Beatrice of Naples, the queen, opposed him in this. In the end, he failed to achieve both of these objectives. He was still struggling to reach the second when he died suddenly and mysteriously in Vienna on 6th April 1490, perhaps by poisoning. His body was transported down the Danube to Buda and was finally interred in Székesfehérvár. Matthias conducted most of his campaigns not against the Turks in the Balkans, but in the north and west, and in particular against the proud bastion of Vienna (which, as a poet sang centuries later) ‘groaned under the onslaught of Matthias’s ferocious army.’ But Matthias lost what he most wanted to achieve, the power of a crescent alignment against Ottoman power. Nevertheless, ‘posterity’ mourned him and elevated him to the level of a folk hero. ‘Dead is Matthias, lost is justice’ is how the sixteenth-century tradition had the common man comment on his passing. ‘Dead is Matthias, books will be cheaper in Europe’ is reputedly how Lorenzo de’ Medici greeted the news of the death of Hungary’s Renaissance prince.

A shield belonging to Matthias Corvinus’s guard in Vienna.

The Ascendancy of the West & the Habsburgs:

With hindsight, the near coincidence of Matthias’s death with the discovery of the Americas could be seen as symbolic of a change in Hungary’s fortunes and those of Central-Eastern Europe as a whole. The period is generally regarded as the beginning of the early modern era when the progress of commerce, finance and industry, of armies and navies, and of centralised and systematic administrations gradually raised Western Europe to the global ascendancy it enjoyed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, marked the beginning of a trend towards relative political weakness and relative social and economic decline in Central Europe. Within a few decades, the estates dismantled the achievements of centralised monarchy, and although the Jagiello brothers seemed to realise Matthias’s dream of a Central European ’empire’ by dividing the region’s thrones between them, their administrations and landed estates came increasingly under the control of the different baronial and noble factions.

The nobility’s power in the region was reinforced by the new European division of labour arising from the geographical discoveries. As the resources of the New World were channelled into Western Europe, it soon became established as the new centre of commerce, industry and finance on the old continent. At the same time, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe were confirmed as suppliers of raw materials and agricultural produce. The ‘price revolution’ resulting from the influx of gold and silver from overseas was primarily a steady and marked increase in the price of foodstuffs.

Among the succession of pretenders to the Hungarian throne who thronged around it eagerly, and made lavish promises, mustering armies to support their claims, were a group of oligarchs, who had gained new power even before the death of Matthias. They sent John Corvin packing, considering the Bohemian king, Wladislas of the House of Jagello, to be more suitable, by which they meant more controllable by them. He docilely disbanded the main support of the throne, the Black Army and with it centralised power. The resulting precariousness of the law, the oppression of the serfs, and feudal anarchy weighed heavily on the country. During the reigns of Wladyslaw, John Albert and their successors in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland with their diets pouring out edicts that tended to bind the peasants to the soil, strengthen the nobility’s legal powers over them and revive the duty of forced labour (corvée). These measures amounted to the imposition of a ‘second serfdom’ as the transformation of the peasant obligations into cash and of the peasants themselves into freeholders was overturned. They were relegated to a position more similar to that of Russian serfs rather than the independent yeoman farmers emerging in the West. The suppression of the resulting peasant unrest further increased the power of the nobility and further undermined centralised authority. Among about three and a half million subjects of the Hungarian crown, one in twenty-five were noblemen, contrasted with France, where the figure was only one in ten. The collapse of Matthias’s state and the reorientation of the world economy consolidated the traditional structures of Hungarian society, reversing trends that might have brought it closer to its Western counterparts.

In England meanwhile, the anarchy of the thirty years of the Wars of the Roses came to an end in 1485, with the Battle of Bosworth Field (Leicestershire), at which the issue of the succession was decided, when the gold crown which had, supposedly, fallen from the head of Richard III, was placed on that of Henry Tudor. As Henry VII, he became the new Welsh master of England’s destiny. This status was confirmed with the final rout of Yorkist forces at Stoke Field in 1487. Two years later, in 1489, ambassadors and diplomats from all parts of Europe were in England and, as one of King Matthias’ biographers tells us, the King of Hungary was among those who sent envoys to Henry’s Court.

Henry VII was supposed to have made peace with the House of York when he married Elizabeth of York, thus enabling the red and white roses to bloom side by side. At least, this was the Tudor mythology, alongside the naming of Henry’s eldest son and heir as Arthur, symbolising the rising again of the Red Dragon of the ancient King of the Britons. But Henry knew he was far from secure as King of England, and it is only with hindsight that 1485 is seen as the key date in the transition from Medieval combat to Early Modern statesmanship. Henry had won the crown by force, not legitimate inheritance, just as had his Lancastrian ancestors. At the time, and at any suitable moment in it, Henry knew that the House of York might again seize the throne they still laid claim to. No regular order of succession had been established, and it was might rather than right which would keep the Tudors in contention to establish a dynasty. During the first years of his reign, he was disturbed by two insurrections led by two ‘pretenders’, one headed by the Earl of Lincoln, with Lambert Simnel as its figurehead, and the other headed by Perkin Warbeck.

The De la Pole Coat of Arms, 1513.

Following the Wars of the Roses and the final defeat of the Yorkist cause at the Battle of Stoke Field in 1487, the last of the Plantagenets claimants to the throne, Richard de la Pole, sought refuge at the Court of Wladislaw II of Hungary (1490-1516). Sometime between 1506 and 1508, the last hope of the Yorkists spent some time in Buda. This pretender to the throne of England was apparently related to Anna, Queen of Hungary and Wladislaw’s second wife. Richard Plantagenet’s story is but one tragic chapter in the final denouement of the dynasty. His grandfather, William de la Pole, had been imprisoned in the Tower of London and then exiled by Henry VI. He was murdered on his ship in the Channel and his body was washed ashore near Dover in 1450. His wife, Alice, brought his body home. No doubt embittered by his treatment, she continued to consolidate the family’s estates, perhaps fatefully, by abandoning their Lancastrian connections and building up their Yorkist ones. John de la Pole was the grandson of William and Alice, and the eldest son of the first Duke of Suffolk, the elder John de la Pole (d. 1491), and Elizabeth Plantagenet of York. He was therefore in direct line to the throne.  Elizabeth’s brother was Edward IV, and it was he who made her son John, Earl of Lincoln. Edward had married Elizabeth Woodville, whose two sons, Edward V and Richard Duke of York were imprisoned in the Tower of London when Richard of Gloucester had the Woodville marriage declared illegal, thus enabling him to usurp the young king whose ’protector’ he had been.

When Richard III lost his only son, the Earl of Lincoln became ’de facto’ the next Yorkist in line to the throne. Although never clearly declaring him as his successor, Richard gave him the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, titles reserved for the heir. Lincoln fought for Richard at Bosworth Field, surviving the battle. Following the ’Tudor Takeover’, both Lincoln and his father, Suffolk, at first made peace with Henry VII, who visited them at their manor in Oxfordshire to reassure them of his goodwill towards the family. However, Lincoln was then introduced to Lambert Simnel, and a plot began to form by which he hoped to secure the throne for the Yorkists, and perhaps also for himself. Simnel bore a striking resemblance to the young Edward, Earl of Warwick. Edward was born (in 1475) as Edward Plantagenet, to George, Duke of Clarence and Lady Isabel Neville, elder daughter of the 16th Earl of Warwick. Richard Neville, ’The Kingmaker’, who had eventually been killed in battle in 1471, had no sons, so Richard III had Neville’s grandson created Earl of Warwick in 1478 and knighted at York in 1483. On seizing the Crown on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485, Henry had re-imprisoned the boy in the Tower, where he had already spent much of his young life, hence the possibility of impersonation.

Lambert Simnel was the son of an Oxford carpenter. Henry’s enemies had proclaimed him as Edward Plantagenet, claiming that he had escaped from the Tower. The Yorkists rallied around him, and when they felt strong enough, they recruited an army to support his claim. However, early in 1487, when he first heard of the plot, all Henry VII had to do was produce the real Earl of Warwick. As the Plantagenet heir, Warwick would have possessed a stronger claim to the throne than both Henry and Lincoln and was only prevented from acceding to the throne by the act of attainder by which Richard of York had usurped it. With Richard deposed, Lincoln knew that Parliament could easily be persuaded to change its mind and reinstate the boy’s claim, or Henry would be forced to disclose that Edward V and Richard Duke of York were no longer alive. Lincoln may have known this himself, especially if they had died on the orders of Richard III since he had been Richard’s heir. To scotch the rumours of Warwick’s escape from the Tower, put about by Lincoln’s supporters, Henry had the real young Earl parade through the streets of London. But Lincoln had already fled before Henry could force him to recognise the real Earl or reveal his treachery. 

Some historians have suggested that this shows that Lincoln was intending to take the throne for himself. He raised an army of German mercenaries in Burgundy, with the help of Margaret of Burgundy, the sister of Edward IV, and landed in Ireland. Margaret then declared Simnel to be her nephew and Lincoln told of how he had personally rescued the boy from the Tower. He was proclaimed Edward VI and crowned in Dublin by its Archbishop, at the end of May 1487. Having acquired Irish troops, led by Sir Thomas Fitzgerald, Lincoln then landed in Lancashire on 4th June and marched his troops to York, covering two hundred miles in five days. However, the city, normally a Yorkist stronghold, refused to yield to him, perhaps because they did not wish to be governed by a king, even a Yorkist, who depended on German and Irish mercenaries. Gathering troops on the way from Coventry to Nottingham, the Tudor king met Lincoln’s forces on their way to Newark. Although the Germans under the command of Martin Schwartz fought with great valour at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16th June 1487, Fitzgerald, Lincoln and Schwartz himself were all killed, together with over four thousand of their men.

Poles, Popes & Jagiellos:

East Central Europe, showing the growth of Jagiello Power, 1440-1526, showing Poland-Lithuania from 1466 & the Personal Union under the Jagiello kings, 1490-1526.

When the Tudors came to the English throne, initially they continued to support England’s Central European allies with money, though not with arms or armies, against the Turks. Nonetheless, Henry VII did send a money gift to Wladislas II to help him in his struggle against the Ottomans. Wladislas returned the gift with a golden cup, which was left by the envoy, Geoffrey Blythe, to his Cambridge College (King’s) in 1502. This may have been a demonstration by the Hungarian King that he had asked for soldiers rather than money. Hungary was a relatively wealthy country at that time, or at least its leadership was. Tamás Bakócz, Bishop of Győr and Eger, and then Archbishop of Esztergom, was a true Renaissance figure. He had first been Matthias’ secretary and became Wladislas’s all-powerful deputy. Bakócz proceeded to Rome to advance his bid for the papacy with wagons fully laden with gold; he waited patiently for the death of Julianus II, a great patron of the Arts in general and Michelangelo in particular. At the conclave to appoint the new pope, Bakócz was narrowly defeated by Giovanni De’Medici, who then mounted the papal throne as Leo X. To compensate Bakócz and to get rid of him from the Vatican, the pope granted him the right to announce a new Crusade against the Turks.

Royal Seat: The view of Buda in Schedel’s World Chronicle, c. 1493.

On the surface, most of Wladislas’s reign was one of tranquillity, both at home and on the frontiers. The confusion that accompanied the succession raised the appetite of the Ottomans, who made unsuccessful attempts to capture important fortresses year after year until a peace treaty was concluded in 1495. This was renewed several times, with a short interval in 1501 when Wladislas joined the coalition of the Pope and Venice; however, his main objective in doing so was to obtain the lucrative subsidy offered by his allies, and he refrained from major battles or sieges. Only the Bosnian Banate of Srebrenik was lost to the Turks, but the balance was still more unfavourable to the Hungarians since the skirmishes and raids that continued without a formal war still devastated the lands and fortresses erected by Matthias, and this cut their supply lines. It was increasingly difficult to defy Ottoman pressure. Meanwhile, the only significant conflict between Hungary and a Christian power was Maximilian’s declaration of war in response to the Hungarian estates that no foreigner ought to be elected king of Hungary, should Wladislas die heirless. The issue was settled by the inheritance treaty of 1506. Maximilian’s grandson Ferdinand was to marry Wladislas’s daughter, and any son born to them would marry Ferdinand’s sister Mary. When the treaty was disclosed, the Hungarian estates compelled the king to recommence the war with the emperor, but as Wladislas’s son Louis was born a few months later, this declaration seemed premature.

At the centre in Hungary, recruitment commenced and the army grew, predominantly with peasants. Swords were scarce but straightened scythes and flails were abundant. While Bakócz aimed at the papacy, the King hoped for a small military success to placate the nobility. But the peasants were driven by resentment against their lords and bitterness about their conditions, not by faith or zeal against the Turks. It was not only the landless, impoverished and defenceless serfs who were bitter but also the more united, well-to-do peasants of the Alföld (the Great Plain) who were held down by nobles who saw them as upstart competitors, no longer content with the production of food and goods, but also engaged in exporting surpluses. The leader of the Christian armies was neither the King nor the Archbishop but a member of the lesser nobility in Transylvania, a Székely lieutenant, György Dózsa. The most zealous recruiters and administrators of his armies were the Franciscan monks who belonged to an order that followed the strictest regulations, the Observants, most of whom were of peasant ‘stock’. In their view, the laws of God did not support the unequal distribution of property. In 1514, the armies mobilised under the Sign of the Cross, but took arms not against ‘the heathens’ but against the nobles, leading to a Peasants’ Revolt which the voivode of Transylvania, John Szapolyai, already a powerful noble in the time of Matthias, brutally suppressed.

Despite the fact that the last direct, surviving legitimate male Plantagenet claimant to the throne, the Earl of Warwick died on the scaffold in 1499, the de la Poles did not give up their claim to the throne. Lincoln had two younger brothers, Edmund and Richard. Both laid claim to the throne and both had a strong following at home and could count on support from abroad.  Suffolk died and was succeeded by his second son Edmund, in 1491. He was demoted to the rank of earl by Henry VII and fled abroad in 1501, prompting the seizure of his estates. He sought to enforce what he saw as his rightful claim with the aid of Emperor Maximilian, making his way to the Tyrol to visit the latter, who at first showed great readiness to support him. Later on, however, Maximilian became reconciled with Henry and concluded a treaty with the Tudor King in which he undertook not to support the pretender in exchange for ten thousand pounds. Meanwhile, Edmund had gone to Aachen, where he was followed by his brother Richard. Financial troubles weighed heavily on the two brothers, despite the considerable sum allowed them by Maximillian to settle their debts. Formally attainted in 1504, after various adventures Edmund was captured by Henry in 1506 and was sent to the Tower.  He was not immediately executed, however, for Henry had given pledges to the King of France for his safety. Although Louis had repeatedly aided Henry’s enemies, he was so powerful that the King of England had to respect his wishes.

Richard De La Pole, the ‘White Rose of Buda’.

Even then, Plantagenet resistance did not come to an end. Richard de la Pole seems to have been made of finer stuff than his brother, though left in poverty at Aachen as surety for his brother’s debts, constantly harassed by Edmund’s creditors following his attainder. Richard, however, managed to secure the protection of Erard de la Marck, Bishop of Liége, who delivered him from his straitened and dangerous circumstances. It was at this point, following his brother’s arrest, that he went to Hungary, where he lived for a time at the Court of Wladislas Jagiello II (1490-1516). This must have been because of his ties of kinship with the Royal Family of Hungary. Wladislas II’s consort and third wife, Anne of Foix-Candale, was related both to the King of France and the de la Pole family.

On 29 September 1502, Anne wed Wladislas at Székesfehérvár and she was crowned Queen of Hungary there that same day. Anne brought some members of the French court as well as French advisors with her to Hungary. These may have included Richard de la Pole and perhaps also his elder brother, Edmund. The relationship was happy at least from the king’s view, and he is reported to have regarded her as a friend, assistant and trusted advisor. She incurred debts in Venice and was said to favour this city all her life. In 1506, her signature was placed on a document alongside that of the king regarding an alliance with the Habsburgs. On July 23, 1503, Anne gave birth to a daughter, known as Anna Jagellonica, and on July 1, 1506, to the long-awaited male heir, the future king Louis II. She enjoyed great popularity, but her pregnancies ruined her health. She died in Buda on July 26, 1506, at the age of twenty-two, a little more than three weeks after the birth of her son, due to complications from the delivery.

Indeed, when the plan of his marriage to Anne was first broached, Wladislas thought she was an English princess. This belief was also held by those who were misled by the Queen of Hungary’s relationship with the de la Poles. Indeed, the English ambassador, Salisbury, had been present at Anna’s coronation at Székesfehérvár. Henry VII must have been worried by the presence of Richard de la Pole, the last pretender, in Buda, as he sent an envoy to Wladislas, asking him to surrender Richard. This Wladislas refused to do, instead lending financial aid to his English guest. Richard appears to have acquired a good military reputation while in Hungary, despite the disintegration of Matthias’s formidable mercenary army under the weak military leadership of Wladislas.

According to a note in the diary of Marino Sanuto, the ‘White Rose’ returned to Buda on 6 October 1506, and we know of a letter dated 14 April 1507 addressed to the Bishop of Liége from Richard. From these two documents, we know that Richard must have been in Hungary for at least six months. However, few details are known of his sojourn. We know that Thomas Killingworth, the loyal steward of the de la Pole family had settled Edmund’s financial matters in the Tyrol and also attended to Richard’s affairs in Buda. It seems that Richard left Buda in 1507, first for Austria and then for France. From there, he became a constant continental thorn in Henry VIII’s side as he had been in his father’s; in 1513 King Louis of France declared Richard to be the rightful King of England; in 1517 Richard was in Milan and Venice, and was rumoured to be launching an invasion from Denmark.

King Louis XII formally recognised Richard as the legitimate King of England, at Lyons, supporting his cause with men and money. In 1519 he sent Richard to Prague to plead on his behalf, in vain, to the young King Louis II of Hungary, and he also made preparations for an invasion of England in 1522-23, during another Anglo-French war. However, the invasion did not happen and Richard never set foot in England again. From 1522 he was back in Paris plotting with King Francis I. While the White Rose, as he was known, was at large, the threat of the House of York and the return of the wars of the Roses was always a very real one for the Tudors. But at the Battle of Pavia on 24th February 1525, Richard died as his ally Francis I was defeated at the hands of the Emperor Charles V. The emperor’s messenger told Henry VIII how ‘The White Rose is killed in battle … I saw him dead with the others’, to which Henry responded in joy ‘All the enemies of England are gone’.  There is a portrait of Richard still preserved in Oxford bearing the inscription Le Duc de Susfoc dit Blanche Rose. 

Only from a current-day perspective can we truly measure how rich the Gothic art of the Angevin period in Hungary was. During the course of the rapid changes in the architectural tastes of the sixteenth century and later over-enthusiastic reconstruction, a whole series of Gothic masterpieces became hidden under the ruins. In the magnificent Renaissance palace of Visegrád, archaeologists have dug up ornamental carvings, broken into small pieces, from the foundations of the fountain structure dating from the reign of Matthias Corvinus; in the Castle of Buda, their spades unearthed a ‘cemetery of statues’ from the Angevin period.

Before the ‘New World Discoveries’ of the late fifteenth century, England was little more than a small island state on the fringes of Europe. At the time of Matthias Corvinus, the populations of England and Hungary were roughly equal. Five centuries later, the population of England was five times that of Hungary. In the sixteenth century, the lines of power in Europe were redrawn by the Discoveries. As Atlantic trade expanded dramatically, the once proud Adriatic declined into an insignificant waterway on the periphery of the Mediterranean. Dalmatian ports like Genoa that had been resplendent city-states began to lose their economic, political and cultural significance. Venice was still experiencing its golden age, but it was about to go into a long period of decline. The Iberian peninsula had already begun to replace Italy as the centre of economic power, and the textile industry in England had already begun the country’s proto-industrial transition. This period has also been called the long sixteenth century, arching from the middle of the 1400s to the 1630s, making wage labourers out of serfs throughout northwestern Europe in new centres where the citizenry, tolerated only in some places under feudalism, had begun to forge weapons for future economic victory. In the wake of overseas discoveries and conquests, a surplus of precious metals suddenly replaced the previous scarcity of these in Europe, while prices and the terms of trade underwent a significant realignment.

In 1512, England was again at war with France. So long as Henry VII lived, Edmund de la Pole was safe, but when Henry VIII succeeded to the throne and his brother Richard attempted, with the aid of France, to raise a rebellion against this second Tudor ‘imposter’, Henry had Edmund executed. When Edmund was beheaded in 1513, Richard took the title of Earl of Suffolk and openly laid claim to the throne of England from that time. In Hungary, meanwhile, the greediness of the Szapolyai-Werbőczi faction, which triumphed over the peasants in 1514, deprived the ‘Fuggers’ of their mining concessions, which in turn “forgot” to pay the miners’ wages. A miners’ uprising, therefore, followed that of the peasants, similarly ending in defeat and vengeance. However, the outcome of these events for the country was that there was no money left to finance the war against the Turks, even though the fortified towns in the south were falling to them one after the other. The warning bells rang in vain; even legendary Nándorfehérvár fell in 1521. Five years later, in 1526, Suleiman the Magnificent decided to wage an all-out military campaign, at a time when the shock of the brutal putting down of the 1514 peasant uprising by János Szapolyai still deeply pervaded the country.

Suleiman the Great. The greatest Ottoman conqueror, the victor of the Battle of Mohács, eventually met his death during a siege of a Hungarian castle.
The Debácle at Mohács:

The son of Wladislas II, King Louis II (1516-1526), then a twenty-year-old, puny-looking youth, was able to dispatch a total of twenty-six thousand men to the south of Hungary; meanwhile, with his own small army of knights, he made a forlorn, heroic stand before the military juggernaut of Suleiman the Great, while waiting in vain for Szapolyai’s army of ten thousand coming from Transylvania. Historians still debate whether or not Szapolyai, who coveted the throne, was intentionally late. The Hungarian army did not attempt to block the strategically sensitive river crossings along the frontier; instead, it waited on an open field at Mohács and allowed the Turkish army with three or four times the number of troops and even greater firepower, to advance. The defeat was disastrous. The archbishops of Kalocsa and Esztergom, five bishops, enormous numbers of nobles and some ten thousand soldiers were killed. As Louis fled the battlefield, his horse stumbled into a swollen brook and rolled on top of the King. According to one version of what happened next, Louis was finished off by his own enraged nobles. His widow, Maria Habsburg, loaded his possessions on a boat and escaped upstream and then fled to the West, becoming an effective governor of the Netherlands before returning to Spain for her last years.

It may have been Wladyslaw II’s decision a few years later to give shelter to Richard de la Pole, the Tudors’ enemy as the last Yorkist claimant to the English throne, which turned the vindictive Henry VIII against the long-standing English alliance with Hungary. On the eve of the fateful Battle of Mohács of 1526, Louis II of Hungary addressed a letter to Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey, appealing for armed assistance. That such appeals went unanswered is evidenced by the fact that, for the next 160 years, Hungary lost its independence to Ottoman occupation on the one side of its territories, and Habsburg hegemony on the other. However, it is doubtful that this course of events could have been prevented even by the powerful Henry VIII. After 1526, however, the ‘old Hungarian glory’ grew dimmer in the public consciousness of England and Wales and the Anglo-Welsh monarchs viewed the rump of Hungary as little more than an Austrian province while maintaining links with independent Protestant Transylvania. Yet it seems that Wladislas II’s refusal to hand over Richard Plantagenet in 1506 was undoubtedly a factor in the refusal of the Tudors to lend support to Louis II in his fateful hour of need twenty years later.

Two further thorny White roses remained for the Tudors to deal with. Lady Katherine Gordon was Perkin Warbeck’s impoverished widow and a kinswoman of James IV of Scotland, who had been killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. Warbeck had pretended to be Edward, Duke of York, and was joined by many malcontents. He even received support from the King of Scotland, his relative, but was captured after a short time by Henry VII. He was imprisoned in the Tower and, when news of a fresh conspiracy reached Henry, he was hanged. Lady Katherine was granted permission to live at one of the confiscated Oxfordshire manors of the Pole family until death, provided that she did not visit Scotland or any other foreign country without a licence. After Warbeck, she married three times more. She was known as The White Rose of York and Scotland and died at the Oxfordshire manor in 1537, where she is buried together with her last husband.

The fact that all these pretenders managed to attract such powerful followings at home and abroad shows how fragile the Tudor royal dynasty really was, at least until 1525. Indeed, Henry VIII’s paranoia of the Plantagenets led him to carry on a vindictive campaign against the Pole family after Cardinal Reginald Pole, the son of the Countess of Salisbury, Margaret Pole, penned a stinging attack against the King’s divorce, from exile in Italy. This resulted in the execution of one of his brothers, William Pole, in 1539, and the suicide of the other. Margaret, the daughter of the Duke of Clarence, was an old woman in 1541, once the governess to Mary Tudor, whose mother’s betrothal to Arthur, Prince of Wales, had caused the execution of her brother, Edward Plantagenet, the rival claimant to the throne. Despite this, she became a loyal Tudor courtier. However, because she was a Neville, she was accused of complicity in the Northern Rebellion and sent to the Tower without trial. From there she was executed in May 1541, after ten or eleven blows of the axe. When Mary became Queen, her son became the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. She herself was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886. The extent of the reconciliation achieved by the end of the turbulent Tudor period is shown by the close friendship between Margaret’s granddaughter and Elizabeth I. However, descendants and relatives of the Poles continued to be implicated in, and executed for, plots against both Elizabeth and James I, the most significant being Robert Arderne, a relative of William Shakespeare, and the Wintour brothers, who were among the leaders of the 1605 ‘Gunpowder Plot’ and Midland Rebellion of the leading Catholic gentry.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom of Hungarian historians held that Mohács was a reversal of Hungarian national fortunes like that of Waterloo and Verdun to the French and Wagram to the Austrians. But in recent times, archaeologists stumbled across several long-looked-for mass graves on the battlefield. In 1526, Louis II first ordered the mobilisation of one-fifth of the serfs, then one-half, and finally all of them. But, perhaps due to the recollection of 1514, all this mobilisation failed to come about. The bulk of the dead identified from the mass graves at Mohács turned out to be foreign mercenaries. Though the ranks of Hungarian commanding officers suffered enormous casualties, the genuinely Hungarian forces remained nearly intact after the battle.

István Lázár (1990), An Ilustrated History of Hungary, Budapest: Corvina Books.

Taken together, the archaeological and documentary evidence calls into question the repeated mythological assertions made about the significance of the battle, such as…

‘Mohács is the burial ground of our national greatness…’

The ‘National disaster’ represented by the triumphant enemy; the Battle of Mohács on a Turkish miniature (Topkapi Museum, Istanbul).

For his part, Suleiman could continue to pillage unimpeded with his army; he reduced tens of thousands to slavery. He even entered Buda Castle, which was left undefended. And what Queen Maria had not carried off, he loaded on boats and expropriated them, including Matthias Corvinus’s library. After that, he evacuated the castle, then the entire country and returned home. Having demonstrated his power to the Hungarians, he appeared willing to accept John Szapolyai as King John I (1526-1564). Almost to the very day of the first anniversary of the battle, Suleiman again pitched his tents on Mohács’s bloody fields and ordered Szapolyai into his presence, where ‘King John’ paid homage, kissing Suleiman’s hand.

King John I (formerly Count János Szapolyai).

In 1529, the Sultan’s army besieged Vienna. This was the high-water mark of their advance. Though they failed to take Vienna, the Turks’ gains confined the Habsburgs to Slovakia, Croatia and a thin strip of Hungarian territory along the Danube. This became a border area and the scene of skirmishes between the Turks and the Habsburgs for centuries to come.

The Habsburg Ascendancy in 1530.

Although the successors of Charles V enjoyed vast resources from their ‘New World’ conquests, they had to fight on two fronts, against the ‘infidel Muslims’ in the East and the ‘heretical Protestants’ in the West.

Sources:

Most of the evidence for this article comes from the original research of Sándor Fest (1883-1944) and his papers published in From Saint Margaret of Scotland to the Bards of Wales: Anglo-Hungarian Historical and Literary Contacts (Universitas Kiadó, 2000). Fest was educated at the Eötvös College of Budapest University and became the first professor of English Studies at Budapest University in 1938. He was a pioneer in the study of Anglo-Hungarian historical and literary contacts and generally promoted the cause of English studies in Hungarian higher education in the inter-war years. In doing so, he was swimming against the pro-German cultural tide which was beginning to swamp Hungary.

Most of the material for this article has been collected from scholarly publications and papers, some of them written in Hungarian and translated into English, which are largely unavailable today. In my recent articles on ‘the Bohemian Connection’, as well as this one, I have also included material from my own research, published online, into the Golafre/ Golliver/ Gulliver family, whose ‘fortunes’ were linked to the Plantagenets from Richard II to the Earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole, the elder brother of Edmund and Richard de la Pole, who was killed in battle at Stoke Field in 1487. According to the DNB, Lincoln’s third wife was a member of the Golafre family, although there is little contemporary information recorded about her. For further information, please see the link below:

Goerge Taylor & J. A. Morris (c. 1938), A Sketch-Map History of Britain and Europe, 1485-1783. London: Harrap.

Simon Hall & John Haywood (ed.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

András Bereznay, et. al. (1998), The Times Atlas of European History. London: Times Books (HarperCollinsPublishers.)

Lásló Kontler (2009), A History of Hungary. Budapest: Atlantisz Publishing House.

István Lázár (1988), One Thousand Years: A Concise History of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina.

István Lázár (1989), An Illustrated History of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina Books.

Featured

Eighty Years Ago: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, April-May 1943.

Re-blogged to commemorate the end of the Ghetto Uprising in mid-May.

Andrew James Chandler's avatarAndrew James

Introduction – An Ideological Conflict & the Partition of Poland:

With the outbreak of war in September 1939, an ideological conflict of peculiar savagery began with the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. Well before the fighting began Hitler and Himmler indicated that German forces should ignore the usual Geneva ‘convention’ distinguishing between the treatment of civilians and soldiers. Jews were a particular target, but Jews who were also communists were to be given no quarter. In the wake of the advancing armies came four so-called Einsatzgruppen, operated by the SS as hit squads against any alleged political or ‘pre-designated’ racial enemies of the régime. Unknowable thousands of civilians were slaughtered in the first few months of the occupation. This brutality spilt over to the Wehrmacht, whose view of the enemy was shaped by racist propaganda. The victorious Germans adopted a policy of forcing enormous numbers of Jews into ghettos, small…

View original post 3,681 more words

Featured

Sudan – Legacies of Empire: The Causes & Consequences of Imperial Conflicts in North & East Africa, circa 1865-1965 – Part Two; 1905-1965.

It’s now just over a month since the paramilitary civil war began in Sudan. In this second retroreflective article, I will be concentrating on the role of the two world wars and the role of imperialism, fascism, nationalism and communism in the conflicts of the twentieth century within the region of North and East Africa, with special reference to Sudan.

In January 1905, determined to capitalise on their new arrangement while the British commitment was still fresh, the French government sent a diplomatic mission to Fez with a view to arranging the consolidation of French control in Morocco. There was nothing particularly new or surprising in this bid, but the French foreign minister decided to give it a markedly anti-German ‘spin’. The Germans were also offended by being offered nothing in return for accepting the French arrangement, unlike the Italians and the Spanish. Berlin was not even informed of the in advance of French intentions, a departure from Foreign Minister Delcassé’s own earlier policy, which had foreseen that German assent would be negotiated in return for territorial compensation in other parts of Africa where she may have ambitions. In opting to freeze the Germans out, Delcassé built an entirely unnecessary element of provocation into his North African policy and exposed himself to the criticism of his French colleagues: even Paul Revoil, Delcassé’s closest collaborator on the Moroccan question, lamented his minister’s intransigence. For him, it was a…

‘… great misfortune (that Delcassé) found it repugnant to have talks with Germany. “The Germans are swindlers”, he says. But, in heaven’s name, I’m not asking for an exchange of rings but for a business discussion!’

Even Eugene Étienne, leader of the French Colonial Party, viewed the minister’s refusal to negotiate with the Germans as ‘the height of imprudence’. The German diplomats, for their part, had been watching French moves in Morocco and were determined not to allow the French to act unilaterally in a manner that would damage German interests in the area. The German viewpoint was legitimate: an international agreement of 1881 had formally recognized Morocco as an area whose status could only be altered multi-laterally, by international treaty. The objective of German policy, however, was not to uphold international law, but rather to test the strength of the Entente. Reports from London had given the Germans reason to suppose that the British government would not feel bound to intervene in a dispute over Morocco between France and a third power.

The Kaiser himself made a surprise visit to Tangier in March 1905 and, in a menacing speech, supported the independence of Morocco in order to safeguard German economic interests there. The population of the city saw the German sovereign as a welcome counter-weight to the French. Wilhelm rode to the German legation, cold-shouldering the secretary of the French legation. In his speech, he asserted that German commercial and economic interests, together with the independence and integrity of Morocco, should be maintained. After two hours in the city, he returned to his ship and sailed off. In the short term, this spectacular exercise in gesture politics was a great success, but the landing prompted outrage in France, though the British showed no interest in intervening and after a phase of mutual threats and brinkmanship, the French government decided to pursue a peaceful resolution. Delcassé was dismissed and his policy of provocation was temporarily discredited. The French proposed bilateral negotiations to settle the future of Morocco, but the Germans demanded that the question be settled at an international conference, as determined by the treaty of 1881. French opposition almost led to war, but they were not ready to fight this themselves. The request was eventually granted, but the German triumph was short-lived.

The conference took place at the Spanish port town of Algeciras in January 1906, where Britain supported France firmly. The independence of Morocco was affirmed, but it was agreed that France should continue to be responsible for keeping internal order. The uselessness of the Triple Alliance was revealed for all to see and the Anglo-French Entente was strengthened by the German challenge in Morocco. The fiscal burdens imposed by African conflicts and the retreat of Ottoman power in that continent were two of the world-historical transitions that led to Germany’s ‘restlessness’ and grandstanding, but these were only perceived within a field of vision that encompassed broader concerns at that time. Christopher Clark claims that the once widely-held view among historians that Germany caused its own isolation through its egregious international behaviour is not borne out by a broader analysis of the processes by which the realignments of the early twentieth century were brought about. The Anglo-French Entente, for example, gradually neutralised the anti-British sentiment that before 1904 had intermittently diluted the Germanophobia of French statesmen.

It is also astounding how aggressively a number of key British policy-makers responded to the German challenge to French penetration of Morocco. This conflict came to a further crisis in 1911 when France landed troops and occupied the capital, Fez, on the grounds of maintaining order. This pretext of suppressing a local uprising and protecting French colonists in Fez was bogus; the rebellion had broken out deep in the Moroccan interior and was not an imminent or serious threat to Europeans. But French troops entered the city and it seemed to Germany that the Shereefian Empire was breaking up, and it was determined to share in the spoils. The French delegation also demanded control over the Moroccan army and police; the Sultan refused. His appeal for assistance from Paris had in fact been formulated by the French consul and was passed to him for signature after Paris had already decided to intervene. It was therefore not the French government as such that generated the action in Morocco, but the hawkish diplomats of the Quai d’Orsay, whose influence over policy was almost predominant by the spring of 1911.

The fluctuations of power across different points in the decision-making structures amplified the complexity and unpredictability of interactions within the European international system, especially in those moments of political crisis when two or more executives interacted with each other in an atmosphere of heightened pressure and threat. This effect can be observed with particular clarity in the quarrel between Germany and France over Morocco that broke out once more in the early summer of 1911. The first German move had failed at Algericas; the second had succeeded; this third move was to end in a dangerous fiasco. But it was Spain that was first to act on this occasion. Alarmed at the prospect of a unilateral French seizure of power in Morocco, the Spanish government deployed troops to occupy parts of north-western Morocco. Germany was also naturally suspicious of French motives and claimed there had been a breach of the treaty signed at Algericas as well as with the Franco-German Accord of 1909. If France was to have the task of reconstructing the Sultanate, Germany must have territorial compensation; its foreign minister said, “If one wants to eat peaches in January, one must pay for them.”

The crisis became more acute when Germany dispatched a gunboat, the Panther to Agadir to protect, it claimed, the German residents there. It dropped anchor off the Moroccan coast on 1 July, but it was not until the end of the month that the French ambassador in Berlin was even instructed to start talks with Berlin, so determined were the powerful permanent officials at the Foreign Ministry to resist such an idea. In the end, Paris agreed to talk to Berlin about how Germany might be compensated for the consolidation of an exclusively French dominion. In return for concessions in Central Africa, Germany would acknowledge France’s protectorate in Morocco.

Backstairs diplomacy had helped the French premier to bypass the Germanophobe hawks in the foreign ministry, but it also brought its own additional risks. In the first week of August, a brief breakdown in communications led to an entirely unnecessary escalation, including threats to dispatch French and British warships to Agadir, even though both French premier Caillaux and his German counterpart were both willing to compromise. There would have been no need for the backstairs dealing but for the fact that the permanent officials at the ministry were conspiring to depose Caillaux as foreign minister and wreck the understanding with Germany. But one German diplomat calmly reported back that…

‘…despite the screaming in the press and the chauvinism in the army, Caillaux’s policy will probably prevail.’

The diplomat’s assessment was initially correct, but Germany’s blundering pursuit of a diplomatic triumph at Agadir was no more provocative than the unilateral measures by which France broke with the Franco-German Accord of 1909. The reality was that the France of 1911 was not the France of 1905, nor even, as now became apparent, that of 1909. M. Caillaux, who had shown signs of temporising with Germany, was swept from power to be replaced by Raymond Poincaré whose administration included Delcassé, who was not inclined to accede to Germany’s demands. But the whole crisis had exposed the inherent weakness of French diplomacy and the resulting incoherence of its foreign policy. Many nationalists thought that Caillaux and his cabinet had conceded too much to the Germans. When details of the premier’s secret diplomacy with Berlin were revealed in the press, he was forced to resign, having been in office for only seven months. When the new premier and foreign minister, Raymond Poincaré read the foreign ministry files in early 1912, he was struck by the alternation between toughness and compromise in policy towards Germany. Poincaré observed…

‘…whenever we have adopted a conciliatory approach to Germany, she has abused it; on the other hand, on each occasion when we have shown firmness, she has yielded.’

He concluded that Germany understood ‘only the language of force.’ The Germanophobes on both sides of the Channel were rarely very specific about their case other than speaking in general terms about the haunting ambition and demeanour of Germany, the unpredictability of the Kaiser and the general threat that growing German military power posed to the European balance of power. There was a tendency to see the long arm of German policy behind every inter-imperial conflict. Thus, the British Germanophobes said, it was the Germans who ‘carefully encouraged’ the European opposition to Britain’s occupation of Egypt. Wherever there was friction between Britain and its imperial rivals, the Germans were supposedly pulling strings in the background. This was mainly because the restructuring of the alliance system required the refocusing of the British anxieties and paranoia about German imperial expansion that were riding high at the time of the Boer War and for much of the decade that followed.

Britain’s involvement in the crisis, too, bore the deep imprint of divisions within the executive structure. The reaction of the New Liberal government in London was initially cautious since it felt that the conflict was at least in part of the French government’s own making, and it was, therefore, their ally who would have to give ground. All through the summer, during the Coronation ceremonies and a bitter dispute over the House of Lords, ministers had the Moroccan crisis on their hands, a crisis that could quickly escalate at any time. Hitherto it had been assumed in Germany that the British Cabinet was not united on this matter, and it was undoubtedly the case that a large section of the Liberal party was averse to any imperial commitments and suspicious of any increase in national defences. However, Sir Edward Grey, as Foreign Secretary, wrote from Paris to suggest that German demands for compensation in the Congo were…

‘… excessive … known by them to be impossible of acceptance and are intended to reconcile the French to the establishment of a German stronghold on the Moroccan coast.’

This was a deliberate misreading of the situation and designed to strike fear into Britain’s Naval commanders, for whom the establishment of a German naval base on the Atlantic would have been completely unacceptable. It was this unrealistic prospect that enabled Grey to secure cabinet approval for a private warning to be given to the German ambassador on 21st July that if Germany meant to land at Agadir, Britain would feel obliged to defend her interests there, by which he meant the deployment of British warships.

Lloyd George (left) as ‘New Liberal’ Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget Day in 1911, alongside Winston Churchill.

On the same day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, took the unusual step for a finance minister of delivering a speech at the Mansion House in the City of London in which he referred directly, not to economic policy but to foreign affairs. In it, he also issued a very strong warning to Berlin. It was imperative, he said, that Britain should maintain ‘her place and her prestige among the great powers of the world.’ He also declared in his speech that a ‘pacific’ Britain did not mean peace at any price:

“If a situation were to be forced upon us in which peace could only be presrved by the surrender of the great and beneficent position which Britain has won through centuries of heroism and achievement, by allowing Britain to be threatened where her interests are vitally affected, as if she were of no account in the Cabinet of Nations, then I say emphatically that that peace at that price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great country like ours to endure.”

The Mansion House speech was no spontaneous outburst; it was a gambit carefully prepared by Grey, Asquith and Lloyd George. Just as Caillaux bypassed his foreign ministry in order to impose his own dovish agenda on the negotiations with Berlin, so the anti-Germans around Grey bypassed the dovish radicals in the New Liberal cabinet in order to deliver a harsh and potentially provocative message to the Germans. Lloyd George had not cleared the most sensitive parts of his speech with the cabinet, only with the PM and the Foreign Secretary. The speech was all the more significant because it signalled Lloyd George’s defection from the dovish radicals to the ranks of the Liberal imperialists. His words caused consternation in Berlin, where it was felt that the British government was needlessly disrupting the passage of the Franco-German negotiations over Morocco and the Congo. From that moment, the nationalists in Germany dropped all talk of compromise and pursued a policy of naked aggression. Lloyd George’s words also shocked the cabinet members who had not signed up for Grey’s policy. They were appalled to find Britain so aggressively backing France in a dispute in which, it seemed to them, Paris was by no means clear of blame.

But the outcome was that the British government sent a warship to Agadir to lie alongside the Panther and also proclaimed in unmistakable terms its support for France. After the British reaction, Austria-Hungary abandoned the policy of neutrality it had hitherto adopted on the Morocco question and backed Germany. Nevertheless, Britain’s warning to Germany and its strong support of its ally forced Germany to modify its demands and checked its warlike attitude. Kaiser Wilhelm II had remained as sceptical of his administration’s North African policy in 1911 as he had been in 1905. As a consequence, German policy that aimed at keeping the crisis below the threshold of armed confrontation unfolded against a background of thunderous nationalist press agitation that rang alarm bells in Paris and London. Banner headlines in the papers that shrieked ‘West Morocco to Germany!’ were grist to the mills of the hawks in Paris.

They also worried the Kaiser, who was not really that interested in Morocco himself and issued such sharp criticism of his foreign minister that he tendered his resignation in mid-July, and it was only through Chancellor Bethmann’s mediation that Kiderlen was kept in office as foreign minister, and the policy of moderation was salvaged. Clearly, the Kaiser was not yet ready for a World War, especially over Morocco, so Germany abated its pretensions, and the question was settled by various cessions of territory by France in Central Africa. On 4 November 1911, a Franco-German treaty finally defined the terms of the agreement. Morocco became an exclusively French protectorate, German business interests were guaranteed respectful treatment there, and parts of the French Congo were ceded to Germany. This latter term was to come back to haunt the Entente allies in the First World War five years later.

But the treaty of 1911 was widely denounced in Germany too for granting the Germans too little. The glittering prize of a ‘German West Morocco’ had been held out to the public by the ultra-nationalist press. They were bitterly disappointed when it did not materialise. Yet Kiderlen’s Faustian pact with the ‘far right’ media had been reached only because he had no other means of ensuring that the Kaiser would not compromise his control of the policy-making process.

By 1907, Germany had replaced France and Russia as Britain’s ‘bogey man’ among the global powers. But it was still far from clear that these peripheral conflicts would lead to a continental European war. In retrospect, it is perhaps understandable that post-war writers of political memoirs and later historians have tended to see the events of 1904-7 as steps leading to the outbreak of war in 1914. But as late as 1909, Paris underlined its independence within the Entente by signing an accord on Morocco with Germany, a striking example of the crossing of lines between the two alliances. Therefore, there was no ‘road to war’ that inevitably ran out in 1914. The Triple Entente that went to war in August 1914 still lay beyond the mental horizons of most statesmen in the great turning point of 1904-7, or even in the little turning point of 1911. These confusing diplomatic events help to explain the emergence of structures within which world war became possible, but they cannot explain how and why that specific conflict began on the European continent, more specifically on the Balkan peninsula, and then spread to the other continents.

One of those statesmen, Sir Edward Grey, made a speech to the Committee of Imperial Defence meeting in May 1911, prior to the Moroccan crisis, outlining the main factors determining British Foreign Policy in the period leading up to that year:

‘In 1892 the situation then, and for some years previously, had been this: that the two restless Powers in Europe were France and Russia; that is, they were the two Powers from whom trouble to the peace of Europe was expected, if at all. The solid, quiet group at that time was the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy. It had been the policy of Lord Salisbury before 1892, and it was the policy of Mr Gladstone’s Government of 1892, not to join the Triple Alliance or come under definite commitment to it, but generally to in diplomacy to side with the Triple Alliance as being the stable power in Europe, and the one which was securing the peace.

‘… We were constantly having… friction about African questions, friction about questions in China, but the situation was not in the least alarming – there was no question of a breach of the peace, or the rupture of economic relations – but there was constant friction. It was not very comfortable, even so far as Germany was concerned; but as regards France and Russia, the situation was very much worse…

‘… After discussions lasting a long time, the result was the Anglo-French Agreement of 1904. This agreement at once removed all risk of a quarrel between the United Kingdom and France, and by removing that, brought the two nations very rapidly to realise there was no reason why they should not be the best of friends. …

‘… Then, since we have been in power, the same policy was pursued with Russia, … so that cause of quarrel disappeared, and, consequently, we and Russia have become very good friends in diplomacy. …

‘… Now that is the situation. … We do not need to pursue any policy of ambition in Europe. There is nothing we want to attain there. If there is trouble in Europe in which we are engaged and in which we have to appeal to the Dominions, it will be solely because, if we do not take part in it, we shall see that the combination against us in Europe may be such that the command of the sea may be lost …

‘… the cause of anxiety now in public opinion here as regards Germany arises entirely from the question of the German naval expenditure, which is very considerable, which may be increased and which. if it is increased, will produce an impression on the world at large that the object of Germany is to build a fleet which shall be bigger than the British fleet, obviously she could not only defeat us at sea, but could be in London in a very short time with her army. …

‘But however much our fleet is superior to the the German fleet, with the army we have we could never commit a serious aggression by ourselves upon German territory.’

Extract from the Minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence at a meeting of 26th May, 1911. Quoted in G. P. Gooch & H. W. V. Temperley (eds., 1930), Documents on the Origin of the War, 1898-1914 vol. vi. pp. 782-90.

Clearly, the tensions between imperial powers over their African colonies and protectorates were a major factor in the origins of the ‘Great War’ in Europe. But, in the period 1911-14, it was not just a question of frictions between the European alliance system, but also of the role played by anti-colonial and nationalist ‘liberation’ movements within those countries.

East Africa and the Middle East in the First World War.

For example, the development of Neo-Mahdism in Sudan was to some degree a symptom of, and the expression of, strong anti-colonial fervour. Although occupied by Britain as a ‘protectorate’, until 1914 Egypt remained, at the same time, a self-governing province of the Ottoman Empire. However, the Sultan’s power over the whole of North Africa was only nominal, for the European powers had gained de facto control. Britain had exercised controlling influence over Egypt since 1875 when it obtained its majority shares in the Suez Canal. In the early years of the twentieth century, a nationalist movement had grown up; it was strongly opposed to continuing British influence. But while Egypt had an influential secular nationalist movement, in tropical Africa straight political agitation was much slower to develop, chiefly because Africans had hardly yet begun to comprehend what Western European politics and diplomacy were. It was only on the outbreak of the war in Europe that the British refused to recognise any longer the nominal suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt and proclaimed the country its protectorate to the exclusion of all other external powers.

The Impact of the War on the Empires & Colonies:
A contemporary map of German East Africa, with Lake Tanganyika at the extreme left.

The outbreak of World War I in Europe led to the increased popularity of German colonial expansion and a Deutsch-Mittelafrika (‘German Central Africa’) which would parallel a resurgent German Empire in Europe. Mittelafrika effectively involved the annexation of territory, mostly occupied by the Belgian Congo, in order to link the existing German colonies in East, South-west and West Africa.

The territory would dominate central Africa and would make Germany by far the most powerful colonial power on the African continent. Nevertheless, the German colonial military in Africa was weak, poorly equipped and widely dispersed. At the same time, the militaries of the Allied powers were also encountering similar problems of poor equipment and low numbers; most colonial militaries were intended to serve as local paramilitary police to suppress resistance to colonial rule and were neither equipped nor structured to fight against foreign powers. Even so, the largest military concentration in the German colonial empire was in East Africa, and it was there that most of the fighting took place.

Map of Tanganyika Territory

The objective of the German forces in East Africa was to divert Allied forces and supplies from Europe to Africa. By threatening the important British Uganda Railway, the German commanders hoped to force British troops to invade East Africa, where they could fight a defensive campaign. In 1912, the German government had formed a defensive strategy for East Africa in which the military would withdraw to the hinterland and fight a guerilla campaign. The German colony in East Africa was a threat to the neutral Belgian Congo but the Belgian government hoped to continue its neutrality in Africa. The Force Publique was constrained to adopt a defensive strategy until 15 August 1914, when German ships on Lake Tanganyika bombarded the port of Mokolobu and then the Lukuga post a week later. Having been alerted to the presence of the German armed boats on the lake, which bordered German East Africa and therefore had strategic importance, as the German territory was surrounded by land controlled by Britain and Belgium.

Extract from Norman Ferguson (2014), The First World War: A Miscellany. Chichester: Summersdale Publishers (Summersdale.com)

The British naval force consisted of two forty-foot-long (twelve-metre) motor boats, HMS Mimi and HMS Toutou. Their crews were assembled from acquaintances of Lieutenant-Commander Spicer-Simpson, or from the ranks of the Royal Naval Reserve. The boats were loaded aboard SS Llanstephan Castle on 15 June, along with special trailers and cradles to allow them to be transported by rail or overland, and the expedition’s equipment and supplies. Meanwhile, on 8th June, Graf von Götzen was launched on Lake Tanganyika. The first leg of Mimi and Toutou′s ten-thousand-mile journey was completed after seventeen days at sea on their arrival at the Cape. Once they arrived in South Africa, they had to be carried over three thousand miles inland, including the traversing of a 5,900-foot mountain range.

Battle for Lake Tanganyika; Part of the East African Campaign of the First World War; Port of Kigoma, c.1914-1916.

The Battle for Lake Tanganyika was a series of naval engagements that took place between elements of the Royal Navy, Force Publique and the Kaiserliche Marine between December 1915 and July 1916. The intention was to secure control of the strategically important Lake Tanganyika, which had been dominated by German naval units since the beginning of the war. The boats were transported from South Africa by railway, by river, and by being dragged through the African jungle, to the lake. In two short engagements, the small motorboats attacked and defeated two of their German opponents. In the first action, on 26 December 1915, Kingani was damaged and captured, becoming HMS Fifi. In the second, the small flotilla overwhelmed and sank Hedwig von Wissmann. Germany’s third large and heavily armed craft on the lake, Graf von Götzen was attacked indecisively by Belgian aircraft and was subsequently scuttled. Developments in the land-based conflict caused the Germans to withdraw from the lake, and control of the surface of Lake Tanganyika passed to the British and Belgians.

The Kingani on Lake Tanganyika before being captured.
League of Nations mandates in the Middle East and Africa, with no. 11 representing Tanganyika

After the defeat of Germany during World War I, GEA was divided among the victorious powers under the Treaty of Versailles. Apart from Ruanda-Urundi (assigned to Belgium) and the small Kionga Triangle (assigned to Portuguese Mozambique), the territory was transferred to British control. “Tanganyika” was adopted by the British as the name for its part of the former German East Africa. The United Kingdom took control of the colony of Tanganyika as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. They wished it to be a “Black man’s country” similar to Nigeria in terms of its Westernised state structure. And as the policy of colonial rule in Nigeria changed to indirect rule so too did the governance of Tanganyika. The British also pursued an anti-German policy which was led by the British Governor in Tanganyika, Sir Horace Bryatt. He was an unpopular politician, and his policies of expelling Germans halved Tanganyika’s population. Many of the ex-German plantations were sold to European companies and mixed farms were given to new British owners. Much of Tanganyika’s economy was based around cash crops, in particular Coffee.

British rule did have positives for the Asian community living in Tanganyika, as they were protected by Britain as they were no longer attacked as they were during the war. Many of them were employed by the Indian administration to work for the Tanganyikan administration. This led to the Asian population in Tanganyika increasing from 8,698 in 1912 to 25,144 in 1931. One of the major drivers for decolonisation in Tanganyika was TANU which was founded in 1954, led by Julius Nyerere. 

During the War itself, the Ottoman provinces and the German colonies were conquered by one or other of the Entente powers, and the visitors expected to retain their spoils just as conquerors in former wars had done. The peace-makers in 1919, however, were bound by President Wilson’s promises to make a free and impartial adjustment of colonial claims and that they would concern themselves with the interests of the people as well as the claims of the victors. In the Covenant of the League of Nations, established at the Paris Peace Conference, it was laid down that the development of the weaker nations should be regarded as a sacred trust by the more advanced ones. When the two empires with external territories in the Triple Alliance were partitioned their territories were not annexed but were held in trust by certain powers on behalf of the League of Nations. These lands were held ‘in mandate’, the word meaning a legal right granted by a superior authority. The ‘mandataries’ accepted the responsibility of governing the territories, and they agreed to give an account of their stewardship in an annual report to the League.

There were three different kinds of authority granted, as shown on the map above. ‘A’ mandates were granted in respect of former Turkish territories, or ‘provinces’ (like Egypt) in which the people were almost ready for self-government. ‘B’ mandates were chiefly territories in Africa, where the people were unable to govern themselves, according to the League. The mandated powers were agreed to prohibit abuses such as the slave trade, native exploitation and traffic in arms and alcohol. The territories were not to be heavily fortified, and the natives could only be trained for domestic defence. All members of the League were to have equal trading rights. ‘C’ mandates were granted in respect of isolated territories, or very undeveloped territories, such as German south-west Africa, for which it was decided that the mandatory power should assume fuller control for governance as part of their own territory. Since the USA refused to accept any mandates, it was left to Britain and France to share the bulk of the responsibilities.

The Middle East & North Africa in the First World War.

The British mandate in Palestine afforded it further control over the Suez route to the East, and control over Tanganyika (East Africa) completed their ‘all-red’ route from the Cape to Cairo. At the end of the War, nationalist agitation increased in Egypt, and the Wafd Party, led by Zaghul Pasha, demanded complete independence, but the British wished to reserve military control, as they were only interested in the security of the Suez route. By 1922, Egypt looked to have self-government already.

But the British succeeded in slowing it down, and despite the big talk of ‘independence’, Britain still retained what it needed most in 1922, and in 1939 it still retained it: control over the Suez Canal and its trade route to India and the far east. The 1922 ‘Independence’ Declaration had reserved to Britain ultimate control over Egyptian defence, the Canal, Sudan, and the protection of foreign interests: these stipulations made Egypt not very much more independent than it had been under Gladstone. Nationalists resented the reservations, and reacted against them, sometimes bloodily. Yet Britain was able to resist them: first by force, then by accommodation. During the 1920s, Civil Service posts in Sudan were increasingly allocated to Sudanese, generally from northern Sudan, where Islam was dominant.

In 1930, King Faud set up a dictatorship in Egypt, and the Royal Navy was sent to stand off Alexandria as nationalists threatened the whole state and the safety of foreigners. Arthur Henderson, the Labour government’s Foreign Secretary, thought that Britain should give up the administration of the country and pull back its forces to the canal zone. The Egyptians wanted far more than this, including control of Sudan, which had been under British control since 1924. The Foreign Office, however, was determined to keep Sudan under British rule, as a strategically important state.

The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty & the Invasion of Ethiopia, 1935-36:
The French, Italian & British empires in East Africa, 1882-1914

Britain would have preferred a friendlier method of preserving its imperial interests than keeping gunboats off Alexandria and troops on the Suez Canal. This was especially the case when there was a fresh prospect of a real military threat to Britain’s position in that part of Africa from Italy, which was Egypt’s neighbour in Libya, and had been bought off in 1891 by Britain’s recognition of its dubious claims in Abyssinia. Now it was poised to take over Ethiopia, Sudan’s neighbour. Fascist Italy worried the Egyptians too, leading in 1936, after years of fruitless negotiation, to Britain and Egypt managing to agree on a treaty to replace the unilateral arrangement of 1922. The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty removed most of the old reservations on Egypt’s formal independence, except for the British military presence on the Canal and its continuing colonial presence in Sudan. It lasted, from the British perspective adequately, until the Suez Crisis of 1956.

In October 1935, those who remained cynical about the ability of the Anglo-French alliance to resist the threats from the European dictators were justified in that view when Italian soldiers marched into Ethiopia. The invasion had been long expected, for Italian interests in the Horn of Africa had strategic as well as territorial overtones stretching back to the nineteenth century. For the whole of 1935 the Italians, who were governing the colonies of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, had been fighting a border war with the neighbouring Abyssinians. The Emperor of Abyssinia, Haile Selassie, referred the border dispute to the League of Nations, but the League was undermined by the double-dealing between France and Italy over Abyssinia.

The French, who believed that Germany would eventually move into Austria, asked the Italians for help if and when that happened. The Italians agreed in return for their acquisition of a chunk of Ethiopia. The French agreed to support their cause in Africa and in October, British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare told the House of Commons that this was a great test for the League of Nations and that, if it failed this test, ‘the world will be faced with a period of danger and gloom.’ By November the League believed it had an answer: it would impose economic sanctions on Italy. By the end of that month, however, these sanctions were already being broken. By the Spring of 1936, news of the deeds of the dictators dominated the newspapers, radio and newsreels. On 3rd April, The Times reported that the Red Cross had confirmed that it had treated numerous victims of Italian gas attacks in Abyssinia. The newspaper quoted the Emperor, Haile Selassie, who said that…

“… he could not sleep at night for misery at the screaming and groaning of his fighting men and country people who have been burned inside and out by gas.”

The photo below shows the victims of the indiscriminate bombing of the Italian airforce after it attacked hospitals and Red Cross centres.

In the aftermath of the fall of Addis Ababa, when Italian troops marched in on 5th May.
In the picture, Abyssinians lie dead in the street while an Italian soldier stands guard
outside bomb-damaged buildings.

The three types of gas used had been banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, of which Italy was a signatory. Water holes and villages were also targeted so that many peasants died in agony from their burns. At the end of seven months of fighting, with nearly half a million soldiers in Abyssinia, Italy annexed the country after troops marched into Addis Ababa on 5th May. Abyssinians had rioted and looted the town before the Italians could march in. On 9th May, Mussolini announced the fall of Addis Ababa to cheering crowds in Rome. The Christian Emperor arrived in Britain, via Palestine, as a refugee less than a month later and was reluctantly granted asylum. He said:

“I do not intend to settle in England … I still dream and hope of returning to Abyssinia. At present, I have not the means.”

Above: The Ethiopian leader, Emperor Haile Selassie in exile in London in 1938, appearing on the balcony of his London apartment with his daughter.

It had cost Mussolini more than thirty-three million pounds to prepare for the war and another 126 million to fight it. However, it was worth it, Il Duce said, since “Italy has at last her Empire – a Fascist Empire.” King Edward VIII, for his part, refused to meet ‘The Negus’ (who claimed his descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba) himself, sending the Duke of Gloucester instead. When Edward was advised that meeting with the deposed Emperor would be a popular move, he countered, ‘popular with whom? Certainly not the Italians.’ Nothing should be done, he suggested, to drive Mussolini into Hitler’s arms. The British soon abandoned all pretence of sanctions, and the League of Nations turned its back on Ethiopia. No one, any longer, could pretend that any of the pacts that had been agreed upon around the world could prevent conflict if, like the Italians, a nation saw its best interests served by warfare.

Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin then found himself immersed in a drama surrounding the Franco-Italian arrangement. Britain had kept its distance from this, but it now became involved in a very grubby way. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, made an agreement with the French prime minister, Pierre Laval, that Italy would be allowed to keep the best parts of Abyssinia without any objections from France or Britain.

When the secret bilateral plan, which became known as the Hoare-Laval Pact, was leaked to the Press, it was seen as a despicable arrangement that contradicted the League of Nations’ position and excited popular anger against the Italians. Hoare was forced to resign when Anthony Eden, the Minister for League of Nations’ Affairs, could neither politically nor personally stomach the infamous pact. He had been trying to persuade the League of Nations to impose economic sanctions when the Abyssinian Army was soundly defeated. He had told Baldwin that he would resign unless Hoare was reprimanded and the Pact abrogated. Hoare refused to back down, so Baldwin, seeing the damage that was being done to his new government, sacked him, appointing Eden in his place. Baldwin and Eden were clearly right and Hoare was wrong, but the fact that he was so wrong makes it difficult to believe that he was acting on his own initiative in making the agreement with the French PM. If, on such an important issue, he had even tacit approval within the Cabinet or the State, as he almost certainly did, then the whole affair left few in credit and the League of Nations in its death throes.

The fate of Abyssinia at the duplicitous hands of the Western European powers also destroyed any vestige of trust and goodwill that the North African colonies might still harbour for them. Haile Selassie was prevented from returning to his country by the Italian victory, setting up his house in Bath instead. In marked contrast with the King’s attitude, Canon Dick Sheppard, founder of the Peace Pledge Union (pictured below), appealed on the radio for aid to the Abyssinian refugees, criticising fellow Christians for lacking a sense of mission and questioning whether they really believed in their religion. The BBC insisted that he should not preach pacifism over the airwaves.

End of War to End of Empire:
Clement Attlee, PM 1945-51.

Although it is possible to trace the beginning of the British retreat from Africa back to the aftermath of the 1914-18 War, it was not until after the Second World War that Britain began formally relinquishing its political sovereignty over its African colonial possessions. The dissolution of the British Empire was accomplished in two main waves, the first taking place under Attlee’s Labour government in the late 1940s, centred on Asia and the Middle East.

The second phase took place in Africa in the late 1950s and 60s under the direction of the Conservative Party. In fact, however, the push for independence from within the colonies also began in the late 1940s. In addition, Egypt had already gained its formal independence in the 1930s, though the Suez Canal area was still under British occupation until 1956.

After the Second World War, African nationalists like Kwame Nkrumah and Hastings Banda took encouragement from the transition to Indian independence, which was eventually declared in 1947, and from the general tide of world opinion at the time which seemed to be swimming with them. Very early after the war, they bared their teeth. In 1945, two groups in Sudan were demanding rapid constitutional development, the Ummah Party, headed by the grandson of the Mahdi, which stood for immediate independence, and the Ashiqqa (Brothers), allied to the Khatmiyyah sect which favoured constitutional links with Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood grew rapidly at this time, but entirely in the north. South Sudan, which accounted for a third of the population, was animist or Christian and largely politically unconscious. On 30 January 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly took place. The UN’s agenda was full from the very first day; one of the items on the agenda was the demand of demonstrators in Cairo for unification with Sudan. There was a general strike in Sudan in 1947, and in 1948 Britain Britain accepted the principle of Sudanese autonomy. But by 1950 African nationalism was pushing through in East Africa, as it had been doing over the previous decade on the west coast. The British days in Egypt, keeping troops in the strategically important Suez Canal Zone were numbered.

In November 1950, the King of Egypt, Farouk, demanded that the British withdraw its troops so that Egypt could once again rule Sudan. In 1951 he proclaimed himself the King of Sudan, but after his fall Egypt accepted the Sudan’s right to self-determination. Some in Britain resisted the nationalists because they were against the whole idea of colonial independence. But, even with the Labour Party in power in Britain from 1945 to ’51, those who were not imperialists, or who had reconciled themselves to losing Africa, as they had lost India, it was still to be some years before they would accept the ‘extreme’ nationalists as their proper successors. By 1951, Britain had been in Egypt and Sudan for almost a hundred years. Egypt had become a British protectorate in 1915 and had become independent in 1936, although British forces and interests remained in the country, underpinning Britain’s interest in the Suez Canal. Sudan’s self-government was granted in 1953, despite objections from the south.

A decade after the decolonisation began in Asia, the ‘wind of change’ was sweeping through Africa, and was hastened by the Suez Crisis in 1956. By April 1954, Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-70) had appeared, the leader of a revolutionary group of young army officers, and had become prime minister of Egypt. By then the British had retreated to the Suez Canal Zone, which it was determined to protect since it was still the most important in the world. Nasser, however, forced the British to sign an agreement that it would pull out its forces of more than eighty thousand from the Zone by the end of 1956. In some other colonies, they were also forced to do this.

On 19 October 1954, Britain and Egypt signed the withdrawal agreement from Egypt, by which the British were allowed to leave their weapons and equipment in the Zone base in case they had to return quickly to defend the Arab states in the region with which it had defence treaties. Within two years British forces would be back, but on the offensive against Nasser and the Egyptians, an offensive that would be condemned as an ‘imperial adventure’ by Britain’s closest ally, the United States.

Front pages from the British press at the beginning of the Suez invasion.

British paratroopers in the Suez Canal Zone, November 1956.

In 1956, in a late flourish of imperial self-assertion, Britain sent troops to the Suez Canal to safeguard its interests there in the old proprietorial way, with disastrous and humiliating results. I have written extensively about this in a separate article. Here, it has to be remembered that Egypt was no longer a colony at the time of the Suez Crisis, though control of the Canal remained an unresolved nationalist-imperialist issue for both Britain and France, as well as for Egypt.

However, the conflict naturally became part of a desperate scramble by the Conservatives to keep some sort of handhold in North-East Africa, a defensible position, to halt Britain’s fall from its imperial pre-eminence, but in the event, it failed. It may still have been necessary for their peace of mind for the Conservatives to make it. It was not a blind, intransigent resistance which they offered to the nationalist onslaught. The Eden-Macmillan governments were not reactionary, though they had some reactionary supporters. They did not mean to reverse the trend or even to halt it entirely. They professed, at the beginning of their second term in office, an intention to continue the process towards ‘self-government within the Commonwealth’, and they put no great obstacles in the way of this process within those colonies. Full independence for Sudan had been declared unilaterally in 1955, with Ismail al-Azhari becoming the first Sudanese Prime Minister. By then the process in Sudan was already too far advanced for the British to resist politically, and it could not afford to mount a military campaign. Its independence was finally, officially recognised by Britain after the Suez Crisis, in 1956.

In the 1950s, Sudan and the Gold Coast (Ghana) were the only colonies to escape from British rule. In 1958, however, there was a coup in Sudan, and the parliamentary system was replaced by a military dictatorship under General Ibrahim Abboud, who concluded a Nile Waters Agreement in 1959. The policy of Abboud and the Sudanese army in 1958, in the name of national unity, was to encourage, spread and impose Arabic and Islam at the expense of English and Christianity. This led to the expulsion of missionaries from the South which in turn led to further civil strife. In 1962, there was a widespread strike in southern Sudanese schools, and this was followed in 1963 by the emergence of a guerilla movement and of armed rebellion.

In the sixties, elsewhere in Africa, Ghana’s independence set in motion British disengagement from other colonies in West Africa. The rush to independence quite suddenly became a stampede. There was some hard bargaining, but Britain usually lost because (as with India in 1947) it had nothing of substance left to bargain with, except financial aid which it granted fairly liberally at first but more grudgingly later. It could no longer refuse or delay independence. Britain in the 1960s was hustled and harried out of most of its old colonies without too much initial bloodshed. In contrast to the rich and relatively well-developed colonies in the West, the transfer of power in the central and eastern African colonies was complicated by the competing claims of impoverished black populations and entrenched European minority settlements. Yet, despite these difficulties, a combination of African nationalism and the British desire to relinquish costly imperial commitments in the region resulted in independence and black majority rule in most African colonies, with the notable exception of Southern Rhodesia.

Countries ageing independence from Britain, with dates. The red flags show members of the Commonwealth in 1973.
Too rushed a retreat? – a post-imperial return to instability:

Despite the ideological differences within and between the two main political parties on colonial policy, both the Conservatives, under Macmillan, and Labour, now led by Harold Wilson (right), came into government determined to retain Britain’s remaining imperial and military possessions. However, both administrations succumbed to economic, political and international pressures, resulting first in Macmillan’s retreat from Africa, and then in Wilson’s withdrawal from ‘East of Suez’.

The East of Suez policy was precipitated by a combination of escalating defence costs, the devaluation crisis and the impact of the European Economic Community and the USA on British foreign policy, resulting in the scaling down and termination of military commitments in the Middle and Far East.

However, the rapid retreat of imperialism was frequently accompanied, sooner or later, by a return of internal tribalism, leading to ongoing conflict which has led some historians to suggest that the British withdrawal was too rapid and disorderly. What was left when those with an ‘interest’ began leaving the sinking ship was a residue of mainly emotional commitments to the glory of the empire, which were just not strong enough to persuade a realistic government, which was what Harold Macmillan’s was, to resist all the material pressures pushing the other way. Iain Macleod, who became Colonial Secretary in October 1959, always excused his surrender to colonial nationalism by pleading necessity, though he probably also had a genuinely liberal commitment to independence, as the following quote demonstrates:

‘We could not possibly have held by force to our territories in Africa. We could not, with an enormous force engaged, even continue to hold the small island of Cyprus. General de Gaulle could not contain Algeria. The march of men towards their freedom can be guided, but not halted. Of course there were risks in moving quickly. But the risks in moving slowly were far greater.’

Quoted in David Goldsworthy (1971), Colonial Issues in British Politics, 1945-1961. p. 363.

The spread and character of decolonisation were also determined by a mixture of international cold war politics, British imperial interests and local nationalist movements which varied, which varied in intensity from region to region. In Egypt and Kenya, for instance, nationalism took on radical, populist and violent forms, culminating in ‘state of emergency’ declarations by British governments. The withdrawal was also impaired by communal and ethnic tensions. In contrast, the transfer of power was comparatively peaceful in most African colonies. In Sudan, the dictator Abboud’s policies of imposing Arabic in the south of the country and the expulsion of missionaries led to civil strife, however. Abboud resigned in 1964 but disorder continued, with increasing tension between the Sudanese Communist Party and the traditionalist Islamic party, the Ummah. Civil conflict continued until 1971 when Colonel Nemieri negotiated the Addis Ababa agreement with the southern rebels, granting them wide regional autonomy. In the north, however, the continued influence of the Muslim Brotherhood resulted in a further strengthening of Shariah law.

Despite the speed with which the British Empire was brought to an end in the period 1945-65, Britain had no intention of severing all links with its former colonies. On the contrary, the ‘Commonwealth’ was seen as a natural successor to the Empire. Despite the hopes of some Conservatives to the contrary, the formation of the enlarged Commonwealth never allowed Britain to retain any real influence. Although some politicians trumpeted the ideal of a closer association of states as a means of reasserting British spheres of influence in Asia and Africa, Britain’s political leaders soon discovered they were unable to exercise the level of economic and political control that they had hoped to retain. In this context, Sudan’s independence was far more of a harbinger of the end of the empire than the more dramatic crisis in Egypt. However, the continuing political and economic instability in many African states, like Sudan, is, in part at least, the lingering long-term testimony to the legacy of the scramble of the European powers to acquire colonies on the continent, as well as of the equally desperate scramble to leave them when the winds of change began to blow.

Sources:

Simon Hall & John Haywood (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Herman Kinder & Werner Hingemann (1978, 1988), The Penguin Atlas of World History, Vol. II. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

George Taylor (1936), A Sketch-Map History of Europe, 1789-1914. London: George G. Harrap & Co.

Irene Richards, J. A. Morris (1936), A Sketch-Map History of Britain, 1783-1914. London: Harrap.

Irene Richards, J. B. Goodson & J. A. Morris (eds.) (1936), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War & After, 1914-34. London: George G. Harrap & Co.

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Books.

Bernard Porter (1984), The Lion’s Share: A Short History of British Imperialism. London: Longman.

Christopher Clark (2012/13), The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. London: Penguin Books.

Christopher Lee (1999), This Sceptered Isle: Twentieth Century. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books/BBC Books.

R. E. Robinson & J. A. Gallagher (1960), Africa and the Victorians, ch. 8-12.

G. N. Sanderson, England, Europe and the Upper Nile.

W. L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890-1902, ch 4, 9, 16.

https://anglomagyarmedia.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=15700&action=edit&revision=19598

Featured

Sudan – Legacies of Empire: The Causes & Consequences of Imperial Conflicts in North & East Africa, circa 1865-1965. Part One – 1865-1905.

A late Victorian postcard (see below for further detail).
Britain’s Involvement in Sudan & the Expansion of Empire:

The ongoing para-military events in and around Khartoum, and in Sudan more generally, have exercised my mind as to why there are so many British people in the Sudanese capital, and what role the historic links with Britain have played in the origins of the recent and current conflict in the country. Britain’s involvement in Sudan goes back to the beginning of the expansion of its empire into the hinterland of the continent in the mid-nineteenth century, following its exploration by geographers and missionaries.

British Imperial Expansion in Africa, India, the Far East, Australia & New Zealand, 1815-1901.
Africa as the ‘Dark Continent’ – Exploration & European Settlement:

Though part of the ‘Old World’ and the home of one of the earliest civilisations, the Egyptian, Africa was the last of the great continents to be thoroughly explored by Europeans. In particular, its interior was so little known that it was known as the ‘Dark Continent’. The reasons for this lack of exploration were mainly geographical, connected with its shape and geological structure as a ‘high tableland’, and its largely tropical climate. Waterfalls and rapids occur on all the major rivers near their mouths, making penetration up them impossible and railway construction difficult. The areas best suited to European settlement were the Mediterranean coastlands, part of the ancient and medieval world, the southern tip of the continent, first settled by Dutch traders in the early seventeenth century, and parts of the high plateau where altitude moderates the effects of latitude, in parts of East Africa.

Dutch slave traders disembarked their human cargo in the Caribbean and North America in the early seventeenth century.

As early as 1770 James Bruce, a Consul of Algiers, became interested in the source of the Nile and its annual flood. He made the journey shown on the map above and discovered the source of the Blue Nile. Then Richard Burton and J. H. Speke, on behalf of the Royal Geographical Society, set out to discover the source of the White Nile. They discovered Lake Tanganyika in 1854 and when Speke found Victoria Nyanza, the source of the Nile was no longer a mystery. An expedition led by Sir S. Baker made a systematic exploration of the Upper Nile valley and found other sources of the great river in Lake Albert, which he discovered in 1864.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 012-1.jpg British and slavers, traded up rivers from the coasts in the early nineteenth century.

David Livingstone (1813-1873), the greatest of all African explorers, made his last journey (1866-1873), starting from Lake Tanganyika, he mapped the area of the Upper Congo and East Central Africa. Livingstone was motivated by missionary zeal and was strongly opposed to the Arab slave trade in central Africa. It was a matter of considerable pride to the British that they that their empire was the first to abolish slavery in 1833. Livingstone became a national hero, as other missionaries undertook their own ‘civilising’ tasks. Many worked hard to protect their congregations from white exploitation, their influence was not always beneficial for Africans, especially those who were dispossessed of their lands.

Abduction of natives by African slavers in the interior.

Added to the geographical obstacles, the natural hostility of the native population to ‘white’ incursions and the slave trade led to suspicion of the motives of white traders and missionaries. There was no common language which could be used to overcome such suspicions. Moreover, with the outlawing of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery within the Empire, there was no economic incentive for the exploration of the interior. In any case, the trade had not previously required extensive exploration, since the slave-trading companies bought slaves from native dealers working in the interiors. The demand for tropical products like rubber and coconut oil did not develop until after H. M. Stanley made his name famous through his exploration of the Congo (1874-78) leading to his book, Through Darkest Africa, which disclosed the wealth of raw materials which the Congo basin would yield, and ‘The Scramble for Africa’ of the 1880s followed.

Africa before the colonial partition, c. 1870.

The ‘Accidental’ Empire of Gladstone & Disraeli:

Until the last few decades of the century, the attitudes of British statesmen towards the colonies had been mainly one of indifference. But the Conservative Party tried to identify itself with the empire, and it won an election under the leadership of Benjamin Disraeli in 1874. Disraeli believed that the chief aim of Britain’s foreign policy should be the furtherance of British imperial interests. He thought of Britain as less of a European and more of a world power, and his imagination was kindled by the vision of a vast British Empire in the East. The strengthening of Britain’s power in India was therefore his main concern, including the Suez route; he was anxious to safeguard Britain’s communications with it, also bringing him into conflict with Russia. Many Liberal politicians, including William Gladstone, the alternating prime minister throughout the period, were critical of jingoism and of imperial expansion for its own sake. But Gladstone was not opposed to some intervention, based on individual initiative, as he himself wrote in 1879:

‘The English nation have a strength of individual character among them which enables them to do for themselves by free choice, energy, and judgement, much that in other countries, except for the interference of public authority, would not be done at all.’

William Gladstone, Gleanings from Past Years, Volume V (1879).

In the so-called ‘Scramble for Africa’, Britain responded to the actions of imperial rivals. British absorption of Uganda and Kenya was a response to German intervention in Tanganyika. Britain had no intention of letting either France or Germany dominate East Africa. In 1877, Cecil Rhodes argued:

‘I contend that we are the first race of the world and the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.’

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 001-1.jpg

Above: Disraeli (left) was interested in Empire, though he did little to formulate a scheme for it,; Gladstone (right) was a ‘reluctant’ imperialist who was only willing to intervene when British lives and interests were under threat. That meant he was often too late to act, however.

First and foremost, however, Disraeli was determined to uphold Britain’s prestige and prominent role in European affairs. When in opposition he attacked Gladstone’s ‘weak’ foreign policy; when in power he placed Britain at the forefront of world politics and revived her prestige by establishing her right to share in the settlement of international disputes. Disraeli made colonial expansion a deliberate policy, thus beginning a new tradition in Britain’s imperial history.

By contrast, Gladstone’s main interests were financial and administrative reform, not foreign affairs. In so far as in his first ministry (1868-74) he had a foreign policy, this was the maintenance of peace by active diplomacy and economic cooperation with other European powers and, after its Civil War, with the emerging USA.

Gladstone considered that peace and isolation from the continent were more beneficial to Great Britain and her prosperity than futile gestures of war. To these principles of his policy of non-intervention, Gladstone added one proviso. This was that, as an idealistic Christian, he believed that it was the duty of every great nation to intervene in the cause of humanity whenever foreign rulers showed inhuman cruelty. He, therefore, disagreed strongly with Disraeli’s policy of maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

The map on the right and the chart below help to illustrate the problems which Gladstone’s two governments hoped to solve. During Disraeli’s ministry (1874-1880), Gladstone protested against the Tory leader’s aggressive policies in Afghanistan, Egypt, and South Africa.

Gladstone also objected to Disraeli’s purchase of shares in the Suez Canal in 1875, fearing that it would later involve Britain in a military occupation to protect its financial interests.

Gladstone’s prediction proved correct when in 1881 anti-foreigner riots broke out at the beginning of his second ministry (1880-1885), and he had to despatch an army under Wolseley, defeating the Egyptians at Tel el Kebir in 1882 (see below). However, he also reversed Disraeli’s ‘forward’ policy against Russia and withdrew the British army from Afghanistan. The resulting Russian advance and their defeat of the Afghan army at Penjdeh in 1885 provoked British public opinion. However, Gladstone refused to give way to the clamour for war against Russia. In South Africa, where Gladstone had condemned Disraeli’s annexation of the Transvaal in 1877, he nevertheless delayed the restoration of independence, and in 1881 the Boers attacked and defeated the British at Majuba Hill. Then, instead of dispatching a large army to subdue the Boers, Gladstone gave them their independence. His government also gave way to Bismarck’s claims for German territories in the Pacific and Africa. Overall, Gladstone’s solution to these imperial problems led to hostile criticism, and he was considered ‘weak’ in foreign affairs.

British expansion in North East Africa in the late nineteenth century, with dates of acquisitions.
Chamberlain & Constructive Imperialism:

As the century progressed, British exports became more diversified. Some were the products of industrialised and modernised processes, such as railway supplies, and manufactured iron in all shapes, kinds and sizes. Textile goods were also major exports. Britain was providing perhaps forty per cent of the world’s manufactured goods by the mid-nineteenth century. The spread of steam power, for both railways and shipping, also created a great demand for British coal, the only raw material Britain exported in significant quantities during the century. About half the ships leaving British ports by 1900 carried coal. Coal exports rose from 1.6 million tonnes in 1840 to 44.1 million in 1900. As later events showed, the entire shipping industry became excessively dependent on this single commodity.

British traders also had the resources to import great quantities of goods, which they then broke down into smaller amounts to sell to foreign markets lacking in those resources. This became an increasingly vital source of mercantile wealth, as imports regularly exceeded exports. In terms of imports more widely, manufactured goods were almost totally absent throughout much of the century. What British industry demanded were raw materials in unprecedented large amounts. Cotton supplies from India via the Suez Canal were vital and were supplemented by supplies from Egypt. The British also developed a great demand for tropical and subtropical products such as tea, coffee and sugar. These had been expensive luxuries in the eighteenth century, but they now became cheap and available to all social classes. From the West Coast, cocoa became an important export by the end of the century, as did rubber.

British investments in 1914 are shown in millions of dollars, plus the value of trade in imports (in blue) and exports (in red) from Africa, 1794-1900.

Although, in absolute terms, Britain’s output and trade continued to steadily increase, there was a relative decline in Britain’s market domination in manufactured goods. Imports began to outstrip exports by a formidable margin. This led, by the end of the century, to a rising clamour for governments to abandon free trade and to turn the empire into a closed economic zone to the benefit of Britain and the dominions.

Disraeli did much to arouse interest and pride in the Empire but put forward no constructive schemes for confederation, even on the basis of trade. This was left to the Birmingham businessman, mayor and Liberal Unionist MP, Joseph Chamberlain. The laissez-faire attitude towards the colonies, which had existed from the break-up of the old colonial system began to be replaced by a policy of constructive imperialism. He proposed new political and economic ties to bind the Empire more closely together. Together with the historians Froude and Seeley, Rudyard Kipling and others, Chamberlain realised that cooperation between the members of the imperial family was now possible, and they strove to arouse pride in the Empire among the British people.

Joseph Chamberlain.

As Salisbury’s Colonial Minister (1895-1902), Chamberlain proposed a tariff system of Imperial Preference. This involved giving a lower preferential duty on colonial goods, something that was resoundingly rejected by the British electorate in 1906.

Nevertheless, the introduction of steamships (pictured below) and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, built by French and British finance, had, in any case, greatly reduced barriers of time and space between the colonies and the ‘mother country’.

Steam power soon drove sailing ships from the North Atlantic, and the Suez Canal was used exclusively by steamships, from the Far East route as well. By the 1870s, the tonnage of British sailing ships was overtaken by the steamships, though the tonnage of sailing ships continued to grow steadily into the twentieth century as they remained profitable on many coastal routes. Britain maintained its dominant position in shipbuilding until at least the 1890s when the German challenge became significant. Still, in 1914 Britain still produced sixty per cent of the world’s tonnage.

The Suez Route & the Great Powers’ Partition of Africa:

Until the opening of the Suez Canal, France had exercised most influence in Egypt, but the canal made it a vital link in the chain of communications with India, and British statesmen acquired a special interest in the country. In 1875 Disraeli, with great foresight, took advantage of Khedive Ismael’s bankruptcy to purchase his shares in the Suez Canal Company This action committed Great Britain to intervention with France (‘Dual Control’) in Egyptian affairs for the protection of her financial interests. Trade and emigration were stimulated tremendously, especially with India, Australia and the Far East. It also increased the strategic importance of the ‘British’ islands in the Mediterranean, especially Cyprus, added in 1878, and also the newly acquired colonies guarding the route via Suez, including Sudan and Somaliland. Disraeli returned from the Congress of Berlin that year claiming that he had brought ‘peace with honour,’ and that was also the general opinion of the British public. He had successfully frustrated Russia and delayed the collapse of the Turkish Empire.

But the growth of imperial trade also led to increased rivalry between the imperial powers. The triumph of nationalism in Germany and Italy and the humiliation of France in 1871, led the statesmen of these countries to regard overseas colonies as symbols of national greatness. However, they found that Britain had occupied most of the temperate regions of the world, and through the Monroe Doctrine, the USA forbade any attempt to regard South America as an area for colonisation. Consequently, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the ‘Great Powers’ entered into a feverish search for new territory, particularly in Africa and Asia. Britain was already well-placed to acquire an important share in the division of the undeveloped world, thus adding to its predominance. To lessen tensions, the German Chancellor Bismarck called the Berlin Conference in 1884. This settled the division of the Congo Basin and laid the basis for future annexation. Rapid expansion began after 1884, with East Africa first penetrated by English and German traders in 1885. After some friction, a settlement was reached in 1890.

In the North, following its purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875, Britain was committed to an interest in Egypt. The apparent necessity of preserving order formed the pretext for military occupation. In Egypt, the nationalist movement began the moment the British occupied the country in 1881-82. Gladstone, so often the scourge of the imperialists, revealed himself to be just as partial to gunboat diplomacy and impetuous military expeditions as the vainglorious Beaconsfield. In 1881 there had been an uprising of military officers against the Khedive, whose profligate government, even after the sale of the Suez Canal shares to Britain, had amassed so huge a debt that it had, as Simon Schama has put it, put even a pretence of sovereignty into receivership. Britain and France assumed control over the revenues of Egypt to ensure proper servicing of the debt. In doing so, they were repeating a pattern of intervention to clean up the mess that they had been largely responsible for creating in the first place.

British control of the Suez route to India, 1839-98, with the dates of territorial acquisitions.

The security of the Suez Canal was certainly a vital national interest for Britain, and in 1881 it had been threatened both by internal instability and foreign intervention. The instability was the uprising by overtaxed peasants, fanatical Muslims and out-of-work soldiers led by Arabi Pasha who ousted Tewfik in September. The foreign intervention was France’s. Without France, Britain would very likely not have invaded Egypt but left it to Turkey to march in and reassert her old control. This would be an adequate safeguard for British interests, but France would have none of it. Concerned about the effect an extension of Ottoman power might have on her own nearby Muslim dominions of Tunisia and Algeria, and perhaps more solicitous than Britain for the bond-holders in Egypt, France was, by the end of 1881, all for intervening itself there. If France intervened without Britain, the worst might happen and a strong, sole ‘foreign’ power would be established around the Canal. Consequently, Britain felt it had to keep close to France’s tail. Therefore, when France took action, Britain followed suit. Ironically, however, the only effect was to goad the nationalists into more extreme action, endangering the Canal still further.

The Egyptian revolt, a mix of military and Muslim unrest, put both powers in the position of either ‘cutting their losses’ or ‘going in for the kill’, and for the long term. When, in the event, France opted out of military action when her prime minister was overruled by a parliament far less convinced of Egypt’s value to them, it seemed too late for the British to pull out too. ‘Arabi’ was clearly irreconcilable by this stage, and was clearly in control of Egypt, making things ‘hot’ for the foreigners. Gladstone went in with all guns blazing, to the amazement of all his old friends and supporters. The Royal Navy bombarded Alexandria in July 1882, and an army was sent on a lightning forty-day expedition, under Wolseley, in which it annihilated Arabi’s army at Tel-el-Kebir in September. Gladstone stressed that the expedition had been launched only in the interests of ‘peace and stability’, not to establish a colony in Egypt, but to ensure the restoration of the legitimate rule of the Khedive. The British now found themselves in charge of a new protectorate. No one was more distressed by Gladstone’s imperialist adventure than his old friend, the Quaker John Bright. He wrote that Gladstone was pathetically deluded:

‘He seems to have the power of convincing himself that what to me seems glaringly wrong is evidently right and tho’ he regrets that a crowd of men should be killed, he regards it almost as an occurence which is not to be condemned as it is one of the incidents of a policy out of which he hopes for a better order of things.’

John Bright, quoted in H. C. G. Matthew (1995), Gladstone, 1875-98. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The fact that it was the ‘anti-imperialist’ Gladstone who had invaded Egypt revealed how compelling the British national interest was there. But what had precipitated such drastic action was rather the interest of the bondholder, and specifically the way his activities had placed a greater burden on an economically unsophisticated régime than it could support, and broke it. The French, in trying to mend the wound, only made matters worse. Gladstone found that he could not get out of Egypt, though he continually said that he wanted to. The difficulty was a simple one: Egypt would first have to be placed in the hands of a popular, liberal, pro-British native government, and the only popular and somewhat liberal, Arabi native leaders available were also fervently anti-British. So a ‘temporary’ occupation began to look more and more permanent.

Egyptian Sudan & the Evacuation of Khartoum:

Not only was it difficult to leave Egypt; but it was also difficult to avoid being dragged further into the conflicts within the region, into Sudan, for example, where the Khedive’s authority was being subverted by a national-religious rebellion under the fanatical ‘Mahdi’. Gladstone had been forced to accept responsibility for maintaining order in Egypt, but he refused to do the same for its dependency, the Egyptian Sudan. This was a territory which the Khedive was desperate to win back, but the British government felt that the Egyptian protectorate could not afford such a project in the country’s current financial state. However, it failed to persuade either the Khedive or British public opinion of this.

So, instead of ‘better order’ in Egypt, Gladstone got the General Gordon disaster at Khartoum. To be fair, this was not of his making, for ‘Chinese’ Gordon, faced with the huge jihadi army of the Mahdi, the ‘Chosen One’, sweeping up from southern Sudan, had been sent, in January 1884, to evacuate the Egyptian forces beleaguered in Khartoum. But Gordon had chosen instead to stay and court martyrdom as a Christian zealot and popular hero. When he got to the city he saw it as his duty to save it from the Mahdi, hence his determination to stay. Furious with Gordon, Gladstone was prepared to grant him his wish, but this was politically unthinkable. Nevertheless, with hindsight, Gladstone could not have handled the whole situation worse than he did. He eventually bowed to public pressure and sent an expedition out to relieve Gordon, but his hesitation meant that it arrived too late.

Lord Wolseley was sent to lead the expedition up the Nile, which arrived at the end of January 1885, just a few days too late to save Gordon, who had been killed (beheaded) and was immediately apotheosised in Britain as a Christian martyr. The news of the fall of Khartoum and the brutal murder of Gordon provoked violent passions against Gladstone, who bore the public odium for having ‘sacrificed’ the great Hero, not least from Queen Victoria herself, who was thereafter reinforced in her aversion for everything about her prime minister. Britain assumed the administration of Egypt but relinquished that of Sudan after the disastrous events in Khartoum of 1884-85. Thereafter, Gladstone managed to stay out of Sudan and Britain managed, for a time, to limit its liabilities in North Africa. The respite was only temporary, however, as the forward movement of British imperial encroachment in those parts of the world where local power structures were too weak to resist was beginning to seem inexorable, and even necessary if certain basic tenets of the requirements of British imperial policy were to be fulfilled. Gladstone’s partial resistance to it and his refusal to sail with the tide of events and the winds of public opinion as far as they seemed to be taking him, was a brave but in the end unsuccessful gesture.

The concept of a ‘protectorate’ allowed Gladstone to believe that he had successfully kept out of the scramble for Africa. ‘Colonies’ were run by a ‘metropolitan’ country which was responsible for them, had to provide for their administrations, and so on. In a ‘protectorate’ the metropolitan country had some responsibilities, but not many. The word implied that some indigenous authority did the actual ruling but with the privilege of being able to call on the metropolitan country’s help and protection if they were needed. Protectorates were generally legitimised by treaties between both parties to this effect. In practice, the ‘protection’ afforded by Britain took a number of guises, and in some cases, it was a legal fiction covering what was in effect a piece of political puppetry. Nevertheless, the intention was always the same: to minimise Britain’s responsibility and ensure that when it felt it had to take a country over in the imperial interest it did not have to rule it imperially, and expensively.

As long as the British were able to trade freely, and British traders were properly protected, there seemed little need actually to conquer more territory. Yet imperial expansion took place, for many reasons. Financial interests in the City, whose investments around the globe might be threatened by local events, could exert influence over the government, arguing that their own interests and the national interests coincided. The nationalist riots in Egypt in 1882, which led to the British occupation of the country, are an example of this. Local colonial officials, whose isolation allowed them considerable autonomy, could also take the initiative. There appears to have been considerable apprehension among such officials about unsettled frontiers; a fear that instability in neighbouring territories might spread into British territories. This could lead to intervention to protect British interests. However, where the presence of the British themselves was destabilising the frontiers, this was a never-ending process. In the so-called ‘Scramble for Africa’, Britain might respond to the actions of imperial rivals. British absorption of Uganda and Kenya was a response to German intervention in Tanganyika. Britain had no intention of allowing Germany to dominate the region.

Gordon & Gladstone – Hero & Villain?:

Gladstone’s imperial self-control did not meet everyone’s approval. In fact, he got a very rough passage, not because his views on colonial affairs were markedly different from those of Salisbury at this time, but because he made more of an issue of it. It is doubtful whether public opinion in the 1880s cared very much about the colonies and empire. But it did care about murdered heroes and defeated redcoats; and it was on emotive circumstances like those around Gordon of Khartoum, that Gladstone made his stand. The result was predictable: on the Gordon affair, despite the General’s initial insubordination, the abuse Gladstone had to suffer, besides being labelled as ‘Gordon’s murderer, was the kind usually reserved for assassins and adulterers. He had besmirched his country’s honour, sent Gordon to his death, and looked on while women ‘were murdered in cold blood and little children were spotted on the Arab spears in pure wantonness’.

How far this unpopularity really went is uncertain, however. A section of the press put it about that it was universal, that Gladstone’s name was ‘held up to the execration this day wherever the English language is spoken‘, and that the country was far ahead of Gladstone in its ‘imperialism’. But the true picture was probably far less crudely jingoistic. The Spectator pointed out, between crises and in the middle of elections, that the ‘provinces’ were far quieter than Westminster, Whitehall and the City:

‘The candiates are talking about the Lords, taxes on corn, the depression in trade, local taxation; anything except the humiliation of the country and the necessity of war. There are no warlike public meetings.’

Even the ordinary war bulletins it was greeted with indifference: ‘Our people hardly watch or listen unless some favourite officer falls dead.’ When Gordon did fall dead, the Spectator tried to get a sense of balance amidst the furore:

British Journalism often gives a really false impression of the true drift of British opinion. … There is no greater chasm than the chasm between the opinions of the sensational newspapers and the judgment of the British Public. The former are often fierce, frothy and fickle; while the latter is slow, calm and steady.’

Spectator, 3 & 24 January, 1885.

Probably public opinion was more volatile than this, and jingoism stronger, but it was intermittent, and soon blew past. It gave no clue as to how the public regarded the broad outlines of Gladstone’s colonial policy or his stand on the issue of ‘imperialism’. ‘Jingoism’ was a neologism, but the phenomenon it described, that of popular xenophobia, was as old as the metropolitan life which spawned it. Its association with imperialism in the 1880s was purely accidental since it fed on wars and heroes, and it just so happened that most of Britannia’s heroes murdered, and then were murdered themselves in the cause of empire and that most of her wars or quarrels were over colonies. It could not yet be said, if it could ever be said, that the British people were ‘constructive’ imperialists, despite their outpourings of patriotic feeling at some of the more spectacular episodes of the empire. In all the anti-Gladstone press comments of the 1880s, the dominant note was that of wounded pride, the sense of national humiliation, and the fear of dire consequences if Britain continued to show pusillanimity to her enemies. ‘The shock of the fall of Khartoum’, said the Statist,

‘… will be felt far beyond the limit of the African desert. Wherever a handful of Englishmen are performing the daily miracle of our Imperial rule, and controlling and administrating a subject Eastern race, with no other force than that of their own character and of their national prestige, there the triumph of the Mahdi will work embarrassment and create difficulty and danger. There is the danger that not only in Africa… but throughout the world, the idea should take root that England is too weak or too indifferent to hold her own.’

The Statist, February 1885.

The Pall Mall Gazette commented more generally:

‘We have brought all this trouble in Egypt on our heads out of the desire to oblige France, which dictated the Joint Note; and still our neighbours are not satisfied… With the cream of our available fighting force locked up in Soudan, what can we do but give in here, give in there, and give in everywhere all round the world until at last we are sharply brought up by some demand to which we cannot give in – and then! How are we prepared for that eventuality, which will come as certain as the summer sun?’

Pall Mall Gazette, 10 February 1885.

Popular imperialism is usually associated with national self-confidence, perhaps over-confidence. In the 1880s it could equally well be associated with national self-doubt. What was happening in the 1870s and 1880s was something more significant than just a few setbacks in its foreign relations. It was a major upheaval in its position in the world. Before these decades, Britain’s world supremacy had been based on a kind of monopoly of wealth, power and influence outside Europe. Now that monopoly was slowly being eroded away, the Pall Mall Gazette spotted this trend most clearly in 1885:

‘Our old position is lost – irrevocably… the conditions under which we lorded it over one-half of the world.’

Ibid., 4 February 1885.
Control of the Nile & Reconquest of Sudan:

The outstanding narrative of this period was the rapid division of Africa between 1880 and 1900 among the European Great Powers. It was also a partition agreed upon without going to war. The relative gains of the powers were that while Britain acquired the richest parts of the continent, France acquired the greatest area, most of which, however, was desert. From its old trading settlements around the mouths of the Rivers Senegal and Congo, the French, suddenly after 1880, developed a big empire. Their explorers penetrated the unknown interior of the Sahara across to Algeria, and along the Sudan grasslands towards the Nile, leading to friction with Britain. The French acquired Somaliland, with the port for Ethiopia, in 1888. It was then occupied by Italy in 1889. At this time, Tripoli was the only part of North Africa left unappropriated until it was ceded to Italy by Turkey in 1912.

It followed that the territories to the south of Egypt were a high priority too, as they would have been considered before 1890, had they ever been seriously threatened by European rivals. The vast territory of Eastern Sudan, and the Great Lakes region further down, impinged on Egypt’s welfare because they straddled the upper Nile, and the Nile fed Egypt. ‘Whatever Power holds the Upper Nile valley must’, wrote Baring in 1889, ‘by the mere force of its geographical situation, dominate Egypt.’ This was because it could cut off the Nile, flood it, or divert it. In 1893, an eminent French hydrographer showed his countrymen how this might be done. It could only be done by scientifically sophisticated people, so it did not matter if the Upper Nile continued to be occupied by dervishes, since no one cleverer was. From then onwards, Salisbury determined to keep the Upper Nile neutral, if it could not be made British. The earliest threats to the Upper Nile came from Italy and Germany, but they were not serious challenges and were easily seen off. Germany’s recognition of Britain’s title over Uganda and the Upper Nile was secured by an agreement in July 1890 which included the cession of Heligoland.

In March of the next year, Italy was bought off in return for recognition of her dubious and short-lived claims in Abyssinia. In May of 1894, the Congo, under the control of King Leopold of Belgium, recognised Britain’s title in southern Sudan and leased part of it by an arrangement by which Britain hoped to stop the French from marching across from the west, for it was they who posed the main threat to British interests at this time. Still smarting from their self-inflicted exclusion from Egypt since 1882, they hoped that by occupying Sudan themselves, they could prise the British out, and they were not put off by all the diplomatic activity around them. In June of 1894, Rosebery’s government tightened its grip on the region by declaring Uganda a British protectorate. But France would not agree that because three other countries recognised Sudan as British, this was now a fait accomplís. Nor would it abide the Congo’s plotting with Britain against her. In August 1894, the French diplomats persuaded Leopold not to occupy most of the territory he had leased, thus leaving the way open for their military to approach the Nile once again.

The problem of granting independence to Egypt was also complicated by the defence of the Suez Canal and the Egyptian’s dependence on British financiers. Moreover, in Sudan, turbulent Arab tribes continued to disturb the protectorate, and the removal of British troops from Egypt would make the defence of Sudan impossible. In 1896, the reconquest of Sudan was undertaken by Salisbury in 1896. The necessity of preserving the headwaters of the Nile led to the reconquest of Sudan in 1898, effected after Kitchener’s victory at Omdurman, in time to prevent French occupation.

It was clear that the French had ambitions in eastern Sudan that were not going to be easily diverted by diplomacy. Britain, therefore, reverted to the threat of the use of force, with the Foreign Under-Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, telling the House of Commons that if rumours of a secret French military expedition to the Nile valley proved correct, Britain would construe it as ‘an unfriendly act’ which, in the familiar diplomatic language of that time, constituted a clear warning. France disregarded it, and when the rumoured expedition failed to make progress, it sent out another via the Congo under Captain Marchand.

At the same time, the British were preparing to invade Sudan from Egypt, and occupy it with a sizeable army under Kitchener, whose ultimate objective was left contingent on circumstances, but which Salisbury saw as the conquest and occupation of Sudan. His view now was that treaties were no substitute for solid possessions. In 1896, Kitchener marched south to subdue the dervishes, slowly and methodically. Marchand started out later but moved much more quickly. What would happen when they met was anyone’s guess.

Their actual meeting took place in September 1898, at the fort of Fashoda, four hundred miles upstream from Khartoum. It was like an encounter between rival male animals when a display of strength between them establishes the dominance of one without the need for a battle. From France’s point of view, it came at the worst possible time when its naval strength was at its lowest ebb and French international influence was much weaker than when Marchand had left, thanks to Salisbury’s clever diplomacy. When Marchand arrived at Fashoda, and while he sat waiting for the British to come, Delcassé in the French foreign ministry was fervently hoping that he had not got there at all, in case the meeting sparked off a war. In the event, he was relieved by the outcome of avoiding this, at least. The two officers met, fraternised, agreed to differ and then sat back and waited for London and Paris to sort it all out. The solution that London and Paris arrived at was in accordance with the realities of the situation in the Nile Valley at that time. Britain, with an army on the spot and a string of military conquests, to confirm its title, stayed there. France, who had got there first, retreated. Delcassé summed up the outcome: ‘We have nothing but arguments, and they have got troops.’

In the event, Sudan was reoccupied, and Kitchener forced the French to leave Fashoda. This gave Britain complete control over the Nile valley and brought nearer the fulfilment of Cecil Rhodes’ dream of an all-British route from ‘Cape to Cairo’. France agreed that the Nile was Britain’s. Salisbury had got the fourth and decisive European signature to his claim, and there the argument, at least in principle, ended. It was a bloodless victory in itself but on his way to it, Kitchener had lost hundreds of his own troops in battles with the Sudanese and killed many thousands of theirs. His relentless progress up the Nile was notorious at the time for the extreme methods it involved, which Kitchener justified on grounds of military necessity. In reality, it was also motivated by a determination to seek vengeance for the murder of General Gordon. In the biggest battle of all, at Omdurman near Khartoum on 2 September 1898, eleven thousand dervishes were killed, many of them as they lay wounded on the ground, which shocked some British Liberals, and even caused Kitchener some misgivings about the “dreadful waste of ammunition”. He then decided to reinforce the ‘lesson’ by exhuming the remains of their Mahdi and scattering them, which shocked British Liberals even more. John Morley wrote that it was supposed to ‘make a deep impression’ on the Sudanese, showing that, in its determination to hold its own on the Nile in the difficult, crisis-filled 1890s, British imperialism was not prepared to give any quarter.

Young Winston & The Battle of Omdurman:

Churchill in the ‘Lancers’ in 1898.

In November 1894, the young Winston Churchill, about to graduate quite creditably from Sandhurst, Winston appeared for the first time as a public tribune. The nineteen-year-old Churchill was smart enough by this time, to be introduced to the Conservative leader, Arthur J. Balfour and the Liberal imperialist, Lord Rosebery. He began to write war reports for the Daily Graphic, confirming his flair for the kind of campfire journalism that sold newspapers, especially of the new kind, which thrived on Our Man Under Fire moments, the ancestor of the on-the-spot television correspondent:

‘We are on our horses, in uniform; our revolvers are loaded. In the dusk and half-light, long files of armed and laden men are shuffling off towards the enemy. He may be very near; perhaps he is waiting for us a mile away. We cannot tell.’

A parade of imperial adventures followed in which he developed an early sense of physical fearlessness, which he never lost and which made him an impetuous soldier and a brilliant war correspondent who intuited that history-making needed both writing and fighting. Instinctively, Churchill went wherever the ‘best’ imperial action was. Details of skirmishes became copy for articles, which then turned into book manuscripts. The publicity opened some doors for him but closed others. Lord Salisbury, his late father’s old nemesis, sent for Winston as the author of The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898) and gave him his blessing. On the other hand, Major-General Kitchener, conducting operations in Sudan, resisted almost to the last having the young adventurer foisted upon him. Nonetheless, Churchill was there at the battle of Omdurman in 1898, and moreover, in the most epic persona he could contrive, as a dark-blue 21st Lancer in the thick of the last great, massively futile cavalry charge in British military history, colliding with the Dervish army as ‘two living walls crashed together’. The experience provided Churchill with the perfect subject for his word painting, a skill that was becoming even more cinematically gripping, with every adventure:

‘Riderless horses galloped across the plain. Men, clinging to their saddles, lurched helplessly about, covered with blood from perhaps a dozen wounds. Horses, streaming from tremendous gashes, limped and staggered with their riders. In a hundred and twenty seconds, five officers, sixty-six men and 119 horses… had been killed or wounded.’

Even by the time he published The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of Sudan soon after in 1899, Churchill knew that sympathy for the gallant, fallen, dusky, foe was a crucial ingredient for the successful ‘ripping yarn’. Following Gibbon’s famously sympathetic, even heroic portrait of the prophet Muhammad. Churchill too attacked the wicked cast of characters, the ‘greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious soldier and the lying speculator’ who had perverted the ideals, especially, of the Anglo-Egyptian government in the Sudan. Muhammad Ahmed appears not as ‘the mad Mullah’ of imperial caricature, but as the austere and puritanical reformer he actually was, whose call to rebellion was entirely understandable. Churchill lamented that:

‘… the warm generous blood of a patriotic religious revolt congealed into the dark clot of a military empire.’

Churchill reported on the Boer War in 1899, this time wearing khaki.

But he still reserved some of his most powerful writing for the mutilated horsemen and foot soldiers of the Dervish army and was genuinely horrified to hear that Kitchener had allowed the Mahdi’s tomb to be desecrated and that the skull of the warrior was being used as a conversation piece for the general’s desk. But while he had his doubts about some of the generals, he had none about the results of their battles.

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the Cape to Cairo Route & Imperial Rivalries:

After the Battle of Omdurman, a huge area of the Upper Nile became linked with Egypt. The creation of the euphemistically titled ‘Anglo-Egyptian Sudan’ established a ‘condominium’ which was to be administered by a British Governor-General and British and Egyptian administrative officers. Under this rule the Sudanese economy expanded and mission schools expanded, especially in the south. The condominium in turn made possible a contiguous belt of ‘British Africa’ running Cape-to-Cairo along with the railway. As the map below shows, in the great continental interiors, the railway revolution brought agriculture, industry and population followed. The map indicates some of the most important consequences of railway construction across all the continents.

Churchill accepted the defensive rationalisation that the partition of Africa contained what would otherwise have been unacceptable instability in Egypt, the lifeline to India trebly threatened by the Khedive’s profligacy, French military expansionism and Islamic fundamentalism. This, of course, was the wilful muddling of means and ends that had landed Britain with an immense territorial empire in India a century before. The ‘Indian syndrome’ was repeating itself, with the military and governmental costs of the ‘holding operation’ pushing its custodians into yet more adventures in seeking to secure new raw materials to help it balance the books back home.

In the 1890s, British imperialist politicians could still reap cheap patriotic cheers and votes by telling their audiences that their nation was mightier than ever, but the reality was that it was not. Even Joseph Chamberlain struck a more sobering note in 1898 when he said:

We are the most powerful Empire in the world, but we are not all-powerful.’

Quoted in W. L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, p. 509.

It was Chamberlain’s view that Britain had to find an ally if it was not to be constantly plagued by the fear of being set upon, alone, by two or three enemies simultaneously. In the Victorian era, his advice was ignored. Britain survived: but its isolation left its mark on its foreign policy. It had to conserve its military resources, not over-commit itself on too many fronts, or leave any of them dangerously exposed. The development of German imperialism after 1890 brought about a rivalry with Britain which became one of the causes of the ‘Great War’ that followed. The control of Germany’s affairs passed into the hands of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who aroused distrust and alarm by his warlike statements.

The Kaiser had a vision of his empire as the dominant world power. German philosophers taught the superiority of the German nation over all others, and that only war would enable it to gain its rightful ascendancy. This vigorous patriotism also found expression in Germany’s demand for a place in the sun. Colonies were also desired by German merchants who wanted new markets for their goods. To protect the colonies gained in Africa, a great navy was constructed. This policy aroused British fears of competition in world markets and the imperial power it had achieved with the largest and most desirable share of colonial spoils.

Britain had to arrange its priorities and make choices between different national objectives: ‘There are certain things that we can do and certain things that we cannot do,’ said the foreign under-secretary in the spring of 1898, admitting that they had been weak in China; but he promised that they would ‘retrieve ourselves completely in Sudan’. This turned out to be the case, as after 1898 the British went on to solidify their hold by collaborating with the anti-Mahdists and in Uganda, they collaborated with the Ganda aristocracy. When it was a collaboration with a ruling élite, it was called ‘indirect rule’. If they chose their collaborators wisely, three white men could hold half a million ‘savages’. But to the extent that a régime depended on collaboration to sustain it, its freedom of action was stifled.

Colonies dominated by ‘other races’ were not deemed ready for the dominion status given to the ‘so-called’ white dominions in the empire, dominated by white Europeans. Although notions of trusteeship were sometimes aired (the argument that Britain’s imperial mission was to prepare ‘lesser races’ for ‘dominion status’), little was done to achieve this in the nineteenth century. Racialism remained institutionalised throughout the empire. It was firmly and widely believed that Britain had a civilising mission. It was a matter of considerable pride to the British that their empire was the first to abolish slavery. This was seen as proof of Britain’s moral superiority. The empire was popular, particularly among the upper and middle classes in Britain, for whom it provided prestigious military and administrative careers. There also appear to have been concerted efforts by imperialists to instil enthusiasm for empire among Britain’s working class. But much of that class seems to have remained apathetic about imperialism. But for many, the empire remained an emblem of British identity. In 1896, the Earl of Meath launched Empire Day on 24 May, Queen Victoria’s birthday.

The University of Khartoum, originally founded in 1902 as the Gordon Memorial College and the Kitchener School of Medicine, began, as the new century progressed, to produce a generation of students anxious for political independence.

New Imperialism, Anglo-German Rivalry & the Origins of World War:
Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner Source: Wikipedia.

‘Empire’ provided the stimulus for a new concept of exemplary masculinity, focusing on soldier heroes; men such as General Gordon of Khartoum were presented as national icons in a fusion of military prowess, Protestant zeal and moral manhood. Viscount Milner (pictured right), a British statesman and colonial administrator who played a role in the formulation of British foreign policy between the mid-1890s and early 1920s, began to bring forward theories that became known as ‘new imperialism’.

Britain, he stated, needed to prepare for its future by becoming a more militarized, disciplined nation. Though Britain did not compare badly with other nations as an imperial power, there were certainly enough injustices in the empire to raise nationalist hostility. Towards the end of the century, opposition to imperial rule appeared, although it was limited in scope. In 1897, the Egyptian National Party was formed. In the next century, Britain was going to have to find a way of accommodating their demands, if the Empire and Commonwealth were to find a means of survival.

The primary aim of German foreign policy in the Bismarck era had been to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition of great powers. For as long as it continued, the tension between the world empires made this objective relatively easy to accomplish. French rivalry with Britain intermittently distracted Paris from its hostility towards Germany. As a mainly continental power, Germany could stay out of the great struggles over Africa, Central Asia and China. As long as Britain, France and Russia remained imperial rivals, Berlin would always be able to play the margins between them. This state of affairs enhanced the empire’s security and created a certain wriggle room for the policy-makers in Berlin. But the Bismarck strategy also exacted a cost. It required that Germany always punch below its weight, abstain from the imperial feeding frenzy in Africa and remain on the sidelines when other powers quarrelled over global power shares. It also required that Germany enter into contradictory commitments to those other powers. But the idea of colonial possessions with an endless supply of cheap labour and raw materials for white settlers or native populations to buy Germany’s exports was too much for the German middle classes to resist any longer.

But in 1884-5, when the German government attempted to placate these imperialist appetites by approving the acquisition of a modest suite of colonial possessions in southwest Africa, it met with a dismissive response from Britain. However, the British were distracted by more serious challenges from the French in northern Africa, and eventually gave in and the potential for serious conflict with Germany passed. Yet the episode was a sharp reminder to them, as late arrivals at the imperial table of just how little room was left at it. In the summer of 1891, the Germans learned that their Italian allies were engaged in secret talks with France in the hope of securing French support for future Italian acquisitions in northern Africa. More alarmingly, the deepening intimacy between France and Russia did not seem to pressure Britain into seeking closer relations with Germany but rather prompted British policy-makers to consider appeasing first France and then Russia. This led their German counterparts to expand the Reich’s defensive capacity, passing an army bill in 1893, bringing the army’s strength to over half a million and military expenditure in that year to double what it had been in 1886.

The conclusion of the Franco-Russian Alliance allowed Britain to oscillate between the continental camps and reduced the incentive for it to seek a firm understanding with Berlin. Only at times of crisis on the imperial periphery did London actively seek closer ties, but these did not amount to the offer of a fully-fledged alliance on terms that Berlin could accept. The dispute over the Anglo-Congolese Treaty of 1894, by which Britain had acquired a twenty-five kilometre-wide corridor linking Uganda with Rhodesia was a case in point. This treaty, essentially designed to obstruct French designs on the Upper Nile, also had the effect of abutting German southeast Africa with a cordon of British territory. Only under concerted pressure from Berlin did London eventually back down.

This outcome produced jubilation in the German press, desperate for signs of national self-assertion. It also reinforced the belief that standing up to Britain was the only way to secure German foreign policy interests. This led to the Transvaal crisis of 1894-95, which led to a further worsening in Anglo-German relations which continued throughout the 1890s. A commitment from Britain remained elusive and the German statesmen were extraordinarily slow to see the scale of the problem facing them, mainly because they mistakenly believed that the continuing frictions between the world empires provided a guarantee that they would never combine against them.

In 1901, with British forces tied down in South Africa, Foreign Secretary Lansdowne was keen to secure German support against Russian ambitions in China, but the question that worried the German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Bernhard von Bülow, was: what could the British offer the Germans to offset the enmity from France and Russia that an Anglo-German alliance would undoubtedly bring? By this time, German foreign policy had turned to what became known as Weltpolitik, literally ‘global policy’. The term denoted a foreign policy focused on extending Germany’s influence as a global power, thereby aligning it with the other big players on the world scene. In an important essay from 1897, the historian Hans Delbrück warned:

‘Phenomenal masses of land will be partitioned in all corners of the world in the course of the next decades. … the nationality that remains empty-handed will be excluded for the generation to come from the ranks of those great peoples that define the contours of the human spirit.’

In a popular and influential speech in December 1897, von Bülow articulated the confident new mood, when he announced:

‘The times when the German left the earth to one of his neighbours, the sea to the other, and reserved for himself the the heavens where pure philosophy reigns – these times are over. We don’t want to put anyone in the shadow, but we demand our place in the sun.’

After 1901, when Germany finally rejected British overtures towards a better mutual understanding, Britain drew away from its policy of ‘splendid isolation’ to enter the European system of alliances. But Britain’s decision to enter into an Entente with France and to seek an arrangement with Russia came about primarily as a consequence of pressures on the imperial periphery. A series of crises arose which signalled the impending continental struggle. The first of these ‘incidents’ took place over the Franco-German rivalry in North Africa, especially in Morocco, which was in a very disturbed condition. France undertook to maintain order on the Algerian-Moroccan frontier and after the conclusion of the Entente Cordiále in 1904, Britain recognised the special interest of France in the country in return for French recognition of British primacy in Egypt.

In a letter to von Bülow of April 1904, Kaiser Wilhelm informed the Chancellor that the Entente Cordiále gave him ‘much food for thought’ because the fact that Britain and France no longer had anything to fear from each other meant that their ‘need to take account of or position becomes ever less pressing.’ The German leadership continued to push at the door that seemed to have been shut by the Entente.

To be continued…

Sources:

Simon Hall & John Haywood (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Herman Kinder & Werner Hingemann (1978, 1988), The Penguin Atlas of World History, Vol. II.Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

George Taylor (1936), A Sketch-Map History of Europe, 1789-1914. London: George G. Harrap & Co.

Irene Richards, J. A. Morris (1936), A Sketch-Map History of Britain, 1783-1914. London: Harrap.

Irene Richards, J. B. Goodson & J. A. Morris (eds.) (1936), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War & After, 1914-34. London: George G. Harrap & Co.

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Books.

Bernard Porter (1984), The Lion’s Share: A Short History of British Imperialism. London: Longman.

Christopher Clark (2012/13), The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. London: Penguin Books.

Christopher Lee (1999), This Sceptered Isle: Twentieth Century. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books/BBC Books.

R. E. Robinson & J. A. Gallagher (1960), Africa and the Victorians, ch. 8-12.

G. N. Sanderson, England, Europe and the Upper Nile.

W. L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890-1902, ch 4, 9, 16.

Featured

A Quiet ‘Middletonian’ Revolution, or the ‘Last Hurrah’ of the Windsors? The Royal Wedding of 2011 Twelve Years On.

Another Royal Fairy Tale – William & Kate, 2002-2022:

The sun was coming up over Westminster Abbey on Friday 29th April 2011, and on the Mall, some of the visitors were sleeping on chairs near the road, and others were standing and talking. They came from all over the capital city, as well as from other towns and cities all over Britain, and from other countries too. Later in the morning, Catherine Elizabeth Middleton was getting ready for her very special day. Her parents, sister and brother, were staying in the same hotel – the Goring Hotel in Belgravia. She would soon have to put on her specially designed dress.

At the same time, not far away, Prince William was getting ready too. He and his brother, Prince Harry, were putting on their uniforms – red for him, black for his brother.

Prince William was then second in line to the throne of the United Kingdom, after his father, Prince Charles. William and Kate came from two very different families, the Windsor-Mountbatten royal family, and the Middletons, an upper-middle-class family. Kate’s parents were Michael and Carole Middleton. They met when they worked for British Airways. Kate is their eldest child and she has a sister, Pippa, and a brother, James. When Kate was six, Carole Middleton began a business called Party Pieces and later Michael Middleton worked with her. It made a lot of money for the family.

But although she was from a perfectly respectable, wealthy family, Kate was a ‘commoner’, had no title and was not therefore a member of the aristocracy. Before William’s great-grandmother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the then Duke of York, the future George VI, marriages like this, between princes and ‘commoners’ could not happen. When his grandmother, as heir to the throne, married Philip Mountbatten in 1947, she was marrying into the Greek royal family. His father had originally married Lady Diana Spencer, who was from a ‘stately home’. But modern princes and princesses from countries around the world do not always, or even usually, marry people from other royal families, or even the aristocracy.

Carole, James, Michael and Pippa Middleton.

Kate was born in January 1982, six months before William, in Reading. The Middletons had lived in the (Home County) Berkshire village of Bradfield Southend since 1986 when they returned from two years in Amman, Jordan. Kate went to primary school in the village before the family moved to a large detached house in Bucklebury in 1995. She then went to Marlborough College in Wiltshire, where she played hockey and tennis for the school teams, and succeeded academically. When she left Marlborough in 2000, she took a gap year during which she went to Florence, Italy and to Chile in the New Year of 2000, arriving there, by coincidence, a few weeks after William had returned from there on his gap year, so they didn’t meet. She worked as a teaching assistant before returning to England to get ready to go to the University of St Andrew’s in Scotland as a student of art history. The University is the oldest in Scotland, first opened in 1413, and the third oldest in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge. It has a student population of over eight thousand. William and Kate lived in the same building, were both students of art history and had some of the same friends.

In March 2002, Kate was in a fashion show at the university, and William and some of his friends went to watch. First, Kate modelled a colourful jumper, and then she walked out in an exciting black dress, catching William’s attention. William and Kate soon became good friends and remained so for over a year before, in the summer of 2003, Kate turned twenty-one (she was six months older than William), and he went to a party at her parents’ house in Berkshire, together with other friends from St. Andrew’s. Later that year, Prince Charles had an ‘African’ party for William’s twenty-first, and Kate was one of the guests. In September 2003, they began their third year and William moved to a house in the country called Balgrove House, not far from the town and the university, but a quiet place, away from photographers and reporters. Then in March 2004, William and Kate were in the news together. They went on a skiing holiday to Klosters in Switzerland with some friends and William’s father. Soon, newspapers from all over the world had a photo of William and Kate. Now everybody wanted to know, Who is Kate Middleton? The newspapers started to write about Will and Kate as a couple.

September 2004 was the beginning of their last year at St. Andrew’s. There were often photos of William at parties and weddings but without Kate. As she was not part of the royal family and its official entourage, she couldn’t go with him, but they were still a courting couple. In 2005, they graduated and Her Majesty, Prince Philip and Prince Charles all came up for the ceremony. Kate’s mother and father were there too, but the two families did not meet.

Soon after graduation, William went to New Zealand for a second time, his first official visit overseas, which lasted eleven days. Then he went on a month’s holiday to Lewa Downs in Kenya, where he was later joined, for a short time, by Kate and some of their mutual friends. William then began to have a very busy time, working in the City of London and learning about banking. He also worked for the Football Association at Chatsworth House in Derbyshire. In December, he spent two weeks with a mountain rescue team and after another skiing holiday together at Klosters in January 2006, William and Kate agreed to ‘separate’ while they both established themselves in work. William went to Sandhurst to train as an army officer, where he stayed for almost the rest of the year, not seeing Kate very often. She was trying to find work, but as the girlfriend of the future monarch, she was plagued by photographers who waited near her house and ran after her in the street. For a lot of the time, she worked in her parents’ business; there she could get away from the newspapers. In November 2006, she began to work with a women’s clothes business called Jigsaw, which had a chain of high-street shops throughout the UK. The next month, William graduated from Sandhurst, and Kate and her parents were invited to the ‘passing out’ ceremony.

But the media’s invasion of Kate’s privacy got worse in 2007 and at twenty-four, William was not ready to get married. He was still very busy in the army in Dorset, and Kate was working in London, a hundred miles away. Sometimes photos appeared in the papers of William with other girls. Couples in the public eye often stop being together in these circumstances, and of the Queen’s four children, three had divorced. Only Edward, her youngest, was still in his first marriage. In April 2007, they decided to announce that they were no longer a couple. Kate probably needed time to decide whether she wanted to be a future queen consort, and went back to her parents’ house, away from London and the cameras. But she did not stay at home for very long, and she was often seen out shopping with her sister, Pippa. Nor did she stay away from William for long, since on 1st July she accepted his invitation to be among his guests at a special concert organised by Harry and himself to honour their mother, Diana, on her birthday. She did not sit next to William but was not far away and seemed happy again. After two months, they were back together again and flew to The Seychelles for a week together.

Kate goes shopping with her sister, Pippa.

William next spent twelve weeks with the RAF, learning to fly, and he then had two months with the Royal Navy, before returning to the RAF to learn how to fly a helicopter, like his father and uncle, in the autumn of 2008. Meanwhile, Kate continued to work for her parents’ business, taking photographs for them, and people took an interest in her clothes. In January 2010, William finished his helicopter training and went to the island of Anglesey in North Wales to train with the RAF in search and rescue work. He lived in a little house on a farm, and Kate visited him there frequently. William’s training ended in September 2010, and soon after that he and Kate went to Kenya for a three-week holiday.

For some of the time they were in Kenya, William and Kate were with friends. But near the end of the holiday, they had some time alone as a couple again. William had taken his mother’s engagement ring with him, gold with a big blue sapphire surrounded with little diamonds. He carried it carefully with him all through the holiday, and on 19th October, he proposed to Kate with it. She agreed to marry him, and the couple returned to the UK, but could not tell the exciting news to their friends, and Kate could not wear the ring. Finally, on 16th November, the couple appeared on TV at St. James’ Palace and announced their engagement to the public. Kate wore a stunning blue dress to match the sapphire in her ring. William had already asked the Queen and Kate’s father for their consent to the marriage. Both of them gave it.

The Royal Wedding of 2011- A Gallery:

At the time of the royal wedding, Britain was not just becoming increasingly divided over immigration and EU membership, but it was also in recession, following the international financial crash of 2010. Some businesses were forced to close and people were losing their jobs, and it was difficult for young people to borrow enough money to buy or rent their first home. The royal wedding cheered everyone up, but the royal family were concerned that it should not be too lavish. The wedding was meant to be very traditional, but simple.

William and Catherine’s wedding day was set for 29th April 2011, in Westminster Abbey. The Queen asked about nineteen hundred people to attend the wedding. Many of these guests were family and friends, but she also invited kings and queens from around the world. A wedding ring was made of Welsh gold, a tradition within the royal family going back to his great-grandmother. William’s brother Harry was to be his best man, and Kate’s sister, Pippa, her chief bridesmaid. Then there were to be four little bridesmaids and two-page boys. On the eve of the big day, thousands of people began to arrive in London, determined to camp near Westminster Abbey and on the Mall. The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William himself came out to meet them. The day of the Wedding was warm and dry. Hundreds of thousands waited on the streets, and five thousand police officers were deployed around the route. Spread over different parts of the capital, there were more than eight thousand radio and television reporters, ready to tell people around the world about the wedding.

At eight o’clock the news came from Buckingham Palace that William and Kate would be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. At mid-morning, William and Harry came into the abbey, William wearing an Irish Guards uniform and Harry the uniform of a captain in the Blues and Royals. Minutes later, Kate’s mother arrived and soon after that, the Queen and Prince Philip. Then, just before eleven, people saw Kate leaving the hotel to get into a Rolls-Royce with her father. Unlike previous royal brides, brides, Kate did not arrive at the wedding in a horse-drawn coach. Ten minutes later, she arrived at the Abbey and everyone could see her dress, by British designer Sarah Burton, for the first time. It was made from ivory and white satin, with a V-neck bodice with lace detailing. It had a big skirt and long lace sleeves. The train measured 270cm, 110ins. Kate wore a white veil over her face, held in place by a diamond tiara, lent to her by the Queen. It was originally given by King George V to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, in 1936. They had given it to the then Princess Elizabeth on her eighteenth birthday. According to reports, a blue ribbon was stitched inside the dress. In her hands, Kate carried small white flowers.

As she walked in with her father, there were hundreds of white and green flowers lining the abbey nave, and eight tall trees. Her sister Pippa walked behind, carefully carrying the long train of the dress. Pippa almost stole the show, wearing a simple white shift dress with buttons down the back. The ceremony took a little more than an hour. Then the new Duke and Duchess walked out of the abbey with the four children, bridesmaids and pages, Prince Harry, Pippa, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, and Kate’s parents. The bells of Westminster Abbey were rung for three hours after the wedding.

The Duke & Duchess leaving the Abbey for the ‘breakfast’ party at the Palace.

The bride and groom got into an open-top gold and black coach, the 1902 State Landau, to go to Buckingham Palace, with the other important royal guests and Carole and Michael Middleton in the following carriages. After they arrived at the Palace, thousands of people began to walk up the Mall behind a cordon of police officers. Then everyone in the crowd watched the balcony and waited for the royal couple to appear. A royal bride and groom first did this in 1858, and William’s parents, Charles and Diana famously kissed there in 1981. So when Kate and William came out onto the balcony, the crowd expected them to do the same. The noise created by the crowd’s approval made one of the little bridesmaids put her hands over her ears (see below)!

Then there were the formal photographs inside the palace, with the bride and groom together, with their pages and bridesmaids, and with their families. After that, there was a party for 650 guests in nineteen rooms, and Prince Charles made a speech. There were further speeches at the dinner for three hundred guests, from Prince Harry, Michael Middleton and from Prince William. Two of the couple’s friends also spoke. In the ballroom, the guests talked and danced until 3 a.m., when the bride and groom left and the party ended. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, gave the couple a tandem bike as a wedding present.

The big wedding cake was made from seventeen different cakes, but Prince William asked for a chocolate cake as well, to remind him of when he was visiting her from Eton, at Windsor, his grandmother would give him this cake.

Of course, the party at the palace was not the only one in the Kingdom. The day of the wedding was a bank holiday, and there were more than five thousand street parties across the different countries. In Scotland, at St Andrew’s, more than two thousand people came together to watch the ceremony on a giant TV. David Cameron, the Coalition Government‘s PM, also had a party in Downing Street, inviting elderly people and children to join him. His wife, Samantha, made the cakes. In cities and towns throughout the Kingdom, people closed their streets to traffic and came together for the day, watching the wedding together.

There were parties in many other places around the world, from Afghanistan to India to Canada. In a hundred and eighty countries, many millions of people watched the pictures from London with fellow members of the British armed forces, families and friends. In the early morning in Times Square in New York City, three couples got married just after William and Kate. However, there was no immediate honeymoon, and after three days away, they went back to Anglesey as, on the following Tuesday, William had to return to work with the search and rescue team. Ten days after the wedding, they flew to The Seychelles for ten days, away from the prying eyes of press photographers.

After the Wedding – The Working Duke & Duchess:

After their honeymoon, the couple returned to Anglesey, and a new life for Kate in the royal family. Before long they had their first visit as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to Canada, from 30th June to 8th July. Again, thousands of people came out to see them as they attended official ceremonies. William gave speeches in both English and French. On leaving Canada, they went to California for three days, where they attended a big dinner in Los Angeles, meeting Jennifer Lopez, Nicole Kidman and other rich Hollywood celebrities. At these overseas functions, Kate wore dresses specially designed for her, but she usually wore things from British shops. So, when young women saw her wearing a new dress made in Britain of this kind, they went to their nearest high-street fashion store to see if they could get the same dress. Often, the shops sold out of these ‘Kate’ dresses within hours of her appearing on TV in it, so she was good news for the British clothes shops and fashion ‘houses’. But while in California they also spent time at the charitable foundation, Inner-City Arts, where children from poorer families went to have lessons in dance and the arts. The Duke and Duchess watched the dances and made pictures with the children.

Back home, too, many charities asked for ‘patronage’ from them as members of the royal family. The charity Centrepoint was sponsored by his mother, and William gave his time to it as well, including sleeping out on the cold streets of London for a night to learn something, firsthand, about the experience of homeless people. The Duchess also began helping four charitable organisations. One of them is the East Anglia Children’s Hospice, which helps seriously and terminally ill children and their families. Another, building on her background in art history, is the National Portrait Gallery.

When they got engaged, Kate said, “Family is very important to me,” and William said, “We want a family.” By 2022 they had two new royal princes, George (b. 2013) and Louis, and a princess, Charlotte. Had she been born first, Charlotte would have become third in line to the throne following a change in the law of succession to permit the eldest child of the Monarch to become heir to the throne, whether they are male or female. So it seems that British subjects will have two more kings after Charles III, William and George before they have another queen. In the meantime, after overcoming the difficult obstacles placed in their way in their courtship, the new royal couple has been in the news for all the right reasons over the past dozen years, balancing their private family life together with their public work for the Monarchy.

Together, while working in Canada

Prince William was a patron of a mountain rescue organisation and often did work for the Football Association, including joint bids for the British nations to stage the European Championships and World Cup. He also helped with the organisation of the summer 2012 London Olympic Games. It was a very busy time for the whole royal family, who greeted and talked with many famous visitors from around the world and went to the big opening and closing ceremonies.

Sources:

Andrew Marr (2009), A History of Modern Britain. London: Pan Macmillan.

Photos/Graphics:

Igloobooks.com (2013), The History of Britain. Sywell, NN6 OBJ: Igloo Books Ltd.

Christine Lindop (2013), Factfiles: William and Kate. Oxford: OUP (Oxford Bookworms Library):

The book contains a full list of photo acknowledgements
Featured

Eighty Years Ago: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, April-May 1943.

Introduction – An Ideological Conflict & the Partition of Poland:

With the outbreak of war in September 1939, an ideological conflict of peculiar savagery began with the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. Well before the fighting began Hitler and Himmler indicated that German forces should ignore the usual Geneva ‘convention’ distinguishing between the treatment of civilians and soldiers. Jews were a particular target, but Jews who were also communists were to be given no quarter. In the wake of the advancing armies came four so-called Einsatzgruppen, operated by the SS as hit squads against any alleged political or ‘pre-designated’ racial enemies of the régime. Unknowable thousands of civilians were slaughtered in the first few months of the occupation. This brutality spilt over to the Wehrmacht, whose view of the enemy was shaped by racist propaganda. The victorious Germans adopted a policy of forcing enormous numbers of Jews into ghettos, small urban areas where it was hoped that disease, malnutrition and eventually starvation would destroy them.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-103.png

Ghettoisation & ‘Special Treatment’:

The treatment of the Jews, communists and other ‘undesirables’ began with a programme of ghetto-building or internment in urban concentration camps, but in the summer of 1941, this suddenly became more violent. Over one-third of the population of Warsaw, for example (comprising more than a third of a million) was forced into a ghetto which occupied an area comprising only 2.5 per cent of the total area of the city. The penalty for leaving the three hundred ghettos and 437 labour camps of the Reich was death and the Judenräte (Jewish elders’ councils) were made to administer them on behalf of the Nazis, on the (often false) basis that they would ameliorate conditions more than the Germans. By August 1941, five and a half thousand Jews were dying in the Warsaw ghetto every month.

In February 1941 Martin Boorman, the Führer’s secretary, was deputed by Hitler to discuss the practicalities of sending the European Jews to one vast ghetto, either in the Vichy-run island of Madagascar or British-owned Uganda, which would become a German colony after the war. Instead, by early 1941, under Special Action Order 14f13, SS murder squads were sent by Himmler into concentration camps to kill Jews and others whom the Reich considered unworthy of life, an approach which the Gestapo referred to as Sonderbehandlung (‘special treatment’, in other words, ‘extra-judicial killings’).

Concentration Camps in Germany, Bohemia-Moravia & Poland:

During the war, Germany became briefly an imperial state again, exploiting its conquests and pursuing a crude ‘ethnic cleansing’. The Reich’s rule in Europe reached its fullest extent late in 1942 when its forces were still poised to seize Stalingrad on the River Volga. The German empire, or the New Order (Neuordnung) as Nazi leaders called it, was an incoherent political structure held together only by German military power. The organising principles of the New Order emerged in a haphazard way following Germany’s early victories in 1940-41. It was formally announced on 3rd October 1941 by Hitler himself when he returned to Berlin from the front to tell his people that Soviet Russia was on the point of defeat and that the work of rebuilding Europe was about to begin. As events unfurled, the Soviet Union was not defeated in 1941, but the process of reconstructing Europe economically, demographically and governmentally was set in motion under conditions of continuous warfare.

Reorganisation of, & Resistance to the Reich:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 002-1.jpg

Of all the elements of the New Order, the political organisation of Europe was the most complex. German leaders did not want to rule the whole of Europe directly, lacking both the resources and experiences to do so. In the north and west of the continent, the running of local affairs remained in the hands of local authorities whose work was monitored by German commissioners or by military governors. In the East, however, the occupied countries were destined to be in the core of the German Eurasian empire, so the Reich’s rule was more direct. Austria, Bohemia and much of conquered Poland came directly under Berlin, though Bohemia remained, technically, a Protectorate. The Balkan countries were even more complicated, especially Greece and Yugoslavia. In Ukraine, Alfred Rosenberg, the NSDP’s official ideologue, wanted to turn Ukraine into a new nation-state friendly to Germany. In practice, however, Ukrainians remained in junior administrative positions, but they remained alienated from the German commissariat, nullifying any hope that they might have preferred the German New Order to Stalinist rule.

The third area of New Order activity was racial policy. German conquest made it possible to export the biological politics of the Reich to the rest of Europe. This included the search for, and kidnapping of children with ‘Aryan’ features, to be brought up in the Reich, in order to ‘improve’ the ‘bloodstock’ of the nation. An estimated three hundred thousand children were sent to ‘Lebensborn’ centres from where they were adopted by German families. It also involved the liquidation, through murder or neglect, of psychiatric patients and the mentally and physically disabled. But at the core of the policy was the motivation to ‘solve’ the so-called ‘Jewish question’.

The régime’s anti-Jewish policy went through a number of stages both before and after the outbreak of war. Hitler hoped for some form of deportation of European Jewry, not to Palestine but to the French island of Madagascar, which he felt could be made into a tropical ghetto where the Jews would die of disease and malnutrition. This option was kept open in 1940-41, but meanwhile, the Nazis concentrated on their ghetto-building in Europe itself, with hundreds of thousands of Jews transported across Europe from west to east, to ghettoes where Jewish councils ran their lives in uneasy ‘collaboration’ with the SS.

The SS, Barbarossa & the Pursuit of Genocide:

Hitler’s own SS guard, parading on 9 November 1935.

The invasion of the USSR changed the circumstances again. The conquest of continental Europe provided the circumstances for the sharp change in the direction of German race policy away from discrimination and terror to the active pursuit of genocide. Hitler and the racist radicals in the Nazi movement had no master plan for annihilation in 1939, but their whole conception of the war was one of racial struggle in which the Jewish people above all were the enemy of German imperialism. The orders prepared for Operation Barbarossa deliberately encouraged the murder of Soviet Jews, whom Hitler regarded as ‘Jewish-Bolsheviks’ and therefore doubly unworthy of citizenship in the German New Order. Moreover, millions of Jews in the republics targeted for conquest were suddenly panicked about the racial policy they would soon be subject to if the Germans succeeded in occupying their areas of the Soviet Union. In the Baltic States and Ukraine, native anti-Semitism was whipped up by the German invaders and led to widespread massacres. Ten of thousands of Jews were suddenly rounded up, murdered in broad daylight and thrown into mass graves throughout the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine.

Then, when the Nazis suddenly found themselves ruling a very large Jewish population after the conquests in the east, they began to explore more extreme solutions to the ‘Jewish question’. The German New Order was viewed from Berlin in terms of a hierarchy of races: at the apex were the Germanic peoples, followed by subordinate Latin and Slavic populations, and at the foot were races – Jews, Sinti and Roma (‘gypsies’) who were deemed to be unworthy of existence. As early as January 1940, Hitler is reported to have declared to František Chvalkovský (the foreign minister of Bohemia-Moravia):

“The Jews shall be annihilated in our land.”

Following the instigation of Barbarossa, however, this was no longer a vague ‘promise’ lifted from the pages of Mein Kampf. This policy of annihilation was now vigorously and violently applied on a continental basis, especially when four SS Einsatzgruppen (action groups) followed the Wehrmacht into the Soviet Union in order to liquidate those considered ‘undesirable’, primarily Jews, Red Army commissars and anyone thought likely to become partisans behind German lines.

The SS groups killed out of all proportion to their numbers; together they comprised only three thousand, including clerks, interpreters, teletype and radio operators and female secretaries. By the end of July 1941, Himmler had reinforced this number ten-fold when SS Kommandostab brigades, German police battalions and Baltic and Ukrainian pro-Nazi auxiliary units augmented the numbers (by forty thousand) and the role of the Einsatzgruppen in an orgy of killing that accounted for nearly one million deaths in six months, by many different means.

The Formation of the Final Solution – Extermination:

There is strong evidence, not least from the later trial of Adolf Eichmann, that it was in July 1941 that Hitler finally ordered “the physical extermination of the Jews”. Flushed with his successes in the east, and the prospect of ultimate victory over the USSR, Hitler knew that there would soon be no forces left in Europe which could constrain a programme of annihilation. Sometime between mid-July and mid-October 1941, just as the mass murder of Russian Jews was being escalated after Operation Barbarossa, Hitler decided to kill every Jew that his Reich could reach, regardless of the help they could have afforded Germany’s war effort. The exact date is impossible to determine since the Nazis attempted to obliterate evidence of the Holocaust itself, regardless of its organisational genesis. But although the precise dates at which the key decisions in the Jewish question were taken have yet to be established, the evidence points strongly to a date in July, as German forces won startling victories in the USSR and Hitler came to realise that victory would give him the freedom to carry out whatever policy he chose on the race question.

In July, Gőring (pictured above at the Nuremberg trial with Boorman) ordered Heydrich to work out a Final Solution, and Adolf Eichmann, who was in charge of the rail transport of Jews in Europe, later recalled that Himmler told him in July that physical extermination was what Hitler wanted. This can be verified from the other sources already mentioned. By the autumn, therefore, the widescale mass murder of Jews had become commonplace and routine.

Reinhard Heydrich pioneered the use of mobile gas chambers, originally used to kill the mentally ill and disabled, for the SS (Schutzstaffel, or ‘security police’). They were sometimes disguised as furniture removal vans. The subsequent experiments with these ‘killing vans’ convinced Heydrich and the SS hierarchy that a less conspicuous and more rational form of extermination should be set up, based on camps designed like factories to process human beings. Building began in 1941 and the extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau was completed in October.

This coincided with a change in the Jewish emigration policy of the régime. In October 1941, all Jewish emigration from Europe was banned, despite the fact that the Nazis had encouraged approximately half of Germany’s Jews to emigrate between 1933 and 1939, forty-one thousand of them to Palestine under the Ha’avarah Agreement made with Zionist organisations in Palestine. Instead, deportations of the remaining German Jews to concentration camps in the east began in October 1941. The next month, mobile gas vans were used to kill Jews in Lodz in Poland and soon afterwards in Chelmno.

So confident was Hitler of his impending almost total victory in Europe that he was planning to push on through the Caucasians to seize Palestine from the British (mandated authority), with the help of local Arab militias. This is confirmed in a Record of the Conversation between the Führer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on 28 November 1941, which took place in Berlin with Ribbentrop, the Reich Foreign Minister, in attendance. At this meeting, Hitler promised the Arab leader, exiled in Berlin, that as soon as the German armies in the east had gained control of the Caucasians, Germany’s sole objective would be…

‘… the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of the British power.’

Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-45, Series D, Vol. XIII, London, 1964, pp. 881 ff.

On 12 December 1941, the day after declaring war on the USA, Hitler spoke to senior party functionaries. Afterwards, Goebbels recorded that the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep as far as the Jewish question was concerned. Hitler referred back to his 1939 speech in the Reichstag, saying:

‘The world war is here, the extermination of the Jews must be the necessary consequence.’

Six days later, Himmler made a note of a meeting he had had with Hitler, which read:

‘Jewish Question: To be extirpated as partisans.’

Peter Longerich, BBC History, 2/2002, p. 36.

Extermination was placed on a proper organisational foundation with the establishment of a series of camps in occupied Poland under the RSHA (Reichssicherheitshauptamt), where victims were either gassed as soon as they arrived, or worked to death in factories and quarries closeby. The systematic murder of Jews began in late 1941 and was extended to the Sinti and Roma in 1942. During the war, the number of concentration camps for political prisoners expanded enormously, and the total camp population increased from twenty-five to seven hundred thousand by the end of the war. Hundreds of thousands of others died from malnutrition and disease. From March 1942, the SS also set up camps in the east for the mass murder of Jews and gypsies.

‘Operation Reinhard’ – The ‘Liquidationof the Polish Jews:

The policy was to be changed from killing Jews wherever they happened to be, while moving them eastwards and keeping them living in conditions also likely to kill them, to carrying out the Final Solution in specially adapted camps dedicated to the purpose. This included Operation Reinhard, the sole purpose of which was the liquidation of Poland’s Jews at three further camps: Treblinka, Sobibór and Belzec. Solibór Camp was opened near Lublin in May 1942, and work was begun on Treblinka in north-east Poland the next month. Over the next three years, an estimated five to six million Jews, Roma and Shinti were killed in these industrial-scale, human-processing camps, brought there from all over occupied Europe, and from pro-Axis states, such as Croatia.

The Ghetto Uprising, April-May 1943:

It was against this backcloth that, at 6.00 a.m. on Monday 19 April 1943, some eight hundred and fifty soldiers of the Waffen-SS entered the Ghetto, intending first to ‘evacuate’ the remaining Jewish population there, numbering sixty thousand, and then to destroy it, under direct orders from Himmler. But the Jews had been warned by the arrival of Ukrainian, Latvian and Lithuanian auxiliaries of what was about to happen, and the Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa (ZOB, or Jewish combat organisation) took up positions around the Ghetto, ready to make the SS pay as dearly as possible. The Uprising, as it soon became known, came as a surprise to them. On the first day, they lost twelve killed by ZOB grenades and Molotov cocktails, with the Ghetto’s defenders also managing to set a tank alight. It was so serious a reverse that the chief of the SS in Warsaw was replaced, and SS-General Jürgen Stroop took over. He reported back on one attack soon afterwards:

‘The Jews and bandits defended themselves from one defence point to the next, and at the last minute escaped via atticks or underground passages.’

Bartozewski & Polonsky (eds.), Jews in Warsaw, pp. 338 -42.

Vastly outnumbered in terms of fighters and outgunned in equipment, the Jews fought with a furious determination born of utter desperation, as Stroop slowly made his way into the centre of the Ghetto. His reports to Krüger in Kraków continued:

‘One saw constant examples of how, despite the threat of fire, the Jews and bandits preferred to return into the flames than to fall into our hands. … Yelling abuse at Germany and the Führer and cursing German soldiers, Jews hurl themselves from burning windows and balconies.’

Ibid.

They continued to fight a door-to-door, do-or-die battle against three thousand élite troops. The leader of the Uprising, Mordechai Anielewicz and his closest comrades, refused to surrender to the SS, which surrounded them in a bunker at 18 Mila Street; instead, they committed suicide on 8th May. Eight days later the Uprising was finally put down when Stroop blew up the Warsaw Synagogue. By then he had captured or killed 55,065 Jewish resistors and Polish ‘bandits’ who had fought alongside them and were executed on capture. Stroop had lost sixteen men in all, but another eighty-four were wounded. Only approximately fifty Jewish fighters escaped as the Uprising was brutally suppressed.

The Uprising became a symbol of the Jewish resistance in Lviv, Czestochawa, and Bialystock. In August, there were even risings in the Treblinka and Sobibór extermination camps, set up in 1942. With the huge preponderance of arms available to the Germans, little by way of military success could be achieved by these risings, but the resistance shown helped to maintain the morale and pride of the Jewish people in Poland and throughout Nazi-occupied and Axis-controlled central Europe. A second, more general rising occurred in Warsaw as the Red Army approached the Polish capital city on 1st August 1944.

The Soviet Advance & The Warsaw Rising of 1944:

Understandably, the Poles wanted to wrest control of their capital away from the Germans, and with it, they hoped, the sovereignty of their country, before the arrival of the Soviet troops. While the Uprising was aimed militarily against the Germans, it was also aimed politically against the Soviets, something that Stalin well understood. The result was as desperate and tragic for the Warsaw Poles as the Ghetto Uprising had been for the Warsaw Jews in April 1943. The sixty-three-day rising which began in August 1944 led to the deaths of a quarter of a million Poles and the destruction of some eighty-three per cent of the city in the German retaliation, systematically organised by the Waffen SS. The Red Army stood by outside the city’s environs and watched while all this happened. Yet when, in early September, the Red Cross arranged an evacuation, only one in ten of the remaining one million citizens elected to leave.

A Street in Warsaw after the ‘Waffen SS’ destroyed the city in the summer and autumn of 1944.
Harbingers of Death & Destruction:

Speaking at the Sportpalast on 18 February 1943, only days after Field Marshal Paulus’ capitulation at Stalingrad, perhaps Germany’s greatest single defeat of the war, Goebbels railed against the ‘Jewish liquidation squads’ that he claimed were stationed ‘behind the onrushing Russian divisions’. He went on:

“Germany in any case has no intention of bowing to this threat but means to counter it in time and if necessary with the complete and radical extermin-…

“… elimination.”

Friedlander, Years of Extermination, p. 472.

But because Hitler did not spell out his thinking in regard to the relative importance of the Holocaust and victory on the Eastern Front, we can only surmise how he balanced these demands at different points. It is not impossible that the reason that the Holocaust was intensified when defeat seemed likely, rather than halted as logic might imply – albeit to be reinstated after victory was won – goes to the heart of Hitler’s view of his own place in history. Even if Germany lost the war, he believed, he would always be the man responsible for the complete extermination of the Jewish race in Europe. That would be his legacy to the Volk, even if the Allies managed to defeat the Reich. Putting his dream of a Judenfrei (‘Jew-free’) world even before the need for victory was a measure of Hitler’s fanaticism. On 4th October 1943, Himmler told senior SS officers that the murder of the Jews was a glorious page in our history that has never been written and cannot be written. It is therefore pointless to seek a piece of paper with Hitler’s signature authorising the Holocaust, despite the wealth of minuted statements and the wealth of circumstantial evidence that reveals his intentions.

Undoubtedly, the SS played a key role in organising the Final Solution, as well as in running the apparatus of racial hygiene and moving its wretched army of slave labourers from project to project as the Allied armies closed in on Berlin. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that, when captured by British troops at the end of the war, Himmler followed the example of his führer and committed suicide.

The ruins of Berlin in 1945 with the Brandenburg Gate in the distance. The Soviet offensive in April 1945 reduced large stretches of central Berlin (where it was still standing) to rubble. The irony for the West was that the future of democracy was secured through a Communist victory in the East.

But in order for the Nazis to exterminate almost two million Polish Jews in less than two years between early 1942 and late 1943, they needed help. They decided to use units of the Reserve Police Battalion 101, which was alone responsible for the shooting or transporting to their deaths, of eighty-three thousand people. It was made up of respectable, working-class and middle-class citizens of Hamburg, rather than Nazi ideologues. Peer pressure and a sense of obedience to authority, rather than political fervour, seemed to have turned these ordinary citizens into mass murderers. They represented a cross-section of German society, and not one of them was coerced into killing Jews.

Sources:

Richard Overy (1996), The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Andrew Roberts (2009), The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. London: Penguin Books.

Laurence Rees (2008), World War Two: Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis & the West. London: BBC Books (Ebury Publishers)/ Random House.

Appendix: The story of the Oyneg Shabes archive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001l9cn

“Between 1940-43 a group of dedicated writers, led by historian Emanuel Ringeblum, secretly recorded daily Jewish existence for the 500,000 souls trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto. The project became a race against time -history as survival. Anton Lesser narrates this ten-part series of the lives, stories & destruction of the Ghetto.

“In the middle of Europe, in the middle of the 20th Century, a half million Jewish men, women & children were herded into a prison city within a city. Walled off & surrounded by the German occupiers & their collaborators. How do you tell the world about your life and fate? Historian and activist Emanuel Ringelblum devised and directed a clandestine archive – codename Oyneg Shabes (Joy of the Sabbath) to chronicle every aspect of their existence. He recruited over sixty ‘zamlers’ or gatherers to write, collect & compile thousands of pages-diaries, essays, poems, photographs, statistical studies, art, ephemera – a historical treasure that was buried even as the Ghetto was being extinguished so that the world might read and understand.”

For more information on the Oyneg Shabes/Ringeblum archive go to the website of the Jewish Historical Institute https://cbj.jhi.pl/

Featured

The Windrush Generation, Seventy-five Years on – 1948-2023: Caribbean Immigrants to Britain; Policy, Music & Culture

This year, 2023, marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks in Essex on 22 June 1948. The ship brought around 500 people from Jamaica and Trinidad to the UK. Many of the new arrivals were employed in state services such as the NHS and public transport filling post-war employment gaps. The Windrush has come to represent the beginning of greater numbers of people from the Caribbean moving and settling in the UK. From 1948 to 1962, there was a virtual open door for immigrants coming into Britain from the remaining colonies and the Commonwealth. The British debate over immigration up to about 1957, the year I was added to the natural increase statistics of Nottinghamshire, had been characterised by contradiction and paradox. On the one hand, overt ‘racialism’ had been discredited by the Nazi persecutions, and Britain’s identity was tied up in its identity as the vanquishing angel of a political culture founded on racial theories and practices.

This meant that the few remaining unapologetic racialists, the anti-Semitic fringe and the pro-apartheid colonialists were considered outcasts from civilised discourse. Official documents from the period describe the handful of MPs who were outspokenly racialist as ‘nutters’. Oswald Mosley, who would have been a likely puppet prime minister had Hitler’s plans for invading Britain succeeded, was let out of prison after the war and allowed to yell at his small band of unrepentant fascist supporters, such was the lack of threat he posed to the King’s peace. The public propaganda of the Empire and Commonwealth instead made much of the concept of a family of races cooperating together under the Union flag.

When Mosley announced his attention to march with members of his new Union Movement from Ridley Road to Tottenham, thousands of ex-servicemen, Jews and Gentiles, gathered in Kingsland High Road to prevent the march. On 22 March 1949, the Home Secretary banned it.

In Whitehall, the Colonial Office strongly supported the right of black Caribbean people to migrate to the Mother Country, fending off the worries of the Ministry of Labour about the effects of unemployment during economic downturns. When the five hundred immigrants had arrived from the West Indies on the converted German troopship, SS Windrush, in 1948, the Home Secretary had declared that:

… ‘though some people feel it would be a bad thing to give the coloured races of the Empire the idea that… they are the equals of the people of this country… we recognise the right of the colonial peoples to be treated as men and brothers of the people of this country.’ 

Successive governments, Labour and Tory, saw Britain as the polar opposite of Nazi Germany, a benign and unprejudiced island which was connected to the modern world. The Jewish migration of the late thirties and forties had brought one of the greatest top-ups of skill and energy that any modern European state had ever seen. In addition, the country already had a population of about seventy-five thousand black and Asian people at the end of the war, and Labour shortages suggested that it needed many more. The segregation of the American Deep South and the development of apartheid policies in South Africa were regarded with high-minded contempt. However, while pre-war British society had never been as brutal about race as France or Spain, never mind Germany, it was still riddled with racialism from top to bottom of the perennial pyramid of class and race.

Within Britain itself, Coventry – despite its reputation as a welcoming city for migrants – was not immune from the sort of racial prejudice and intolerance which was beginning to disfigure Britain nationally, especially the barbs directed at the Caribbean communities. Estate agents in Coventry began to operate a colour bar in October 1954, following the following editorial in the Coventry Standard, the weekly local newspaper:

The presence of so many coloured people in Coventry is becoming a menace. Hundreds of black people are pouring into the larger cities of Britain including Coventry and are lowering the standard of life. They live on public assistance and occupy common lodging houses to the detriment of suburban areas… They frequently are the worse for liquor – many of them addicted to methylated spirits – and live in overcrowded conditions sometimes six to a room. 

These were not the outpourings of a bigoted correspondent, but the major editorial, the like of which had appeared in local ‘conservative’ newspapers before the War, questioning the arrival in the city of the sweepings of the nation, in reference to the destitute Welsh miners who arrived in Coventry in the thirties looking for work. But these new stereotypes, though just as inaccurate, were far more virulent, and could not be so easily counteracted and contradicted by people who appeared so different from, and therefore to, the native Coventrians. The reality, of course, was at variance from this obvious conflation of the Caribbean and Asian minorities.  The West Indian community was an even smaller minority in Coventry than the South Asian community in 1961, amounting to only twelve hundred.

Although the Standard‘s editor may have been conscious of the housing pressures in neighbouring Birmingham, the vision of black people pouring into cities throughout Britain was, again, a clear exaggeration, especially for the early fifties. This can only be explained by the observation that ‘racialism’ seems to have infected a wide spectrum of Coventry society at this time, including the engineering trade unions. The Census of 1961 below showed that immigration from the new Commonwealth over the previous ten years had been a trickle rather than a stream, accounting for only 1.5 per cent of the population. The local population was increasing by approximately four thousand per year between 1951 and 1966,  but the proportion of this attributable to general migration declined dramatically over these fifteen years. Between 1951 and 1961 a Department of the Environment survey estimated that migration accounted for 44.5 per cent of population growth in what it referred to as the Coventry belt (presumably, this included the nearby urbanised towns and villages of north and east Warwickshire).

In many areas of the country in the early fifties, white working-class people hardly ever came across anyone of another colour after the black GIs returned home at the end of the war. Neither were Irish, Polish and Eastern European migrants free from discrimination, although their white skins were more welcome. Marika Sherwood emigrated from Hungary first to Australia as a ten-year-old in 1948 with her parents and grandparents. She quickly learnt English and easily assimilated into school life. She was briefly married to an Australian, but her amorphous yearning for Europe led to her re-migration to London, where she formed a circle of native British friends since she knew almost no Hungarians. Sherwood wrote a chapter on The Hungarian Speech Community in Britain for Edwards’ and Alladina’s 1991 book on Multilingualism in the British Isles. Her concluding remarks are perhaps the most significant in her account, in that they draw attention, not so much to discrimination faced by immigrants among their hosts, but to the lack of attention paid by ‘the British’ to questions of migration, assimilation and integration:

‘The British myopia regarding immigration has prevented researchers recognising that some more general questions regarding the absorption and assimilation of immigrants have to be answered before we can begin to understand reactions to Black immigrants or the responses of Black peoples to such host reactions.

‘We need to know the ramifications of meaning behind the lack of hyphenated Britons. We need to know if there are pressures to lose one’s ‘foreignness’ and how these pressures operate. We need to know what the indicators are of this ‘foreignness’ and how these pressures operateand which indicators the natives find least tolerable – and why.’

‘When we know more we might be able to deal more successfully with some aspects of the racism which greeted and continues to greet Black immigrants.’ 

Safder Alladina & Viv Edwards (1991), Multilingualism in British Isles. Harlow: Longman, pp. 134-35.

Looking for lodgings on Gillett Road, west Birmingham, 1955.

The fact remains that almost as soon as the first ‘Windrush’ migrants had arrived from Jamaica and the other West Indian islands, popular papers were reporting worries about their cleanliness, sexual habits and criminality: ‘No dogs, No blacks, No Irish’ was not a myth, but a perfectly common sign on boarding houses. The hostility and coldness of native British, particularly in the English towns and cities, were quickly reported back by the early migrants. Even Hugh Dalton, a member of the Labour cabinet in 1945-51, talked of the polluting poverty-stricken, diseased nigger communities of the African colonies. Even then, in the mid-fifties, questions of race were obscure and academic for most people, as the country as a whole remained predominantly white. Until at least a decade later, there were only small pockets of ‘coloured’ people in the poorer inner-city areas.

There were debates in the Tory cabinets of Churchill, Eden and Macmillan, but most of them never got anywhere near changing immigration policy. Any legislation to limit migration within the Commonwealth would have also applied to the white people of the old dominions too, or it would have been clearly and unacceptably based on racial discrimination. In the fifties, conservatives and socialists alike regarded themselves as civilized and liberal on race, but still showed a tendency to pick and choose from different parts of the Empire and Commonwealth. For instance, the Colonial Office specifically championed…

… ‘the skilled character and proven industry of the West Indians over the unskilled and largely lazy Indians.’ 

The means and manners by which these people migrated to Britain had a huge impact on the later condition of post-war society and deserve special, detailed analysis. The fact that so many of the first migrants were young men who found themselves living without wives, mothers and children inevitably created a wilder atmosphere than they were accustomed to in their island homes. They were short of entertainment as well as short of the social control of ordinary family living. The chain of generational influence was broken at the same time as the male strut was liberated. Drinking dens and gambling, the use of marijuana, ska and blues clubs were the inevitable results.

West Indians in West London in 1956. 405,000 people from the Caribbean migrated to Britain between 1948 and 1958, mostly single men.

Early black communities in Britain tended to cluster where the first arrivals had settled, which meant in the blighted inner cities. There, street prostitution was more open and rampant in the fifties than it was later so it is hardly surprising that young men away from home for the first time often formed relationships with prostitutes, and that some became pimps themselves. This was what fed the popular press’s hunger for stories to confirm their prejudices about black men stealing ‘our women’. The upbeat, unfamiliar music, illegal drinking and drugs and the sexual appetites of the young immigrants all combined to paint a lurid picture of a new underclass.

Henry Gunter & the colour bar; Charles Parker & The Colony:

The archive collections at the Library of Birmingham hold material which sheds light on the experiences of those newly arrived in the UK between the 1940s and 1970s.

One Of Henry Gunter’s publications on racial inequality, A Man’s A Man, 1954.
(ref MS 2165/1/3)

Henry Gunter was born in Jamaica but moved to the UK in 1950 which was only two years after the Empire Windrush arrived. Gunter, as a campaigner against racism and injustice, was at the forefront of issues black people making a new life in Birmingham were facing. He wrote about the colour bar in housing whereby local people refused to give housing to black people. His campaigning activities involved writing articles to educate as he believed that the problems with local people were mostly due to fear. Gunter became President of a group called the Afro-Caribbean Organisation. He aimed to win influence with the Labour movement and other bodies with the aim of breaking down the colour bar. Although hospitals in Birmingham had welcomed workers from Commonwealth countries, The City Transport department refused to employ black workers. Gunter organised a march through Birmingham City Centre with banners including ‘No Colour Bar to housing and jobs.’ His campaigning eventually led to black people being employed as conductors and eventually to full integration into the transport system. 

The Charles Parker Archive is another collection where the experiences of Commonwealth citizens living in Birmingham are documented. The archive holds material relating to Philip Donnellan’s documentary film The Colony. First broadcast in June 1964, the film consists of interviews with working-class black people living in Birmingham. It is notable that there is no commentary or narration. This allowed the interviewees’ experiences (in their own words) to be the focus of the programme. Charles Parker was responsible for the voice montages.

“… a land which we felt in coming, we were proud to come and we felt that coming here we would be at home.”

He also spoke about his contrasting experiences in dealing with English people in daily interactions and when trying to procure services:

“I must say, the people in the street that you meet, the bus conductors and the working men that you meet in the street are quite friendly, they would do anything for you. The snag is when it comes to the people around where you live.”

He then went on to explain a specific encounter when he was trying to find accommodation:

“There was one house in City Road that advertised accommodation for three or four working men. So I rung them up, and at the end of the line was a woman’s voice. She said “Yes, we have beds for three or four working men”, so to make sure I told her I was a West Indian, she said “Just a minute” and she came back to the ‘phone and she said “Sorry we are filled up”, and it went on like that, went on like that all the while.”

These documentary collections show that alongside the challenge of leaving their countries, making a long journey and building a new life in Birmingham, Caribbean migrants had far greater challenges to face when they arrived. Many of them persevered and some, like Henry Gunter, campaigned to improve conditions. They all contributed to enriching the communities in which they came to live.

Pity the Poor Immigrant:

In learning to come to terms with this prejudice, or fighting back against it, seeds of resentment and rebelliousness were sown in black families which would be partly tamed only when children and spouses began to arrive in large numbers in the sixties. Then, the Pentecostal churches reclaimed at least some of their own, sending out their gospel groups to entertain as well as evangelise among the previously lily-white nonconformist chapels in the early seventies. Housing was another crucial part of the story. For the immigrants of the fifties, accommodation was necessarily privately rented, since access to council homes was based on a long list of existing residents. So the early black immigrants, like the earlier immigrant groups before them, were cooped up in crowded, often condemned Victorian terrace properties in west London, Handsworth in west Birmingham, or the grimy back-streets of Liverpool and Leeds.

A map from a contemporary atlas.

Thuggery and threats generally got rid of the old, often elderly, white tenants, to be replaced by the new black tenants who were desperate for somewhere to live and therefore prepared to pay the higher rents they were charged. The result was the creation of instant ghettos in which three generations of black British would soon be crowded together. It was the effects of Powell’s housing policies of the fifties which led directly to the Brixton, Tottenham, Toxteth and Handsworth riots of the eighties. Yet these were not, of course, the only direct causes of the racial tensions and explosions which were to follow. The others lay in the reactions of the white British. One Caribbean writer claimed, with not a touch of irony, that he had never met a single English person with colour prejudice. Once he had walked the entire length of a street, …

“… and everyone told me that he or she ‘ad no prejudice against coloured people. It was the neighbour who was stupid. If only we could find the “neighbour” we could solve the whole problem. But to find ‘im is the trouble. Neighbours are the worst people to live beside in this country.” 

Numerous testimonies by immigrants and surveys of the time show how hostile people were to the idea of having black or Asian neighbours. The trades unions bristled against blacks coming in to take jobs, possibly at lower rates of pay, just as they had complained about Irish or Welsh migrants a generation earlier. Union leaders regarded as impeccably left-wing lobbied governments to keep out black workers. For a while, it seemed that they would be successful enough by creating employment ghettos as well as housing ones until black workers gained a toe-hold in the car-making and other manufacturing industries where the previous generations of immigrants had already fought battles for acceptance against the old craft unionists and won.

The overseas immigrants had been coming into Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country in a steady trickle since the end of the war for the same reason that the region had been attracting migrants from all over the British Isles since the mid-thirties: comparatively high wages and full, stable, employment. The trickle became a torrent in the months before the Commonwealth Immigrants’ Bill was enacted in 1962, restricting the influx for the first time. By 1964, the region had one of the biggest concentrations of immigrants in the country. Their integration into the communities of Birmingham and the Black Country had proceeded without the violent reaction which led to the race riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958. But tensions had been building up in the region as they had in every mixed community in Britain. One of the first open antagonisms took place in Birmingham in 1954 over the employment of coloured migrants as drivers and conductors on the local buses. After that, little was heard of racial pressures until the end of 1963, when events in Smethwick began to make national headlines. The situation there became typical in its effects on traditional allegiances, and in its ripeness for exploitation, of that in every town in England with a mixed community.

The Singing Stewarts:

The first black Gospel group to make an impact in Britain were ‘The Singing Stewarts’. They were originally from Trinidad and Aruba, where the five brothers and three sisters of the Stewart family were born. They migrated to Handsworth in Birmingham in 1961, part of the second major wave of Windrush migrants who came to Britain just before the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 ended the ‘open door’ policy for British overseas nationals. This was the period when many families were settling in Britain, many rejoining ‘menfolk’ who had come on their own some years earlier (see picture below).

In the 1960s, women and children joined their men: 328,000 more West Indians settled in Britain.

Many people moved to Britain before the Act was passed because they thought it would be difficult to get in afterwards. Immigration doubled from fifty-eight thousand in 1960 to over 115,000 in 1961, and to nearly 120,000 in 1962. The Stewarts were all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and under the training of their strict and devoted mother began to sing acapella-style spirituals that they mixed with traditional Southern gospel songs written by composers like Vep Ellis and Albert Brumley. To this material, they added a distinctly Trinidadian calypso flavour and by the mid-sixties were performing all around the Midlands. In later years they were joined by a double bass affectionately referred to as ‘Betty’. From childhood growing up in the church, they would refuse all offers to sing ‘secular’ music.

Settling in Handsworth, they quickly made a name for themselves in West Birmingham and what is known today as Sandwell (then as Smethwick and Warley), especially among the nonconformist and Pentecostal churches where most of the Caribbean immigrant families were to be found. They also appeared at a variety of cross-cultural events and at institutions such as hospitals, schools and prisons. They performed on local radio and TV which brought them to the attention of a local radio producer and folk-music enthusiast Charles Parker, who heard in the group’s unlikely musical fusion of jubilee harmonies, Southern gospel songs and a Trinidadian flavour something unique. In 1964 they were the subject of a TV documentary produced by him which brought them to national attention. Parker helped them to cultivate their talent and to become more ‘professional’, opening them up to wider audiences. They took his advice and guidance on board and reaped dividends on the back of their TV appearances and national and European tours that increased their exposure and widened their fan base.

For a while, in the early sixties, they were the only black Gospel group in the UK media spotlight. It was difficult to place them in a single category at the time, as they sang both ‘negro spirituals’ and traditional Gospel songs, which made them a novelty to British and European audiences. The Singing Stewarts were able to undertake a European tour where they played to crowds of white non-churchgoers. Thousands warmed to them, captivated by their natural and effortless harmonies. They demonstrated a remarkable ability, unprecedented and unique at that time, to permeate cultural barriers.

This acted as an antidote to the racial tensions which existed in West Birmingham, Warley and Smethwick in the late sixties and seventies, stirred up by the Wolverhampton MP and Government Minister, Enoch Powell, who made his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in Birmingham in 1968, and in local election campaigns in Smethwick run by the National Front. Meanwhile, in the US in 1967, at the height of the Civil Rights movement, a Berkeley-based ensemble called the Northern California State Youth Choir found that a track on their independent album – a soulful arrangement of a Victorian hymn penned by Philip Doddridge – started getting plays on a San Francisco pop station. The choir was renamed the Edwin Hawkins Singers and was quickly signed to Buddah Records and “Oh Happy Day” went on to become a huge international pop hit. In Britain, the British record companies alerted to the commercial potential of US gospel music, looked around for a British-based version of that music and in 1968 The Singing Stewarts were signed to PYE Records. The following year, they were the first British gospel group to be recorded by a major record company when PYE Records released their album Oh Happy Day.

In 1969, they appeared at the Edinburgh Festival, where they were exposed to a wider and more musically diverse public. Their folksy Trinidadian flavour delighted the arts festival-goers. The family went on to make more albums which sold better, but they never wavered from their original Christian message and mission. They continued to sing at a variety of venues, including many churches, performing well into retirement age. Neither did they compromise their style of music, helping to raise awareness of spirituals and gospel songs. They were pioneers of the British Black Gospel Scene and toured all over the world helping to put UK-based black gospel music on the map.

The new Baptist Church building opened in the late summer of 1965.

My own experience of  ‘The Singing Stewarts’ came as a fourteen-year-old at the Baptist Church in Bearwood, Warley, where my father, Rev. Arthur J. Chandler, was the first minister of the newly-built church. We had moved to Birmingham in 1965, and by that time West Birmingham and Sandwell were becoming multi-cultural areas with large numbers of Irish, Welsh, Polish, Indian, Pakistani and Caribbean communities. My grammar school on City Road in Edgbaston was like a microcosm of the United Nations. In the early seventies, it appointed the first black head boy in Birmingham, and was also a community of many faiths, including Anglicans, Nonconformists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostals, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus as well as the many followers of ‘Mammon’! Our neighbourhood, which ran along the city boundary between Birmingham and the Black Country in Edgbaston (the ‘border’ was literally at the end of the Manse garden), was similarly mixed, though still mostly white. Birmingham possessed a relatively wealthy working class, due to the car industry, so the distinctions between the working class and middle-class members of our church were already blurred.

But the advent of the Singing Stewarts to our church was unlike any other experience in my Christian upbringing to that date. At the end of the ‘service’, a ‘call’ to commitment was made and I responded. The following Whitsun, in 1971, I was baptised and received into church membership. In 1974, a group of us from Bearwood and south Birmingham, who had formed our own Christian folk-rock group,  attended the first Greenbelt Christian Music Festival, where Andrae Crouch and the Disciples were among the ‘headline acts’. Thus began a love affair with Gospel music of various forms which has endured ever since. We were inspired by this event to write and perform our own musical based on the Book of James, which we toured around the Baptist churches in the west and south of Birmingham. The service led by the Stewart Singers in Bearwood also began, more importantly in retrospect, my own fifty-year ministry of reconciliation in the West Midlands, Wales, Northern Ireland and Central Europe.

I heard at that time, and have since read many stories about the coldness displayed by many ‘white Anglo-Saxon’ churches towards the Windrush migrants, and the failure of all churches to challenge prejudiced behaviour among their fellow Christians. However, I also feel that it is all too easy for current generations to judge the previous ones. It was not that many Christians were prejudiced against people of colour, though some were, or that they were ‘forgetful to entertain strangers’. Many sincerely, though wrongly thought (as we now know from Science) that God had created separate races to live separately from each other. In its extreme forms, this led to the policies of ‘separate development’ of the South African state, underpinned by the heretical theology of the Dutch Reformed Church, and the belief in, and practice of, ‘segregation’, supported by some white Southern evangelicals in the United States.

I remember discussing these issues with my father, who was by no means a white supremacist, but who had fears about the ability of Birmingham and the Black Country, the area he had grown up in, to integrate so many newcomers, even though they were fellow Christians. However, he had also been a jazz-band leader and pianist in the 1930s, before becoming a minister, and was familiar with both Southern Baptist and Caribbean spirituals. So, rather than closing down discussion on the issue, as so many did in the churches at that time, mainly to avoid embarrassment, he sought to open it up among the generations in the congregation, asking me to do a ‘Q&A’ session in a Sunday evening service in 1975, aged eighteen.

There were some very direct questions and comments in the congregation, but we found common ground in believing that whether or not God had originally intended the ‘races’ to develop separately, first slavery and then famine and poverty, resulting from human sinfulness, had caused migration, and it was wrong to blame the migrants themselves for the process they had undergone. Moreover, in the case of the Windrush migrants, they had been invited to come and take jobs that were vital to the welfare and prosperity of our shared community. But as the National Front took to the streets, it soon became obvious that, sadly, these new forms of racism could no longer be defeated with discussion. I soon became involved in the Anti-Nazi League in Birmingham.

In 1977, the Stewarts were signed to the Christian label Word Records, then in the process of dropping their Sacred Records name. The Singing Stewarts’ Word album ‘Here Is A Song’ was produced by Alan Nin and was another mix of old spirituals (“Every time I Feel The Spirit”), country gospel favourites (Albert Brumley’s “I’ll Fly Away”) and hymns (“Amazing Grace”). With accompaniment consisting of little more than a double bass and an acoustic guitar, it was, in truth, a long, long way from the ‘funkier’ gospel sounds that acts like Andrae Crouch were beginning to pioneer. The Singing Stewarts soldiered on for a few more years but clearly their popularity, even with the ‘middle-of-the-road’ white audience, gradually receded. In his book British Black Gospel, author Steve Alexander Smith paid tribute to them as one of the first black gospel groups to make an impact in Britain and the first gospel group to be recorded by a major record company. They clearly played their part in Britain’s gospel music’s continuing development.

In addition, Frank Stewart (one of the brothers, pictured right) became one of the first black DJ’s to play gospel music on a BBC radio station. His death in Birmingham on 2nd April 2012 was the closing chapter in a key part of the development of British gospel music over half a century. Although in later years he was best known for his radio work in which for more than a decade he presented The Frank Stewart Gospel Hour on BBC Radio WM, it was the many years he spent running The Singing Stewarts which was arguably his most significant contribution to UK Christian music history and black music history.

Immigration: The Case of Smethwick in 1964.

In 1964, the well-known Guardian correspondent, Geoffrey Moorhouse (pictured above), ‘ventured’ out of his metropolitan England, caught up in the cobweb of roads and rails around London, into the interior of England to see how the other three-quarters live. The Penguin Special he produced was the first of its kind since J.B. Priestley published his English Journey thirty years beforehand. Looking behind the Cotswold stone and the dereliction of the Black Country … the vaunted development schemes of Birmingham, he attempted to uncover England as it was in the 1960s – beauty, traffic, tradition, negroes, noise, and all.

The Black Country outside Birmingham may have appeared to have been standing still for a century or more, but by looking at its population it was possible to see that an enormous change had come over it in the late fifties and early sixties. The pallid, indigenous people had been joined by more colourful folk from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. The public transport system across Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country would certainly have ground to a halt had it not been for its immigrant labour supply. On buses, the unions operated a colour bar more or less openly until 1960 when Morris Minta, a Jamaican, became the first coloured busman in Coventry.

The newcomers made an immediate impact on sporting life in Birmingham. Several years before the national press discovered the West Indian cricket supporters at Lord’s in 1963, they were already plainly visible and vocal at Edgbaston Cricket Ground. The cover of ‘Punch’ from May 1957, mirrors the stereotypical image described by Sir Neville Cardus (below right).

In the late seventies and eighties, batsman Viv Richards and fast bowler Andy Roberts were icons of West Indian Cricket both in Britain and Antigua.

With a population of seventy thousand, Smethwick contained an immigrant community variously estimated at between five and seven thousand. It was claimed that this was proportionately greater than in any other county borough in England. The settlement of these people in Smethwick had not been the slow process over a long period that Liverpool, Cardiff and other seaports had experienced and which had allowed time for adjustments to be made gradually. It had happened in a rush, mainly at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties. In such circumstances, the host communities learnt to behave better, but it was always likely that a deeply rooted white population would regard with suspicion the arrival of an itinerant coloured people on its home ground, and that friction would result. In Smethwick, the friction followed a familiar pattern. Most pubs in the town barred coloured people from their lounge bars. Some barbers refused to cut their hair. When a Pakistani family were allocated a new council flat after slum clearance in 1961, sixty-four of their white neighbours staged a rent strike and eventually succeeded in driving them out of the ironically named ‘Christ Street’.

Most of the usual white prejudices were keenly displayed in Smethwick, the reasons offered for hostility to the migrants being that they made too much noise, that they did not tend to their gardens with the customary English care, that they left their children unattended too long, and that their children were delaying the progress of white pupils in the schools. The correspondence columns of the local weekly newspaper, the Smethwick Telephone, provided a platform for the airing of these prejudices, as a letter quoted by a correspondent of The Times on 9 March 1964 shows:

‘With the advent of the pseudo-socialists’ ‘coloured friends’, the incidence of T.B. in the area has risen to become one of the highest in the country. Can it be denied that the foul practice of spitting in public is a contributory factor? Why waste the ratepayers’ money printing notices in five different languages? People who behave worse than animals will not in the least be deterred by them.’

At the time, no one seems to know who originated the slogan: If you want a Nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour, which was circulating in Smethwick before the 1963 municipal elections. The Conservatives were widely reported as using the slogan but Colin Jordan, leader of the neo-Nazi British Movement, claimed that his members had produced the initial slogan as well as spread the poster and sticker campaign; Jordan’s group in the past had also campaigned on other slogans, such as: Don’t vote – a vote for Tory, Labour or Liberal is a vote for more Blacks! Griffiths denied that this slogan was racist, saying:

‘I should think that is a manifestation of the popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that. I would say that is how people see the situation in Smethwick. I fully understand the feelings of the people who say it. I would say it is exasperation, not fascism.’

Quoted in The Times, 9 March 1964. 

Smethwick Town Council

The specific issue that Labour and Conservatives debated across the Smethwick council chamber was how best to integrate immigrant children into the borough’s schools. The Tories wanted to segregate them, but Labour took the view that they should be taught in separate groups for English only and that the level of integration otherwise should be left to the discretion of the individual schools. But the party division soon got far deeper as the housing shortage in Smethwick, as great as anywhere in the Black Country, exacerbated race relations. The Conservatives said that if they controlled the council they would not necessarily re-house a householder on taking over his property for slum clearance unless he had lived in the town for ten years or more. While the local Labour Party deprecated attempts to make immigration a political issue, the Conservatives actively encouraged them. Councillor Peter Griffiths, the local Tory leader had actively supported the Christ Street rent strike.

At the municipal elections in 1963, the Conservatives fared disastrously over the country in general, gaining no more than five seats. Three of these were in Smethwick. In the elections for aldermen of 1964, the Conservatives gained control of the council, their ‘prize’ for having been consistently critical of the immigrant community in the area. The Smethwick constituency had been held by Labour since 1945, for most of that time by Patrick Gordon-Walker, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary. But his majorities at successive general elections had dwindled from 9,727 in 1951 to 6,495 in 1955 to 3,544 in 1959. This declining majority could not, obviously, be solely attributed to Labour’s policy on immigration, either nationally or locally. It reflected a national trend since 1951, a preference for Tory economic management. But the drop in 1959 seemed to be in part, at least, a reaction to local issues. Moorhouse, writing in mid-1964, just before the general election, found few people who would bet on Gordon-Walker being returned to Westminster, however successful Labour might be in the country as a whole. His opponent in the election was Councillor Griffiths, who was so convinced of the outcome by the end of 1963 that he had already fixed himself up with a flat in London. Moorhouse wrote:

If he does become Smethwick’s next MP it will not simply be because he has attracted the floating voter to his cause. It will also be because many people who have regarded themselves as socialist through thick and thin have decided that when socialism demands the application of its principles for the benefit of a coloured migrant population as well as for themselves it is high time to look for another political creed which is personally more convenient.   

Above: The local government structure within North Worcestershire and South Staffordshire – Prior to the West Midlands Order 1965 reorganisation.

There had been resignations from the party, and a former Labour councillor was already running a club which catered only for ‘Europeans’. The Labour Club itself (not directly connected to the constituency party) had not, by the end of 1963, admitted a single coloured member. Smethwick in 1964 was not, he commented, a place of which many of its inhabitants could be proud, regardless of how they voted. That could be extended to any of us, he wrote:

‘We who live in areas where coloured people have not yet settled dare not say that what is happening in Smethwick today could not happen in our slice of England, too. For the issue is not a simple and straightforward one. There must be many men of tender social conscience who complain bitterly about the noise being imposed on them by road and air traffic while sweeping aside as intolerant the claims others about the noise imposed on them by West Indian neighbours, without ever seeing that there is an inconsistency in their attitude. It is not much different from the inconsistency of the English parent who demands the segregation of coloured pupils whose incapacities may indeed be retarding his child’s school progress but who fails to acknowledge the fact that in the same class there are probably a number of white children having a similar effect.

‘One issue put up by Smethwick (and the other places where social problems have already arisen) does, however, seem to be clear. The fact is that these people are here and, to put it at the lowest level of self-interest, we have got to live amicably with them if we do not want a repetition of Notting Hill and Nottingham, if we do not want a coloured ghetto steadily growing in both size and resentment. …

‘Smethwick is our window on the world from which we can look out and see the street sleepers of Calcutta, the shanty towns of Trinidad, the empty bellies of Bombay. And what do we make of it? Somebody at once comes up and sticks a notice in it. ‘If you want a Nigger neighbour, vote Labour.’ ‘

The 1964 general election involved a nationwide swing from the Conservatives to the Labour Party; which resulted in the party gaining a narrow five-seat majority. However, in Smethwick, the Conservative candidate, Griffiths gained the seat and unseated the sitting Labour MP and Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon-Walker. Griffiths, however, polled 436 votes less in 1964 than when he stood unsuccessfully for the Smethwick constituency in 1959. He was declared “a parliamentary leper” by Harold Wilson, the newly-elected Labour Prime Minister (below).

Griffiths, in his maiden speech to the Commons, pointed out what he believed were the real problems his constituency faced, including factory closures and over 4,000 families awaiting council accommodation. The election result led to a visit by Malcolm X to Smethwick to show solidarity with the black and Asian communities. Malcolm’s visit to Smethwick was “no accident”; the Conservative-run council attempted to put in place an official policy of racial segregation in Smethwick’s housing allocation, with houses on Marshall Street in Smethwick being let only to white British residents. Malcolm X claimed that Black minorities were being treated like the Jews under Hitler. Later in 1964, a delegation of white residents successfully petitioned the Conservative council to compulsorily purchase vacant houses in order to prevent non-whites from buying the houses. This, however, was prevented by Labour housing minister Richard Crossman, who refused to allow the council to borrow the money in order to enact their policy. Nine days after he visited Marshall Street, Malcolm X was shot dead in New York. 

In 1965, Wilson’s new Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, tightened the quota system, cutting down on the number of dependents allowed in, and giving the Government the power to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, it offered the first Race Relations Act as a ‘sweetener’. This outlawed the use of the ‘colour bar’ in public places and by potential landlords, and discrimination in public services, also banning incitement to racial hatred like that seen in the Smethwick campaign. At the time, it was largely seen as toothless, yet the combination of restrictions on immigration and the measures to better integrate the migrants already in Britain did form the basis for all subsequent policies. The Labour Party regained the Smethwick seat at the 1966 general election when Andrew Faulds became the new Member of Parliament.

The actions taken in Smethwick in 1964 have been described as ugly Tory racism which killed rational debate about immigration. However, colour bars were then common, preventing non-whites from using facilities. As already noted, The Labour Club in Smethwick effectively operated one, as, more overtly, did the local Sandwell Youth Club, which was run by one of the town’s Labour councillors. Moorhouse pointed out that had the community has been on the economic rocks, it might have been possible to make out a case for controls on immigration. Had there been a high rate of unemployment, where the standard of living was already impoverished, there might have been a case for keeping migrants ‘at bay’ so as to prevent competition for insufficient jobs from becoming greater and the general sense of depression from deepening. But that was not the case in West Birmingham and the Black Country in 1964, and for at least another decade.

Smethwick Baptist Church

For many of the southern English, like Moorhouse, it may have been as ugly as sin to look at, at least in parts, but outside the Golden Circle around London, there was no wealthier area in England and no place more economically stable. When the Birmingham busmen had objected to coloured colleagues a decade earlier, it was not because these would be taking jobs which might otherwise have gone to ‘Brummies’ but because it was feared they might have an effect on wages which a shortage of labour had maintained at an artificial level. These were real fears that had led to prejudice against previous immigrants to the region. At root, this was not a problem about colour per se, though there were cultural tropes and stereotypes at play. It was essentially about wages. This is how Anthony Richmond summarised it in his book, The Colour Problem:

The main objections to the employment of coloured colonials appeared to come from the trade unions, but less on the grounds of colour than because, if the number of drivers and conductors was brought up to full establishment by employing colonials, their opportunities for earning considerable sums as overtime would be reduced.

fearful social sickness?

Smethwick’s problems in 1964 sprang from the same basic economic root, if not over wages, then over rents, with tenants fearing that competition for housing would drive these upwards, and quickly. According to Moorhouse, this was part of a fearful social sickness affecting the Midlands as a whole which seemed to be compounded by a desire to make money fast while the going was good, a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve this. For the first time in the industrial history of the West Midlands, it was possible for the working classes to reach their target of acquiring a surplus through full employment. This left no space or energy for any other considerations. It was an attitude of mind which had been copied from those higher up the social scale in industry and was most in evidence in the car factories. Their workers were earning over twenty pounds and sometimes thirty pounds a week on the production lines, putting them up among the highest-paid manual labourers in Britain.

But Moorhouse presents no evidence to suggest that immigrant workers either hindered – or threatened to hinder – this ‘chase’ for ever- greater affluence among the indigenous population. We do know that in Coventry, the Caribbean and Asian immigrants were excluded from high-paying engineering jobs. The only inroads they made into engineering were in the lowest-paid and dirtiest end of the trade, particularly the foundries, of which there were many in Smethwick and the Black Country. Even there they were confined to the lowliest jobs by a tacit consensus of management and workers. As early as 1951, the management of Sterling Metals in Coventry, under union pressure, stated at the Works Conference that it was their main desire to recruit white labour and they agreed to keep black and white ‘gangs’ segregated on the shop floor.

Therefore, the case of Smethwick in 1964 cannot easily be explained by reference to economic factors, though we know that the social and cultural factors surrounding the issues of housing and education did play significant roles. The main factor underpinning the 1964 Election result in Smethwick would appear to be political, in that it was still acceptable, at that time and among local politicians of both main parties, together with public and trade union officials, for racial discrimination and segregation to be seen as instruments of public policy in response to mass immigration. In this, Smethwick was not that different from other towns and cities throughout the West Midlands, if not from those elsewhere in England. And it would take a long time for such social and industrial hierarchies to be worn down through local and national government intervention which went ahead of, and sometimes cut across the ‘privileged’ grain of indigenous populations. Smethwick represented a turning point in this process; four years later Wolverhampton and Birmingham would become the fulcrum in the fight back against violent, organised racism.

Gang Violence, Organised Racism & Riots:

White gangs of ‘Teddy boys’, like the one depicted above in London, went ‘nigger-hunting’ or ‘black-burying’, chalking Keep Britain White on walls. However, their main motivation stemmed, not from any ideological influence, but from a sense of young male competition and territory marking. They were often the poor white children of the remaining poor white tenants in the same areas being ‘taken over’ by the migrants.  As the black British sociologist, Stuart Hall has written, in the ‘society of affluence’,  which threw up paradoxical signals, it was easy to project the problems which life presented into simple and stereotyped remedies, as was demonstrated by the following response to a BBC radio enquiry of the late fifties:

“It is getting too bad now. They’re too many in the country and they’re over-running it. If they come into this country, they should be made to live to the same standards as we live, and not too many in their house as they always have done, unless someone puts their foot down. They bring in diseases and all sorts of things that spread to different people, and your children have to grow up with them and it’s not right.”  

‘They’ were, of course, West Indian or Asian sub-continental immigrants. A motorcycle lad said of his parents, they just stay awake until I get in at night, and once I’m in they’re happy,… but every time I go out I know they’re on edge. He talked casually about going down to Notting Hill Gate… to punch a few niggers up. All this came to a head at Notting Hill the next year, 1958, with the now infamous riots which took place there, though the anti-immigrant violence actually started in St Ann’s, a poor district of distant Nottingham, and spread to the capital the following day. The scene soon shifted onto a bigger backcloth, and not just from Notting Hill to Nottingham, but the story was the same and one which was to become more and more familiar over the coming decades – one of growing intolerance, if not cultural bigotry, in British society.

Hostility to Commonwealth immigrants was pronounced in some sections of the local white population. One manifestation of this was the establishment of the Birmingham Immigration Control Association, founded in the early 1960s by a group of Tory MPs. At first, however, only a handful of MPs campaigned openly against immigration. Even Enoch Powell, in the mid-sixties, would only raise the issue in private meetings, though he had been keen enough, as health minister, to make use of migrant labour. The anti-immigrant feeling was regarded as not respectable, not something that a decent politician was prepared to talk about. The Westminster élite talked in well-meaning generalities of the immigrants as being fellow subjects of the Crown. Most of the hostility was at the level of the street and popular culture, usually in the form of the disguised discrimination of shunning, through to the humiliation of door-slamming and on to more overtly violent street attacks. In August 1958, as violence against coloured immigrants became a serious problem, The Times reported on the demands for immigration controls being made by Conservative MPs:

‘Seeing the Nottingham fight between coloured and white people on Saturday night a red light warning of further troubles to come, some Conservative M.P.s intend to renew their demand for control to be placed on immigration from the Commonwealth and the colonies when Parliament reassembles in October…

A resolution is on the agenda for the Conservative Party Conference. It has been tabled by Mr Norman Pannell, Conservative M.P. for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool, who obtained the signatures of about thirty Conservative M.P.s for a motion (never debated) during the last session of Parliament. This expressed the growing disquiet over ’the continuing influx of indigent immigrants from the Commonwealth and colonies, thousands of whom have immediately sought National Assistance’. Mr Pannell said yesterday, …

“The Nottingham fighting is a manifestation of the evil results of the present policy and I feel that unless some restriction is imposed we shall create the colour-bar we all wish to avoid…

“The object of my representation is to get some control, not to bar all colonial and Commonwealth immigration, but to see that the immigrants shall not be a charge on public funds, and that they are deported when they are guilty of serious crimes.” ‘

These ‘concerns’ were not new of course, even in the late fifties, and nor were the active forms of prejudice and discrimination which had accompanied them since the middle of the decade in the general population. In addition to dilapidated housing and racial discrimination in employment, and sometimes at the hands of the police, there was the added hazard of racial bigotry in older urban areas. What was new was the way in which this was articulated and amplified from the early sixties onwards by Conservative MPs and parliamentary candidates, leading to the emergence of the National Front as a political force in the early seventies.

A Multicultural Society?

By the end of the 1950s, although the populations of the nations and regions of the British Isles had become more permanently mixed than ever before, and added to by those refugees from central and eastern Europe who had now been exiled by the triumph of Soviet Communism in the establishment of the Warsaw Pact, as yet there had been very little New Commonwealth immigration to Britain. It was only in the sixties and seventies that the country began to be transformed into what came to be known, by the 1980s, as a multicultural society.

Paradoxically, then, just as Britain was retreating from its formal imperial commitments, Commonwealth immigration into Britain, principally from the West Indies and South Asia, was becoming an increasingly important issue in domestic politics. During the 1950s, the number of West Indians entering Britain reached annual rates of thirty thousand. The importance attached to the Commonwealth in the 1950s prevented the imposition of immigration controls. However, by the 1960s, Britain’s retreat from the Commonwealth in favour of Europe and events such as the Notting Hill and Nottingham race riots in 1958 heralded a policy of restriction, which gradually whittled away at the right of British overseas citizens to automatic British naturalisation. Although the 1962 Immigration Act was intended to reduce the inflow of blacks and Asians into Britain, it had the opposite effect: fearful of losing the right of free entry, as many immigrants came to Britain in the eighteen months before restrictions were introduced as had arrived over the previous five years. But in the second half of the 1960s, the rate of immigration into the English West Midlands was reported, in local official statistics, to be slowing down. Community relations were also calming down, as the immigrants of the previous decades integrated and raised families.

The Maverick MP Enoch Powell & The Immigration Acts, 1968-71:

In the Spring of 1968, the Government responded to an emergency in Kenya by introducing a Bill to control the sudden influx of a large number of Kenyan Asians, British overseas subjects, to the UK. At the same time, they sought to enact laws to protect the existing black and Asian immigrants to Britain. Against that background, the Wolverhampton MP and government minister Enoch Powell decided to make an intervention in these issues by alluding to a classical text which many took to be a prophecy of impending racial conflict in Britain:

Enoch Powell, the influential opponent of immigration.

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ’the river Tiber foaming with much blood’.

But rather than simply opposing the immigration of Kenyan Asians, Powell also echoed various accusations or ‘slurs’ against the established ‘black’ population, reportedly made by his constituents, that they had been persecuted by ‘Negroes’, having excrement posted through their letterboxes and being followed to the shops by children, charming wide-grinning pickaninnies chanting “Racialist.” If Britain did not begin a policy of voluntary repatriation, he stated, it would soon face the kind of race riots that were disfiguring America. Powell claimed that he was merely restating Tory policy, but the inflammatory language used and his own careful preparation of the speech suggests it was both a ‘call to arms’ by a politician who believed he was fighting for white English nationhood and a deliberate provocation aimed at Powell’s enemy, Heath. When a journalist asked whether he considered himself a ‘racialist’, Powell responded:

“We are all racialists. Do I object to one coloured person in this country? No. To a hundred? No. To a million? (A query). To five million? Definitely.

Did most people in 1968 agree with him, as Andrew Marr has suggested? It’s important to point out that, until he made this speech, Powell had been a Tory ‘insider’, though also seen as a maverick and a trusted member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet. He also drew sustenance from his constituents, who seemed to be excluded from mainstream politics. He argued that they had had immigration imposed on them without being asked and against their will. He was expelled from the shadow cabinet for his anti-immigration speech, not so much for its racialist content, which was mainly given in ‘reported speech’, but for suggesting that the race relations legislation being introduced was merely throwing a match on gunpowder. Those who knew Powell best claimed that he was not a racialist. The local newspaper editor, Clem Jones, thought Enoch’s anti-immigration stance was not ideologically motivated, but had ‘simply’ been influenced by the anger of white Wolverhampton people who felt crowded out; even in Powell’s own street, Jones said… 

“… of good, solid, Victorian houses, next door went sort of coloured and then another and then another house, and he saw the value of his own house go down.” 

Jones also added that Powell always worked hard as an MP for all his constituents, representing them regardless of colour. His speech became known, infamously, as The Rivers of Blood Speech and formed the backdrop of the legislation. The Immigration Bill had been rushed through in the spring of 1968 and has been described as among the most divisive and controversial decisions ever taken by any British government. Some MPs viewed it as the most shameful piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament, the ultimate appeasement of racist hysteria. The government responded with a tougher anti-discrimination bill in the same year. For many others, however, the passing of the act was the moment when the political élite, in the shape of Jim Callaghan, Home Secretary, finally woke up and listened to their working-class workers. Polls of the public showed that 72% supported the act. Never again would the idea of free access to Britain be seriously entertained by mainstream politicians.

Edward Heath, leader of the Conservatives from 1965 & Prime Minister, 1970-74.

Although Powell was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by the Tory leader, Edward Heath, more legislative action followed under the Tories themselves with the 1971 Immigration Act. This effectively restricted citizenship on racial grounds by enacting the Grandfather Clause, by which a Commonwealth citizen who could prove that one of his or her grandparents was born in the UK was entitled to immediate entry clearance. This operated to the disadvantage of Black and Asian applicants, while favouring citizens of the old Commonwealth, descendants of white settlers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Thus immigration control had moved away from primary immigration to restricting the entry of dependents, or secondary immigration, based largely on ethnic origin. Enoch Powell himself, from the back-benches, likened the distinction between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Commonwealth immigrants to a Nazi race purity law; he wanted a new definition of British citizenship instead. The grandparent rule was defeated by the right and left combining for opposite reasons but was restored two years later. In the meantime, the Kenyan crisis was replayed in another former East African colony, Uganda.

Powell may have helped British society by speaking out on an issue that, until then, had remained taboo. However, the language of his discourse still seems quite inflammatory and provocative even for fifty years ago, so much so that even historians hesitate to quote them. His words also helped to make the extreme-right Nazis of the National Front more acceptable. Furthermore, his core prediction of major civil unrest was not fulfilled, despite riots and street crime linked to disaffected youths from Caribbean immigrant communities in the 1980s. To overcome increasing prejudice and outright racism, immigrants to Birmingham tended to congregate in poorer inner city areas or in the western suburbs along the boundary with Smethwick, Warley, West Bromwich (now Sandwell), and Dudley. Birmingham’s booming postwar economy attracted West Indian settlers from Jamaica, Barbados and St Kitts in the 1950s.

The islands with the end dates of their status as colonies.

By 1971, the South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards and in north-west Birmingham, especially in Handsworth, Sandwell and Sparkbrook (see the map below). Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards more skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in the poorly paid, less attractive, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and health care sectors of the public services. In the 1970s, poor pay and working conditions forced some of these workers to resort to strike action.

But hostility to Caribbean immigrants remained pronounced in some sections of the local white population as it became more prosperous by the mid-1980s, and what became known as ‘white flight’ took place, migration from the inner city areas to the expanding suburbs to the southwest and east of the city. However, it is still unclear to what extent this migration was really due to concerns about immigrants. The majority of British people did not want the arrival of large numbers of Irish, West Indians and South Asians, but neither did they want an end to capital punishment or membership in a federal European Union, or many other things that their political élite decided upon. In the 1980s, the fears and prejudices seemed to be realised in a series of riots by disaffected black youths in London, Liverpool and Birmingham. There were riots in Handsworth in 1981 and again in 1985.

However, Enoch was not right about the growth of the immigrant population by the end of the century, which had been the main point of his 1968 speech. Just before the speech, Powell had suggested that by the end of the century, the number of black and Asian immigrants and their descendants would number between five and seven million, about a tenth of the population. According to the 2001 census, 4.7 million people identified as black or Asian, equivalent to 7.9 per cent of the total population. Immigrants were, of course, far more strongly represented in percentage terms in the English cities, but by the late 1980s, the overall numbers of West Indians were already in decline, and the proportion of the total British population made up of ethnic minorities was less than five per cent, as shown in the table below. Over the last decade of the twentieth century, it remained at that level.

The Final Passage & Back Again:

A new level of linguistic and cultural diversity was introduced by Caribbean and new Commonwealth immigration. This was manifested not just in the various ‘new’ languages that entered Britain, but also in the variety of new dialects of English originating in different parts of the old Empire, especially in the West Indies. Within the British West Indian community, Jamaican English, or the patois – as it is known – has had a special place as a token of identity. While there were complicated social pressures that frowned on Jamaican English in Jamaica, with parents complaining when their children ‘talk local’ too much, in England it became almost obligatory to do so in London. One Jamaican schoolgirl who made the final passage to the Empire’s capital city with her parents in the seventies put it like this:

It’s rather weird ’cos when I was in Jamaica I wasn’t really allowed to speak it (Jamaican creole) in front of my parents. I found it difficult in Britain at first. When I went to school I wanted to be like the others in order not to stand out. So I tried speaking the patois as well… You get sort of a mixed reception. Some people say, ’You sound really nice, quite different.’ Other people say, ’You’re a foreigner, speak English. Don’t try to be like us, ’cos you’re not like us.’

Despite the mixed reception from her British West Indian friends, she persevered with the patois, and, as she put it “after a year I lost my British accent, and was accepted.” However, for many Caribbean visitors to Britain, the patois of Brixton and Notting Hill was a stylised form that was not, as they saw it, truly Jamaican, not least because British West Indians came from all parts of the Caribbean. Another West Indian schoolgirl, born in London and visiting Jamaica for the first time, was teased for her patois. She was told that she didn’t “sound right and that.” The experience convinced her that…

“… in London the Jamaicans have developed their own language in patois, sort of. ’Cos they make up their own words in London, in, like, Brixton. And then it just develops into patois as well.”

Researchers found that there were already white children in predominantly black schools who had begun using the British West Indian patois in order to be accepted by the majority of their friends, who were black:

“I was born in Brixton and I’ve been living here for seventeen years, and so I just picked it up from hanging around with my friends who are mainly Black people. And so I can relate to them by using it, because otherwise I’d feel an outcast… But when I’m with someone else who I don’t know I try to speak as fluent English as possible. It’s like I feel embarrassed about it (the patois), I feel like I’m degrading myself by using it.”

The ‘unconscious racism’ of such comments pointed to the predicament of the Black Britons. Not fully accepted, for all their rhetoric, by the established native population, they felt neither fully Caribbean nor fully British. This was the poignant outcome of what the British Black writer Caryl Phillips called The Final Passage. Phillips, who came to Britain as a baby in the late 1950s, was one of the first of his generation to grapple with the problem of finding a means of literary self-expression that was true to his experience:

“The paradox of my situation is that where most immigrants have to learn a new language, Caribbean immigrants have to learn a new form of the same language. It induces linguistic schizophrenia – you have an identity crisis that mirrors the larger cultural confusion.”

In his novel, The Final Passage, the narrative is in Standard English. But the speech of the characters is a rendering of ‘nation language’:

‘I don’t care what anyone tell you, going to England be good for it going to raise your mind. For a West Indian boy you just being there is an education, for you going see what England do for sheself… It’s a college for the West Indian.’

The lesson of this college is, as Phillips puts it, that symptomatic of the colonial situation, the language has been divided as well. In the British Black community, and in the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean, English – creole or standard – was the only available language.

The poets Mutabaruka and Linton Kwesi Johnson, are part of a new generation who use Jamaican English in a written form far removed from Standard English.

By the end of the seventies, Caribbean and Rastafarian Reggae music, together with ‘dub poetry’ was beginning to have a broad impact on British pop culture. In Birmingham, a group of out-of-work young white men formed the band UB40, named after their benefit claim forms. The multicultural band Steel Pulse also became popular. On the other side of rock ‘politics’, there was an eruption of racist, skinhead rock, and a ‘casual’ but influential interest in the far right from among more established artists. At a concert I attended at the Birmingham Odeon in 1976, Eric Clapton, arriving on stage an hour late either drunk or stoned (or both), enquired as to whether there were any immigrants in the audience. He then said, to the shock and disgust of almost everyone there, Powell is the only bloke whose telling the truth, for the good of the country.

Ska and Soul music also had a real influence in turning street culture decisively against racism. Coventry’s Ska revival band, The Specials captured and expressed this new mood. The seventies produced, in the middle of visions of social breakdown, a musical revival which reflected the reality of a lost generation, whilst in turn reviving their sense of enjoyment of life. As one contemporary cultural critic put it:

A lifestyle – urban, mixed, music-loving, modern and creative – had survived, despite being under threat from the NF.’

My experiences growing up with ‘the Windrush generation’ in the decade 1965-75 have shaped my interests and actions in opposing racism in all its variety of forms over the subsequent decades, and they continue to do so today, half a century later. Multicultural Britain has not been made in a ‘melting pot’ but through the interaction of cultures and identities in mutual respect. That is reconciliation through integration and integration through reconciliation which I still believe Christians and people of other faiths must work towards.

Appendix: The Second Generation – The Murder of Stephen Lawrence & Institutional Racism:
Stephen Lawrence

I’m publishing this article on another important anniversary, that of the murder of the black eighteen-year-old Stephen Lawrence, on 22 April 1993. Stephen was born in Greenwich in 1975 and grew up in Plumstead, southeast London, before being brutally murdered in a racially motivated attack while waiting for a bus in Well Hall Road, Eltham. During his teenage years, Lawrence excelled in running, competing for the local Cambridge Harriers athletics club, and appeared as an extra in Denzel Washington’s film For Queen and Country.

At the time of his murder, he was studying technology and physics at the Blackheath Bluecoat Church of England School and English language and literature at Woolwich College and was hoping to become an architect. His mother, Doreen Lawrence, said:

“I would like Stephen to be remembered as a young man who had a future. He was well loved, and had he been given the chance to survive maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white because he didn’t distinguish between black and white. He saw people as people.”

After the initial investigation, six suspects were arrested but not charged; a private prosecution subsequently initiated by Lawrence’s family failed to secure convictions for any of the accused.

After the February 1997 inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, the front page of the Daily Mail labelled all five suspects “murderers” and instructed them to sue if the assumption was wrong. Lawrence’s parents and numerous political figures praised the Daily Mail for taking the potential financial risk of this front page.

The fallout from this tragic event included changes in attitudes toward racism in police practice. It also led to the partial revocation of the rule against double jeopardy. Two of the perpetrators were finally convicted of murder on 3 January 2012. It was suggested during the investigation that Lawrence was killed because he was black, and that the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. A 1998 public inquiry, headed by Sir William Macpherson, examined the original Metropolitan Police Service investigation and concluded that the investigation was incompetent and that the force was institutionally racist.

The publication in 1999 of the resulting Macpherson Report has been called one of the most important moments in the modern history of criminal justice in Britain. The report found that there had been a failure of leadership by senior ‘Met’ officers and that recommendations of the 1981 Scarman Report, compiled following race-related riots in Brixton and Toxteth, had been ignored. A total of seventy recommendations for reform, covering both policing and criminal law, were made. These proposals included abolishing the double jeopardy rule and criminalising racist statements made in private. Macpherson also called for reform in the British Civil Service, local governments, the National Health Service, schools, and the judicial system, to address issues of institutional racism.

Gary Dobson and David Norris were arrested and charged without publicity on 8 September 2010 and on 23 October 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, applied to the Court of Appeal for Dobson’s original acquittal to be quashed. Dobson was in prison at the time for drug dealing. Norris had not been previously acquitted, so no application was necessary in his case. For legal reasons, to protect the investigation and ensure a fair hearing, reporting restrictions were put in place at the commencement of these proceedings; the arrests and subsequent developments were not publicly reported at the time. Dobson’s acquittal was quashed following a two-day hearing in April 2011, enabling his retrial. On 18 May 2011, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment and the reporting restrictions were partially lifted. It was announced by the Crown Prosecution Service that the two would face trial for Lawrence’s murder in light of new and substantial evidence.

A jury was selected in November 2011, and the trial, presided over by Mr Justice Treacy, began the next day at the Central Criminal Court. With the prosecution led by Mark Ellison QC, the case centred on the new forensic evidence and whether it demonstrated the defendant’s involvement in the murder, or was the result of later contamination due to police handling. On 3 January 2012, after the jury had deliberated for just over eight hours, Dobson and Norris were found guilty of Lawrence’s murder. The two were sentenced on 4 January 2012 to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, equivalent to a life sentence for an adult, with minimum terms of fifteen years and two months for Dobson and fourteen years and three months for Norris.

Doreen Lawrence was elevated to the peerage as a Baroness on 6 September 2013 and is formally styled Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, of Clarendon in the Commonwealth Realm of Jamaica; the honour is rare for being designated after a location in a Commonwealth realm outside the United Kingdom. She sits on the Labour benches in the House of Lords as a working peer specialising in race and diversity. On 23 April 2018, at a memorial service to mark the 25th anniversary of his death, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that “Stephen Lawrence Day” would be an annual national commemoration of his death on 22 April every year starting in 2019. Doreen Lawrence made a statement that Stephen Lawrence Day would be:

“… an opportunity for young people to use their voices and should be embedded in our education and wider system regardless of the government of the day”.

A Stephen Lawrence Research Centre was built at De Montfort University, located inside the Hugh Aston building. Lawrence’s mother was appointed as Chancellor of the University in January 2016. The Centre will host a series of special events for the thirtieth anniversary of Stephen’s murder in April 2023.

The accusation of institutional racism stung the Metropolitan Police in 1999 and has continued to haunt the Force ever since, most recently in a report released in early April 2022, which echoed the Macpherson report in claiming that a work culture of racist, misogynistic and homophobic abuse had not been dealt within the organisation and still hampers operational effectiveness in terms of its ability to work with and for all Londoners. The new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Force has vowed to root out all forms of illegal discrimination within the force by sacking officers found guilty of these abuses.

Sources:

Geoffrey Moorhouse (1964), Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Bill Lancaster & Tony Mason (1980), Life & Labour in a Twentieth Century City: The Experience of Coventry. Coventry: Cryfield Press, University of Warwick.

Andrew Marr (2007), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Barry Cunliffe, Asa Briggs, et.al. (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

McCrum, Cran & MacNeil, (eds.) (1986), The Story of English. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Theo Baker (ed.) (1978) The Long March of Everyman. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Worldwide.

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents and Debates: Twentieth Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence

Featured

Comparing Coronations, 1953 & 2023

Glittering ceremonial celebrations for the King’s coronation have been unveiled, detailing the procession route, the carriages, and the priceless Crown Jewels have been chosen to play a starring role. The coronation service on May 6 will begin at 11 am. Charles and the Queen (Consort) Camilla will travel in a shorter procession route than the late Elizabeth II and break with tradition by only using the elaborate 260-year-old Gold State Carriage one way – on their return. The monarch and Queen Camilla have personally decided to make the 1.3-mile outward journey – known as the King’s Procession – from Buckingham Palace in the more modern, comfortable Diamond Jubilee State Coach, which has shock absorbers, heating, and air conditioning. They will travel, accompanied by The Sovereign’s Escort of the Household Cavalry, down The Mall via Admiralty Arch, along the south side of Trafalgar Square, along Whitehall and Parliament Street, around the east and south sides of Parliament Square to Broad Sanctuary to arrive at the Abbey.

The Royal Wedding & Queen Elizabeth’s Coronation:

Initially, it had been unclear how the monarchy would fare in post-war Britain. The leading members of the family were popular and Attlee’s ministers were careful never to express any republicanism in public, and there is almost no sign of it in their private diaries and memoirs either. But there were many Labour MPs pressing for a less expensive, stripped down, more contemporary monarchy, along Scandinavian lines. Yet the Windsors triumphed, as they would again, with an exuberant display which cheered up many of their tired, drab subjects.

The wedding of the future Queen Elizabeth to the then Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten in 1947 was planned as a public spectacle, the first of its kind. It was an explosion of pageantry and colour in a Britain that had seen little of either for ten years, a nostalgic return to ‘pomp’ and pageantry. A wedding dress by Norman Hartnell was created out of clinging ivory silk trailed with jasmine, similax, seringa, and rose-like blossoms, encrusted with pearls and crystals. The wedding was a radio broadcast event, still, rather than a television one, though newreels of it packed out cinemas around the world, including in devastated Berlin. In its lavishness and optimism, it was an act of British propaganda and celebration for bleak times, sending out the message that, despite everything, Britain was back! But the wedding also reminded the ‘club’ of European royalty just how few of them had survived as rulers into the post-war world. Faded uniforms and slightly discoloured tiaras worn by the exiles were very much in evidence: Princess Margaret remarked that ‘people who had been starving in little garrets all over Europe suddenly reappeared.’

The Second World War had swept away much that was familiar; not just the buildings brought down by the Blitz, but the sense that the old world had passed. In housing, there were grave shortages, partly caused by the bombing, but in large part by the lamentable state of the pre-war housing stock, while the reintegration of millions of service personnel into the economy had caused severe disruption. There was a yearning for something new, for an escape, a need partly met by the arrival of the ‘New look,’ a fashion trend that tried to make the most of limited means with long, swirling skirts. Conversely, there was a political flight to safety when the Labour government was defeated in the 1951 general election and the familiar though ageing face of Winston Churchill returned to Downing Street. George VI, who had been the nation’s figurehead throughout the war, died on 6th February 1952, leaving his twenty-five-year-old daughter Elizabeth to succeed him. The planning for the new Queen’s Coronation began almost immediately, but the actual ceremony only took place fourteen months later.

The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II on 2nd June 1953 was, therefore, primarily a moment for the nation to celebrate with lavish ceremony and age-hallowed pageantry. British coronations were always occasions for pomp and display, but Elizabeth II’s took place under the glare of unprecedented publicity. After a bitter behind-the-scenes argument, television cameras were allowed to film the ceremony, leading to the event being watched by over twenty million viewers, at a time when there were only 2.7 million television sets in Britain, many of them bought specifically to watch the Coronation.

The Route to the Abbey & Back:

The three million who lined London’s streets did not see the Queen enter the Abbey preceded by St Edward’s Crown, based on the medieval original, and used since the Coronation of Charles II, nor her gown designed by Norman Hartnell embroidered with emblems from the main Commonwealth countries (a Tudor rose for Great Britain, a maple leaf for Canada, a wattle for Australia and a lotus flower for India). But they did catch a glimpse of the fairy-tale carriage in which she was transported down Whitehall, Piccadilly, Oxford Street and Regent Street along the circuitous five-mile route back from the Abbey to the Palace. The line of the ten thousand servicemen who marched as part of the parade stretched for almost two miles.

The contemporary maps, above and below, illustrate the planning for a day which brought a sense of relief to the people of the United Kingdom after the trials and tribulations of the Second World War and the years of austerity which had followed. The procession through London’s streets, which followed the coronation ceremony itself, snaked through the city’s historic heart, beginning at Westminster Abbey, before arriving back at Buckingham Palace nearly two hours later.

The late Queen rode both ways in the Gold State Carriage for her 1953 coronation, famously describing the bumpy experience in the carriage, suspended on leather straps, as “horrible.” Her outward procession was 1.6 miles long, but her return procession was five miles, taking her down Piccadilly, along Oxford Street and Regent Street and Haymarket. It took two hours to complete, featured sixteen thousand participants, and was designed to allow her to be seen by as many people as possible.

The 260-year-old Gold State Carriage will be used only for the King and Camilla’s return procession (Yui Mok/PA)
The coronation routes in 1953 and 2023 (PA)

The newly crowned Charles and Camilla will travel just the 1.3 miles back in the Gold State Carriage after the ceremony, reversing their outward journey as they wave to the crowds, with the King wearing the Imperial State Crown. The route is understood to have been chosen for practical reasons, being a familiar tried and tested journey for many royal occasions. Apparently, however, the carriage has been refitted with ‘modern’ suspension and air conditioning to make even the shorter journey more comfortable. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said:

“The carriages chosen reflect the smaller procession to the Abbey and the larger procession back to Buckingham Palace. They were the personal choice of Their Majesties.”

The Gold State Coach features, above each wheel, a massive triton figure in gilded walnut wood (Yui Mok/PA)

The Palace declined to comment on whether the decision to opt for the Diamond Jubilee State Coach at the start has anything to do with the ongoing back pain the King has suffered for many decades. Camilla has also endured back problems over the years.

Elizabeth II, accompanied by Charles and Camilla, in the Diamond Jubilee State Coach in 2019 (Yui Mok/PA)

The black and gold Diamond Jubilee coach, built in Australia and first used by the late Queen at the State Opening of Parliament in 2014, is the newest in the Royal Mews. It features modern technology, with six hydraulic stabilizers to stop it from swaying, and traditional craftsmanship with interior wooden panels made from objects donated by more than a hundred historic sites, including royal residences, the Mary Rose, 10 Downing Street and the Antarctic bases of Captain Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton. Charles’ Coronation Procession in the Gold State Carriage will feature a cast of hundreds of members of the Armed Forces from the UK, Commonwealth and the British Overseas Territories, as well as the Sovereign’s Bodyguard and Royal Watermen.

Sally Goodsir, curator of decorative arts at the Royal Collection Trust, said:

“The Gold State Coach will be the centrepiece of the much larger procession from Westminster Abbey back to Buckingham Palace on coronation day. It will take longer than his outward journey because the historic gilded carriage, which will be drawn by eight Windsor greys, is so heavy it has to travel at a walking pace…

“It weighs four tonnes and because of that it can only be used at a walking pace which really adds to the majesty and stateliness of this great royal procession.”

The Ceremony as described by an eye-witness:

People began to speak of a new Elizabethan age following the death of George VI and the accession of his daughter in 1952 and in anticipation of the great national event of the Coronation. The Establishment took up their usual positions at Westminster Abbey. Sir Henry Chips Channon occupied almost the same seat as the one he had at the previous Coronation. He wrote the following account in his diary:

“… All was comfortably, smoothly arranged … as a covered bridge had been built from St Stephen’s entrance to the East Door. But there was a slight drizzle and an overcast sky. … Below, empty in the golden light, stood the throne. Opposite, the peeresses’ benches were gradually filling up; the front row of thirteen Duchesses was a splendid sight. … The long wait was enthralling as every few minutes a procession of distinguished guests, relations, minor royalties entered and were escorted to their seats. Finally, the Royal Family. …The Duchess of Kent was fairy-like, as she walked in with her children…

Her Majesty with six of the ‘thirteen Duchesses’

“… Finally came the magic of the Queen’s arrival: she was calm and confident and even charming, and looked touching and quite perfect, while Prince Philip was like a medieval knight – the Service, Anointing, Crowning, Communion were endless, yet the scene was so splendid, so breath-taking in the solemn splendour that it passed in a flash. The homage was impressive… The Great Officers of State swished their robes with dignity… Privy Councillors in their uniforms, men in levee dress, the little Queen at one moment simply dressed in a sort of shift, and then later resplendent: the pretty pages; the supreme movements… the nodding, chatting, gossiping Duchesses; the swan-like movements when they simultaneously placed their coronets on their heads… it was all finer, and better organised than the last time, although the Archbishop’s voice was not as sonorous as that of the wicked old Lang…

“…What a day for England, and the traditional forces of the world. Shall we ever see the like again? I have been present at two Coronations and now shall never see another. Will my Paul be an old man at that of King Charles III?

Sir Henry Channon, Diaries,edited by Robert James (1967), pp. 475-477.

Paul Channon was Sir Henry’s only son (b. 1935), and succeeded his father as MP for Southend West, serving from 1959 to 1997. He became Minister of State at the Civil Service Department when the Conservatives returned to power in 1979 led by Margaret Thatcher. He joined the Privy Council in 1980. After the Civil Service Department was abolished in 1981, he became Minister for the Arts, then Minister of State for Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry following the 1983 general election, finally serving as Secretary of State for Transport from 1987 until 1989. He died in 2007, aged 71, fifteen years before Her Majesty, and so will not be present at the forthcoming Coronation of King Charles III. Clearly, like so many others present that day, ‘Chips’ Channon could not have envisaged the young Queen reigning for another sixty-nine years.

The Ascent of Everest & the Beginning of a New Elizabethan Age:

It seemed truly the beginning of a new Elizabethan age, filled with hope. That news of Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary’s first ascent of Mount Everest reached London on Coronation Day only added to the excitement of the day’s events. Later, Hillary gave his account of the final ascent to the summit which had taken place earlier that morning:

The ridge curved away to the right and we had no idea where the top was. As I cut around the back of one hump, another higher one would spring into view. Time was passing and the ridge seemed never-ending. … I went on step-cutting. I was beginning to tire a little now. I had been cutting steps for two hours, and Tenzing, too, was moving very slowly. As I chipped steps around another corner, I wondered rather dully just how long we could keep it up. Our original zest had now gone and it was turning more into a grim struggle. I then realised that the ridge ahead, instead of still monotonously rising, now dropped sharply away, … I looked upwards to see a narrow snow ridge running up to a snowy summit. A few more whacks of the ice-axe and we stood on top.

‘My initial feelings were of relief – relief that there were no more steps to cut – no more ridges to traverse and no more humps to tantalise us with high hopes of success. I looked at Tenzing and in spite of the balaclava, goggles and oxygen mask all encrusted with long icycles that concealed his face, there was no disguising his infectious grin of pure delight as he looked all around him. We shook hands and then Tenzing threw his arm around my shoulder and we thumped each other on the back until we were almost breathless. It was 11.30 a.m.’

The news of this first successful ascent to the summit, therefore, reached London as the monarch prepared for her coronation. The fact that both New Zealand and Nepal were part of what was still the British Empire and Commonwealth meant that the triumph was considered a truly British achievement. But the ‘mother’ country still had ‘Everests’ to climb. The real future challenges it faced were its continuing near-bankruptcy after the war, the growing demands for independence among ‘the colonies’, and its economic retardation behind both the United States and the resurgent nations of post-war Europe and the Far East.

The Priceless Coronation Regalia:

The priceless array of coronation regalia from the Crown Jewels which will be used during the religious service in the Abbey on 6th May 2023 has also been confirmed. It will include the Sovereign’s Orb, the Golden Spurs, bracelets known as Armills, two maces, five symbolic swords, the Sovereign’s Ring, the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Cross and the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Dove. Camilla will be crowned, as previously announced, with the modified Queen Mary’s Crown, but she will also hold the Queen’s Rod with Dove – despite the controversial rod being made from ivory. The piece is said to symbolize equity and mercy, and the dove, with its folded wings, represents the Holy Ghost.

The Sovereign’s Orb will feature in the ceremony (Royal Collection Trust/HM King Charles III/PA)

Camilla will also hold the Queen’s Sceptre with Cross, which was originally made for the coronation of Mary of Modena, Queen Consort of James II, in 1685 and is inlaid with rock crystals. As part of the proceedings, she will receive the Queen Consort’s Ring – a ruby in a gold setting made for the Coronation of King William IV and Queen Adelaide in 1831, and used by three further Queens Consort – Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. As previously announced, Charles will be crowned with the 17th-century St Edward’s Crown which has been resized to fit his head. He will switch it for the lighter Imperial State Crown at the end of the ceremony as is the custom.

One addition to the events on the day is that the King and Queen will receive a royal salute in the Buckingham Palace gardens from the military troops on parade. They will take the salute from the West Terrace after the ceremony, and the servicemen and women will give three cheers – a special coronation tribute from the Armed Forces to the couple.

Sources:

Philip Parker (2017), History of Britain in Maps. Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Michael Clark & Peter Tweed (eds.) (1972), Portraits & Documents, Twentieth Century, 1906-1960. London: Hutchinson Educational.

Andrew Marr (2007-9), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Featured

‘Peacelines’: Britain, Ireland & Europe – The Making & Keeping of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement; 1973-2023.  

Borderlines – Remembering Sojourns in Ireland: 

The recent ‘post-Brexit’ negotiations over the issue of the trading relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have made me reflect on my two ‘professional’ visits to the island as an adult, in 1988 and 1990, a decade before the Belfast talks led to the ‘Good Friday Agreement’. As an eight-year-old, I had been to Dublin with my family in the mid-sixties, but recalled little of that experience, except that it must have been before 1966, as we climbed Nelson’s Monument in the city centre before the IRA blew it up to ‘commemorate’ the fiftieth anniversary of the Easter Rising. I had never visited Northern Ireland, however, though my father (pictured below) had begun his Baptist ministry in Bangor, County Down, after completing his training at Trinity College Dublin after the Second World War.

Dublin City Centre (O’Connell Street) in the early sixties.
Nelson’s ‘column’, with the GPO on the left.
After the IRA bombing
A Journey to Belfast, Londonderry & Corrymeela, June 1988:

The Official IRA laid down their weapons and hid them in 1969, instead forming a political party and standing successfully in elections in the Republic, though with little success in the North. But a Provisional IRA was formed by Republicans determined to continue what they called The Armed Struggle against the British State in the North, carrying out a number of brutal shootings and bombings on both sides of the border over the next decade. In the early eighties, as a historian and political economist, I was one of a number of researchers from Wales who met with a number of former Officials in London for an exchange of our respective findings about the contemporary economic landscapes of both Ireland and Wales. One such conclusion was that, with massive investment by American companies in Irish oil and gas extraction industries, there were now, in economic if not cultural terms, two ‘nations’ in Ireland, so that the older forms of Republicanism were therefore out of touch with the realities of Ireland in the 1980s. We were also told that although the Officials had decommissioned their weapons, they were still keeping them in reserve in case they were attacked by the Provos for their abandonment of traditional nationalist policies.

The Physical Map of the Island of Ireland above shows how little relevance the border has to its Geography.

Later that decade, in June 1988, while working for the Quakers in Selly Oak, Birmingham, I drove a group of students from Westhill College to Corrymeela, a retreat and reconciliation centre in the North. We drove by minibus to Belfast, being stopped by army blockades and visiting the Shankill and the Falls Road, witnessing the murals and the coloured curb stones. Political violence in Belfast had largely been confined to the confrontation lines where working-class unionist districts, such as the Shankill, and working-class nationalist areas, such as the Falls, Ardoyne and New Lodge, border directly on one another as shown on the map below:

After the Provisional IRA assassinated Lord Mountbatten on his boat off the Western coast of Ireland in 1979 (shown on the map below), the mainland bombing campaign went on with attacks on the Chelsea barracks, then the Hyde Park bombings, when eight people were killed and fifty-three injured. With hindsight, the emergence of Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Provisional IRA, as a political party in the early 1980s can be seen as one element in the rethinking of British policies. Yet throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were still periodic major incidents in various places across the province. After the Provisional IRA’s cease-fire in 1994, these were initiated by dissident Republican splinter groups. However, much of the continuing street violence throughout these decades was concentrated in the areas of Belfast where the population was mainly either predominantly Republican or Unionist, as shown on the map above.

After our tour of Belfast, I then drove along the beautiful, peaceful Antrim Coast to visit Derry/ Londonderry, with its wall proclaiming ‘You are now entering Free Derry’ (pictured below) and with its garrisons protected by barbed wire and soldiers on patrol with automatic rifles. Then we crossed the western border into Donegal, gazing upon its green fields and gentle hills. It reminded me of Phil Coulter’s sorrowful, autobiographical song, The Town I Loved So Well, which I had first heard a decade or more before on a jukebox in a Birmingham pub during breaks in my night shift as a temporary postal worker.

28.01.2007 Derry, Ireland Bloody Sunday 35th year’s commemoration.
At the end of the march, people gather at Free Derry Corner where the names of the victims are recalled;
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A page from a ‘reader’ on Ireland for English Language Learners (OUP, 2008)

‘Bloody Sunday’, 30th January 1972, followed the sending in of British troops in 1969 to protect the Catholic minority from Protestant violence and intimidation. To begin with, the majority of Catholics were welcoming towards the soldiers, but the Irish Republican Army was not. It began to shoot soldiers and policemen, and the Army responded by making intrusive house-to-house searches in Republican areas, locking up suspects without trial. This was called internment, and the Army frequently imprisoned the wrong people. Protest marches were organised by the Civil Rights Association, such as the one which led to ‘Bloody Sunday’. Twenty-six unarmed civil rights protesters were shot by British soldiers in the Bogside area of the City.

Catholic (nationalist) demonstrators in Derry after the killing of thirteen civil rights marchers on ‘Bloody Sunday’, 1972.

Thirteen died of their wounds on the day, including seven teenagers and another man died of his later the same year. Five of those wounded were shot in the back. Two other protesters were run down and injured by army trucks. At the time, the soldiers from the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment claimed that they had been fired upon first and that some of the demonstrators had guns. However, no weapons were ever found at, or near, the site. On Bloody Friday, 21st July 1972, the ‘Provisional IRA’ (PIRA) placed 22 bombs all over Belfast, in shops and cars on the streets, killing nine people and maiming 130. These were ordinary citizens, not policemen or soldiers, who had been targets in the past. The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) also began a campaign of terror with bombs and bullets, killing many innocent people.

The UDA (Ulster Defence Association) marched through Belfast’s city centre in a massive show of strength, in the summer of 1972. (Photo credit: Wikipedia).

‘Bloody Sunday’ is commemorated in U2’s well-known 1983 song, the lyrics of which, while condemning the Army, are not at all supportive of ‘the battle call’ of the IRA:

Broken bottles under children’s feet

Bodies strewn across the dead-end street

But I won’t heed the battle call

Puts my back up

Puts my back up against the wall

And the battle’s just begun

There’s many lost, but tell me who has won?

The trench is dug within our hearts

And mothers, children,

Brothers, sisters torn apart.

The final verse of U2’s song doesn’t pull any punches about the real solution to ‘the Troubles’. They don’t put their faith in ‘Victory for the IRA’ but in the Resurrection Day Victory of Christ:

The real battle’s just begun

To claim the victory Jesus won

On Sunday, Bloody Sunday …

Sunday Bloody Sunday (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Albeit reluctantly, British Prime Minister Edward Heath introduced internment without trial for suspected terrorists. He authorised the arrest and imprisonment in Long Kesh prison of 337 IRA suspects. In dawn raids, three thousand troops had found three-quarters of the people they were looking for, though even among these were many old or inactive former ‘official’ IRA members. Many of the active ‘Provo’ (Provisional IRA) leaders escaped south of the border. Protests came in from around the world. There was an immediate upsurge of violence, with twenty-one people killed in three days. Bombings and shooting simply increased in intensity. In the first eight weeks of 1972, forty-nine people were killed and more than 250 were seriously injured. Amid this already awful background, Bloody Sunday was an appalling day when Britain’s reputation around the world was damaged almost irrevocably. In Dublin, ministers reacted with fury and the British embassy was burned to the ground.

The tragic event in Londonderry made it easier for the ‘Provos’ to raise funds abroad, especially in the United States. This support emboldened the ‘Provos’, who hit back with a bomb attack on the Parachute Regiment’s Aldershot headquarters, killing seven people, none of them soldiers. The initial escalation of violence in ‘the province’ led to the imposition, by degrees, of direct rule by Whitehall. But all British political and administrative initiatives encountered perennial problems: one side or the other, and sometimes both, was unwilling to accept what was proposed. Ted Heath believed that he needed to persuade Dublin to drop its longstanding constitutional claim to the North, and, simultaneously, to persuade mainstream Unionists to work with moderate Nationalist politicians. His first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a new post made necessary by direct rule, William Whitelaw, met the Provisional IRA leaders, including Gerry Adams, for face-to-face talks, a desperate and risky gamble which, however, led nowhere. There was no compromise yet available that would bring about a ceasefire.

So, ignoring the Provos, the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 proposed a power-sharing executive of six Unionists, four Nationalists (SDLP) and one non-sectarian Alliance Party member. It failed because the majority of Unionists would not accept an Irish dimension in the form of the proposed Council of Ireland, bringing together politicians from both sides of the border with powers over a limited range of issues. This was what nationalists demanded in return for Dublin renouncing its authority over Northern Ireland. Too many Unionists were implacably opposed to the deal, and the moderates were routed at the first 1974 election. While the British government’s approach became subtler with regard to unionist concerns, a formula that was acceptable to both sides remained elusive and was to do so for another quarter of a century. Reflecting on his power-sharing ‘project’, Heath concluded:

‘Ultimately it was the people of Northern Ireland who threw away the best chance of peace in the blood-stained history of the six counties’.

It wasn’t until 2012 that the British government apologised for the killings on the fortieth anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’, when the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, made a formal statement in the House of Commons.

My Birmingham colleague on our visit to Londonderry in 1988, Bill Campbell, a Presbyterian minister and the son of a ‘B Special’ police officer came from a small village on the shores of Lough Neagh north of Belfast. So while he visited his family home there, I was deputed to drive the students around Londonderry and the region around it, guided by Jerry Tyrrell from the Ulster Quaker Peace Education Project. He described himself as a ‘full-time Peace worker’ and a ‘part-time navigator’. I had already met him in Birmingham, where I was also running a Peace Education Project for the Quakers in the West Midlands. He was born in London but had come to live in Derry in 1972, just after Bloody Sunday, to work on holiday projects for groups of mixed Catholic and Protestant students at Corrymeela. It provided opportunities for them to meet and learn together during organised holidays, work camps and other activities. He had left this in April 1988 to take up the post of running the Peace Education Project at Magee College.

Edited by Sam Burnside, published by Holiday Projects West, Londonderry, 1988.

Jerry gave me a copy of a slim volume entitled Borderlines: A Collection of New Writing from the North West, containing prose and poems by members of the Writers’ Workshop based at Magee College, including some of his own poetry. The Workshop promoted and encouraged new writing in the North-west, and acted as a forum for a large number of local writers. In his preface, Frank McGuinness wrote of how …

… freedom is full of contradictions, arguments, the joy of diversity, the recognition and celebration of differences.

After reading the collection, I agreed with McGuiness that the collection contained that diversity and that it stood testimony to the writers’ experiences and histories, their fantasies and dreams. Its contributors came from both sides of the Derry-Donegal border we had driven over, and from both sides of the Foyle, a river of considerable beauty which, in its meandering journey from the Sperrins to the Atlantic, assumes on its path through Derry a socio-political importance in symbolising the differences within the City. However, in his introduction to the collection, Sam Burnside, an award-winning poet born in County Antrim, but living in Derry, wrote of how …

… the borders which give definition to the heart of this collection are not geographical, nor are they overtly social or political; while … embedded in time and place, they are concerned to explore emotional and moral states, and the barriers they articulate are … those internal to the individual, and no less detrimental to freedom for that.

If borders indicate actual lines of demarcation between places and … powers, they suggest also the possibility of those barriers being crossed, of change, of development, from one state to another. And a border, while it is the mark which distinguishes and maintains a division, is also the point at which the essence of real or assumed differences are made to reveal themselves; the point at which they may be forced to examine their own natures, for good or ill.

In the short story ‘Blitzed’ by Tessa Johnston, a native of Derry where she worked as a teacher, Kevin has moved, in a fictional future (in 1998), from Derry to Manchester, to escape from the troubles, but the report of a car-bombing by the Provisional IRA in Manchester brings back memories of his encounter with a soldier in Derry as a schoolboy, fifteen years old. On his way from his home in Donegal to the Grammar School in Derry, in the week before Christmas, he had been blinded by the snow so that he didn’t see the soldier on patrol until he collided with him:

Over the years Kevin had grown accustomed to being stopped regularly on his way to and from school; to being stopped, questioned and searched, but never until that day had he experienced real hostility, been aware of such hatred. Spread-eagled against the wall he had been viciously and thoroughly searched. His school-bag had been ripped from his back and its contents strewn on the pavement; then, triumphantly, the soldier held aloft his bible, taunting him:

“So, you’re a Christian, are you? You believe in all that rubbish? You wanna convert me? Wanna convert the heathen, Fenian scum? No?”

On and on he ranted and raved until Kevin wondered how much more of this treatment he could endure. Finally, his anger exhausted, he tossed the offending book into the gutter and in a last act of vandalism stamped heavily upon it with his sturdy Army boots, before turning up Bishop Street to continue his patrol.

With trembling hands Kevin began to gather up his scattered possessions. Then, like one sleep-walking, he continued his journey down Bishop Street. He had only gone a few steps when a shot rang out. Instinctively, he threw himself to the ground. Two more shots followed in quick succession, and then silence.

He struggled to his feet and there, not fifty yards away his tormentor lay spread-eagled in the snow. Rooted to the spot, Kevin viewed the soldier dispassionately. A child’s toy, he thought, that’s what he looks like. Motionless and quiet;

a broken toy …

Then the realisation dawned as he watched the ever-increasing pool of blood stain the new snow.”

What haunted Kevin from that day, however, was not so much this picture of the dead soldier, but the sense that he himself had crossed an internal border. He had been glad when the soldier was shot and died; he had been unable to come to terms with the knowledge that he could feel like that. He had been unable to forgive not just the young soldier, but – perhaps worse – himself. The shadow of that day would never leave him, even after his family moved to Manchester. This had worked for a while, he’d married and had a child, and he had coped. But in the instant of the TV news report all that had been wiped out. The ‘troubles’ had found him again. They knew no borders.

This, of course, was a piece of fiction, though it could quite easily have been a factual, eye-witness account. There were thousands of deaths in Northern Ireland like that of the soldier throughout the troubles and bombings even after the PIRA cease-fire (by the ‘Real IRA’), Thankfully, however, there was no renewal of the bombing campaigns on the mainland of Britain such as that of the 1970s, such as the bombing I had narrowly escaped in Birmingham. In 1974, the IRA had taken their campaign a stage further, by placing bombs in pubs in ‘mainland Britain’, killing many innocent teenagers.

The damaged front of the Tavern in the Town in Birmingham after the attack on November 21 1974.
Photograph: PA

On 21 November, they placed three bombs in the city centre of Birmingham. Two were in city centre pubs, and the third outside a bank along one of the main roads into the city, along which I and my friends travelled every Saturday night on our way to ‘Youthquake’ gatherings at St. Philip’s Cathedral. I remember returning from the city centre, where I had been eating in the burger bar next to ‘The Tavern in the Town’, where a bomb went off in the underground bar, the blast causing horrendous injuries besides the deaths. Getting off the bus at the terminus at the top of the avenue in Edgbaston where we lived, some four miles out of the city, I heard the blast. The bomb which had been placed on our bus route had failed to detonate. After that, almost every Saturday for the next four weeks before Christmas, we were called out for bomb alerts from the city-centre department store where I worked.

The memorial plaque to the 21 victims of the Birmingham pub bombs within the grounds of Saint Philip’s Cathedral

Our next-door neighbours were Irish, and I also remember the backlash they and many others faced in the large Birmingham Irish Community, which led to the wrongful conviction and sixteen-year imprisonment of ‘the Birmingham Six’. The twenty-one victims killed in the two explosions, eleven at ‘the Tavern in the Town’ would now be, like me, middle-aged or recently retired, with grown-up children and perhaps grandchildren of their own. Many of the hundreds who survived the blast suffered horrific, life-shattering injuries.

Maureen Roberts and Thomas Chaytor, both of whom were murdered in the Tavern in the Town bombing.

Yet the real bombers have never been charged, despite the accusation that the then leadership of the IRA, who later became ministers in the Stormont Government in Belfast, knew who they were, as did a Labour MP and journalist who wrote a book about the event. A decade ago, a petition was started by one of the victim’s families to get the case re-opened, so that they can be brought to justice. But by the Good Friday Agreement, they have so far found protection from arrest. But, writing from the perspective of the late eighties, Tessa Johnston’s short story could easily have been the real future for someone in Northern Ireland, and indeed it was that in Omagh in 1998, though not in Manchester, due to the Peace Process of the 1990s and the Good Friday Agreement in the real 1998.

An Easter ‘Pilgrimage’ to Dublin & Belfast, 1990:

My second visit to Ireland was over Easter 1990, shortly after I had moved to live and work in Hungary when I attended two conferences, the IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) Conference which was being held in Dublin that year, and then on to Belfast to complete an unfinished project for the West Midlands’ Quakers on ‘Conflict and Reconciliation’, a pack of materials we had trialled with Religious Education teachers in schools in Birmingham and Walsall through the Christian Education Movement (CEM). It was due to be published by them and sent to members throughout the UK, but first, we needed to share the ‘community’ materials with Religious Education teachers from both Catholic and State schools in the North and integrate the materials they had trialled with ours.

The cover of the Longman ‘Reader’ I was given at the 1990 Dublin Conference of IATEFL.

My travelling companions on the first part of the journey from Bristol to Dublin were a Quaker teacher-trainer in English Language teaching and two Hungarian primary teachers of English, one of whom worked as a mentor for the teacher-training college where I had already started work in Kecskemét in February 1990. On arriving in Rosslare from Fishguard, we got our passports out, thinking that there would be customs and border checks. My Hungarian colleagues expected to have to present theirs, as they did at every border, since Hungary had only just left the Warsaw Pact and Comecon, and it was to be another fourteen years before the newly-proclaimed republic was able to join the European Union. But we were all just waved through to join the ‘rocky road’ to Dublin.

I don’t remember much of the Conference but I do remember, with great affection, the streets of Dublin, the pubs and theatres and Trinity College, where my father had trained for the Baptist ministry, based at Spurgeon’s College nearby. That was when Eire was still a dominion of the British Commonwealth, so all my father had needed, even during the war when Ireland was neutral, was his National Registration card. He took us there as a family in the early sixties, and wanted to take us for a ride on the Dublin ‘tram’. However, he was disappointed as by that time it had disappeared, to be replaced by distinctive green double-deckers. In 1990, however, I caught a train from the station to Belfast on my own. The green and gold liveried Irish train crossed the border without stopping, the guard checking only our tickets.

Pub grub in Dublin.

Staying at Queen’s University in Belfast, we visited Lisburn (about eight miles west of the city centre) the next day, where we met the Mayor and then saw lessons at the Friends’ School, one of the few ‘integrated’ schools in the province at that time. We were also taken inside the bombed-out shell of Lisburn’s First Presbyterian Church where Rev. Gordon Gray was the minister, and one of the co-sponsors of our programme. It reminded me of the remains of the medieval Coventry Cathedral. His three-hundred-year-old church was bombed twice in the 1980s by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). It was in the process of being rebuilt and renovated after the second devastating attack, but the scars left by PIRA were plain to see, and Gordon Gray spoke calmly but passionately about the impact of the recent bombing. He had seen friends die through violence, but spiritual strength had helped him to continue on in his ministry.

After the Blitz: Coventry Cathedral, 14 November 1940. A witness to the ‘Troubles’ in Belfast has compared the destruction with that of the Church bombings of the 1980s in the Province, in a recent BBC Radio interview.

Then it was down to business. Elsewhere in the UK, Peace Education was not particularly welcomed by local authorities, though Birmingham had its own advisor. It was certainly not welcomed by the Thatcher government, who did their best to have it proscribed. Where it existed elsewhere, it was funded by Quaker charities and individual subscriptions, as was the case with my job, or subsumed into ‘World Studies’ or ‘Development Education’. But in Northern Ireland, it was supported by the UK government under the direct rule arrangements which existed before the Good Friday Agreement. It was called ‘Education for Mutual Understanding’ (EMU) and funding was provided for projects like those being run by the group of local teachers and church leaders, in both Catholic and Protestant state schools.

The ‘Peace Wall’ is shown on the left. It is still there, stretching over twenty miles through Belfast.

We had already hosted these teachers in Birmingham, where the Inter-cultural Conflict and Reconciliation Programme (ICCARP) was founded under the auspices of the CEM. They had visited Handsworth and met our community workers, a black social worker, of Caribbean heritage, and one white, a community policeman. Walking with them along the long main road through the district, I recognised their obvious unease as being similar to the way I had felt driving through the middle of Belfast and around the ‘peace line’ two years earlier. I remember asking the teachers about integrated education as a solution to overcoming the sectarian divide in education. The reply came that taking the churches out of secondary schools did not help bridge the divide since before young people could reach out across that divide, they had first to feel confident in their own faith traditions. This provided me with valuable insights which I later applied to my work in Hungary, where the role of religion in schools had been suppressed for so long and RE outlawed. In Handsworth, they visited a Church of England primary school where three-quarters of the children were from Punjabi Sikh families. The parents told us that they had chosen to send their children to that oversubscribed school because of its religious foundation; because they knew that their children would receive religious education and grow up understanding Christian values.

Having concluded our collective editing and proofreading of the respective community case-based materials from the two regions, we broke up, and I returned to Birmingham via the Larne crossing to Stranraer. Again, there were no checks of any kind at the ports, no heavy-handed use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provisions which my USI (Union of Students of Ireland) student friends had to face in Liverpool on the way to NUS conferences at Blackpool from 1979 to 1980. The CEM released the pack in August 1991, in time for its inclusion in school plans for the new academic year. By that time I had returned to the UK to train RE teachers in Birmingham, and I led a CEM workshop for them to try out some of the cooperative activities. But our case study of Caribbean communities in Handsworth, based on the 1981 riots, was already out of date, so it was replaced with a case study on the stereotyping of South Asian Muslims in Derby.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement, 1985 & the Provos’ Ballot Box & Bullet Strategy:

Another preliminary element in the Peace Process was the belated interest successive Irish governments began to take in Northern Ireland during the same period. The fear that the disturbances in the North might spread south and destabilise their state lay behind the Dublin government’s decision to start talking directly to Downing Street from 1980 onwards. This led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which essentially represented a reiteration of British policy aims in the province, but now with an added all-Ireland dimension, which the Unionists continued to find difficult to accept.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 had essentially reiterated British policy aims in the province, but with an added all-Ireland dimension, which the Unionists found very difficult to accept. But on the Republican side, north and south of the border, it led to the emergence of an entirely new strategy, ballot box as well as bullet. This was followed by its realisation that ‘the war’ could not be won by purely paramilitary means which led it to enter secret talks with Dublin and Downing Street in the late eighties and early nineties in pursuit of a way into political participation. The British government’s recognition that if the ‘extremists’ on both sides could be brought into the search for a political solution then the mainstream political parties would follow suit, signified a complete reversal of its previous policy. Once the PIRA had accepted the need for a ceasefire, the remaining difficulty was to persuade mainstream unionists that the ex-paramilitaries could be trusted. Some unionists agreed to give up previous strategies, which in essence had consisted of trying to get back the power they had lost as a result of the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973. Their abandonment of these strategies sprang from their pragmatic realisation that only power-sharing with nationalists would guarantee them a stake in the future of the Province.

It took another ten years after the publication of Borderlines and our visit to Northern Ireland from Birmingham for another Agreement to be reached on Good Friday 1998 which ended the fighting in the Province, hopefully for good, though events in Belfast in the early 2000s showed that the sectarian cultural conflict between Unionists and Republicans was still deeply rooted in many communities, despite all the efforts made in the eighties and nineties in ‘Education for Mutual Education’ and the Christian Education Movement. These efforts were based on the principle that pupils needed to work on their own identities, both as individuals and members of communities, before they could develop the skills to span religious, cultural and ethnic divisions. The pack was published by CEM in 1991, and for a time proved very popular with schools in both Northern Ireland and the Midlands of England. One wonders if, in the province, following the Good Friday Agreement, the politicians took over and the real architects of peace were pushed into the background, depriving a new generation of any sense of ownership over the peace process and forcing them back onto the streets to express their identities in limited symbolism and violence.

The street violence persisted and intensified during the marching season in July when the protestant Orange Order held its traditional but often offensive or provocative parades near or through Catholic areas around Belfast.

The Hand of History, & The Shape of Things to Come:

Rioters, in this case, unionists, pelt police with stones after Orangemen were prevented from marching through nationalist Drumcree, near Portadown, in 1996.

In Northern Ireland in the eighties and nineties, optimism was the only real force behind the peace process, an optimism which found its expression in the stoical work of the ‘peace women’, the churches and voluntary organisations. Too often, perhaps, the peace process has been associated with its end product. This ‘product’ is remembered by one of Blair’s most significant but unprepared soundbites as the talks reached their climax: This is no time for soundbites … I feel the hand of history on my shoulder. Despite the comic nature of this remark, which even his chief negotiator, Jonathan Powell and press officer, Alistair Campbell laughed at in private, it would be churlish not to acknowledge this as one of his greatest achievements. Following the tenacious efforts of John Major to bring Republicans and Unionists to the table, which had resulted in a stalemate, Tony Blair had already decided in Opposition that an Irish peace settlement would be one of his top priorities in government.

He went to the province as his first visit after winning power and focused Number Ten on the negotiations as soon as the IRA announced a further ceasefire, sensing a fresh opportunity. In Mo Mowlem, Blair’s brave new Northern Ireland Secretary, he had someone who was prepared to be tough in negotiations with the Unionists and to encourage Sinn Feiners in order to secure a deal. Not surprisingly, the Ulster Unionist politicians soon found her to be too much of a ‘Green’. So she concentrated her charm and bullying on the Republicans, while a Number Ten team dealt with the Unionists. Blair emphasised his familial links with Unionism in order to win their trust.

There were also direct talks between the Northern Irish political parties, aimed at producing a return of power-sharing in the form of an assembly in which they could all sit. These were chaired by former US Senator George Mitchell and were the toughest part. There were also talks between the Northern Irish parties and the British and Irish governments about the border and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the future. Finally, there were direct talks between London and Dublin on the wider constitutional and security settlement. This tripartite process was long and intensely difficult for all concerned, which appeared to have broken down at numerous points and was kept going mainly thanks to Blair himself. He took big personal risks, such as when he invited Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein-IRA to Downing Street.

Some in the Northern Ireland office still believe that Blair gave too much away to the Republicans, particularly over the release of terrorist prisoners and the amnesty which indemnified known terrorists, like those responsible for the Birmingham bombings in 1974, from prosecution. At one point, when talks had broken down again over these issues, Mo Mowlem made the astonishing personal decision to go into the notorious Maze prison herself and talk to both Republican and Loyalist terrorist prisoners. Hiding behind their politicians, the hard men still saw themselves as being in charge of their ‘sides’ in the sectarian conflict. But Blair spent most of his time trying to keep the constitutional Unionists ‘on board’, having moved Labour policy away from its traditional support for Irish unification. In Washington, Blair was seen as being too Unionist.

Given a deadline of Easter 1998, a deal was finally struck, just in time, on Good Friday, hence the alternative name of ‘the Belfast Agreement’. Northern Ireland would stay part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority in the province wished it so. The Republic of Ireland would give up its territorial claim to the North, amending its constitution to this effect. The parties would combine in a power-sharing executive, based on a newly elected assembly. There would also be a North-South body knitting the two political parts of the island together for various practical purposes and mundane matters. The paramilitary organisations would surrender or destroy their weapons, monitored by an independent body. Prisoners would be released and the policing of Northern Ireland would be made non-sectarian by the setting up of a new police force to replace the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), whose bias towards the Unionist community had long been a sore point for Nationalists.

The deal involved a great deal of pain, particularly for the Unionists. It was only the platform for true peace and would be threatened frequently afterwards, such as when the centre of Omagh was bombed only a few months after its signing by a renegade splinter group of the IRA calling itself ‘the Real IRA’ (see the photo below). It murdered twenty-nine people and injured two hundred, making it the deadliest single incident of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There was a strong regional and international outcry against ‘dissident’ Republicans and in favour of the Northern Ireland peace process. Prime Minister Tony Blair called the bombing an “appalling act of savagery and evil.” Queen Elizabeth expressed her sympathies to the victims’ families, while the Prince of Wales paid a visit to the town and spoke with the families of some of the victims. Pope John Paul II and President Bill Clinton also expressed their sympathies. Churches across Northern Ireland called for a national day of mourning. Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh Robin Eames said on BBC Radio that,

“From the Church’s point of view, all I am concerned about are not political arguments, not political niceties. I am concerned about the torment of ordinary people who don’t deserve this.”

Yet this time the violent extremists were unable to stop the politicians from talking.

The Aftermath of the Omagh Bombing.

Once the agreement had been ratified on both sides of the border, the decommissioning of arms proved a seemingly endless and wearisome game of bluff. Though the two leaders of the moderate parties in Northern Ireland, David Trimble of the Ulster Unionists and John Hume of the moderate Nationalist SDLP, won the Nobel Prize for Peace, both these parties were soon replaced in elections by the harder-line Democratic Unionist Party led by Rev. Dr Ian Paisley, and by Sinn Fein, under Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Initially, this made it harder to set up an effective power-sharing executive at Stormont. The impressive Parliament Buildings in Stormont, shown below, were built in 1921 to house the new Government of Northern Ireland after Partition, and since the Belfast Agreement, they have been the home to the Northern Ireland Assembly and its power-sharing executive.

Stormont, the home of Northern Ireland’s Assembly and Power-sharing Executive.

To almost everyone’s surprise, Paisley and McGuinness sat down together and formed a good working relationship. But the thuggery and crime attendant on years of paramilitary activity took another decade to disappear. Yet because of the Agreement hundreds more people are still alive today who would have died had the ‘troubles’ continued. They are living in relatively peaceful times. Investment has returned and Belfast has been transformed into a busier, more confident city. Large businesses increasingly work on an all-Ireland basis, despite the continued existence of two currencies and a border. Tony Blair can take a sizeable slice of credit for this agreement. As one of his biographers has written:

He was exploring his own ability to take a deep-seated problem and deal with it. It was a life-changing experience for him.

US President Bill Clinton addressed a peace rally in Belfast during his visit in 1995. Clinton played a significant ‘peace broker’ in negotiations.

So, after long negotiations, and with the help of President Bill Clinton and his special envoy, ex-senator George Mitchell, the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. This sought to establish a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, as well as acknowledge both British and Irish interests in the future of the province.

Devolution & Development in the British Isles within the EU:

Economic change was most dramatic in the Irish Republic, which enjoyed the highest growth rates in Europe in the 1990s. The so-called ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy boomed, aided by an inward investment so that by the end of the decade GDP per capita had surpassed that of the UK. Dublin, which remained if anything more dominant than London as a capital city, flourished as a result of strong growth in the service industries. Growth rates for the new economy industries such as information and communications technology were among the highest in the world. Generous tax arrangements and the city’s growing reputation as a cultural centre meanwhile helped to encourage the development of Dublin’s ‘stockbroker belt’. Even agriculture in the Irish Republic, in decline in the early 1990s, still contributed nine per cent of Ireland’s GDP, three times the European average. In the west of Ireland, it was increasingly supplemented by the growth of tourism.

Nevertheless, while the expansion of Ireland’s prosperity lessened the traditional east-west divide, it did not eliminate it. Low population density and a dispersed pattern of its settlements were felt to make rail developments unsuitable. Consequently, Ireland’s first integrated transport programme, the Operational Programme for Peripherality, concentrated on improving: the routes from the west of Ireland to the ferry port of Rosslare; the routes from Belfast to Cork; Dublin and the southwest; east-west routes across the Republic. Many of these improvements benefited from EU funding. The EU also aided the whole island of Ireland through its ‘peace programme’. In 1993, the EU had already decided to create a combined European transport network. Of the fourteen projects associated with this aim, three were based in Britain and Ireland – a rail link from Cork to Larne in Northern Ireland, the ferry port for Scotland; a road link from the Low Countries across England and Wales to Ireland, and the West Coast mainline railway route in Britain.

If the Good Friday Agreement changed the future relationship of the UK and Ireland, Scottish and Welsh devolution changed the future political shape of Great Britain. By 1997, the relative indifference of the eighteen-year Tory ascendancy to the plight of the industrial areas of Scotland and Wales had transformed the prospects of the nationalist parties in both countries. Through the years of Tory rule, the case for a Scottish parliament had been bubbling under to the north of the border. Margaret Thatcher had been viewed as a conspicuously English figure imposing harsh economic penalties on Scotland, which had always considered itself to be inherently more egalitarian and democratic. The Tories, who had successfully played the Scottish card against centralising Labour in 1951, had themselves become labelled as a centralising and purely English party. They had, however, already reorganised local government in Britain and Northern Ireland in the early 1990s with the introduction of ‘unitary’ authorities.

In September 1997, Scotland voted by three to one for the new Parliament, and by nearly two to one to give it tax-varying powers. The vote for the Welsh Assembly was far closer, with a wafer-thin majority secured by the final constituency to declare, that of Carmarthen. The Edinburgh parliament would have clearly defined authority over a wide range of public services – education, health, welfare, local government, transport and housing – while Westminster kept control over taxation, defence, foreign affairs and some lesser matters. The Welsh Assembly in Cardiff would have fewer powers and no tax-raising powers. The Republic of Ireland was similarly divided between two regional assemblies but unlike the assemblies in the UK, these were not elected.

In 1999, therefore, devolved governments, with varying powers, were introduced in Scotland, Wales and, following the ratification referendum on the Belfast Agreement, in Northern Ireland. After nearly three hundred years, Scotland got its parliament with 129 MSPs, and Wales got its assembly with sixty members. Both were elected by proportional representation, making coalition governments almost inevitable. But despite these unresolved issues, the historic constitutional changes brought about by devolution and the Irish peace process reshaped both Britain and Ireland, producing irrevocable results. In his television series A History of Britain, first broadcast on the BBC in 2000, Simon Schama commented that…

Histories of Modern Britain these days come not to praise it but to bury it, celebrating the denationalization of Britain, urging on the dissolution of ‘Ukania’ into the constituent European nationalities of Scotland, Wales and England (which would probably tell the Ulster Irish either to absorb themselves into a single European Ireland or to find a home somewhere else – say the Isle of Man).

The GFA, he argued, had changed all that, mainly due to the changed attitude of ‘the Ulster Irish’, epitomised in the apparent epiphany of Dr Ian Paisley and his unlikely new-found political relationship with Martin McGuinness. The Peace Process, at all levels, reaffirmed the role of Unionists in building the future of a new Northern Ireland. In Britain, certainly, and especially in England, they were no longer seen as ‘naysayers’.

Although Northern Ireland, like Scotland, voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 Referendum, it was taken out of membership with the rest of the UK, destabilising its trade relations with the Republic, despite a protocol agreed between the UK which kept the province within the European Single Market. Unionists refused to accept this, however, as it also regulates trade within the UK.

The fact that both territories were within the European Union enabled this to happen without friction, though this changed when the UK left the EU in 2020 and the Republic effectively became a ‘foreign country’ to it for the first time since the Norman Conquest. But so far ‘the GFA’ has survived Brexit. Despite recurrent crises and accusations of bad faith, the peace survived more or less intact. But with the unionists rejecting the recent ‘Windsor framework’ between the current UK government and the EU Commission, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Agreement, and with the visit of US President Joe Biden, it remains to be seen whether it will develop into a long-term solution for a just and lasting peace.

Ursula Von der Leyen, EU Commission President, has negotiated the ‘Windsor framework’ with Risi Sunak, aimed at overcoming remaining post-Brexit obstacles to EU-UK-NI trade.
Conclusion – Crossing Inner Borders:

The drive from Birmingham or Bristol to Belfast is a long one, whichever route you take, but the inner, cultural journey is not so great. It is a worthwhile one, especially for someone who witnessed the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings at close hand. I could easily have been among those teenagers killed or seriously maimed that night, and the memory of it drives my determination to bring people together across cultural divides and borders. Religious traditions, be they Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Sikh or Muslim are there for us to reach out from, in faith, not for us to retreat into, in fear. It is worth remembering Sam Burnside’s comment that the most divisive borders are those which we draw within ourselves. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen again after forty years of borders being brought down and/or crossed with ease.

A Quaker Poster in 1999.
Sources:

Andrew Marr (2008), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Simon Schama (2000), A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Worldwide.

Peter Catterall (et. al.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Featured

The Disintegration of Multiculturalism in Early Twenty-first Century Britain – The Child Exploitation Gang Scandals:

Current ‘Culture Wars’ & an issue revisited:
Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, QC, MP:
Official portrait, 2021

The current British Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has been in the news again this week following her interviews on the BBC TV Sunday Morning programme with Laura Kuenessburg and Sky TV’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme on 2 April. She was recently embroiled in a controversy with sports presenter, Gary Lineker, following her choice of language in a debate on asylum seekers in the House of Commons. I have written about this in a previous blog. Here, I will concentrate on her remarks and proposals on ‘grooming gangs’ about child sexual abuse and exploitation. In her interview with Sophy Ridge, she commented:

“There’s been several reports over recent years about what I consider to be one of the biggest scandals in … our history, and that is a systematic and institutional failure to safeguard the welfare of children when it comes to sexual abuse, and we saw recently Professor Jay’s report being published and that makes very harrowing reading we’re seeing in towns and cities around the country a practice evolve, which has evolved, which is taking advantage of vulnerable children… whereby… white English girls… {are} being pursued, raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men who’ve worked in child abuse rings or networks. … We’ve seen institutions and state agencies, whether it’s social workers, teachers, the police, turn a blind eye… out of political correctness, out of fear of being called ‘racist’… and as a result, thousands of children have had their childhoods robbed and devastated. … and there are many of these perpetrators still running wild, behaving in this way, and it’s now down to the authorities to track {them} down without fear or favour… and bring them to justice.”

When asked about the Home Office Report of 2020 which found that ‘grooming gangs’ were most commonly ‘white’, not Pakistani, and that, despite some of the high-profile cases also reported, the link between ethnicity and these offences could not be proven, she simply referred back to the Jay Report about Rotherham, failing to supply any further information in support of her assertions about the scale and nature of ongoing problems in towns and cities throughout Britain. Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire, speaking later that morning, described these assertions as ‘dog-whistle’ politics, claiming that Braverman was again engaging in culture wars, appealing to her far-right supporters within and outside the Conservative Party.

For Labour’s Shadow Cabinet, Lisa Nandy pointed out in the subsequent interview that ‘mandatory reporting’ of child sexual reports was something many people in local and national childcare agencies had been calling for over the last twenty years. Certainly, as a teacher who began work in a town in Lancashire, forty years ago, this was one of the first things we were briefed on and trained in as being our basic ‘duty of care’. Lisa Nandy added that the Home Secretary, by choosing to single out one community was distracting attention from the fact that there are various forms of child abuse going on in communities with a variety of ethnic profiles. To understand this renewed debate, it is therefore important to remind ourselves of what the evidence is that has been revealed by various scandals and reports over the past two decades, in the context of broader ‘race relations’.

British Identity at the Beginning of the New Millennium:

As Simon Schama pointed out in 2002, it was a fact that even though only half of the British-Caribbean population and a third of the British-Asian population were born in Britain, they continued to constitute only a small proportion of the total population. It was also true that any honest reckoning of the post-imperial account needed to take account of the appeal of separatist fundamentalism in Muslim communities. At the end of the last century, an opinion poll found that fifty per cent of British-born Caribbean men and twenty per cent of British-born Asian men had, or once had, white partners. In 2000, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown found that, when polled, eighty-eight per cent of white Britons between the ages of eighteen and thirty had no objection to inter-racial marriage; eighty-four per cent of West Indians and East Asians and fifty per cent of those from Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds felt the same way. Schama commented:

The colouring of Britain exposes the disintegrationalist argument for the pallid, defensive thing that it is. British history has not just been some sort of brutal mistake or conspiracy that has meant the steamrollering of Englishness over subject nations. It has been the shaking loose of peoples from their roots. A Jewish intellectual expressing impatience with the harping on ‘roots’ once told me that “trees have roots; Jews have legs”. The same could be said of Britons who have shared the fate of empire, whether in Bombay or Bolton, who have encountered each other in streets, front rooms, kitchens and bedrooms.

Until the Summer of 2001, this ‘integrationist’ view of British history and contemporary society was the broadly accepted orthodoxy among intellectuals and politicians, if not held more popularly. At that point, however, partly as a result of riots in the north of England involving ethnic minorities, including young Muslim men, and partly because of events in New York and Washington, the existence of parallel communities began to be discussed more widely and the concept of ‘multiculturalism’ began to become subject to fundamental criticism on both the right and left of the political spectrum. In the ‘noughties’, the dissenters from the multicultural consensus began to be found everywhere along this continuum.

A ‘South Asian’ immigrant in a Bradford textile factory in the late eighties.

In the eighties and nineties, there were critics who warned that the emphasis on mutual tolerance and equality between cultures ran the risk of encouraging separate development, rather than fostering a more profound sense of mutual understanding through interaction and integration between cultures. The ‘live and let live’ outlook which dominated ‘race relations’ quangos in the 1960s and ’70s had already begun to be replaced by more active multiculturalism, particularly in communities where that outlook had proven to be ineffective in countering the internecine conflicts of the 1980s. Good examples of this development can be found in the ‘Education for Mutual Understanding’ and ‘Inter-Cultural’ Educational projects in Northern Ireland and the North and West Midlands of England in which this author was involved and has written about elsewhere on this site.

After the 9/11 attacks on the USA, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 7/7 London bombings, there was no bigger cultural challenge to the British sense of proportion and fairness than the perceived threat of ‘militant Islam’ or rather ‘Islamist’ terrorism. There were plenty of angry young Muslim men prepared to listen to fanatical ‘imams’ and to act on their narrow-minded and bloodthirsty interpretations of ‘Jihad’. Their views, at odds with those of the well-established South Asian Muslim communities in Britain, referred to above, were those of the ultra-conservative ‘Wahhabi’ Arabs and Iranian mullahs who insisted, for example, on women being fully veiled. But some English politicians, like Norman Tebbit, felt justified in asking whether all Muslim communities throughout Britain really wanted to fully integrate. Would they, in Norman Tebbit’s notorious ‘test’, support the English Cricket team when it played against Pakistan?

Sleepwalking into segregation:

Politicians also began to break with the multicultural consensus, and their views began to have an impact because while commentators on the right were expected to have ‘nativist’ if not ‘racist’ tendencies in the ‘Powellite’ tradition, those from the left could generally be seen as having less easily assailable motives.

Trevor Phillips (pictured right), whom I had known as the first black President of the National Union of Students in 1979 before, in 2003, he became the Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, opened up territory in discussion and debate that others had not dared to ‘trespass’ into. His realisation that the race-relations ‘industry’ was part of the problem, and that partly as a result of talking up diversity the country was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ was an insight that others began to share.

Britain did not have as high a proportion of Muslims as France, and not many of them, outside London and parts of the South East, were of Arab and North African origin. But the large urban centres of the Home Counties, the English Midlands, and the North of England had third-generation Muslim communities of hundreds of thousands. They felt like they were being watched in a new way and were perhaps right to feel more than a little uneasy. In the old industrial towns on either side of the Pennines and in areas of West London, there were such strong concentrations of Muslims that the word ‘ghetto’ was being used by ministers and civil servants, not just, as in the seventies and eighties, by right-wing organisations and politicians. White working-class people had long been moving, quietly, to more semi-rural commuter towns in the Home Counties and on the South Coast, and in the cities of the Midlands, like Birmingham, to the ‘suburbs’.

But those involved in this ‘white flight’, as it became known, were a minority if polling was an accurate guide, and their motives for leaving the inner city areas were often complicated, not linked to ‘race’ or culture. Only a quarter of Britons said that they would prefer to live in white-only areas. In retrospect, this may seem to be a significant minority. Yet even this measure of tolerance or ‘multiculturalism’ was being questioned. How much should the new Britons ‘integrate’ or ‘assimilate’, and how much was the retention of traditions a matter of their rights to a distinctive cultural identity? After all, Britain had a long heritage of allowing newcomers to integrate on their own terms, retaining customs and contributing elements of their own culture. Speaking in December 2006, Blair cited forced marriages, the importation of ‘sharia’ law and the ban on women entering certain mosques as being on the wrong side of this line. In the same speech, he used new, harder language. He claimed that, after the London bombings, …

“… for the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that out very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us … Our tolerance is what makes is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don’t come here. We don’t want the hate-mongers … If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.”

His speech was not just about security and the struggle against terrorism. He was defining the duty to integrate. Britain’s strong economic growth over the previous two decades, despite its weaker manufacturing base, was partly the product of its long tradition of hospitality. The question now was whether the country was becoming so overcrowded that this tradition of tolerance was finally eroding. England, in particular, had the highest population density of any major country in the Western world. It would require wisdom and frankness from politicians and Whitehall’s watchfulness and efficiency to keep the ship on an even keel. Without these qualities and trust from the people, how can we hope for meaningful interactions between Muslims, Christians, Jews and Humanists?; between newcomers, sojourners, old-timers and exiles?; between white Europeans, black Africans, south Asians and West Indians?

Looking back to 2002, the same year in which Simon Schama published his BBC series book, The Fate of Empire, the latest census for England and Wales was published. Enumerated and compiled the previous year, it showed how much the countries had changed in the decade since the last census was taken. Douglas Murray, Associate Editor of The Spectator, in the first chapter of his book, The Strange Death of Europe, first published in 2017, challenged his readers to imagine themselves back in 2002, speculating about what England and Wales might look like in the 2011 Census.

Imagine, he asks us, that someone in our company had projected:

“White Britons will become a minority in their own capital city by the end of this decade and the Muslim population will double in the next ten years.”

How would his readers have reacted in 2002? Would they have used words like ‘alarmist’, ‘scaremongering’, ‘racist’, and ‘Islamophobic’? In 2002, a Times journalist made far less startling statements about likely future immigration, which were denounced by David Blunkett, then Home Secretary (using parliamentary privilege) as bordering on fascism. Yet, however much abuse they received for saying or writing it, anyone offering this analysis would have been proved absolutely right at the end of 2012, when the 2011 Census was published. It proved that only 44.9 per cent of London residents identified themselves as ‘white British’. It also revealed far more significant changes, showing that the number of people living in England and Wales born ‘overseas’ had risen by nearly three million since 2001. In addition, almost three million people in England and Wales were living in households where not one adult spoke English or Welsh as their primary language.

The Changing Religious & Political Landscape of England:

St. Michael’s, the parish church in Framlingham, Suffolk.

These were major ethnic and linguistic changes, but there were equally striking findings of changing religious beliefs. The Census statistics showed that adherence to every faith except Christianity was on the rise. Since the previous census, the number of people identifying themselves as Christian had declined from seventy-two per cent to fifty-nine. The number of Christians in England and Wales dropped by more than four million, from thirty-seven million to thirty-three. While the Churches witnessed this collapse in their members and attendees, mass migration assisted a near doubling of worshippers of Islam. Between 2001 and 2011 the number of Muslims in England and Wales rose from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. While these were the official figures, it is possible that they were underestimated, because many newly-arrived immigrants might not have filled in the forms at the beginning of April 2011 when the Census was taken, not yet having a registered permanent residence.

The two local authorities whose populations were growing fastest in England, by twenty per cent in the previous ten years, were Tower Hamlets and Newham in London, and these were also among the areas with the largest non-response to the census, with around one in five households failing to return the forms. Yet the results of the census clearly revealed that mass migration was in the process of altering England completely. In twenty-three of London’s thirty-three boroughs (see map above) ‘white Britons’ were now in the minority. A spokesman for the ONS regarded this as demonstrating ‘diversity’, which it certainly did, but by no means all commentators regarded this as something positive or even neutral. When politicians of all the main parties addressed the census results they greeted them in wholly favourable terms.

This had been the ‘orthodox’ political view since in 2007 the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had spoken with pride that thirty-five per cent of the people working in London had been born in a foreign country. For years a sense of excitement and optimism about these changes in London and the wider country seemed the only appropriate tone to strike. This was bolstered by the sense that what had happened in the first decade of the twenty-first century was simply a continuation of what had worked well for Britain in the previous three decades.

The public response to the massive upsurge in immigration and to the swift transformation of parts of Britain it had not really reached before, was exceptionally tolerant. There were no significant or sustained outbreaks of racist abuse or violence before 2016, and the only racist political party, the British National Party (BNP) was subsequently destroyed, especially in London. This soon turned out to be a politically-correct pretence, though what was new in this decade was not so much growth in immigration from Commonwealth countries and the Middle East, or from wartorn former Yugoslavia, but the impact of white European migrants from the new EU countries, under the terms of the accession treaties and the freedom of movement provisions of the single market.

The Politics of Immigration:

This unchecked ‘internal migration’ within the EU also demonstrated to many native Britons that immigration control was simply not a priority for New Labour and subsequently, for the Con-Libs. Labour and the Lib Dems both gave the impression that they regarded all immigration control, and even discussion of it, as inherently ‘racist’, which made any internal or external opposition to it hard to voice. In April 2006, Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking since 1996 (pictured above), commented in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph that eight out of ten white working-class voters in her constituency might be tempted to vote for the British National Party (BNP) in the local elections on 4 May 2006 because “no one else is listening to them” about their concerns over unemployment, high house prices and the housing of asylum seekers in the area. She said the Labour Party must promote…

“… very, very strongly the benefits of the new, rich multi-racial society which is part of this part of London for me”.

There was widespread media coverage of her remarks, and Hodge was strongly criticised for giving the BNP publicity. The BNP went on to gain 11 seats in the local election out of a total of 51, making them the second-largest party on the local council. It was reported that Labour activists accused Hodge of generating hundreds of extra votes for the BNP and some local Labour members began to privately discuss the possibility of a move to deselect her. The GMB union wrote to Hodge in May 2006, demanding her resignation. Ken Livingstone accused Hodge of “magnifying the propaganda of the BNP” after she said that British residents should get priority in council house allocations. In November 2009, the Leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, announced that he intended to contest Barking at the 2010 general election, which saw New Labour finally defeated under Gordon Brown’s leadership. In spite of the union’s position, Hodge was returned as MP for Barking, doubling her majority to over 16,000, while Griffin came third behind the Conservatives. The BNP subsequently lost all of its seats on Barking and Dagenham Council.

Opinion polls and the simple, anecdotal evidence of living in the country showed that most people continued to feel no personal animosity towards immigrants or people of different ethnic backgrounds. But poll after poll also showed that a majority were apprehensive about what ‘all this’ migration meant for the country and its future. But even the mildest attempts to put these issues on the political agenda, such as the concerns raised by Margaret Hodge, were often met with condemnation from the established Labour left, especially in London, with the result that there was still no serious public discussion of them. Perhaps successive governments of all hues had spent decades putting off any honest debate on immigration because they suspected that the public disagreed with them and that it was a matter they had lost control over anyway. This was done through charges of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’, such as the accidental ‘caught-on-mike’ remark made by Gordon Brown while getting into his car in the 2010 election campaign, when confronted by one of his own Labour councillors in a northern English town about the sheer numbers of migrants. It is said to have represented a major turning point in the campaign.

Perhaps also it was because of this lack of control that the principal reaction to the developing reality began to be to turn on those who expressed any concern about it, even when they reflected the views of the general public. A series of deflecting tactics became a replacement for action in the wake of the 2011 census, including the demand that the public should ‘just get over it’, which came back to haunt David Cameron’s ministers in the course of the 2016 ‘Brexit’ Referendum campaign. Even Boris Johnson, then at least as socially liberal as Cameron as Mayor of London, in his Daily Telegraph column of December 2012, entitled Let’s not dwell on immigration but sow the seeds of integration, responded to the census results by writing…

We need to stop moaning about the dam burst. It’s happened. There is nothing we can now do except make the process of absorption as eupeptic as possible … 

The Mayor, who as an MP and member of David Cameron’s front-bench team later became a key leader of the anti-immigration ‘Leave’ campaign and an ardent Brexiteer, may well have been right in making this statement, saying what any practical politician in charge of a multi-cultural metropolis would have to say. But there is something cold about the tone of his remark, not least the absence of any sense that there were other people out there in the capital city not willing simply to ‘get over it’, who disliked the alteration of their society and had never been asked about it. It did not seem to have occurred to Johnson that there were those who might be nursing a sense of righteous indignation about the fact that for years all the main parties had taken decisions that were so at variance with the opinions of their electors, or that there was something profoundly disenfranchising about such decisions.

In the same month as Johnson’s admonition, a poll by YouGov found two-thirds of the British public believed that immigration over the previous decade had been a ‘bad thing for Britain’. Only eleven per cent thought it had been a ‘good thing’. This included majorities among supporters of all three main parties. Finally, the leaders of all three parties conceded that immigration was indeed too high. But none had any clear or proven policy on how to change course. By 2015, public opinion surveys were suggesting that a failure to do anything about immigration even while talking about it was one of the key areas of the breakdown in trust between the electorate and their political representatives.

The Rotherham & Oxfordshire Sexual Abuse Cases:

It was in the early 2000s in England that stories that had emerged from the white working-class and Punjabi communities over many years began to be investigated by the media. These revealed that the organised grooming of (often) underage young girls by gangs of North African or Pakistani heritage or background was taking place in towns throughout the north of England and further afield. These gangs, for convenience, were frequently misnamed as ‘Muslim’, especially in the Islamophobic atmosphere following the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Apparently, the police had been too scared to look into the issue, and when the media finally looked into it, they too had initially shied away. A 2004 documentary on social services in Bradford had its screening postponed after self-proclaimed ‘anti-fascists’ and local police chiefs appealed to Channel Four to drop the documentary. The sections that dealt with the sexual exploitation of white girls by ‘Asian’ gangs (the other by-word) were viewed as being potentially inflammatory. In particular, these authorities insisted, the screening ahead of local elections could assist the BNP at the polls. The documentary was finally screened months after the elections. Everything about this case and the details that followed provided a microcosm of a problem and a reaction which were going to spread across Europe.

Rotherham town centre, March 2010. Source: Wikipedia.

Campaigning on, or even mentioning, the issue of grooming during those years brought with it terrible problems. When the northern Labour MP Ann Cryer took up the issue of the rape of underage girls in her own constituency, she was swiftly and widely denounced as an ‘Islamophobe’ and a ‘racist’, and at one stage had to receive police protection. It took years for the central government, the police, local authorities, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to face up to the issue. When they finally began to do so, an official inquiry into abuse in Rotherham alone revealed the exploitation of at least fourteen hundred children over the period 1997-2014. The victims were all white girls from the local community, with the youngest victim aged eleven. All had been brutally raped, with some doused in petrol and threatened with being set on fire. Others were threatened with guns and forced to watch the violent rape of other girls as a warning that they should not tell anyone about the abuse.

Map showing the location of Rotherham in South Yorkshire

Meanwhile, in January 2011, a gang of nine men, seven of Pakistani heritage and two from North Africa were convicted and sentenced at the Old Bailey in London for the sex trafficking of children between the ages of eleven and fifteen. One of the victims sold into a form of modern-day slavery was a girl of eleven who was branded with the initials of her ‘owner’ and abuser: ‘M’ for Mohammed. The court heard that he had branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew about it. This did not happen in a Pakistani backwater, nor even in one of the northern English towns that so much of the country had forgotten about until similar crimes involving Pakistani heritage men were brought to light. This happened in leafy Oxfordshire between 2004 and 2012. Nobody could argue that gang rape and child abuse were the preserve of immigrants, but these court cases and the official investigations into particular types of child-rape gangs, especially in the case of Rotherham, had identified specific cultural attitudes towards women, especially non-Muslim women, that were similar to those held by men in parts of Pakistan.

The Jay Report on Rotherham:
Professor Alexis Jay in 2016
Source: Wikipedia

In October 2013 Rotherham Council commissioned Professor Alexis Jay, a former chief social work adviser to the Scottish government, to conduct an independent inquiry into its handling of child sexual exploitation reports since 1997. Published on 26 August 2014, the Jay report revealed that an estimated 1,400 children, by a ‘conservative estimate’, had been sexually exploited in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. According to the report, children as young as eleven were…

‘raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated.’

 The report contained detailed case studies:

‘One child who was being prepared to give evidence received a text saying the perpetrator had her younger sister and the choice of what happened next was up to her. She withdrew her statements. At least two other families were terrorised by groups of perpetrators, sitting in cars outside the family home, smashing windows, making abusive and threatening phone calls. On some occasions child victims went back to perpetrators in the belief that this was the only way their parents and other children in the family would be safe. In the most extreme cases, no one in the family believed that the authorities could protect them.’

Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham from 2012

The report noted that babies were born as a result of the abuse. There were also miscarriages and terminations. Several girls were able to look after their babies with help from social services, but in other cases babies were permanently removed, causing further trauma to the mother and mother’s family. Sarah Champion, who in 2012 succeeded Denis MacShane as Labour MP for Rotherham, said this ‘spoke volumes about the way these children weren’t seen as victims at all’. The police had shown a lack of respect for the victims in the early 2000s, according to the report, deeming them “undesirables” and unworthy of police protection. The concerns of Jayne Senior, the former youth worker, were met with ‘indifference and scorn’. The report noted the experience of Adele Weir, the Home Office researcher, who attempted to raise concerns about the abuse with senior police officers in 2002; she was told not to do so again and was subsequently sidelined.

Staff described Rotherham Council as macho, sexist, and bullying, according to the report. Sexist comments were made to female employees, particularly during the period 1997–2009. One woman reported being told to wear shorter skirts to “get on better”; another was asked if she wore a mask while having sex. The Jay report noted that…

‘… the existence of such a culture … is likely to have impeded the Council from providing an effective, corporate response to such a highly sensitive social problem as child sexual exploitation.’

Several people who spoke to the Jay inquiry were concerned that Rotherham Council officials were connected to the perpetrators through business interests such as the taxi firm involved; the police assured the inquiry that there was no evidence of this. The inquiry into the Rotherham abuse cases found that although the perpetrators were almost all men of Pakistani heritage, operating in gangs, staff at the local council described their…

nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins for fear of being thought of as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Committee, 2007–2016

The local police were also found to have failed to act for fear of accusations of ‘racism’ and of what this might do to community relations. David Crompton, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police from 2012 to 2016, invited the National Crime Agency to conduct an independent inquiry. Keith Vaz, then chair of the Home Affairs Committee, told Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable from 2004 to 2011, that Hughes had failed abuse victims.

Rotherham town centre, September 2016. Source: Wikipedia.

There was worldwide astonishment at the Jay report’s findings and extensive news coverage. Ten of the UK’s most popular newspapers featured the report on their front pages, including the TimesGuardianDaily Telegraph and Independent. The story of Rotherham, like that of a whole series of similar cases in towns across Britain, emerged because a couple of journalists were determined to bring the story out into the daylight. But the communities within which the men operated showed no willingness to confront the problem, but every desire to cover it up. Even at the courts, after sentencing, families of those accused claimed that the whole thing was a government ‘stitch-up’. When one Muslim from a northern town spoke out against what was being done by members of his own community, he received death threats from fellow British Pakistanis.

Below: The front page of The Times, 24 September 2012.

Theresa May, then Home Secretary, accused the authorities of a “dereliction of duty”. She blamed several factors, including Rotherham Council’s ‘institutionalised political correctness’, inadequate scrutiny, and culture of covering things up, combined with a fear of being seen as racist and a “disdainful attitude” toward the children. Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham from 1994 until his resignation in 2012 for claiming false expenses, blamed a culture of ‘not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat’. Simon Danczuk, Labour MP for Rochdale, where similar cases were prosecuted, argued that ethnicity, class, and the night-time economy were all factors, adding that “a very small minority” in the Asian community have an unhealthy view of women, and that an ‘unhealthy brand of politics ‘imported’ from Pakistan’, which involved “looking after your own”, was partly to blame.

Rochdale & Elsewhere:

Similar stories to those from Rotherham emerged from Rochdale in Lancashire and other towns when the cases of abuse came to the courts. Girls were chosen, according to the presiding judges, because they were from a different community and therefore ‘easy meat’. Many of the men had brought primitive ideas about women and especially about unaccompanied and therefore unprotected women with them from Pakistan and other male-dominated South Asian cultures. In Rochdale, one girl was taken by her ‘boyfriend’ to what she thought was going to be a party:

“When she got there, there was no party, there were no other female members present. What she found was that there were five adults, their ages ranging between their mid-twenties going on to the late-forties and the five men systematically, routinely, raped her. And the young man who was supposed to be her boyfriend stood back and watched”.

Groups would photograph the abuse and threaten to publish it to their fathers, brothers, and in the mosques if their victims went to the police. The attitudes towards women underpinning these activities were sometimes been extended into intolerant attitudes toward other religions, ethnic groups, and sexual minorities. They are cultural attitudes that are anathema to the teachings of the Qu’ran and mainstream imams, but fears of being accused of ‘racism’ for pointing out such factual connections had been at least partly responsible for these cases taking years to come to light. In the face of such attitudes being expressed in Britain, every part of the British government failed to stand up for British norms, including the rule of law. The kindest explanation would be that the influx of large numbers from such cultures over the decades and their concentration in certain towns made the authorities in those towns nervous as to where to draw their own lines. But Douglas Murray claimed that:

It was more than that. Every time grooming scandals occurred it transpired that the local authorities turned a blind eye for fear of causing community problems or being accused of racism. The British police remained scarred from the Macpherson Report of 1999, which had charged them with ‘institutional racism’, and feared any repeat of that accusation.

Above: Nazir Afzal, Crown Prosecutor for North-West England.

Nonetheless, leading British Muslims and members of the British-Pakistani community condemned both the abuse and that it had been covered up. Nazir Afzal (pictured below), Chief Crown Prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for North West England from 2011–2015, himself a Muslim, made the decision in 2011 to prosecute the Rochdale child sex abuse ring after the CPS nationally had turned the case down. Responding to the Jay report, he argued that the abuse had no basis in Islam:

“Islam says that alcohol, drugs, rape and abuse are all forbidden, yet these men were surrounded by all of these things. … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude toward women that defines them.” 

The Hostile Environment:

At the same time, the coalition government of 2010-15 was fearful of the attribution of base motives if it got tough on immigrants. The Conservative leadership was trying to reposition itself as more socially ‘liberal’ under David Cameron. Nevertheless, at the 2010 election, they promised to cut immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year, but they never succeeded in getting near that target. To show that she meant ‘business’, however, in 2013, Theresa May’s Home Office organised a number of vans with advertising hoardings to drive around six London boroughs where many illegal immigrants and asylum seekers lived. The posters on the hoardings read, In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest, followed by a government helpline number. The posters became politically toxic immediately. The Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, described them as “divisive and disgraceful” and the monitoring and campaigning group Liberty, formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), branded them “racist and illegal”.

After some months it was revealed that the pilot scheme had successfully persuaded only eleven illegal immigrants to leave the country voluntarily. Theresa May admitted that the scheme had been a mistake and too “blunt”. Indeed, it was a ‘stunt’ designed to reassure the ‘native’ population that their government was getting tough, and it was not repeated, but the overall ‘hostile environment’ policy it was part of continued into the next majority Conservative government after the 2015 election, leading to the illegal deportation of hundreds of ‘Windrush generation’ migrants from the Caribbean who had settled in Britain before 1968 and therefore lacked passports and papers identifying them as British subjects. In fact, under Cameron’s Conservative government, net immigration reached a record level of 330,000 per year, numbers which would fill a city the size of Coventry. The movement of people, even before the European migration crisis of 2015, was of an entirely different quantity, quality and consistency from anything that the British Isles had experienced before, even in the postwar period. Yet the ‘nation of immigrants’ mythology continued to be used to cover the vast changes of recent years and to pretend that history could be used to provide precedents for what had happened since the turn of the millennium.

In late October 2018, seven men, the largest number prosecuted under the National Crime Agency’s Operation Stovewood investigation so far, was also convicted of sexual offences against five girls committed between 1998 and 2005. They were first prosecuted in September as a group of eight men charged with various child sexual offences, two of which were said to have raped a young girl in Sherwood Forest between August 2002 and 2003, giving her drugs and alcohol and threatening to abandon her if she did not comply with their demands. The girl later had to have an abortion after falling pregnant. One said she had slept with a hundred Asian men by the time she was sixteen.

Reports on Grooming Gangs, Child Sexual Exploitation & Ethnicity:

The Rotherham case was one of several cases which prompted investigations looking into the claim that the majority of perpetrators from grooming gangs were British Pakistani; the first was by Quilliam in December 2017, which released a report entitled Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs, which claimed 84% of offenders were of South Asian heritage. However, this report was “fiercely” criticised for its unscientific nature and poor methodology by child sexual exploitation experts Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail, in their paper Failing Victims, Fuelling Hate: Challenging the Harms of the ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ Narrative, which was published in January 2020. A further investigation was carried out by the British government in December 2020, when the Home Office published its own findings, showing that the majority of child sexual exploitation gangs were, in fact, composed of white men and not British Pakistani men:

“Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White. Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected…

‘… Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA (child sexual abuse) more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White’.

Writing in The Guardian, Cockbain and Tufail concluded that…

‘The two-year study by the Home Office makes very clear that there are no grounds for asserting that Muslim or Pakistani-heritage men are disproportionately engaged in such crimes, and, citing our research, it confirmed the unreliability of the Quilliam claim’.

But, in the atmosphere of the ‘Hostile Environment’, the damage had already been done. Distinctions between race, ethnicity and religion were lost on most white British people. In June 2013, the polling company ComRes carried out a poll for BBC Radio One asking a thousand young British people about their attitudes towards the world’s major religions. The results were released three months later and showed that of those polled, twenty-seven per cent said that they did not trust Muslims (compared with 15% saying the same of Jews, 13% of Buddhists, and 12% of Christians). More significantly, perhaps, forty-four per cent said that they thought Muslims did not share the same views or values as the rest of the population. The BBC and other media in Britain then set to work to try to discover how Britain could address the fact that so many young people thought this way.

Causes for Concern or Conspiracy Theories?

Throughout the 2010s, net migration into Britain was far more than three hundred thousand per year. The further rise in the population of the United Kingdom recorded in 2021 was almost entirely due to inward migration, and higher birth rates among the predominantly young migrant population. In 2014 women who were born overseas accounted for twenty-seven per cent of all live births in England and Wales, and a third of all newborn babies had at least one overseas-born parent, a figure that had doubled since the 1990s. However, since the 2016 Brexit vote, statistics have shown that many recent migrants to Britain from the EU have been returning to their home countries so it is difficult to know, as yet, how many of these children will grow up in Britain, or for how long. Yet based on the increases projected by the Office for National Statistics in 2017, Douglas Murray asked the following rhetorical questions of the leaders of the mainstream political parties:

All these years on, despite the name-calling and the insults and the ignoring of their concerns, were your derided average white voters not correct when they said that they were losing their country? Irrespective of whether you think that they should have thought this, let alone whether they should have said this, said it differently, or accepted the change more readily, it should at some stage cause people to pause and reflect that the voices almost everybody wanted to demonise and dismiss were, in the final analysis, the voices whose predictions were nearest to being right.

One might retort with the observation that Murray seems to attach too much emphasis to the anonymous ‘average white voter’ and hints, more broadly in his book, at the need for a policy based on reversing what he seems to see as the ‘racial replacement’ of the previous half-century. He does admit that the cases of rape gangs are an unusual and unrepresentative example of the behaviour of immigrants as a whole. But he suggests that these crimes ought to be the easiest of all to discover, investigate and punish. If the large-scale, organised, rape of children takes more than a decade to come to light, he asks how long it will take for other, less violent examples of undesirable attitudes take to come to light?

This, Murray claims, demonstrates that although the benefits of mass immigration undoubtedly exist and there is an increasing and widespread awareness of these, the disadvantages of importing huge numbers of people from another culture will take a great deal longer to admit to. That may be so, but it may also be the case, as in the past, that the end product of the sustained effort of all communities will be a fuller integration of other cultures and their positive contributions into British life. The era of ‘multiculturalism’ may be over, but we can now be optimistic about a new, active era of ‘interculturalism.’ That, of course, will require a return to a consensus on immigration policy, practical local integration measures and the jettisoning of ‘the hostile environment’.

The Wedge Warrior:

Suella Braverman was elected to the House of Commons as the MP for Fareham in 2015 and gave her maiden speech on 1 June 2015, almost a year after the publication of the Jay Report on Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. She has taken a particular interest in education, home affairs and justice and has written for The Daily TelegraphBright Blue and other right-wing press. In December 2015 opinion column, Braverman wrote, ‘In essence, rights have come to fill the space once occupied by generosity.’ She quoted Eric Posner’s theories on what the Brazilian state saw as its right to use torture by ‘the police in the name of crime prevention. They justify this by putting a general right to live free from crime and intimidation above the rights of those who are tortured.’ She closed, …

‘To correct the imbalance, perhaps we should adopt a Universal Declaration of Responsibilities and Duties, to be read in tandem with that on Human Rights? A fair, decent and reasonable society should question the dilution of our sense of duty, the demotion of our grasp of responsibility and our virtual abandonment of the spirit of civic obligation. What we do for others should matter more than the selfish assertion of personal rights and the lonely individualism to which it gives rise’.

In March 2019, Braverman stated in a speech for the anti-European Bruges Group that “as Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against Cultural Marxism”. Journalist Dawn Foster challenged Braverman’s use of the term “cultural Marxism”, highlighting its anti-Semitic history and stating it was a theory in the manifesto of the mass murderer Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks. Braverman’s use of the term was initially condemned as hate speech by other MPs, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the anti-racist organisation Hope Not Hate, among other anti-racist charities. Braverman denied that the term was an antisemitic trope, saying,

“We have culture evolving from the far left which has allowed the snuffing out of freedom of speech, freedom of thought. … I’m very aware of that ongoing creep of cultural Marxism, …”

After meeting with her later, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said in a subsequent statement that she is “not in any way antisemitic”, saying it believed that she did not “intentionally use antisemitic language” while finding that she “is clearly a good friend of the Jewish community” (since her husband is Jewish) and that they were “sorry to see that the whole matter has caused distress”.

Braverman in her role as attorney general meets the prosecutor general of Ukraine 
Iryna Venediktova in May 2022.
Source: Wikipedia.

In Johnson’s February 2020 cabinet reshuffle, Braverman was appointed attorney general for England and Wales. During the July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis, Braverman remained a minister, though, on 6 July 2022, she called for Boris Johnson to resign. She stood in the ensuing Conservative Party leadership election but was eliminated from the race in the second round of ballots, winning just twenty-seven votes. Had she succeeded in being appointed prime minister, Braverman said her priorities would have been to cut government spending, “solve the problem of boats crossing the Channel”, deliver “Brexit opportunities”, withdraw the UK from the European Convention of Human Rights, of which it is a founding member, and to “get rid of all of this woke rubbish”.  

Braverman was appointed Home Secretary in the new Truss ministry on 6 September 2022. In the House of Commons, she referred to people reaching the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats as an ‘invasion’, which she repeated in early 2023. Braverman’s comments attracted criticism from an 83-year-old Holocaust survivor who in January 2023 accused Braverman of using language akin to Nazi rhetoric, a criticism recently echoed on Twitter by former England footballer and commentator Gary Lineker, which led to his suspension by the BBC Director General as the presenter of Match of the Day following a campaign of letter-writing to him by back-bench Conservative MPs. Braverman stood by her comments and declined to apologise, stating:

“We have a problem with people exploiting our generosity, breaking our laws and undermining our system.”

In October 2022, Braverman said that she would love to see a front page of The Daily Telegraph on the sending of the first planeload of asylum seekers to Rwanda and described it as her “dream” and “obsession”. The first attempted flight by the UK to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in June 2022, under the previous Home Secretary, Priti Patel, had resulted in asylum seekers being restrained and attached to plane seats after self-harming and threatening suicide. Commenting on these events, the UN Refugee Agency said that this…

… “arrangement, which amongst other concerns seeks to shift responsibility and lacks necessary safeguards, is incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention”

Amber Rudd, a former Conservative Home Secretary, had also criticised the plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda as “brutal” and “impractical”. Archbishops and bishops joined the chorus of condemnation on moral and ethical grounds, all to no avail. In the meantime, asylum seekers and other migrants continued to make the perilous channel crossing in hundreds and thousands every day. Clearly, the threat of deportation to Rwanda was an insufficient deterrent.

Quite suddenly, Braverman left her cabinet position as Home Secretary on 19 October 2022. She said that her departure was because she had made an “honest mistake” by sharing an official document from her personal email address with a colleague in Parliament, an action which breached the Ministerial Code. Controversially, following Liz Truss’s resignation, on 25 October Braverman was then reappointed as Home Secretary by new prime minister Rishi Sunak upon the formation of the Sunak ministry. Despite audible calls for an inquiry into her rapid reappointment from both sides of the House, Sunak stood by her appointment, due to pressure from her back-bench supporters, whose votes he needed to remain in power. Braverman stands on the ‘hard’ right wing of the Conservative Party, unflinching in her support for the withdrawal of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights and the sending of cross-Channel migrants to Rwanda. She has said,

“If I get trolled and I provoke a bad response on Twitter I know I’m doing the right thing. Twitter is a sewer of left-wing bile. The extreme left pile on is often a consequence of sound conservative values.”

Braverman has described herself as a “child of the British Empire”. Her parents, who were from Mauritius and Kenya, came to the UK “with an admiration and gratitude for what Britain did for Mauritius and Kenya, and India”. She believes that on the whole, “the British Empire was a force for good”, and described herself as being proud to be its ‘daughter’. But despite her own Indian heritage, Braverman has said that she fears a trade deal with India would increase migration to the UK when ‘Indians’ already represented the largest group of people who overstayed their visas.

Suella Braverman has continued to use inflammatory language in speeches in the House of Commons as Home Secretary, despite the reservations expressed by the Minister for Immigration (though not, apparently, shared by the Prime Minister). Braverman has become the leading cultural ‘wedge’ warrior in a Conservative Party desperately determined to cling to power by fair means or foul. However, there is no record of her speaking or writing about Child Sexual Exploitation or ‘grooming gangs’ until her statements a week ago. As Home Secretary (and a relatively recent MP), she is obviously ‘catching up’ on these issues, but also, unfortunately, using language that once more stereotypes, stigmatises and demonises Muslims and South Asian heritage communities in Britain, and further stokes the embers of inter-racial intolerance and ethnic division ahead of pending local and national elections.

Sources:

The Guardian Weekly,  30 November 2018. London.

Douglas Murray (2018), The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. London: Bloomsbury.

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain III: 1776-2000, The Fate of Empire. London: BBC Worldwide.

Andrew Marr (2009), A History of Modern Britain. London: Pan Macmillan.

John Morrill (ed.), (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman

Featured

Tony Blair, the ‘Beeb’ & the ‘Blob’: The BBC & the Iraq War – Twenty Years Ago; Invasion & Insurgency, 2002-2005.

The Business of Informing & Educating:
John Simpson in his fortieth year of reporting for the BBC from war zones in 2006.

In 2007, the BBC’s World Affairs Editor, John Simpson wrote the following about the nature of the British Broadcasting Corporation, at a time of great controversy about its role among politicians, this time of the ‘New’ Labour variety. He called for what he called a return to ‘Reithianism’, a term coined from the name of its founder, which he defined as the business of informing and educating people as well as entertaining them. In the tradition of George Orwell, who worked at the BBC throughout the 1940s, Simpson thought it should be telling audiences what they needed to know, rather than what they wanted to hear. Maybe, he mused, though audience figures would drop even further than they had already, but at least they would know that what they reported was correct, rather than turning themselves into another branch of entertainment:

If the BBC became a little more Reithian, and a little less inclined to chase audience numbers for their own sake, and made a virtue of what it was doing, it might weaken its position in the ratings but I think it would strengthen its moral position immensely.

John Simpson (2007), Not Quite the World’s End, p. 24.

Tony Blair at the beginning of his second term in office in 2002.

Simpson went on to claim that every single government in his forty years as a BBC reporter and news presenter had attacked it and threatened it, but the danger always faded or was seen off. At the height of her power in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used some virulent language about the BBC and frequently encouraged the idea that it might have to be privatised. Still, she never thought seriously about carrying out her threat. By contrast, Tony Blair began a process which seemed likely to destroy the BBC as the world’s most powerful, independent broadcaster, and one of Britain’s principal world-class brands. Blair understood that the key to the Corporation’s strength was the licence fee that funds it, and he allowed a process to commence that put the BBC’s future licence-fee income in doubt.

Blair’s predecessors as Labour leaders: Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Both had a hard time with the media.

In the eighties and early nineties, Labour had been savaged by much of the press, then still at the height of its power. Neil Kinnock had had a terrible time. When Blair became leader, the people immediately around Kinnock at the time, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, remembered it well. Campbell had worked for the Daily Mirror in the most cynical end of the newspaper market and came away thinking that most journalists were idle liars, as well as biased against Labour. He was ‘tribal’ and assumed that the rest of the world was too. Mandelson, with a background in television, was a master of image, ‘spin’ and later of the ‘killer briefing’. So it is hardly surprising that New Labour became the most media-obsessed political party in British history. Under their tutelage, Blair opened out to Labour’s traditional enemies in the press after becoming party leader and exploited the ‘sleaze’ around John Major’s government to eventually destroy the Conservative PM’s reputation. On the way to winning power, New Labour turned itself into what Andrew Marr has described as …

a kind of perpetual media news desk, with a plan for what every day, and an endless ‘grid’ of announcements, images, soundbites and rebuttals, constantly pressing down on journalists, their editors and owners, fighting for every adjective and exclamation mark.

Andrew Marr (2007), A History of Modern Britain, p. 568.

Alastair Campbell guards his master’s back. New Labour was famously image-obsessed.

The same way of thinking, Marr argues, was brought into power and eventually did terrible damage to the New Labour government’s reputation, and that of politics in general. Bizarrely, it was assumed that rival newspaper groups with different views about say, law and order, could be kept friendly by Blair telling them what they wanted to hear – even though they would later confer. The attempted bullying of journalists, which became scandalous in the run-up to the Iraq War, was met with increasing resistance. Number Ten’s news machine began to be widely disbelieved. The word ‘spin’ was attached to almost everything it said. At election time, statistics were twisted even beyond the normal elastic rules of political debate. There was a downward spiral. Journalists grew more aggressive in their assertions and began consigning the (disbelieved) official denials to the final paragraph of their stories. Some ministers drew the conclusion that the press was so hostile it was legitimate to use any trick or form of words to mislead them. Others claimed that their words were twisted and used against them every time they were direct. Before long a government which had arrived in office supported by almost all the national papers was being attacked daily by almost all of them. They were also selling fewer copies.

Britain’s political parties always supported the BBC when they were in opposition because they knew that it was their best chance of getting their views across to the voters. But when they got into power, they changed, regarding the BBC with suspicion, as the voice of opposition and hostility. Recently, it has become designated as a primary part of ‘the blob’, the means by which the government is frustrated by ‘the Beeb’s’ unaccountable failure, along with other ‘liberal’ media, including (more recently) bloggers and tweeters, to act as its mouthpiece. Few prime ministers had done as much damage to the BBC as Tony Blair and his head of communications, Alastair Campbell. It later became clear that the evidence that Tony Blair presented to parliament in 2002 about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was exaggerated and misleading.

Blair’s biographer, Anthony Seldon, has emphasised how worried Blair was about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction long before Bush became President and decided to launch his war against terror after 9/11. This was not simply something that Blair worried about privately; he spoke about it repeatedly. He was particularly fearful of a nuclear-enhanced ‘dirty bomb’ being used, by Iraqi-supported terrorists. Saddam’s henchmen had been operative in the UK since the late seventies and these earlier experiences of Saddam, from the Iran-Iraq War onwards, together with those of other dictators like the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosovic, and to a lesser extent Mullah Omar of the Taliban, meant that for Blair foreign affairs were personal, as shown in his relationships with both George W. Bush and, at that early stage, with Vladimir Putin. By focusing so much on Saddam as a man of evil, and the moral case of dealing with him, he did not focus enough on the complexities of Iraq as a country.

In Bush’s State of the Union Address for 2002, he had listed Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an ‘axis of evil’, sending shivers across diplomatic Europe. Attempts by US intelligence to prove a link between the secularist Saddam and the fundamentalist al Qaeda failed but this hardly halted the process of lining up Iraq as next for the Bush ‘project’. Blair’s promises to Arab leaders about proof had no purchase in Washington, where many of the neo-conservatives around the President believed that by toppling Saddam they would be bringing an age of democracy and prosperity to the Middle East, solving the Palestinian problem along the way. But the dominant group around Bush were not keen on grand visions. They believed first and second in toppling Saddam and did not believe in waiting for, or depending upon, other countries, even Britain. After 9/11 this was America’s war and they did not believe in UN inspectors or promises from Baghdad. Above all the hopes of a more intellectual approach from the Bush administration and the British Foreign Office for a detailed plan for the reconstruction of post-war Iraq were dashed by the hawks, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld. ‘Régime change’ remained the sole, key objective and it did not involve commitments to reconstruction by western democratic missionaries.

‘Dodgy Dossiers’ & Washington ‘Hawks’:

As early as April 2002, Tony Blair knew that George W. Bush intended to attack Iraq, and he spent much of the rest of the year arguing that Bush should go through the United Nations. Without this, according to British interpretations of international law, an invasion would be illegal. The UN would also give a last chance for Saddam to disarm. Keeping the international community together would also make it easier to rebuild Iraq afterwards. He also wanted the US President to commit to the Middle East peace process. At Camp David on 7 September, Blair finally got Bush to promise to go via the UN in return for Blair’s promise that Britain would fight alongside the US if that route failed. When Bush publicly confirmed his willingness to try for a UN resolution, Blair was delighted, but he was also locked into going to war. Although he had won a battle with the Washington hawks over UN backing, he had not persuaded anyone to take the post-war situation seriously. This, for many of us who thought Saddam had to be removed, not least for the sake of minorities in the country, both ethnic and religious, presented a stumbling block. We could not be assured of one of the pillars of a ‘just war’, that the last state would be better than the first.

Soon after, the second pillar was removed. Most seriously, to Blair’s chagrin and amazement, the US and UK were eventually unable to get the extra, crucial UN resolution they both wanted and Blair needed. The UN route helped keep the number of Labour rebels in the House of Commons to fifty-six. In Whitehall and the Foreign Office and many ministers were growing worried about where Blair was leading them. Outside, the anti-war ‘coalition’ was mobilising. To try to win public opinion around, Blair turned to a technique he had used ahead of Operation Desert Fox, the publication of a dossier of evidence proving the case for military action. Then, in October 1998, Britain and the USA decided to smash Iraq’s military establishment with missiles and bombing raids, but the Iraqi leader decided to back down at the last minute and the raids were postponed. The US soon decided that this was another trick, however, and in December Allied planes attacked, hitting 250 targets over four days. But Desert Fox probably only delayed Saddam’s weapons programmes by a year or so although it was sold at the time as a huge success, which enabled the Allies to operate without a fresh UN mandate. Also, on this occasion, Blair faced little trouble in parliament or outside it.

Both the content and the context of the 2002-03 dossier, though, were quite different, since the US Administration’s case against Saddam was that he was a bad guy who represented a clear and present danger to the security of the USA, and who, in the context of the war on terror had to be removed from power. But the case at the UN was that he was failing to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors, still hiding stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly chemical and biological weapons. To win around British opinion, the dossier would have to prove that they (still) existed and were directly threatening Britain. Thus Blair based laid the central case for war not on the moral cause of removing a regional tyrant, but on narrow and unproven assertions about the contents of the tyrant’s arsenal.

Blair’s team had already enjoyed some success in feeding journalists bloodcurdling lines about the damage Saddam might wreak. There was evidence that he had used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and there is no doubt that senior intelligence and defence people believed he had WMD but was cleverly hiding them, and that he was trying to get hold of nuclear weapons. The trouble was that Saddam’s régime of terror was so effective that there were very few sources of information from inside Iraq. MI6 found any such sources unreliable in any case, often dissidents who were determined to bring forward a war against the Ba’athist régime. Satellite technology, though used by Colin Powell at the UN, was unsatisfactorily unclear. Thus the dossier had to be drawn from a variety of sources and channelled through the Joint Intelligence Committee, which reported directly to the prime minister. Different texts were batted to and fro through Downing Street, as officials questioned parts of it and wondered whether it was sufficiently convincing. Suspicions were also raised following the publication of a second dossier in February 2003 which was later dubbed ‘the dodgy dossier’ and proved to have been lifted directly from a PhD thesis found on the Internet, without attribution.

Whatever the final truth about the shaping of the 2002-03 dossier(s), something strange had happened. Suspicions had been hardened, assertions sharpened, doubts trimmed out and belief converted into proof. Nobody knew for sure what Saddam had (that was the point of the UN inspection process), but when it was published the dossier gave the impression that he had multiple weapons of mass destruction which could be ready for use within forty-five minutes and threatened, among other nearby places, British bases in Cyprus. The forty-five-minute claim turned out to refer to short-range battlefield chemical weapons which could not reach countries other than Iraq’s immediate neighbours. When Iraq was finally invaded, and exhaustive searches conducted everywhere, the WMD were not found and subsequently never materialised.

The most infamous confrontation between New Labour and the media was not with any of the press, but with the BBC. One of the domestic consequences of the Iraq War was the worst falling out between the BBC and the government since the Suez Crisis. At issue was whether or not officials in Number Ten had ‘sexed up’ the dossier about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The dossier blended two cultures, the cautious, secretive, nuanced culture of intelligence gathering for internal government purposes, and the spin doctors’ culture of opinion-forming, in this case, to win more of the public over to back a coming war. But the cultures did not mix but rather curdled. At seven minutes after six one morning at the end of May 2003, Radio Four’s Today programme broadcast an interview between John Humphrys and its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan. He alleged that Downing Street had ‘sexed up’ the dossier beyond what intelligence sources thought was reasonable, particularly in saying that WMD could be ready within forty-five minutes. Campbell quickly and unequivocally denied the truth of Gilligan’s assertion and demanded an apology. Gilligan then went further, in an article for a newspaper in which he named Campbell.

The US-UK Coalition, Stop the War & ‘Shock & Awe’:
Anti-war protesters became a familiar sight on the streets of Britain.

A tense struggle at the UN ensued, led by British diplomats, which produced Resolution 1441, declaring that Saddam was in material breach of his obligation to demonstrate that he had no banned weaponry, and giving him a last opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. The Iraqi leader fudged and dodged, letting inspectors back into his country without offering a full declaration of his weapons. For the Americans, this was the trigger for war. For other countries, most notably France, it merely meant that there should be another discussion at the UN Security Council about what collective action to take. In February 2003, as British and US forces were poised to attack Iraq from the south, there was a vast Stop the War march through London. It was the biggest demonstration in the capital since the Chartists’ gathering of 1848. Tony Blair and his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who had swallowed private doubts and resolved to support his boss, were fighting to get a second UN resolution that would give full legal cover for the attack. This was something Blair had been repeatedly told that he needed to be sure of holding his party together and thereby staying in power.

But President Chirac of France was angry at the behaviour of Washington’s hawks and worried about the impact of the war on the Islamic world. He said that France would not support a second resolution, and it collapsed. As the previous Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook had been deeply involved in Operation Desert Fox and Kosovo. Still, he now warned the cabinet that without a second resolution, he could not support this third war in six years. He duly resigned his seat. In the Commons, Cook (also a former leader of the House) then gave one of the most eloquent speeches heard in the chamber in modern times, in which he said:

“The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner – not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. …

“Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that that we can even contemplate its invasion. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. …

” On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.”

Quoted by Andrew Marr (2007-09), A History of Modern Britain, p.566.

Almost uniquely, and against its hallowed conventions, Robin Cook was loudly applauded as he sat down. However, even as the clapping died down, Blair determined to press ahead. He was given legal cover from his attorney general for the war, though it was hardly clear-cut and undisputed. He had given his word to President Bush, who had even offered him the chance to pull out and send British troops in, after the invasion, as peacekeepers. Blair turned the offer down as he felt it would be dishonourable of him to withdraw, and bad for military morale. He had staked his reputation on the war and felt that if he could not carry his party, he was finished as its leader and as PM. In and around Westminster, a political and media struggle began to win around doubters, emphasising Saddam’s brutality and abuse of human rights.

This brutal campaign of terror and torture had been taking place since the mid-1970s, of course, and we had been well aware of this as student leaders in Wales due to the attacks on Iraqi dissident refugees who, as students in Cardiff and Swansea, were regularly beaten up on the streets by Ba’athist thugs, masquerading as fellow students. had supported our NUS Wales campaign in 1979-80, at a time when the university authorities refused to get involved in what they characterised as an ‘internecine’ conflict. The London courts were also unwilling to attribute blame when cases came before them, even though the police reports showed quite clearly who the perpetrators of the street violence were. Ann Clwyd MP, as a Guardian correspondent, had been among the first UK journalists to expose the tyranny of the Ba’athist Party in Iraq and the crimes of Saddam’s henchmen. Now, in the debate in the House of Commons in March 2003, she made a particularly influential speech about Saddam’s treatment of the Kurds which included the use of torture.

But this was not the primary purpose for going to war. Others spoke and voted in favour of military action because, on balance, they chose to trust their leader’s judgement about the likely existence of WMD in Saddam’s arsenal. My former Cardiff University research colleague, Wayne David MP, spoke in favour of the proposal on this basis. Eventually, after days of drama and one of his finest Commons performances, Blair won a majority among his own MPs, though 139 rebelled, almost half of them. The Conservatives added to his margin of victory, and with that vote, the final obstacle to war was removed.

The war began with a thunderous attack on Baghdad on 20 March, described with brutal clarity in Washington as “Shock and Awe”. An early attempt by Saddam’s information minister to assassinate the dictator failed. For the first few weeks, calm declarations of great victories being won in the desert by the Iraqi armed forces were broadcast almost nightly. In fact, it was only the sandstorms that delayed the Allied advance. In Baghdad, a coalition bomb killed fifty-seven people in a marketplace and in Britain anger about the war grew. Yet, while not quite the walk-over the Pentagon had hoped, the invasion was over very quickly.

By 7 April, British forces had taken Basra, having surrounded it long before, and two days later the Americans were in Baghdad, first seizing the international airport and then Saddam’s favourite palace, though they didn’t find him anywhere inside. Soon, his statues were being jubilantly torn down. Before the invasion, there had been speculation about Baghdad fighting to the last, surrounded by trenches of burning oil, tank regiments and possibly artillery with chemical shells – an Arab Götterdämmerung on the banks of the Tigris. By those standards, the war had been a great, one-sided military success. The war beyond the invasion and occupation would be something else entirely.

The war between Broadcasting House & Number Ten:

On 20 March, as Iraq burned, Number Ten and the BBC began a war of their own. In general, battles between journalists and politicians do not usually spill blood. There may be resignations and bitterness, but when the smoke clears, everyone gets up again and goes back to work. When Campbell widened his criticism of the BBC to attack it for having an anti-war agenda, he had no idea quite what he was setting off. Yet there was a certain recklessness in his mood. He confided in his diary that he wanted to ‘fuck Gilligan’ and wanted a ‘clear win’ against ‘the Corporation’. On the BBC side, it would turn out that Gilligan had been loose with his words, claiming rather more than he knew for sure; nor was he entirely frank with his colleagues. The BBC’s Director General, Greg Dyke, who had been hounded in the press as a Blair crony, was ferociously robust in defending the corporation against Campbell and was strongly supported by his Chairman, Gavyn Davies, whose wife was Gordon Brown’s senior aide. He too was determined to demonstrate the BBC’s independence.

By 2005 neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown could be bothered to disguise their mutual enmity.

Neither side gave way until eventually it was revealed that a government scientist with a high reputation as an arms inspector, Dr David Kelly, was probably the source of Gilligan’s information. Downing Street did not name him but allowed journalists to keep throwing names at them until they confirmed who he was. Because he was not directly involved in the joint intelligence committee or its work, ‘outing’ Kelly as the secret mole would, in the government’s eyes, discredit the BBC story. Suddenly thrown into the cauldron of a media row, Kelly himself was evasive when aggressively questioned by a committee of MPs. Visibly nervous, he denied that he could have been Gilligan’s informant. Yet he was. A fastidious, serious-minded man who had supported the toppling of Saddam and had served his country honourably as a weapons inspector, Kelly finally cracked under the strain. Andrew Marr has described, sympathetically, the subsequent events:

On a quiet July morning in 2003 he walked five miles to the edge of a wood near his Oxfordshire home where he took painkillers, opened a pen-knife, and killed himself. This media battle had drawn blood in the most awful way. Blair, arriving in Tokyo after triumphantly addressing both houses of Congress about the fall of Saddam, was asked: “Prime Minister, do you have blood on your hands?”

Marr, op. cit., p. 571.

Back home from Tokyo, Tony Blair ordered an inquiry under a judge, Lord Hutton, which engaged the minute attention of the world of politics through to the end of the autumn of 2003. Much was revealed about Blair’s informal, sloppily recorded and cliquish style of governing, and the involvement of his political staff in the discussion which led to the final dossier. But with the head of the JIC and other officials insisting they had not been leant on, or obliged to say anything they did not believe, plus a very strong public performance by Blair, Lord Hutton concluded that Gilligan’s assertion that the government knew its forty-five-minute claim was wrong was unfounded.

The intelligence committee might have ‘subconsciously’ been persuaded to strengthen its language because they knew what the PM wished the effect of the dossier to be, but it was consistent with the intelligence at that time. Hutton decided that Kelly probably killed himself because of a loss of self-esteem and the threat to his reputation, but that nobody else was to blame (some journalists believed that he might have been murdered, but no hard evidence for this ever came to light). Hutton also attacked the BBC’s editorial controls, and his findings were leaked a day early to Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper, which robustly set the political mood: victory for Blair; humiliation for the BBC.

Strangely though, as John Simpson has commented, no one from the Blair government had to resign over the clear misuse of intelligence or the misleading of Parliament. The only resignations came from the BBC: its Chairman and Director-General both went. With Blair defiant and claiming complete vindication in the Commons, both Dyke and Davies resigned almost immediately. The careers of most of the people involved were affected in some way. Distraught employees walked out from their offices to cheer their leaders as they left. The corporation suffered its worst-ever time, yet the stakes were high on both sides. Had Hutton found against the Prime Minister, it would have been Blair being applauded by his tearful staff as he walked into early retirement. Feeling vindicated and as aggressive as ever about the quality of journalism, Alastair Campbell then left Downing Street. Blair had concluded that the ‘age of spin’ had done them all far more harm than good. It was time, despite his personal debt to Campbell, for a new broom. A widely trusted and traditionalist press officer, David Hill, who had worked for Roy Hattersley, the former Deputy Leader, was appointed. Slowly, painfully, both the BBC and Number Ten moved on.

Blair had finally realised that the frantic headline-chasing and rebuttal of the early years of New Labour had merely helped to stoke an atmosphere of cynicism in the press. After Iraq, one of the most common jibes made about him, especially on the Labour Left, but also in the media, was simply ‘Bliar’. The relationship between the Blair government and the BBC never fully recovered from the ‘Gilligan episode’, however. Tessa Jowell, the minister with responsibility for negotiating the BBC’s new charter and setting the level of the licence fee, accepted the BBC’s argument for an increase to take account of inflation and the extra demands for technical change which the government was making of the BBC. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown turned this down, as Jowell had known they would. She supported the BBC and approved of its plans, and was prepared to play her trump card. She planned to tell Blair and Brown:

“You can’t afford to refuse the BBC a full licence-fee rise, because if they don’t get it, Michael Grade will resign as Chairman, and you simply can’t afford to lose two BBC chairmen in a short space of time like this. It would do terrible damage to the BBC, and it would look bad for the government.”

Quoted in Simpson, p. 26.

But as it happened, she wasn’t able to say this. With dreadful timing, Michael Grade, who had just taken over on the resignation of Gavyn Davies, announced at this crucial moment that he was returning to ITV so that the BBC lost another chairman in any case, and the conflict with the Blair government continued to simmer away.

As John Simpson concluded, the BBC is just about the only broadcasting organisation left in the world that still gets most of its income from the licence fee. Every other broadcaster that followed the same system, and that means those in just about every other major Commonwealth country, and some minor ones, has been forced to shift away from the mode. The result, he judges, has been very damaging to public service broadcasting in those countries. At some stage, he predicts, something like this will happen to the BBC when a government, Conservative or Labour, in a fit of pique such as that displayed by Alistair Campbell over the Gilligan report into the government’s actions prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, might decide that the licence fee would be better shared between broadcasters to ensure better programming or a ‘more balanced’ news service.

Then the government would face a choice, either to let the BBC decline through lack of funds or force it to make up the difference by taking advertising. Personally, I would now support a third option, replacing the licence fee with a subscription, open to a worldwide audience, with a free-to-air 24-hour news service on television and radio. Not taking advertising or sponsorship means that you won’t be in anyone’s pocket if you aren’t beholden to anyone for the money you spend. For more than a century now, this has worked out very well. But the fury of the Blair government over an accusation which turned out to be more than half true and that of the current Tory government over the criticism it recently received from a freelance BBC Sports presenter, will one day lead to the destruction of the Corporation in the form we have always known it. As Simpson puts it,

Some people, mostly the idealogues among us, will be glad about that. The rest, who simply want decent reliable broadcasting to watch and listen to, will find it deeply depressing.

John Simpson (2007), Not Quite World’s End. p.27.

For the Blair government, though, the key problem was that the intelligence which was so reliable, according to the prime minister when he spoke in the Commons, hadn’t been reliable at all. John Simpson had been told that the head of MI6 told the Butler Inquiry into the government’s use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion that there had been no reliable information about many of Saddam’s WMD since 1988. Simpson also heard suggestions that members of Lord Butler’s inquiry into the use of intelligence had thought the government might fall as a result of the publication of their report in July 2004, but that the journalists who covered it had failed to spot how damaging the accusations were. They thereby let the government off the hook. Lord Butler, however, put the knife even deeper into the Blair government when he made a speech in the House of Lords in January 2007. He accused Tony Blair of being ‘disingenuous’ (‘deliberately misleading’).

All of this was very much what Andrew Gilligan had reported on the Today programme in 2004. The trouble was, although the basic facts of what Gilligan had said were true, his source wasn’t really strong enough or senior enough for Gilligan’s report to be waterproof. It was true that Tony Blair had been warned that the information about Saddam’s WMD wasn’t as strong as he maintained, but Dr David Kelly couldn’t have known it for a fact, and neither could Andrew Gilligan. Which all goes to show that if you are accusing the prime minister of ‘being disingenuous’, you must have pretty strong evidence to support it. But by 2007 the story was dead as a political issue. The dreadful damage done to the BBC was over and done with. Yet the question of whether the people of Britain had been seriously misled in the run-up to the Iraq invasion remained unanswered.

Winning Hearts & Minds – From Baghdad to Broadway:

Perhaps a more significant long-term issue that emerged from the Iraq War for journalists was that of the changing nature of war reporting in the twenty-first century.

In the autumn of 2003, Simpson was at home in London, recovering from being blown up in a friendly fire incident during the invasion and writing something against the clock when he answered a phone call from Tim Robbins, the Hollywood actor. Robbins wanted to quote something Simpson had written in a play he had written about the Iraq War for an ‘off-Broadway’ production. The quote was from a broadcast Simpson made when the American plane dropped a bomb on him, killing his translator and others, and striking him with shrapnel. In his new play, Embedded, there was a part for a woman journalist who, it seemed, stood for honesty and truth and honourable reporting, and Simpson’s words, together with those of other journalists who had seen the reality of what had happened in Iraq, formed part of a speech she made. It was clearly an anti-war play, and his contract with the BBC forbade him to venture into areas of controversy. On the other hand, the words he had spoken on camera immediately after the thousand-pound bomb landed in the middle of his group, killing eighteen of them, were already in the public domain. Maybe the BBC might want to make an issue of Robbins using it, but it didn’t matter to him.

In fact, Robbins had already used it as the play had already opened the previous week, so he offered the journalist tickets to see the show in New York, inviting him to dinner beforehand. He also asked if he could ask Simpson some questions about the war on stage afterwards. In Iraq, even at this early stage, it was evident that the joint British-American ‘enterprise’ was not going as well as President Bush, Donald Wolfowitz and their friends in the US press and broadcasting had assured everyone it would. At that stage, Simpson was visiting Baghdad every six weeks or so, and each time the situation was markedly worse than before; though the absurd figures whom Paul Bremer, Bush’s proconsul, had gathered around himself in the Green Zone, mainly young men fresh out of American universities in dark blazers and chinos, maintained loyally that the only problem was the negative way in which news organisations like the BBC reported ‘the achievements.’ Simpson admitted that he had a tendency to dislike all wars and invasions on principle:

I knew enough about Iraq to be certain that there would ultimately be a major insurrection against the presence of British and American troops there, much as there had been against the British in 1920. But I had assumed President Bush’s allies would turn out to be right in the early stages when they said the coalition forces would in the main be welcomed as liberators. Yet that wasn’t true by any means, and as the invasion wore on I wrote an ‘apologia’ in one of the British newspapers about it. I’m still proud of that. Not many other journalists or politicians seemed willing to admit they got it wrong.

Simpson, loc.cit., p. 122.

When Robbins said that he didn’t understand and asked him whether he was for the war or against it, Simpson answered:

‘It’s not my job to preach about these things. I have my own views, but I keep them to myself. When I’m there I just try to give as clear a view as I can about what’s going on, and then let the viewers make up their own minds.’

Idem.

Simpson felt strongly that journalists had to try to present a balanced, unbiased account of what was happening. But Robbins felt that some subjects were so important that only campaigning journalism was ‘acceptable’. For Simpson, the opposite was true: the really important things need calm, unbiased, honest judgement even more than the less important issues. But this was all too ‘British’ for Tim Robbins, who saw Iraq entirely in black-and-white terms, ‘good against evil’. As the play came to an end, and Simpson prepared to go on stage, he felt that it had great strength to it and that some of its points of view were entirely correct. But questioner after questioner tried to get him to say that the war was wrong or ‘evil’. He explained again and again that these were not the kind of terms with which he dealt.

As to whether the US military was using the wrong tactics, he answered that patrolling the streets in armoured vehicles didn’t work and neither did shooting at the traffic that came too close to their patrols. Kicking down doors unnecessarily and treating every Iraqi as an enemy certainly didn’t work. The Iraq War was not supposed to be a war of attrition, but a ‘police operation’ in support of an elected government. Moreover, the US troops themselves must obey the law: beating, half-drowning freezing prisoners or threatening them with dogs was as foolish and counter-productive as it was ‘wicked’. He went on:

‘Hearts and minds aren’t just things you decide that morning to win. It’s got to be a long, long process, starting now and going on to the day the soldiers leave. … You just have to put up with all the stones and rockets and bullets they fire at you, and you still have to go the rounds asking people what their problems are, trying to fix things. It worked in Northern Ireland. It won’t work in Iraq because it hasn’t been systematically tried’.

Simpson, loc.cit., p. 124.
Returning to Baghdad – Dangerous Escapades:

British troops did their utmost in the devastated and violence-plagued world of post-war Iraq. By 2005, they were not welcomed by many in Iraq.

Simpson wrote that, aside from the initial invasion and conquest of Iraq, in the years that followed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, there was still a relatively small group of Western journalists and cameramen who went regularly to Baghdad to report. He returned regularly during the years of insurgency, for the 2005 elections and for the trial of Saddam Hussein which began later the same year. He recalled how on 1st September 2006, he woke up to the sound of a distant explosion. Somewhere in the city, a car bomb had just gone off. He reported:

I could imagine the dreadful scene, the blood, the screaming, the stink of explosive, the noise of sirens and alarms and car horns. It was an inauspicious but not totally unfitting way to start the fortieth anniversary of my joining the British Broadcasting Corporation. …

I have come to loathe and despise the kind of violence that this latest explosion represented. Yet I didn’t want to stop reporting on events in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.

Simpson, loc.cit., p. 28.

John Simpson reported on the wars of the 1990s, both in Europe & the Middle East.

Over the four decades of reporting from war zones, and in his series of books, Simpson has tended to stay quiet about the dangers of reporting from these zones, including from Baghdad. This was, he wrote in 2007 because it sounded like a convoluted form of self-praise: Baghdad is dangerous, I go to Baghdad, ergo I must be amazingly brave. But better than anyone, he knew how nervous he got when he was there, and how he constantly imagined the worst was about to happen to him. Although he didn’t have a military escort when he ventured out, he did have some of the best security people in the business to look after him. He wrote:

The brave onesare not the tourists who turn up from time to time, like me, but the full-time correspondents who have stayed in Baghdad over the years since Saddam Hussein’s fall.

Simpson, p. 154.

The BBC’s first correspondent in Baghdad was Caroline Hawley, who was in the role for three years. She was expelled from Iraq in 2002 but returned to the country after Saddam Hussein was removed from power the following year. Hawley and her partner were dining in the Grand Hyatt in Amman when it was bombed in November 2005 by al-Qaeda; they were physically unhurt themselves, but traumatised by the incident in which many others died or were seriously injured in front of them. Simpson commented:

It takes a particular form of determined, long-term courage to live in such places, to see so much death and destruction and at first hand, and to continue reporting it, day after frightening day. In my case, I would stay for only a couple of weeks and then head home; for Caroline, the nerve-racking conditions of Baghdad were her home.

Ibid.

For Simpson, the insurgency against the American and British forces in Iraq was the thirty-sixth war he had reported on in his career to that point. It had been by far the most dangerous of all of them: much worse than even the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. No other war he had reported on, including the Gulf War of 1990 and the wars in former Yugoslavia, had come anywhere near to the daily perils in Baghdad. By contrast, reporting from the southern city of Basra, which was held by the British from 2003 to 2007, was a good deal safer. The Sunni resistance, carrying out its daily suicide bombings, didn’t operate in Basra, and although it wasn’t exactly safe, it was a great deal easier to be there than in the capital. But no journalists were based in the so-called ‘Green Zone’, the vast suburban area of southern central Baghdad on the west bank of the Tigris controlled by the Americans and the Iraqi Army, as claimed by some who had never been there. All of the crews, even the American ones, were based in the centre of the capital and were given no protection at all by either the US or the Iraqi armies. They lived either in rented houses or hotels.

The BBC, Reuter and the New York Times, for instance, were all based in a side-street area of the city which was still more-or-less mixed, cooperating with each other over security. The street was patrolled by armed men, day and night, and there were chicanes of concrete blocks twelve feet high. The houses used by the journalists were protected by steel doors. An attack on the BBC or the kidnapping of one of its employees would not have been impossible and would gain big headlines around the world. The BBC employed its own highly-trained security consultants, usually ex-SAS or other former military men, who accompanied them when filming in the city. Several of them had done close protection work previously. They had a rule that they would never stop in the same place for more than fifteen minutes, that being the time which, they worked out, it would take an insurgent to spot them and get fully armed support and attack them.

Simpson was very ‘attached’ to his flak jacket because it saved his life in northern Iraq in 2003, and, four years later, still had the hole in the material where a large chunk of shrapnel buried itself in the rear plastic panel protecting his back. The hole was directly over his spine, but it didn’t protect his hip from another large piece that hit him there, though doing him no real harm. Since it was not endangering any vital organs, the surgeons preferred to leave it where it was, since removing it would do damage to the nerves around it. He complained about it a bit when the weather was cold or he had to sit or stand for a long time, but he had actually grown quite fond of it, giving it the nickname ‘George W. Bush’, because it was a pain in the arse (or, in Texan, ‘ass’!) When this was quoted in a newspaper, he was rebuked for this by one of his various bosses at the BBC. Apparently, it was against BBC guidelines to make such jokes about world leaders.

Above: Driving to Adhamiya, a Sunni stronghold in Baghdad. The security adviser in the front passenger seat adjusts the small camera to film the journey.

On his visits to Baghdad after the invasion, Simpson usually flew to Kuwait and then drove the whole way to Baghdad. This took between seven and ten hours, and as the situation in Iraq deteriorated in 2004, it became increasingly dangerous. They were subject to being stopped at highly questionable roadblocks by men who looked like policemen but were just as likely to be gangsters or insurgents. Also, trouble might flare up suddenly in the towns and villages they passed through, and they could easily be identified as foreigners and attacked.

The interior of the BBC van. Their protection lay not in heavy armour-plating, but in being inconspicuous.

This kind of travel, he remarked, was always a strain on both mind and body, so his crew was relieved when they were able to fly to Baghdad in an hour with the RAF, even though it required wearing full body armour in the heat of summer. Apparently, early on in the Iraq insurgency, one unfortunate passenger had been killed by a stray round from an AK-47 as the Hercules was close to the ground. After that, wearing body armour became mandatory. Direct attacks on RAF aircraft were also a regular risk. After one transport to Baghdad, the film crew paused while the aircrew posed for a photograph with them all together. The next day they heard that a Hercules had been shot down on a flight out of Baghdad to the north. Everyone on board, including a number of SAS men, had been killed. When he checked the names, he discovered that they also included the crew they had flown in with, chatting with them in the cockpit. He imagined the atmosphere in that cockpit as the plane went into its final dive.

Flying low over Baghdad in an RAF helicopter. The man controlling the machine guns has moved to one side.

John Simpson was a great admirer of Islam, appreciating its qualities as a religion and the Islamic culture, architecture, customs, laws and traditions it had created. It enraged him to hear American officials warning Iraqis that the patience of the United States could wear thin unless they did something to help themselves. Suggestions that the US had sacrificed a great deal to help Iraq, and that everything would be fine if only Iraqis would stop their incomprehensible violence were commonplace and made the journalist ‘boil with anger’. Of course, he had no sympathy for the suicide bombers and vicious criminals in the name of Islam, but, he wrote, …

if you invade a complex, finely balanced society and destroy all the constraints which stop people going for each other’s throats in the name of politics and religion, the primary blame is scarcely theirs.

Simpson, p. 163.
The Attack on Fallujah & its Aftermath, 2004-05:

In April 2004, US Marines attacked the small town of Fallujah, on the western outskirts of Baghdad. The intention was, apparently, to avenge the savage murders of four US security men who were dragged through the streets by a lynch mob and hanged from a bridge like slaughtered animals. It was appalling and seems that President Bush himself gave orders that the people of Fallujah should be taught a lesson. Until that moment, the insurgency against the coalition forces had been relatively mild. There were a few attacks every day, but it was still possible for Westerners to walk around alone, and drive from Baghdad to other parts of the country. I went to places as different as Tikrit, aggressively Sunni and strongly supportive of Saddam Hussein, whose pictures were still displayed on the main street, and the Shi’ite holy city of Kerbala, where the influence of the fierce young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was strong. The Americans also decided to take him on, thereby deciding to fight the war on two fronts.

The attack on Fallujah was thoroughly questionable. The Americans warned everyone to leave the small town beforehand and announced they would regard everyone who remained there as an enemy combatant. But of course, large numbers of the poorest, the weakest and the oldest were unable or unwilling to leave, and there is no clear evidence as to how many of them were killed by ground fire or aerial bombardment. The Geneva Convention forbids attacks on towns and cities from which the civilian population has not been properly evacuated. But the Bush administration decided that the Convention did not apply to what they considered was essentially a war of retribution and self-defence after the attacks on 9/11, for which they held both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein responsible. Much later, President Bush had to admit that Saddam’s Iraq had not aided and abetted those attackers. This was a distinction which went unnoticed by large numbers in the United States. In 2003, one in five Americans polled thought Saddam and Bin Laden were one and the same person; the proportion was even higher among US servicemen, especially those fighting in Iraq. Given this level of ignorance, it is hardly surprising that so many Iraqi civilians were killed. The confusion was convenient for the Washington hawks.

The insurgency that followed the attack on Fallujah showed everyone that Iraq would never be a loyal American ally nor a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. It was also a strategic turning point in the war on terror, since after 2004, no one except for the ‘innocents’ in the Coalition Provisional Authority could seriously have believed that the invasion of Iraq was going to end up as a success in terms of its objectives of restoring order and establishing democracy. The CIA and the State Department both tried hard to explain the unwelcome realities of Iraqi life to the true believers in the White House and the Department of Defense. The latter put together a nine-hundred-page document about how Iraq should be run after the overthrow of Saddam. Part of it dealt with the difficult business of maintaining a balance between Sunnis and Shi’ites. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, whose arrogance typified the whole Iraq operation, threw it in the waste bin, apparently uttering the words, “well, we won’t be needing that!”

At first, both the American and British governments, though not their respective diplomats (who knew more/ better), played down the sectarian divisions in Iraq. There was a tendency to talk stereotypically about ‘the Iraqis’ or the Iraqi people as though the population was pretty much ethnically and culturally homogenous, in the same way as they might talk about the neighbouring Iranians or even Syrians. Soldiers serving in Iraq, and especially those who had recently returned home, complained about the usually pessimistic reporting they saw, heard or read in the mainstream press and media. They often commented that all ‘the Iraqis’ where they were stationed were delighted to have the Coalition forces in their country. It became clear, however, that they were either talking about the Kurdish areas, where people were overwhelmingly in favour of the ‘occupation’, or the Shi’ite ones, where the pleasure of seeing Saddam overthrown, hadn’t yet worn off. But since the main hatred and violence towards coalition forces came from the Sunni areas, only roughly twenty per cent of the population of Iraq, and the previously ‘privileged’ pro-Ba’athist element in the population was to be found among them, these informal generalisations were meaningless self-delusion.

Simpson has admitted that the media itself did not help to clarify but rather added to the confusion. In April 2004, just as the assault on Fallujah was underway, the BBC and various other international news organisations commissioned an opinion poll across Iraq. It may sound strange to think that pollsters could travel the country, knocking on people’s doors and asking about their states of mind, when there was violence reached an unprecedented level, it was still possible to hold an effective nationwide opinion poll. The results, as we received them first, were very interesting. People were asked whether the invasion of 2003 had been a liberation or an occupation. Only a single percentage point separated the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes, 49 for ‘liberation’ and 48 for ‘occupation’; as one BBC headline put it:

‘Iraqis are finely divided between enthusiasm for the invasion and criticism of it.’

Simpson, p. 168.

It was only on the following day, when they were able to see more of the data from the opinion poll, that it became how misleading this headline and others had been. Virtually every Sunni who had replied to the question had said the invasion had resulted in an ‘occupation’; a surprising number of Shi’ites, and even a small number of Kurds agreed with them. Those who said it had resulted in a ‘liberation’ contained scarcely any Sunnis at all; they were overwhelmingly Kurdish and Shi’ite. Because the BBC and the other news organisations who participated still regarded Iraqis as a single national community, they misunderstood the nature of the answers they had received.

The Run-up to the 2005 Election & its Results:

As the election of January 2005 came closer, there was immense pressure from both governments on Western journalists in Baghdad to provide ‘balanced’ coverage of it. In this case, this meant glossing over the differences between the various elements within the population. The British government, aware of the scepticism in the press and media at home, put a good deal of effort into persuading the British public that the election was a success and that the great majority of Iraqis were happy with the new system. The British embassy in Baghdad was headed by people who knew perfectly well that this was not the case, and they were honest about it. But Downing Street put its own people into the embassy to make sure that the ‘right’ message was put out. So they organised for their press machine to organise a trip to Iraq so that the large number of journalists who had come to Baghdad to report on the election could see the Iraqi people voting. However, what they saw was not a cross-section of the Iraqi electorate, but those voting in a strongly Shi’ite region in the south.

There was never any doubt that there would be a very large turnout. Throughout the Saddam Hussein era and even before, the Shi’ites had been barred from any kind of political power or influence, even though they formed the clear majority of the population. They understood that the American and British invasion had smashed Sunni minority power in the country and that this election was their first chance to take control of it themselves. So, of course, they turned out in their millions; it was a moving and impressive sight to watch them. For the British and American governments, the television images of large numbers of Iraqis voting would by themselves provide a vindication of their invasion. Saddam Hussein had been a tyrant; now the people of Iraq were free to express their real political views. But to call them simply ‘Iraqis’ was completely misleading. It gave the impression that the nation had come forward as a whole to take advantage of its newfound freedom. In the Sunni areas, by contrast, a majority of people were planning to stay at home on election day as they felt was a distinct threat to any Sunnis who wanted to vote. This wasn’t the image and the message that the White House and Downing Street wanted to broadcast.

Most of the British TV and newspaper journalists who had come to Baghdad to report on the election accepted the offer of free transport to the Shi’ite south without even thinking about it. The pictures they obtained told the story, but it wasn’t the full story, and it wasn’t even half the true story. For Simpson and his colleagues, the important thing was what happened in the Sunni areas. If people there had turned out in huge numbers, then that really would be a ringing endorsement of the British and American invasion. But of course, they didn’t; some Sunnis voted, but in their areas, partly because many felt threatened anyway, there was something of a boycott. For some time, Simpson’s ‘regular crew’ had to contend with suggestions from within the BBC that they had deliberately downplayed the success of the election. Memories were recalled of the time in 1999 when based in Belgrade during the NATO bombing, he had reported that the bombs were hardening people’s resistance rather than weakening it. He was seen in Downing Street as being…

a contrarian, a naysayer, an ingrained critic… an enemy (with) the basest political motives.

Simpson, loc. cit., p. 170.

Slowly, though, the reality in Iraq became more evident. People began to understand that this election and the two later votes in 2005 simply made the sectarian and ethnic divides even fiercer and more obvious. Iraqis were being forced to decide, often for the first time, whether they were basically Shi’ite or Sunni, and whether they would express their religious identity by voting for their sect. In that sense, there was no objective distinction between religion and the new state. The elections were the main achievement of the invasion, but although it was a great thing to see people voting freely for the first time, the act of voting in actual fact made the violence and the divisions in Iraq all the worse.

This, however, Simpson concludes, was not an inevitable result of the invasion. Certainly, a number of senior British diplomats felt it would have been possible to devise elections which kept Iraqis together rather than emphasise the differences between them. But the ‘Washington hawks’ were impatient with these convoluted, decadent, mandarin means. The Coalition ‘chief’ in Baghdad, Paul Bremer III and his patrons in Washington, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, believed the way forward could be quicker and easier. If Iraqis were just allowed to vote, that would sort everything out. But it didn’t. In 2003 and early 2004, however, it had still possible to find real optimism among the people of Baghdad. Simpson explained the collapse of confidence in the following terms:

It never occured to them, I think, that the most powerful nation in history could fail when it set its mind to something. Slowly, though, this changed. The awkwardness and widespread lack of elementary social skills among the American soldiers began to enrage ordinary Iraqis. The majority treated all Iraqis as enemies, just as their predecessors had once treated all Vietnamese, then were surprised to find that most Iraqis did indeed come to hate them. …

… This should have been a war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. But it was fought by soldiers who were trained for aggression, and who were usually exonerated if they maintained they had opened fire because they thought their lives were in danger. You don’t win hearts and minds by firing at civilians. On the contrary, you have to be prepared to be fired at forty-eight times out of fifty without firing back.

Simpson (2007), loc. cit., pp. 175-76.

Over the remainder of 2005, the situation grew worse, until the Americans announced that when their convoys or those of the Iraqi Army were patrolling, every vehicle on the road had to stop, or else stay a hundred yards back. The rear gunner possessed the power of life or death, and he or she was hated for it. If they decided that there was something suspicious about the car following them from the proscribed distance, there would be no problem with them opening fire.

But over the years, Simpson also met a number of senior military men, from the generals who ran things in Baghdad to General David Petraeus (pictured above), who was eventually promoted to command the entire American operation in Iraq. The more of these people he met and interviewed, the more impressive I found them to be. They were not mindless gung-ho characters careless of civilian losses or the actions of their own men. They knew perfectly well that the enterprise was likely to fail, and did their best to tell the Washington politicians what was happening. Many of them also had a deep dislike of Donald Rumsfeld, who had got them into this war with insufficient resources and who treated them vindictively if they made their own views public. David Petraeus had a highly successful war and was the leading advocate in the US forces of the policy of winning hearts and minds.

On the other side, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, speaking of the latest group of suicide bombers who had just murdered dozens of innocents, said “they have the honour, by God’s grace, of being in paradise.” But John Simpson had seen the broken bodies and lives that the daily bombings in Iraq had brought. To him, they all used the same weapons and the same argument: that it’s unfortunate that ordinary people’s lives have to be sacrificed, but there is a greater good that we must bear in mind. He wrote that there are few arguments more despicable than this business of treating the innocent as a target in order to strike at the people who govern them. The lesson that he took away from his experience of the Iraq war was…

… that life itself is immensely valuable; not just the lives of people who think and look and worship like us… people who are the right type of Christian or Muslim, but all lives.

Ibid., p. 184.
Reporting for Posterity – The Trial of Saddam Hussein:

Saddam Hussein’s trial began on 5 November 2005. By then, his reputation was very low, even among his former supporters. The assembled journalists, including John Simpson, had not come to watch a caged lion, but a vanquished prisoner. Saddam challenged the authority of the court to try him, given that it was set up as a result of an invasion which did not have the full sanction of the United Nations. But he then went on to enter a plea of ‘Not Guilty’. He often seemed plodding and uncertain in defending himself. Sometimes he challenged the evidence of witnesses to remarkable effect, but then days would pass during which he failed to make any points at all. Gradually, however, his confidence grew, and he began to bring the Koran into court as soon as his American captors would approve it, waving it at the judges and ostentatiously looking up references in it. People in Iraq began to watch the proceedings on television for the extraordinary novelty of seeing their former dictator paraded in front of their eyes, a broken man who would soon be executed. They found themselves sympathising with him, and in the teahouses of Baghdad, they would bang the tables when he made what they thought was a good point.

The fear of him had long faded. At first, even in 2005, most people in Iraq still assumed that the Americans would get their own way because they were the world’s only superpower. The extraordinary truth, that the USA was not as powerful as everyone had assumed, had not yet begun to sink in. As the trial progressed, Saddam began once again to have great rallying power among Sunnis. Putting him on trial certainly didn’t create the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. That had begun almost as soon as he was deposed. But it did provide it with a martyr, a former authority figure who was mocked and humiliated in front of everyone’s eyes. By contrast, Shi’ite anger grew commensurately, and defence lawyers began to be murdered. The charges against him were strangely chosen. This was a man who had ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men and women as a matter of policy. Some of these massacres were well-known outside the country; at Halabja for instance, where poison gas was dropped onto the rebellious townspeople or the systematic killings of Kurds and Shi’ites after the abortive uprisings of 1991 in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Yet the Régime Crimes Liaison Office advised Saddam’s prosecutors to select an incident which was easier to prove. It was one about which most international journalists, even Simpson, knew very little: the killing of 143 men and boys after an attempt to assassinate the dictator in the Shi’ite town of Dujayl in 1983. Saddam himself made the point that in any country an attempt on the life of the Head of State would bring some kind of retribution, and there was still some confusion as to who precisely had been responsible for which deaths in Dujayl. The trial rumbled on for a year, during which he was also charged along with his relative, Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as ‘Chemical Ali’ after Halabja, for the killings of tens of thousands of Kurds and the destruction of their towns and villages. But Saddam was already dead by the time the trial on the second charge was concluded. The Iraqi constitution specified that any punishment had to be carried out within thirty days of the final appeal being rejected. Saddam was found guilty of the Dujayl killings on 5 November 2006, and his appeal was turned down on 26 December. He was executed four days later. The insurgency continued, however.

Legacy of the War:

Iraqi followers of Muqtada al-Sadr wave their national flag during a protest on 16 March 2013 in the city of Kut on the tenth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq. Photo by Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP via Getty Images.
Appendix One –
Richard Toye on…
The effect of the Iraq War on British foreign policy:

The 2003 war in Iraq was a watershed moment in British domestic politics. Whether it also led to a fundamental shift in UK foreign policy is a difficult question to answer. Clearly, the popular reaction against the war — once it became clear that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction — led to some degree of change. It is now a convention that Parliament has the chance to debate military deployments, except in case of emergency. This does not have any legal force, but in 2013 the Commons did hinder military action against Syria when the government lost a vote to approve it. More generally, Tony Blair’s fall from public grace may have dampened leaders’ enthusiasm for foreign military ventures.

At the same time, the fundamentals of the Anglo-US relationship, including Britain’s effective subordination to American strategy, have not changed. It is also difficult to imagine that Downing Street’s reaction to, say, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would have been radically different had the Iraq invasion not occurred. However, by sowing distrust in political elites, the events of twenty years ago may have fed the growth of British populism — and thus helped trigger the geopolitical earthquake that was Brexit.

Richard Toye is a Professor of Modern History at the University of Exeter.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac061

Appendix Two –
Louise Fawcett on…
The Iraq War’s impact on regional politics in the Middle East:

The Iraq War and subsequent occupation, aside from its devastating consequences for Iraq itself, had profound (and unintended) consequences for regional and international order which resonate today. By producing a ‘weak’ Iraqi state, the war transformed the regional balance of power into one characterized by an unstable Saudi–Iran rivalry and a volatile system of alliances. The Middle East’s already weak regional institutions were also further damaged by the conflict’s repercussions, with many actors seeking new institutional relationships elsewhere.

Furthermore, the invasion had a detrimental impact on western states’ legitimacy and reputation, while reducing their appetite for costly international interventions. The willingness of policy-makers to use traditional hard-power resources to achieve their foreign-policy objectives declined alongside a reduced commitment to the region. This diminution of western, and particularly US, power and influence has helped to create new opportunities for states like China and Russia to enhance their own strategic positions, with the former making the region a central part of its Belt and Road Initiative and the latter establishing a strategic foothold through its support for the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war. As these dramatic shifts demonstrate, the after-effects of the invasion remain with us in ways that make it all the more vital to gain a fresh understanding of the conflict and its regional and geopolitical fall-out.

Louise Fawcett is a Professor of International Relations and Wilfrid Knapp Fellow and Tutor in Politics at St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad002

Published Sources:

John Simpson (2007), Not Quite World’s End: A Traveller’s Tales. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Andrew Marr (2008), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Blog Articles:
International Affairs

International Affairs

1.7K Followers

Featured

The Lineker-Braverman Controversy: Migration, Language & History – Troping the Thirties.

Count him out, not out of order.
Lineker in 2021 (Wikipedia)

I didn’t read this on the 7th of March when Gary Lineker posted it. I was following him on Twitter, but I finally left this ‘forum’ after Donald Trump was reinstated on it last year, even while his role (and his tweeting) was still being investigated for incitement to insurrection on 6th January 2021. I’d been on Twitter for nearly fifteen years but only used it to draw attention to more extensive posts, either by myself or others. I rarely made statements, and when I did (ironically in support of the England football team ‘taking the knee’), I was met with a barrage of abuse from Hungarian ‘tweeters’.

I live in Hungary and the England team was playing here at that time. Twitter is a lazy tool for historians, at least because it breaks the basic rules for historical discourse, which requires us to explain our statements and back them up with evidence. I know we are not so restricted in the number of characters we can use, but many still tweet assertions, often extreme in their use of language, whether from the Right or the Left.

Gary Lineker began his football career at Leicester City in 1978 and finished as the (then) First Division’s joint top goalscorer in 1984–85. He then moved to league champions Everton where he won both the PFA Players’ Player of the Year and FWA Footballer of the Year awards in his debut season, before moving to Spanish giants Barcelona. With Barcelona, he won the 1987–88 Copa del Rey and the 1989 European Cup Winners’ Cup. His six goals in the 1986 FIFA World Cup made him the tournament’s top scorer, receiving the Golden Boot. His Golden Boot-winning performance at the finals generated much anticipation of success at Camp Nou, and he did not disappoint, scoring twenty-one goals in 41 games during his first season, including a hat-trick in a 3–2 win over archrivals Real Madrid. Lineker was again integral to England’s progress to the semi-finals of the 1990 World Cup, scoring another four goals. He still holds England’s record for goals in the FIFA World Cup. 

In 1999, Lineker became the BBC’s anchorman for football coverage, including its flagship football television programme Match of the Day, becoming BBC Sport’s highest-paid presenter. The BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, stated that Lineker’s pay was justified “because of the value of analysis to the viewing audience”. Lineker has been noted for his political views which he shares on Twitter. In December 2016, he was described by Angus Harrison of Vice News as “the British Left’s Loudest Voice” for being “both staunchly liberal and resolutely unafraid of making his views known”. Using a football analogy, Lineker defined his ideological position as “I make more runs to the left than the right, but never felt comfortable on the wing”. After the 2017 United Kingdom general election, Lineker wrote:

“Anyone else feels politically homeless? Everything seems far right or way left. Something sensibly centrist might appeal?”

Lineker endorsed a Remain vote in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. In July 2018, he announced his support for People’s Vote, a campaign group calling for a public vote on the final Brexit deal between the UK and the European Union. On 18 October 2016, Lineker tweeted a rebuttal to a statement made by David Davis MP in which Davis suggested refugees entering the UK should undergo dental checks to verify their age:

“The treatment by some towards these young refugees is hideously racist and utterly heartless. What’s happening to our country?”

This led The Sun to call for Lineker’s sacking from Match of the Day (MOTD), accusing him of breaching BBC impartiality guidelines. In December 2018, Lineker was criticised by the BBC’s cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew for expressing his political views on Twitter. Agnew wrote:

“You are the face of BBC Sport. Please observe BBC editorial guidelines and keep your political views, whatever they are and whatever the subject, to yourself. I’d be sacked if I followed your example.” 

In response, a BBC spokesperson said:

“Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC and as such, any expression of his personal political views does not affect the BBC’s impartiality.”

Nevertheless, on the 10th of March 2023, Lineker was required by the Director General to step back from presenting on the BBC for three days due to the controversy over his pronouncement on the British government’s asylum policy on Twitter. Lineker is not involved in any news or political comment on the BBC, whereas Agnew has interviewed former UK Prime Ministers and other politicians interested in cricket, and other cricket presenters like Ian Botham and Geoffrey Boycott have used their ‘profiles’ to make right-wing comments on social media. Neither is he a full-time employee of the BBC but is contracted as a self-employed consultant for MOTD and other sports programmes. We do not know the terms of his contract, but the BBC’s answer to Agnew seems to recognise his right to express his views on social, historical and political matters. The only remaining issue for me is whether, as Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader remarked, comparisons with 1930s Germany are “the best way” to make an argument. Given Lineker’s previous statement on the ‘treatment’ of refugees, I wanted to investigate the connection he made between the language used by government ministers and that used in the 1930s.

Historical Instincts & Precedents:

My ‘historical’ instinct kicked into action when I first heard the furore about Gary Lineker’s tweet and then read his tweet via a friend on Facebook. The only potential error or mistake I could see in his ‘tweet’ was that his claim about ‘Germany in the thirties’ needed explaining and expanding in terms of more substantial evidence about the alleged historical antecedents and the appropriacy of their application to current events. I’m not sure whether one of Lineker’s four ‘O’ Levels was in history, but, for me, it does not go beyond assertion and would not lead to an award of a top grade at GCSE today. One of Gary’s teachers wrote on his report card that he “concentrates too much on football”, himself adding a prospective assertion that he would “never make a living at that”. Had he gone on to do an ‘A’ Level in History, however, he might have understood the necessity of providing an argument supported by explanation and examples.

So, having read, written and taught extensively on “the thirties” in Britain, Europe and the United States, I decided to conduct my own research using primary and secondary sources to hand and online. Also, as a teacher of both language and history for over forty years, my role has not been to remove bias but to make sure my students are aware of their own biases and prejudices. We all have questions about the past which determine the answers we encounter and the interpretations we make. History is not a ‘pure’ science; it is concerned with the whole of human life in all its quirks and imperfections. Therefore, the answers we find, though definitive, are never final but always provisional. The question we all share, however, is what can we learn from the past? Even professional historians have issues with roots in the present; they rarely approach the traces of past people and events simply by asking what happened, how and why? The answers to those questions are nearly always complex and relate to our current consciousness of key issues. We find ourselves applying the prefixes How far..? or To what extent..? to our interrogations and investigations to allow for that complexity to be expressed in terms of a continuum. So the question with which I approach Lineker’s statement is:

To what extent can the language in current debates about ‘asylum’ and ‘migration’ be compared with that used by Germany in the 1930s?

Later than They Thought:

As a source to answer this, I turned first to René Cutforth’s (1976) book, Later than We Thought: A Portrait of the Thirties, a favourite of mine among the books dealing with the period. Cutforth was ‘born and bred’ in a coal mining town in industrial Derbyshire, and had seen service in the Army in Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Western Desert, becoming a prisoner of war in Italy and Germany. He became well-known after the war as a distinguished broadcaster and writer, travelling the world as a BBC correspondent and making many documentaries, some of which I vaguely remember watching in the seventies. He made some of these for ITV. His account of the Thirties is highly personal, concerned with the impact of the decade as he felt it as a young man (he was twenty-one in 1930), with intellectual attitudes and social changes rather than with a formal historical narrative; he is interested in the motivations of Mosley and his Fascists, the new poets of revolution and the tired old politicians staggering from one crisis to the next, all against the backdrop of great events including, for our purpose, the Spanish Civil War and the rise of Hitler.

By taking a step back, however, we become aware that, among all the decades of the twentieth century, there is a popular mythology attached to the 1930s as The Devil’s Decade. W. H. Auden, the leader of a group of young poets who were held to have been the new voice of the period, called it ‘… a mean and sordid decade.’ The Thirties were also ‘troped’, by the 1970s, as the Wasted Years and the ‘low dishonest decade’ and ‘the long weekend’. Even for those, like myself and Gary Lineker, who did not live through them but grew up in the seventies, the 1930s are haunted by the spectres of mass unemployment, hunger marches, appeasement, and the rise (and post-war endurance) of fascism at home and abroad. In a sense, the Second World War served to perpetuate the more depressing image of the thirties, partly at least because the politics of the immediate post-war era were fought on the record of the pre-war years. Churchill himself fought and lost the 1945 election by comparing his opponents to the ‘Gestapo’, and as late as 1951 the Labour Party campaigned with the slogan, ‘Ask your Dad!’, an illustration of how the ‘hungry thirties’ had become part of the repertoire of political cliché.

The popular view of the 1930s as a period of unrelieved failure was undoubtedly hardened and reinforced in the years after the war, a view that was sharpened against the backdrop of full employment and affluence in the 1950s and ’60s. In the 1970s and 1980s, with the return of mass unemployment and the spectre of far-right, anti-immigrant extremism, the ghost of the thirties stalked the political platforms and demonstrations under the slogan ‘no return to the thirties’. By then, the decade had become a metaphor for economic disaster, social deprivation and political discontent. As Stevenson and Cook wrote in 1977:

A concentration upon unemployment and social distress does not represent an accurate portrayal of the decade. … It would, of course, be fatuous to suggest that the 1930s were not for many thousands of people a time of great hardship and personal suffering. But beside the picture of the unemployed must be put the other side of the case. … Alongside the picture of dole queues and hunger marches must also be placed those of another Britain, of new industries, prosperous suburbs and a rising standard of living. … This was the paradox which lay at the heart of Britain in the thirties. …

John Stevenson & Chris Cook (1977), The Slump – society and politics during the Depression. London: Cape, pp. 1-4.
Germany Between the Wars:

It was also a paradox which lay at the heart of much of Europe, especially in Germany. German insolvency in the Twenties and the depression which now set in in the Thirties had brought the country to the verge of revolution. In Britain at the time, nobody would have been surprised if Germany had gone communist in a sudden coup, and the German middle classes had long trembled on the brink of disaster. It took them some time to realise that the name of Hitler’s party, the National Socialist Party, was extremely misleading and that what he stood for was paranoid nationalism, racialism and militarism, with the Jews as internal, ‘eternal’ scapegoats; but when they did they began to see him as the saviour who would discipline the working class, rid the businessmen of their smarter competitors, the Jews, and make the name of Germany feared once more in the world. The aristocratic land-owning class saw him as a useful weapon against Communism: the unemployed were in the mood for a saviour of some sort, and democracy was a very new and, in some ways, foreign concept. The German working classes were used to dictatorial masters; now they were all going to be masters – the Master Race, which they had always believed in their hearts that they were. According to Cutforth, The Weimar Republic which Hitler took over in 1933 was viewed as…

the pet of the intelligentsia, the first tolerant and permissive society in Europe, teeming with liberal good intention, particularly kind to sexual deviants who flocked there from all over the place. But the lost war rankled in the hearts of many old soldiers still in their thirties, who had fallen for the lie that the German Army was never defeated and that panic among the civilians had dictated the surrender. They could be made to see the Weimar Republic as something soft, decadent and shameful, particularly if they were unemployed.

Cutforth (1976), pp. 64-65.

President Hindenburg’s idea was to let Hitler loose on the Communists and then for the traditional conservatives and mainstream nationalists like him to stamp on Hitler. That strategy did not work, however. Hindenburg died and with him the old Germany for which he stood. Hitler gained absolute power in 1933. How then, did it come about that the Germans, with their most liberal republic, if a brittle one, became saddled with him as their new dictator? Another contemporary commentator wrote his answer in his book:

For a time the Extreme Left and the Extreme Right seemed to be running neck and neck. But Communism had a fatal handicap: its revolution had already taken place, and the German people had been able to observe it at fairly close range. The German people were sick of the class struggle, sick of capitalism, and above all, sick of Berlin, that modern Gomorrah and source of all their ills. There is no great mystery about Hitler’s coming to power. The simplest explanation is the best: the German people chose him.

John Manders (1959), Berlin-The Eagle and the Bear: Barry & Rockliff.
Fascists, Appeasers and Pacifists in Thirties Britain:

Of course, Hitler’s Germany was not the only example of Fascist rule in Europe in the 1930s. Mussolini in Italy, also with the early support of socialists, had established the original ‘model’ in the mid-twenties, and Franco came to power in Spain in 1939 as a result of three years of bloody civil war. Any footballer, like Gary Lineker, who spent time in Spain in the 1980s would be only too aware of the long-term role of fascism in football there. In Britain, Mosley’s Fascists took full advantage of the general restlessness and stepped up their uniformed parades until the East End of London was invaded almost every night. They had no doctrines except jingoism, wrapping themselves in the Union flag and openly displaying their hatred of Jews and Communists. The East End, with its large Jewish population, was the chief battleground of opposing factions. On May Day in 1938, the traditional May Day Festival in Bermondsey was subjected to a counter-demonstration by the British Union of Fascists (BUF), pictured below. At Mosley’s rallies, the formula was usually the same. When the halls had filled, the doors were locked and the speeches began. A spotlight was trained on the audience from the platform and if any heckler was identified by it, he would be quickly surrounded by ‘biff boys’ who would beat him up in view of the audience before dragging him outside to beat him even more brutally. Cutforth commented on these rallies and marches:

It was an age addicted to psychological explanations, but I never heard the nature of Mosley’s audiences satisfactorily explained. Who were these people who submitted themselves night after night to this exhibition of terrorism and tyranny? They looked middle-aged on the whole, and seemed to be enveloped in… political apathy, yet they kept on coming. Mosley was never short of an audience.

Cutforth, pp. 69-72.
The 1938 Bermondsey Fascist Counter-rally. The Fascist salute, taken very seriously by the BUF leadership, was regarded as comic by most of the public. (Radio Times Hulton Picture Library)

The Communists and the Fascists met and fought from time to time, but this never became a public menace as it did in Berlin in the early Thirties. That same year, the England Football team visited Berlin and was told by its own government and FA that its players would be required to make the Nazi salute. When one of its key players, Wolverhampton Wanderers’ Stan Cullis, refused to do this, he was dropped.

Stan Cullis joined Wolves as a player in February 1934 and for the next thirty years, he was Wolverhampton Wanderers. A born leader, he captained Wolves before his nineteenth birthday, and England a few years later. The outbreak of war limited him to twelve full England caps, plus twenty war-time appearances. He was a member of the Wolves FA Cup Final team in 1939. He finished playing in 1947 after making 171 appearances for the Wolves, he became assistant manager to Ted Vizard and in 1948 he took over as manager to begin an era of an unprecedented. As the architect of the Wolves’ triumphs, his record as manager was three League Championships in 1953/54, 57/58 and 58/59, and two FA Cups, in 1949 and 1960. In addition, he managed Wolves to European ‘floodlit friendly’ victories over Spartak Moscow (4-0), Honved Budapest (3-2), Moscow Dynamo (2-1), and Real Madrid (3-2) between 1954-57. On 11 December 1956, the Wolves drew 1-1 with another Budapest team, ‘Red Banner’ (MTK), in a ‘Benefit’ match for the Hungarian Refugee Relief Fund, set up after the Soviet occupation of Hungary in November. MTK’s team was packed with Hungarian internationals, three of whom had played in the humiliating 6-3 and 7-1 defeats of England in 1953-54.

Source: John Shipley (2003), Wolves Against The World. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd.

The infection of Fascist mass-conditioning did cross the Channel, but it generally bred much milder mutations in the British atmosphere, including, however, the policies of ‘non-intervention’ and ‘appeasement’. However, as Keith Robbins has written, it would be a mistake to suppose that the roots of ‘appeasement’ are to be found in a pervasive, but ill-defined ‘pacifism’. Appeasement as a policy did not rest upon any theoretical or theological underpinnings frequently used to support pacifism. When compared with the pamphlets, articles and books of this period in which the word ‘pacifism’ occurs, there is very little material which seeks to expound and defend appeasement. Pacifists were committed to an ideology, whereas appeasers were only advocating a specific a particular policy or approach in particular circumstances. Pacifists, at least by the late 1930s, did not like the notion that they were de facto appeasers, taking the view that their opposition to war stemmed from high-minded principles. Pacifists faced the prospect of possible subjection if their country did not fight with equanimity and courage.

Pacifists tended to believe that appeasers, on the contrary, were either craven or covert sympathisers of Fascism. Appeasers, in turn, rejected the idea that they were either pacifists or crypto-fascists. At this particular juncture, they might have shared the belief that it was in Britain’s best interests to go to great lengths, possibly even humiliating lengths, to avoid participating in another major European war. In other circumstances, however, many of those who advocated appeasement in the 1930s advocated that war could still be justified. They believed that ‘pure pacifism’ was apolitical and had no relevance to the ambivalent choices that politicians were always compelled to make. It is therefore not too difficult, in retrospect, to distinguish between pacifism and appeasement. For contemporaries, however, who could not share our certainty that there would, indeed, be a Second World War, the division was by no means clear-cut.

After, and even before Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, there were prominent pacifists who refused to accept that their stance was irrelevant as policy and that a second war was an inevitability. George Lansbury, a Labour veteran, and Christian pacifist was amongst their number. But the Labour Party as a whole did not accept his absolutist convictions. On the other hand, there were appeasers who did not seek to buttress appeasement by doctrine, but who, nevertheless, loathed the prospect of war. In practice, therefore, there could be an emotional overlap, even if there was not an intellectual one, between these streams of opinion. The relationship between a ‘pacifist mood’ in public opinion and the making of the policy of appeasement is difficult to discern.

Far more effective, politically, was Victor Gollancz’s Left Book Club whose sixty thousand readers each received a book a month, chosen by Gollancz and two Marxist intellectuals. It was not necessary to be a Communist or even a ‘Socialist’ to be ‘on the Left’ in the Thirties. There was a large, vague area of opinion which called itself, simply ‘anti-fascist’, a title which included almost everybody who was at all excited by new ideas in Britain, of whom there were not many at the time, and it was to these ‘anti-fascists’ that the Left Book Club addressed itself. They also held meetings at the Royal Albert Hall to support the Spanish Republicans, and to urge a popular front against Fascism. It was an effective propaganda machine of which the Communists were eager beneficiaries, but it brought together speakers from across a broad section of the political spectrum.

In the thirties, especially between 1933 and 1937, ‘public opinion’, in the absence of objective evidence, was whatever leading politicians wanted it to be. Even in this limited period, external developments in Ethiopia, the Rhineland and Spain caused individuals to change their minds. But governments have a duty to ‘educate’ their electorates about the reality of events as they perceive them and even resort to ‘propaganda’ to achieve that object if need be. Appeasement did not arrive on the scene as a fully formed policy at a specific point on ‘the road to war’: policy was routinely hammered out and adjusted in the normal interplay of Whitehall and Westminster. It is perhaps more useful, therefore, to talk of the appeasers, as Robbins did in his (1988) book and A. L. Rowse did in 1961, referring back to the ‘All Souls’ think tank of those years:

Chamberlain knew no history … and had no conception of the elementary necessity of keeping the balance of power on our side; no conception of the Grand Alliance, or of its being the only way to contain Hitler and keep Europe safe. …

The total upshot of the appeasers’ efforts was to aid Nazi Germany to achieve a position of brutal ascendancy, a threat to everybody else’s security or even existence, which only a war could end. This had the very result of letting the Russians into the centre of Europe which the appeasers wished to prevent. Of course their responsibility was a secondary one. The primary responsibility was all along that of the Germans: the people in the strongest strategic position in Europe, the keystone of the whole European system, but who never knew how to behave, whether up or down, in the ascendant arrogant and brutal, in the defiant base and grovelling.

These men had no real conception of Germany’s character or malign record in modern history. Quite simply, we owe thewreck of Europe’s position in the world to Germany’s total inability to play her proper role in it.

A. L. Rowse (1961), All Souls and Appeasement. Macmillan, pp. 57-59, 63, 117.

The New Germany, 1933-39:

A fanfare of the Hitler Youth at the Party Rally at Nuremberg in 1935. The rallies were the centrepiece of the Party calendar, at which the leadership was expected to indicate future policy and ideological development. The 1935 rally saw the introduction of the so-called Nuremberg Laws which instigated racial inequality.

There had been ‘Youth’ movements in Germany in the nineteenth century and the best known of them, the Wandervogel, were very much in vogue in the Twenties. They were groups of young men and women who walked long distances in the open air and sang romantic lieder around campfires at night to the accompaniment of mandolins. René Cutforth described how he went for a wander with the Wandervogal in the late Twenties. It was a mixed group and his ‘companion’ was a soundlessly silly girl called Eva with flaxen hair wound around her head in plaits.

Her brother, Ernst, was a pacifist and anarchist, a Wordsworthian young man. There was plenty of silly talk about the Aryans, but it was romantic, not aggressive. The main topic of conversation was how to escape the control of the frightful old men who had made the last war and detested freedom everywhere.

By the early Thirties the Nazi Youth Leader, Baldur von Schirach, had ushered all these young people into the Hitler Jugend. Cutforth met Ernst and some of his companions in 1936 and recognised a sea change in these romantic, rather humourless, but likeable youths:

They had become arrogant in a petulant way: every sentence began with ‘Of course’, followed by some bloody-minded paradox:

“Of course, we must separate ourselves from the Jews; it is the way to true community”; “Of course, we want peace, and we shall give it to you whether you want it or not.”

Their great word was ‘decadent’; anything which showed the least sign of liberalism, tolerance or even civilisation was ‘dekadent’.

Cutforth, pp 72-73.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 017-1.jpg

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 017-3.jpg

These attitudes helped the Nazis come to power and to instigate their systematic destruction of the human rights of dissidents and minorities within the new Nazi ‘order’. The Nazi régime placed great emphasis on education and popular culture as a means of developing racial awareness. In both schools and universities, there was a large proportion of Party members among the teaching staff. At school, lessons on race and German history reflected the ideological imperatives of the régime. At the highest level, the number of students at universities and technical colleges declined, partly as a result of pressure to exclude women from higher education. Most young German men on finishing school were enrolled in the compulsory Labour Service or for military training. At the secondary level, ‘Adolf Hitler Schools’ were established in 1936 to train the Party’s future élite. Great emphasis was placed on physical education since healthy, active bodies were regarded as necessary for the biological welfare of the race and sporting achievement was heralded as a racial duty. Thousands of young Germans took the Reich sports tests to qualify for the Reich Sports Badge.

Programmes of gymnastics and callisthenics were introduced into schools, offices and factories. The Strength through Joy organisations of the Labour Front employed a thousand full-time sports instructors. But anti-Semitism was introduced in sport as early as April 1933 when Jews were banned from Germany’s thirteen thousand gymnastic clubs. When Germany bid successfully to host the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, the régime was determined to use the occasion to promote the event as a triumph for the Nazi’s régime. As part of the preparation for the games, Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry, established in 1933, undertook to establish a worldwide broadcasting network to relay the Games as they happened. Control of broadcasting was a significant feature of the propaganda effort of the régime.

In 1933 alone, fifty of Hitler’s speeches were relayed over the radio, and in May of that year, work began on developing the mass-produced ‘People’s Radio’ (Volksempfänger) of which there were 3.5 million sets by 1939. By then, seventy per cent of German households possessed a radio, while the Goebbels ministry planned to set up six thousand loudspeaker towers in city streets to bring propaganda directly to the people. Radio was also used as…

In these ways, Goebbels succeeded in putting propaganda at the centre of German speakers’ political and cultural life.

The Nazi régime had begun to construct a system of repression and political surveillance within weeks of taking power in 1933, and by 1936 the network of police and SS terror covered the whole Reich. The Nazi régime imposed two forms of repression on its political opponents and other dissidents. The first was developed through state channels; the second came from the activities of Party institutions, primarily Himmler’s Schulzstaffeln (SS), but also the Party Security organisation, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD). The framework for repression was supplied by the Emergency Decree that followed the Reichstag Fire in February 1933.

A state of emergency remained permanently in force. It allowed the police to take political suspects into ‘protective custody’. On 17 June 1936, Himmler was appointed Chief of the German Police, with extraordinary powers over the whole population. The repression of political enemies of the new régime produced a large prison population which was housed in a number of concentration camps set up from 1933 on. Between 1933 and 1939 approximately 225,000 Germans were imprisoned for ‘political crimes,’ as defined by the régime.

Hitler’s own SS guard, parading on 9 November 1935, the twelfth anniversary of the failed Munich Putsch.

The Nazi régime also pursued a programme of ‘biological politics’ to create a ‘healthy’ German race and to stamp out ‘alien elements’ in the population. It viewed the ‘new Germany’ primarily in racial terms, with the Germanic people destined to become one of Nature’s highest species. To create this it was considered essential for the régime to root out those genetically undesirable elements within the German race in order to prevent biological degeneration. Their concept of racial ‘purity’ had its theory in the eugenic theories popular with sections of the scientific establishment in Europe, Britain and the USA. These suggested that human populations, like those in the animal kingdom, were subject to Darwin’s laws of natural selection. A healthy race, therefore, required the elimination of those who had physical or mental defects, or who introduced alien blood into the traditional racial stock. This pseudo-scientific view of racial policy was expressed by Hitler in his Mein Kampf. Once in power, he established an apparatus of laws and structures whose task was to cleanse the race.

On 26 July 1933, a Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny was announced, which allowed the state to compulsorily sterilise anyone deemed to be a threat to the biological health of the population. In 1936, a Reich Committee for Hereditary Health Questions was established to oversee the eugenic programme, and in the summer of 1939 Hitler formally approved the ‘euthanasia’ programme, to kill the physically and mentally handicapped. The state also proceeded against prostitutes, abortionists and homosexuals for ‘crimes against the race’. Altogether, about fifty thousand homosexuals were punished and five thousand were sent to concentration camps.

Persecution & Emigration of Jews, 1933-39:

Anti-Semitism also intensified. Many Jews were hounded from office or imprisoned in the first wave of lawless anti-Semitism in 1933. In September, at the Nuremberg Party Congress, the anti-Jewish Laws were pronounced. The subsequent Reich Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935 defined who was and was not a Jew. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour published the same day forbade intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans but also covered relations with blacks, Sinti and Roma. These laws linked the eugenic programme with anti-Semitism. Over the next four years, the Jewish community was gradually excluded from business and the professions, through a programme known as Aryanization, lost citizen status and entitlement to a number of welfare provisions.

The aim of the régime, at this point, was to encourage Jewish emigration About half of Germany’s Jews did emigrate between 1933 and 1939, forty-one thousand of them to Palestine under the terms of the Ha’avarah Agreement made with Zionist organisations in Palestine on the transfer of emigrants and their property from Germany. In an unlikely ‘collaboration’ with the SS, training camps were set up in Germany for emigrants to acquire the skills needed in their new life in Palestine. This process slowed down by the late 1930s as the receiver states limited further Jewish immigration. Following the London Conference (1939) on Palestine, the British Government published a White Paper which proposed a limit to Jewish immigration from Europe, restrictions on Jewish land purchases, and a program for creating an independent state to replace the Mandate within ten years.

This was seen by the Zionists as a betrayal of the mandatory terms, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. In response, Zionists organised Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine. At the same time, anti-semitic activity in Germany intensified. On 9 November 1938, at the instigation of leading racists in the Nazi movement, a nationwide pogrom destroyed thousands of synagogues, prayer houses and Jewish businesses. In all, 177 synagogues were destroyed and 7,500 shops. Kristallnacht, the ‘Night of Broken Glass’, signalled the start of a more violent phase in Nazi racial policy.

The Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson, was a reactionary on most matters. In this, he shared many views with his friend and neighbour in Auckland, the Marquess of Londonderry. He disliked Labour politicians, detested the unions and loathed Communism. But on the moral question of Fascism, he was a progressive and entirely opposed to the views of his neighbour, who believed he could influence British Foreign Policy in the direction of appeasing Hitler. Henson was one of the few establishment figures who, alongside Winston Churchill, took a stand against the Nazis in 1936. On 29 January, the same day that Charley and Edie Londonderry were beginning a tour of Germany, the Bishop began a series of outspoken attacks on Nazism and anti-Semitism which drew him to national attention. He wrote in his diary:

‘My speech on the persecution of the Jews has made me so prominent that I am afraid the Jews will be disappointed when they realise how little weight the Bishop of Durham carries in any quarter.’

Quoted by Denis Blakeway (2010), The Last Dance (see ‘Sources’ below), p. 77.

Also in his diary, he dismissed Londonderry’s visit to Germany as ‘utterly wrong-headed’. Hitler relied on his ambassador-at-large, Joachim von Ribbentrop, for advice on how to approach the British and bring about his longed-for Anglo-German alliance. It was Ribbentrop who arranged for the Londonderrys’ visit. Hitler and his diplomatic ‘expert’ were both convinced that Edward VIII and his friendly aristocrats such as the Marquess had great influence in government affairs, and could be used to shift British foreign policy towards a lasting settlement with Germany. They simply failed to comprehend the way that prominent figures in public life in Britain behaved. Ribbentrop even went so far as to suggest offering a substantial bribe to Churchill as a means of curbing his hostility to Germany. Ribbentrop and Londonderry were both snobs and shared an archaic belief in the power of the aristocracy to change the destiny of nations. During the visit, the Marchioness struck up a flirtatious relationship with Göring which she kept up by correspondence on returning to Britain. She sent him silver-framed portraits of herself and her daughter Mairi painted by the fashionable Hungarian society portraitist, Philip de Lászlo. The couple were treated to an excerpt from Wagner’s Ring and a propaganda film showing Germany’s armed forces, followed by a speech by Hitler which Londonderry described as ‘stirring’.

Hitler and Londonderry engaged in a two-hour conversation, during which the latter pointed out that in Britain there was rather less fear of Bolshevism than in Germany. Ribbentrop then insinuated himself into the conversation, referring to a report that ‘international Jews were making common cause with the Bolshevists’. Hitler, probably aware of how badly this subject would go down in Britain, did not respond to the prompt, and Londonderry was spared a tirade about ‘the conspiracy of international Jewry.’ Ribbentrop and Londonderry had talked a great deal during the visit, and the question of the Nazi attitude to the Jews was raised several times. Charley returned to the subject in his letter of thanks, writing of his concern that the British did not like persecution and warning ‘with the greatest diffidence’ that the Nazis were taking on a ‘tremendous’ force which would stand in the way of what they wanted to achieve. But he went on to excuse his impertinence by showing that, despite his warning, he did share Ribbentrop’s outlook:

‘I have no great affection for the Jews. It is possible to trace their participation in most of of the international disturbances which have created so much havoc in different countries.’

Quoted in Blakeway, p. 86.

Edie had shared similar sentiments in her correspondence with Goering, telling him that the British press was hostile to Nazism because it was ‘controlled to a large extent by Jews’. ‘Casual’ anti-Semitism of this kind was not restricted to members of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, neither was it to be found only among Conservatives. It was commonplace across most sections of society and pre-dated the rise of Fascism across the continent. Many people made casual remarks that today would be deemed quite unacceptable. Respected authors, even radicals such as George Orwell, and highly cultured liberal economists such as John Maynard Keynes and Sidney Webb littered their writings with disparaging remarks about the Jews, as did politicians across the spectrum, and some senior churchmen. But this was very different from the thought-through, committed and codified anti-Semitism of the Nazis, which Londonderry politely and hesitantly warned Ribbentrop did not go down well in Britain. Unattractive though his words to Ribbentrop were, at least he gave a warning about spreading these ideas and prejudices. Most of the stream of distinguished visitors to Germany that year never raised the subject of anti-Semitism, preferring to keep quiet and enjoy the hospitality.

One man who was not keeping quiet was the Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson, who kept up his very public campaign on the subject. On 4 February, he sent a ‘rocket’ to The Times about the celebrations of the University of Heidelburg’s 550th anniversary, urging a boycott. The ancient university had driven out its Jewish professors, and Jewish students were also denied admission. He fulminated:

‘It cannot be right that the universities of Great Britain, which we treasure as the very citadels of sound learning, because they are vigilant guardians of intellectual freedom, should openly fraternise with with the avowed enemies of both.’

Quoted in Blakeway, op.cit., p.86.

Henson’s attacks on Nazi anti-Semitism usually brought a torrent of abusive letters from British anti-Semites and Fascists, and this time was no exception. As well as a private post bag, there were letters from Tory ‘grandees’ to The Times as well as angry letters in the German press attacking his stance. But to the Jews, he was a hero and he received letters from German Jews begging for help in getting their children out of Germany. Jews in America prayed for him, and in Britain, he became the unofficial champion of the Jewish cause. The day after the letter had appeared in The Times, Henson went to address the congregation of the West London Synagogue. The hall was packed with prominent British Jews, and the Bishop spoke strongly and movingly against the Nazi oppression for forty minutes. A few days later, he received a letter from Victor Gollancz, the left-wing publisher, enclosing a proof copy of The Yellow Spot, a book written for his influential Left Book Club about Nazi atrocities, asking him to write a preface for it. Henson was horrified by what he read, deeming it the most complete documentary record so far issued of the persecution of the Jews in Germany. The Bishop, however, was privately warned to steer clear of the project: the publisher was widely regarded as a Communist, a tool of the Bolsheviks. But Henson insisted on going ahead, saying that he could not go back on his word so he wrote the preface and sent it to Gollancz. He reflected in his diary…

‘… I seem to be driven into championing these persecuted Jews by the logic of events… who would not applaud that German who, in the interests of elementary models, killed Hitler? I should give them a Christian burial without hesitation.’

Ibid., p. 87.

In February 1936 Henson was most likely to have been the only bishop in Britain, and indeed the whole world, urging tyrannicide and denying the injunction of the sixth commandment. Eight years later, however, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor, was among those taking part in the failed attempt to kill Hitler at his headquarters in East Prussia. He paid for this with his life, along with his co-conspirators.

The German Bid for Cultural Hegemony, 1936-39:

On 16 August, the XIth Olympiad came to an end in Berlin with the closing ceremonies. Although more muted than the opening, the closing was nonetheless spectacular. The flag-carrying athletes marched the length of the arena, filled to capacity, before coming to a halt beneath the Olympic flame, which flickered brightly in the darkness in its steel brazier. After the President of the International Olympic Committee had spoken, the Olympic flag was slowly lowered from its high mast, distant cannons boomed a farewell salute and the Olympic flame was extinguished. Then, Hitler rose from his seat as the crowds stood, all saluting him, and sang Deutschland, Deutschland űber Alles. As the awe-struck British government observer, Sir Henry ‘Chips’ Channon wrote that ‘the Olympic Games, the great German display of power, and bid for recognition were over.’ But what had been a triumph for Germany was viewed with disquiet in London. Those, such as Chips Channon or Lord Rennell, who both returned singing the praises of Nazi Germany, failed to persuade their colleagues and peers.

Other distinguished guests followed them to Germany to attend the Nuremberg party rally and to pay homage to Hitler, ‘the greatest German of the age’ as David Lloyd George ‘dubbed’ him after his visit. However, such views did not reflect those of the majority in Whitehall or Westminster. While many, if not most, appeared to have sympathised with Germany’s claims about its harsh treatment after the First World War and had condoned Hitler’s move into the Rhineland in the spring of 1936, very few admired Fascism at home or abroad. The diarist and MP Harold Nicolson stayed with Channon a month after the Games, and found, to his disgust, that he and his wife had fallen under the ‘champagne-like’ influence of Ribbentrop. He heard the arguing ‘that we should let gallant little Germany glut her fill of the reds in the East and keep decadent France quiet while she does so.’ Nicolson told him flatly ‘that this may be expedient but… it is wrong.’ He then gave the American-born Channon a short but stirring homily on British values and German faults:

‘We represent a certain type of civilised mind, and… we are sinning against the light if we betray that type. We stand for tolerance, truth, liberty and good humour. They stand for violence, oppression, untruthfulness and bitterness.’

Harold Nicholson, Letters and Diaries, 20 September 1936, p.273.

The Symbolism & Propaganda of the Spanish Civil War:

‘Lives there a man with soul so dead,

He was not, in the Thirties, Red?’

Meanwhile, the Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936. It was at once acknowledged as the showdown between the Left and Right in Europe, and acclaimed by both sides as the ‘great Crusade’ of their time. It was really a war about the fate of Spain, fought out by Spaniards to the bitter end. Major Franco raised the standard of rebellion against the legally-elected government of the leftist Popular Front, for the Catholic Church against ‘Godless Communism’. The British government once more fell into the pious position of ‘non-intervention’ and persuaded twenty-seven other governments to back this position officially, although many of them actually did intervene. In Britain, broad public opinion was at first bemused by the conflict, as news of atrocities on both sides was reported in the press. Most of the British popular press was on the side of the Republicans, but for the Conservative organs, they were always ‘the Reds’ or ‘the Communists’, though, in fact, they ranged through the whole spectrum, from anarchists to social democrats. The anarchist poet, Herbert Read, in his introduction to the Surrealist exhibition in London in 1936, described the uncertainty of the age in the following language:

In a few days the face of the world may change. Bugles blow, klaxons screech, an immense machine begins to move and we find ourselves separated, segregated, regimented, drafted into armies and navies and workshops. Bull-necked demagogues inject a poisonous propaganda into our minds and then the storm of steel breaks above us; our bodies become so much manure for an acid soil; and our ideas, our aspirations, the whole structure of our civlisation, becomes a history which the future may not even record.

Herbert Read (1936), Introduction to Surrealism. London: Faber & Faber.

The ‘storm of steel’ seemed to be breaking even as the Surrealist exhibition was coming to a close. In Spain, the Fascists bombed civilians, including refugees, and killed hostages; the ‘loyalists’ burned down churches and shot priests. From a distance, it was seen as a war of Communism against Fascism, so most British people didn’t know which side to support. The more politically committed were divided, polarised at first between the right, who tended to support the ‘nationalist’ rebel forces led by the self-promoted General Francisco Franco, and a broad spectrum of liberal and left-wing opinion, who backed the loyalist Republican forces. It was much more than a simple division between Left and Right, however. For many, especially young idealists, artists and writers, and members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Spanish Civil War came to be seen as a titanic struggle, which the sculptor and volunteer Jason Gurney called, …

… a movement comparable with the the great Christian crusades of medieval times.

Jason Gurney (1974), Crusade in Spain. London: Readers’ Union, p. 17.

The young painter, Julian Trevelyan spoke for his generation when he wrote:

Until the Spanish Civil War started in 1936, there was an air of gentle frivolity about our life in London … for the next three years our thoughts and consciences were turned to Spain.

Quoted in Tom Buchanan (2007), The Impact of the Spanish Civil War on Britain. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press (‘Sussex Studies in Spanish History’).

It may have been in reality a battle between Spaniards, the complex origins of which went deep into the Spanish past, but for those young radicals watching from Britain, it was the first act of a drama that unless the Fascists were stopped, could lead to to the cataclysm of a pan-European war, that all dreaded. James Albrighton, a Communist medical student, came to the view that …

… unless we took action by not allowing the Fascists, and Nazis, to take control of Spain, then it would only be a matter of time … before they would unleash the same action in Europe.

James Albrighton, Diary (Marx Memorial Library)

James Albrighton left to fight in Spain that autumn. With the capital threatened, the Republican government called for help from abroad. Spurred on by their own government’s strict ‘neutrality’ and longing to have a crack at Fascism, British men and women on the left rallied to the cause. In England at least, they tended to be young intellectuals, often with an artistic or poetic bent. Idealism, combined with a desire for adventure, took them to Spain. They all wanted to fight Fascism, but their motivations were various: some saw the conflict in terms of democracy versus totalitarianism, others as a chance to stop the advance of Hitler and Mussolini and to prevent the development of a ‘world war in embryo’. Jason Gurney wrote:

‘… the war became a microcosm of all the ideological divisions of the time – freedom and repression, constitutional and arbitrary authority, nationalism and internationalism, the people and the aristocracy. Catholicism and Marxism … everybody saw Spain as the epitome of the particular conflict with which they were concerned.’

Jason Gurney, loc. cit., p.18.

In Britain, communication across the class gap in the Thirties was almost impossible. In Spain, in this respect, everything was suddenly simple. Most of the men who fought had brought themselves to see the war as a straight confrontation between good and evil. The British volunteers who arrived at the frontier left their socially self-conscious personalities behind and stepped across into Spain as men and brothers. It was like an absolution if the workers with whom they fought were Spanish because the tangle of conscience-stricken class feelings the British middle-class volunteers carried around with them was incomprehensible to such workers. Many of the volunteers were themselves workers, especially the hundreds of unemployed miners from South Wales, whose convictions had been built over generations of deprivation and struggle. Franco had had a promise of support from Mussolini before the war began and ideological allies had supplied him with arms since the beginning, in spite of the elaborate precautions of League’s Non-Intervention Committee. But when Italian troops moved in on Franco’s side, the Left redoubled its efforts to rally support for the Republicans. Writers and painters from all over Europe set to work as propagandists.

The first volunteers to go to Spain were no doubt motivated by their politics but also moved by a spirit of romantic adventure. In the early days of the conflict, those who wanted to fight had to make their own arrangements. For this reason, the pioneers were often from middle-class backgrounds; young men and women who could pay for their own passage and travel independently. The CPGB became more actively involved in recruitment when, later in the autumn, the International Brigades were formed. The first amateur ‘International Brigade’ arrived quite early in the conflict: among these volunteers, there were many others from different backgrounds and walks of life. They were joined by thousands of volunteers from over fifty other countries around the world.

Enormous numbers died on both sides of the conflict, many by execution. ‘Court martials’ were convened on the spot and men were shot in ‘batches’ within minutes. This even applied to men on the same side, and the term ‘Trotskyite traitor’ was a common verdict. It was the sight and sound of these fratricidal executions that revolted the ‘civilised’ western participants. They saw no real connection between this vindictive bloody mess and the social justice to which they were committed. What all of them found when they arrived on the battlefield was too often a sordid reality of disunity, inefficiency and poor equipment. The first ecstatic sense of catharsis did not long survive in most intellectual volunteers. The fact is that Spain turned out to be all too foreign for them: the feelings which drove Spaniards to massacre one another in droves turned out to have little or no relation to those which had inspired the idealism of the British Left, most of which was derived from their Protestant consciences. The British Labour movement has always owed more to Methodism than to Marxism. This Dissenting idealism was utterly alien to the Spanish fighting their private war.

Most of those departing in the late summer and early autumn of 1936 were already Communists. Among them were many young Marxists who often came from solidly middle-class backgrounds, converts to a rigid ideology that seemed to offer certainty in a world of encircling doubt and darkness. They were intellectuals, artists and writers. The poet John Cornford was the most celebrated of the early martyrs for the cause. After winning a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, he spent a year at the London School of Economics, where he came under the influence of Harold Laski, the prominent Marxist intellectual. By the time Civil War had come to Spain, though still only twenty, he had been a Communist for more than five years. He had been particularly moved by the plight of the unemployed in the distressed areas and the sight of the hunger marchers as they made their way to London. Cornford was completely taken up with the orthodoxy of Communism. Loyalty to the doctrines of Stalinist Russia meant, in 1936, buying into the show trials, terror and mass murder. He did so with equanimity.

There was little fighting in Spain at the end of August and the beginning of September. John Cornford’s principal duty was therefore to take charge of the guarding of defectors who came over from the Fascist lines. This gave him time for writing poetry, and his personal journey from misery and loneliness to the exhilaration of commitment and combat was distilled into three poems written in September 1936. He must have written them in his mind, perhaps while on sentry duty, and then pencilled them into his notebook. He made few alterations in the way that other war poets did. The first, copied into his notebook on 2 September, is called Full Moon at Tierz: Before the Storming of Huesca. The poem’s penultimate verse encapsulates why so many British radicals saw Spain as the first battle in a looming revolutionary fight against not only Fascism but also the capitalist forces that had brought the lasting poverty and unemployment of the Depression years:

England is silent under the same moon,

From Clydeside to the gutted pits of Wales,

The innocent mask conceals the that soon,

Here, too, our freedom’s swaying in the scales.

O understand before too late,

Freedom was never held without a fight.

John Cornford, Understand the Weapon: Manchester: Carcanet New Press, p. 38.

The Storming of Huesca never took place. Instead, five days later John Cornford was taken sick with severe stomach cramps. He also had a high fever and bad diarrhoea, so his commander decided he should go to the hospital. He was carried on a truck to a nearby militia first aid post and from there to a hospital in Lerida. On 12 September, his thirty-seventh day in Spain, he was back in Barcelona, ill and exhausted. It was decided that he should return to Britain, recruit a band of volunteers and then return to Spain in three weeks’ time. Shortly before he departed for England, he wrote a final poem, ‘A Letter from Aragon’, which carried a message from a Spanish ‘comrade-in-arms’:

Tell the workers of England

This was not a war of our own making,

We did not seek it.

But if ever the Fascists again rule in Barcelona

It will be as a heap of ruins with us workers beneath it.

John Cornford, loc. cit., p. 41

Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts & The Battle of Cable Street:

After the Olympics were over, the Mitford sisters, Diana and Unity, stayed in Germany in order to attend the Parteitag at Nuremberg, as Hitler’s honoured guests. During her stay, Diana reported to her lover, Sir Oswald Mosley, that Hitler had rejected her request for more secret funds for his British Union of Fascists (BUF). His movement had failed to prosper in the years since he founded it in 1932. It had not won a single parliamentary seat and, after the violence of the rally at Olympia in June 1934, membership had declined to a paltry five thousand. By the autumn of 1936, however, thanks to a national campaign and changed tactics, the number was on the increase once more and had climbed back to ten thousand. Mosley shamelessly copied Mussolini and Hitler, adopting their uniforms, policies and style of speech-making. To some extent, this plagiarism worked: thousands came to see him and see the spectacle of the rallies. He claimed that Fascism was ‘the only alternative to destructive Communism’ and adopted a mesmerising stare, which his son called his ‘lighthouse trick’. It gave him an air of fanaticism that some found funny but which many others found frightening, vain and repellent.

Mosley turned increasingly to the anti-Semitism of Hitler to energise the movement and gain the working-class support he needed. He encouraged the Fascist movement’s newspapers, Blackshirt and Action to publish crude anti-Jewish propaganda, mimicking the obscenities of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer. In his speeches, he blamed Jewish City financiers for Britain’s economic problems, a sinister strategy which seemed to work. The East End of London was a particular target for Mosley and his thugs. He was stirring up racial hatred in this area by blaming the Jews for the high rates of unemployment, rent increases and poor wages. In 1936 there were about a third of a million Jewish people living in Britain, less than one per cent of the total population. About half of them lived in the East End, most of them centred on a densely populated area centred on Brick Lane. During the Depression years, the area had suffered badly; it was a pocket of poverty every bit as anything in the ‘depressed areas’ of south Wales and the north, with ‘the eternal slums, the litter, the filth, the futility of it all’ (Yesterday’s Witness: The Battle of Cable Street).

Most of the older generation spoke only Yiddish and lived in an enclosed community of crowded tenements, synagogues, baths and Kosher butchers. They tended to work in the clothing and furniture trades. They were an obvious target for the Jew-baiters of the BUF, who regularly smashed shop windows, and shouted racist insults during street meetings and marches through Jewish quarters: The Yids, the Yids, We’ve got to get rid of the Yids! Young Jews did not take these attacks with the forbearance of their parents and the official Jewish organisations that represented them. Even though they were British-born and British-educated, young Jews felt alienated and stigmatised by the anti-Semitism that flourished in British society. They saw Germany, bolstered by the success of the Olympic Games, and the Civil War in Spain, and feared that the Fascist contagion would soon spread to Britain. Many became Communists, seeing the Party as the most vehement opponent of Fascism. Others formed street gangs in self-defence. When, in the summer of 1936, the BUF announced a mass march through east London on Sunday 4 October, a coalition formed to confront Mosley’s blackshirts.

The older generation of Jews was dead-set against the organisation of counter-demonstrations. The Jewish Board of Deputies urged people to stay away and the Jewish Chronicle told readers in the East End to remain indoors and pull down the shutters. But their advice was ignored. The leaders of the Jewish community had lost control of their people. Labour too urged its people to keep off the streets; the party newspaper, the Daily Herald, argued that the best way to defeat Fascism was to ignore it. Even the Communist Party kept quiet at first since no official organisation wanted to be seen to be encouraging action that might well lead to law-breaking and violence. For most, however, taking to the streets to stop Mosley’s march was a spontaneous expression of hatred of Fascism. Spain was the constant refrain. For Charlie Goodman, an East End Jew who was not a Communist, it was the motivating factor:

“… it was not a question of a punch-up between the Jews and the fascists … in my case it meant a continuation of the struggle in Spain.”

Quoted in Peter Catterall (ed.), The Battle of Cable Street, Contemporary Record, vol. 8, no. 1, (summer 1994), p. 120.

Those planning to take part in the counter-demonstration were by no means all Jews or Communists. The bleak turn of events abroad was a mobilising force for thousands with a liberal view of the world, whatever their race or party affiliation, and halting Mosley in the East End had a wider significance, as Harold Smith, an eighteen-year-old office worker and activist, remembered: ‘we were young, enthusiastic, Spain was on, Hitler was on the march. It was a British contribution to stop Fascism.’ (Catterall, loc. cit., p. 125).

Back in the UK, at the beginning of October, Mosley’s Fascists stood in rank near the Tower of London, awaiting their leader, dressed in the black uniforms of the BUF. At first, the demonstration was peaceful enough. There was a diversion from a roof-top when a man holding a red flag gave a clinched fist salute. A few people shouted ‘Go to Germany!’ and ‘Down with Fascism!’ The were greeted with the usual chanting of ‘We must get rid of the Yids!’ Many of the anti-Fascists were shouting, ‘They shall not pass’, the war-cry of the Spanish Republicans defending Madrid. The story of the Battle of Cable street has been well told, and the legendary defenders of Whitechapel did not allow the BUF to pass that day. ‘Kettled’ by the police in Royal Mint Street, until the disturbances were over, the Fascists the had their demonstration ‘cancelled’ by the Police Commissioner, after consulting the Home Secretary. Mosley’s men marched ‘in orderly fashion’ to their headquarters in Westminster. For the Left, the Battle of Cable Street was a tremendous victory. For a brief moment, it brought together a fractured movement, divided on most of the major issues of the time. For many men, such as Frank Lesser, it provided the inspiration and motivation for them to go and fight Franco:

“It seemed to me that the fight against Fascism had to be fought in England, it had to be fought, and I went to fight it a year later in Spain too.

Quoted by Catterall (ed.), loc.cit., p.131.

Paths to European War, 1937-39:

Those, like Frank Lesser, who followed John Cornford to Spain to fight there suffered an apalling casualty rate. Altogether 2,762 British volunteers fought in Spain, some 1,700 were wounded and 543 died there, nearly all within the first year of the war. There was no break for those battling Fascism in Spain as 1937 dawned. Cornford himself, now a battle-worn warrior, had returned to Spain in October and received a head wound in the defence of Madrid. On 28 December, with his white bandage making him an easy target, Cornford was seen climbing up the brow of a hill to reconnoitre. He was shot in the head again, this time fatally. It was just one day after his twenty-first birthday. His body was never recovered. The death of the young poet reminded many of the loss of the previous generation’s brightest and best and presaged more to come. As one undergraduate at Oxford later recalled, they knew then that another world war was almost inevitable.

By the spring of 1937, there were thirty thousand Germans and eighty thousand Italians in Spain. The Germans, like the Italians, marched, but they also flew planes. The Republicans had no planes and depended on freelance pilots supplied by the Spanish government, to whom huge sums of money were paid. The deliberate bombing of civilians, many of them refugees in the Pyrenees, was regarded at first as an act of unimaginable barbarity, though it soon became a regular occurrence. When the Germans bombed the Basque town of Guernica for Franco and practically wiped it out, the whole world was outraged and Picasso’s picture went on tour all over Europe, including Britain.

The civil war was to continue until 1939, but most of the surviving British volunteers went home in 1937, having had a rough war: twenty-five per cent of them had been killed and more than seventy-five per cent of the survivors were wounded. Even as they disembarked from the ferry giving their clench-fisted salutes, it was clear that the result of the Great Confrontation between Good and Evil was a victory for Evil, and it was beginning to look like the rehearsal for something much worse. The Fascists had been greatly encouraged by their Spanish adventure. Hitler and Mussolini, now in the ‘Rome-Berlin Axis’, began a gigantic build-up of their armed forces. Hitler rightly interpreted the farce which Non-Intervention had turned out to be as a green light for his planned conquest of the continent, and after the bombing of Guernica, Goebbels’ propaganda machine went into a fury of action to try to persuade everybody that the Basques had blown up their own city in order to discredit Franco.

A 1939 poster charting the growth of Grossendeutschland (Greater Germany). Hitler, an Austrian, created a large Gemany in 1939, but it only lasted for six years.

In 1938-39, the areas absorbed into the Greater German Reich lost their distinct identity entirely. For Austria the loss of sovereignty brought some advantages in rising employment and production, but its status as the Ostmark in a large Germany diminished the influence and and prestige of its élite. Opponents of the Nazis before the Anschluss were sent to the concentration camp set up in 1939 at Mauthausen. Anti-Semitic legislation was applied at once, and thousands of Viennese Jews were dispossessed within months of the German takeover. The onset of Nazi repression and racism made a mockery of the plebiscite organised in Austria and Germany on 10 April 1938, when 99.07% of voters apparently endorsed the union of the two states.

The extensive Germanisation of the Austrian armed forces and public affairs created resentment among population, the majority of which had longed to be part of Greater Germany before 1938. The whole structure of the Sudetenland become part of the Nazi ‘Gau’ system and with the conquest of Poland in 1939, the Wartheland became another Party region in which a ruthless programme of Germanisation was imposed.

All over Europe, these German victories brought other Fascist movements into positions of power, keen to imitate the German example. Vidkun Quisling, pictured on the election poster below, had founded the Norwegian Nasjonal Samling in 1933, though it was not until 1942 that he was appointed Prime Minister. He said then:

“The new Norway must build on Germanic principles, on a Norwegian and a Nordic foundation.”

The Nazi Movement in the 1930s was part of a broader European political shift to the extreme right, so that during the war Germany was able to exploit this development by supporting puppet Fascist governments in occupied states, such as Norway, or winning the active collaboration of quasi-fascist régimes, often fuelled by the powerful wave of anti-Communist movements across the Continent which was also to produce thousands of volunteers from other European states to fight against ‘the Soviet enemy’.

Nazi Germany’s chief ally, from the ‘Pact of Steel’ of May 1939, was Mussolini’s Italy. The Italian dictator extricated himself from the Pact in 1939 but then joined the war on Germany’s side, and in the Balkans and North Africa he got German military co-operation. More than two hundred thousand volunteers joined the élite Waffen SS divisions at the beginning of the war, from all over Europe. These were formed late in 1939 and even included a small British Frei Korps.

General Franco, victorious in 1939.

General Franco won the Spanish Civil War earlier in 1939, having received aid from both Germany and Italy during that war, but he remained neutral in the 1939-45 war, though sympathetic to his fellow fascist dictators.

Hitler’s plan for the Nazification of the whole European continent were racial, political and economic. German planners saw Europe in terms of a strict hierarchy of races. A more privileged position place was to be accorded to the ‘Nordic’ peoples of Scandinavia and the Low Countries. The Slavic peoples of the east, however, were to be treated as inferior beings, fit only to labour for the new master race (Herrenvolk). The Latinate and Balkan peoples of southern Europe had an ambiguous place in Nazi long-term plans, as allies but not equals of the Nordic races. Under German pressure, much of Europe had fascist or pro-fascist régimes. For example, in Slovakia the clerical-fascist Slovak People’s Republic under Josef Tiso was installed in power in 1939, and was entirely subordinate to Berlin. The process of centralising continental finance and trade on Berlin began in 1940.

The giant Reichswerke Hermann Göring, a state-owned holding company, took over most of the captured heavy industry and its directors planned a massive programme of industrial development stretching from Germany to the Donetz Basin in Ukraine in order to shift the main weight of European industry to the Eurasian heartland ruled by Germany. Of course, all this was dependent on the successful invasion of the Soviet Union following Operation Barbarossa from June 1941.

The primary, racial element of the Nazification of Europe only became possible once the conquests had made it possible to export the biological politics of the Reich to the rest of Europe. This included the kidnapping of children deemed to have the necessary ‘aryan’ features to be brought up in the Reich, and the liquidation, through murder or neglect, of psychiatric patients and the mentally or physically disabled. But at its core was the opportunity to do something about the so-called ‘Jewish question’. The régime’s Jewish policy went through a number of stages after the outbreak of war.

At first, Hitler hoped for some kind of compulsory emigration, or ‘expatriation’, perhaps to the French island of Madagascar, which he saw as a potential tropical ghetto where Jews would die of disease and malnutrition.

While this option was not entirely closed in 1940 and 1941, the Nazi authorities began a programme of ghetto-building in Europe itself, with hundreds of thousands of Jews being transported across Europe to ghettoes in the east, where Jewish Councils administered them in uneasy collaboration with the German commands. Before the invasion of Russia itself, Hitler ordered harsh measures against ‘Jewish-Bolsheviks’ and thousands of Jews were were openly murdered and thrown into mass graves throughout eastern Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine. In January 1940, Hitler had promised:

“The Jews shall be annihilated in our land”.

He wasn’t simply referring to the ‘Reich’, but to all the occupied territories. For the racist radicals in the Nazi movement, their whole conception of the war was one of racial struggle in which the Jewish people above all were the enemies of German imperialism. When Germany found itself ruling very large Jewish populations after its conquests in the east, the régime began to explore more extreme solutions to the ‘Jewish question’.

Although the precise dates at which the key decisions were taken have yet to be fully established, it was in July 1941 that that Göring ordered Heydrich to work out a ‘Financial Solution’, and Adolf Eichmann, who was in charge of the rail transports of Jews in Europe, later recalled that Himmler told him at that thime that Hitler wanted “physical extermination”. The systematic murder of Jews began late in 1941, and was extended to the Sinti and Roma in 1942.

Decade’s End – Liberal Democracies & Totalitarian States:

By the end of 1937, there had been a large influx of refugees into Britain from continental Europe, mostly Jewish, but also many Basques, especially children evacuated through Bilbao to the south coast ports of England. The Jewish refugees were so large, and concentrated in London, that they were noticeable on the streets of the capital. The continental cut of their clothes made them conspicuous among its crowds. Despite the mythology which has developed around the legendary Kindertransport in recent years, in 1937 the ordinary refugees were unpopular with most Britons. The well-heeled London attitude seemed to be much the same as that of Duff Cooper, who once announced, ‘Although I loathe anti-Semitism, I do dislike Jews.’

At the other end of the social ladder, a well-known bus conductor on the Swiss Cottage run expressed his feelings by providing a ‘free translation’ and always announced the next stop bilingually: ‘Swiss Cottage – Kleine Schweizer-Haus’. In the 1970s, it was said of the Nazis that they were always most at war with the human mind, and the number of intellectuals among the refugees was disproportionately large; Britain’s universities gained, particularly in the sciences, though the newcomers had very little to do with the most shattering discoveries of the century: the atom had already been split at Cambridge and it was known to a handful of our best physicists that it might be possible to make an atom bomb.

The WLHB was led by Prunella Stack, under whose guidance groups of women in every town and village distorted themselves in orgies of physical training, rolling around in gymnasia and village halls, clad in shorts and satin blouses. The body, which had meant sex in the 1920s now meant health and hygiene. Sunbathing and nudism were also pursuits which, for some reason, had to be done in groups. These activities were derived from nature therapies devised by the Germans. But, on the whole, the effects of mass conditioning were very slight on Britain. In spite of Mosley’s Blackshirts and continuing Communist activity in the late Thirties, true mass thinking on the continental model never truly arrived, and except for football matches and community singing, the British remained, for the most part, a nation of eccentric individuals. This cultural difference with the mass movements taking place on the continent reflected itself in the use of language, as Cutforth himself concluded, writing from the perspective of the mid-seventies:

Mass-man had not arrived in the Thirties, and the life-style of the foetus, protected in the womb of the state from any outside shock, kept at an even temperature and supplied with adequate nourishment, which now seems pretty generally accepted as the high ideal towards which civilisation must make its way, would have seemed unbearable then. How man behaved in masses was only of interest to politicians and advertisers, but each man’s particularity – what made him different – was the cultural staple. …

Words celebrate differences: differences present choices. The chief concern, certainly of education and probably of life itself, was the making of choices between concepts … incorporated in the civilised tradition. The process was still going on and was the raison d’etre of the human race … Even Auden, who willed ‘the death of the old gang’, wrote that Time …

‘… worships language and forgives

Everyone by whom it lives.’

Conclusion: The ‘D’ Words:

Therefore, in seeking to draw our attention to the ‘language’ of recent statements in the House of Commons and their historical parallels in 1930s Germany, Gary Lineker was reminding us of the lessons from history we should have learnt (in school) about the ways in which the Nazis were able to come to power in Germany and to build a system of mass indoctrination and persecution of ethnic minorities. It didn’t begin with mass shootings and gas chambers, though detention camps were an early feature. It began with words, labels like ‘liberal’, ‘decadent’ and ‘conspiracy’, words which are very much still with us today, often applied casually to groups in society by powerful politicians who know no history, or who have conveniently forgotten what they were taught. Lineker was not likening their recent utterances to the acts of genocide of the 1940s, but warning us that stereotyping and stigmatising refugees as ‘invaders’ is not part of the discourse of a ‘civilised tradition’. In doing so, he is a footballer in the tradition of George Curtis who when asked to make the Nazi salute in 1938, simply said ‘Count Me Out’. That’s called ‘Dissent’ and it rests within a long and honourable tradition in Britain. The other ‘D’ words, ‘Discrimination’, ‘Demonisation’, ‘Detention’ and ‘Deportation’, definitely belong to the decades of the 1930s and ’40s, not to the 2020s.

Sources:

René Cutforth (1976), Later than We Thought: A Portrait. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents & Debates: Twentieth-Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Denys Blakeway (2011), The Last Dance: 1936 – The Year Our Lives Changed. London: John Murray (Publishers).

Keith Robbins (1988, 1997), Appeasement (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Featured

Orbán & Fidesz versus Soros, et. al: Whose Values? -The Continuing Confrontation.

Reblogged with new material from Zsuzsanna Szelényi’s new book on Orbán.

Andrew James Chandler's avatarAndrew James

Extract from a Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the 31st Bálványos Summer Free University and Student Camp, 23 July 2022, Tusnádfürdő [Băile Tuşnad]:

We have managed to separate our big debate on the whole gender issue from the debate on EU money, and the two are now moving forward on separate tracks. Here too, our position is simple. We are asking for another offer of tolerance: we do not want to tell them how they should live; we are just asking them to accept that in our country a father is a man and a mother is a woman, and that they leave our children alone.

And we ask them to see to it that George Soros’s army also accepts this. It is important for people in the West to understand that in Hungary and in this part of the world this is not an ideological question…

View original post 10,261 more words

Featured

The Windrush Generation, Seventy-five Years on – 1948-2023: Caribbean Immigrants to Britain; Policy, Music & Culture

This year, 2023, marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks in Essex on 22 June 1948. The ship brought around 500 people from Jamaica and Trinidad to the UK. Many of the new arrivals were employed in state services such as the NHS and public transport filling post-war employment gaps. The Windrush has come to represent the beginning of greater numbers of people from the Caribbean moving and settling in the UK. From 1948 to 1962, there was a virtual open door for immigrants coming into Britain from the remaining colonies and the Commonwealth. The British debate over immigration up to about 1957, the year I was added to the natural increase statistics of Nottinghamshire, had been characterised by contradiction and paradox. On the one hand, overt ‘racialism’ had been discredited by the Nazi persecutions, and Britain’s identity was tied up in its identity as the vanquishing angel of a political culture founded on racial theories and practices. This meant that the few remaining unapologetic racialists, the anti-Semitic fringe and the pro-apartheid colonialists were considered outcasts from civilised discourse. Official documents from the period describe the handful of MPs who were outspokenly racialist as ‘nutters’. Oswald Mosley, who would have been a likely puppet prime minister had Hitler’s plans for invading Britain succeeded, was let out of prison after the war and allowed to yell at his small band of unrepentant fascist supporters, such was the lack of threat he posed to the King’s peace. The public propaganda of the Empire and Commonwealth instead made much of the concept of a family of races cooperating together under the Union flag. When Mosley announced his attention to march with members of his new Union Movement from Ridley Road to Tottenham, thousands of ex-servicemen, Jews and Gentiles, gathered in Kingsland High Road to prevent the march. On 22 March 1949, the Home Secretary banned it. In Whitehall, the Colonial Office strongly supported the right of black Caribbean people to migrate to the Mother Country, fending off the worries of the Ministry of Labour about the effects of unemployment during economic downturns. When the five hundred immigrants had arrived from the West Indies on the converted German troopship, SS Windrush, in 1948, the Home Secretary had declared that:
… ‘though some people feel it would be a bad thing to give the coloured races of the Empire the idea that… they are the equals of the people of this country… we recognise the right of the colonial peoples to be treated as men and brothers of the people of this country.’ 
Successive governments, Labour and Tory, saw Britain as the polar opposite of Nazi Germany, a benign and unprejudiced island which was connected to the modern world. The Jewish migration of the late thirties and forties had brought one of the greatest top-ups of skill and energy that any modern European state had ever seen. In addition, the country already had a population of about seventy-five thousand black and Asian people at the end of the war, and Labour shortages suggested that it needed many more. The segregation of the American Deep South and the development of apartheid policies in South Africa were regarded with high-minded contempt. However, while pre-war British society had never been as brutal about race as France or Spain, never mind Germany, it was still riddled with racialism from top to bottom of the perennial pyramid of class and race. Within Britain itself, Coventry – despite its reputation as a welcoming city for migrants – was not immune from the sort of racial prejudice and intolerance which was beginning to disfigure Britain nationally, especially the barbs directed at the Caribbean communities. Estate agents in Coventry began to operate a colour bar in October 1954, following the following editorial in the Coventry Standard, the weekly local newspaper:
The presence of so many coloured people in Coventry is becoming a menace. Hundreds of black people are pouring into the larger cities of Britain including Coventry and are lowering the standard of life. They live on public assistance and occupy common lodging houses to the detriment of suburban areas… They frequently are the worse for liquor – many of them addicted to methylated spirits – and live in overcrowded conditions sometimes six to a room. 
These were not the outpourings of a bigoted correspondent, but the major editorial, the like of which had appeared in local ‘conservative’ newspapers before the War, questioning the arrival in the city of the sweepings of the nation, in reference to the destitute Welsh miners who arrived in Coventry in the thirties looking for work. But these new stereotypes, though just as inaccurate, were far more virulent, and could not be so easily counteracted and contradicted by people who appeared so different from, and therefore to, the native Coventrians. The reality, of course, was at variance from this obvious conflation of the Caribbean and Asian minorities.  The West Indian community was an even smaller minority in Coventry than the South Asian community in 1961, amounting to only twelve hundred. Although the Standard‘s editor may have been conscious of the housing pressures in neighbouring Birmingham, the vision of black people pouring into cities throughout Britain was, again, a clear exaggeration, especially for the early fifties. This can only be explained by the observation that ‘racialism’ seems to have infected a wide spectrum of Coventry society at this time, including the engineering trade unions. The Census of 1961 below showed that immigration from the new Commonwealth over the previous ten years had been a trickle rather than a stream, accounting for only 1.5 per cent of the population. The local population was increasing by approximately four thousand per year between 1951 and 1966,  but the proportion of this attributable to general migration declined dramatically over these fifteen years. Between 1951 and 1961 a Department of the Environment survey estimated that migration accounted for 44.5 per cent of population growth in what it referred to as the Coventry belt (presumably, this included the nearby urbanised towns and villages of north and east Warwickshire). In many areas of the country in the early fifties, white working-class people hardly ever came across anyone of another colour after the black GIs returned home at the end of the war. Neither were Irish, Polish and Eastern European migrants free from discrimination, although their white skins were more welcome. Marika Sherwood emigrated from Hungary first to Australia as a ten-year-old in 1948 with her parents and grandparents. She quickly learnt English and easily assimilated into school life. She was briefly married to an Australian, but her amorphous yearning for Europe led to her re-migration to London, where she formed a circle of native British friends since she knew almost no Hungarians. Sherwood wrote a chapter on The Hungarian Speech Community in Britain for Edwards’ and Alladina’s 1991 book on Multilingualism in the British Isles. Her concluding remarks are perhaps the most significant in her account, in that they draw attention, not so much to discrimination faced by immigrants among their hosts, but to the lack of attention paid by ‘the British’ to questions of migration, assimilation and integration:
‘The British myopia regarding immigration has prevented researchers recognising that some more general questions regarding the absorption and assimilation of immigrants have to be answered before we can begin to understand reactions to Black immigrants or the responses of Black peoples to such host reactions. ‘We need to know the ramifications of meaning behind the lack of hyphenated Britons. We need to know if there are pressures to lose one’s ‘foreignness’ and how these pressures operate. We need to know what the indicators are of this ‘foreignness’ and how these pressures operateand which indicators the natives find least tolerable – and why.’ ‘When we know more we might be able to deal more successfully with some aspects of the racism which greeted and continues to greet Black immigrants.’  Safder Alladina & Viv Edwards (1991), Multilingualism in British Isles. Harlow: Longman, pp. 134-35.
Looking for lodgings on Gillett Road, west Birmingham, 1955. The fact remains that almost as soon as the first ‘Windrush’ migrants had arrived from Jamaica and the other West Indian islands, popular papers were reporting worries about their cleanliness, sexual habits and criminality: ‘No dogs, No blacks, No Irish’ was not a myth, but a perfectly common sign on boarding houses. The hostility and coldness of native British, particularly in the English towns and cities, were quickly reported back by the early migrants. Even Hugh Dalton, a member of the Labour cabinet in 1945-51, talked of the polluting poverty-stricken, diseased nigger communities of the African colonies. Even then, in the mid-fifties, questions of race were obscure and academic for most people, as the country as a whole remained predominantly white. Until at least a decade later, there were only small pockets of ‘coloured’ people in the poorer inner-city areas. There were debates in the Tory cabinets of Churchill, Eden and Macmillan, but most of them never got anywhere near changing immigration policy. Any legislation to limit migration within the Commonwealth would have also applied to the white people of the old dominions too, or it would have been clearly and unacceptably based on racial discrimination. In the fifties, conservatives and socialists alike regarded themselves as civilized and liberal on race, but still showed a tendency to pick and choose from different parts of the Empire and Commonwealth. For instance, the Colonial Office specifically championed…
… ‘the skilled character and proven industry of the West Indians over the unskilled and largely lazy Indians.’ 
Thus, if there were clear rules about how to migrate quietly to Britain in the fifties, they would have stated first, ‘be white’, and second, ‘if you can’t be white, be small in number’, and third, ‘if all else fails, feed the brutes’. The West Indian migration, at least until the mid-eighties, failed each rule. It was mainly male, young and coming not to open restaurants but to work for wages which could, in part, be sent back home. Some official organisations, including the National Health Service and London Transport, went on specific recruiting drives for drivers, conductors, nurses and cleaners, with advertisements in Jamaica. Most of the population shift, however, was driven by the migrants themselves, desperate for a better life, particularly once the popular alternative migration to the USA was closed down in 1952. The Caribbean islands, shown above with the dates they became part of the British Empire, were dependent on sugar or tobacco for most employment and were going through hard times. As the word was passed back about job opportunities, albeit in difficult surroundings, immigration to Britain grew fast to about 36,000 people a year by the late fifties. The scale of the change was equivalent to the total non-white population of 1951 arriving in Britain every two years. The black and Asian population rose to 117,000 by 1961. Although these were still comparatively small numbers, from the first they were concentrated in particular localities, rather than being dispersed. Different West Indian island groups clustered in different parts of London and the English provincial cities – Jamaicans in the south London areas of Brixton and Clapham, Trinidadians in west London’s Notting Hill, islanders from Nevis in Leicester, people from St Vincent in High Wycombe, and so on. The means and manners by which these people migrated to Britain had a huge impact on the later condition of post-war society and deserve special, detailed analysis. The fact that so many of the first migrants were young men who found themselves living without wives, mothers and children inevitably created a wilder atmosphere than they were accustomed to in their island homes. They were short of entertainment as well as short of the social control of ordinary family living. The chain of generational influence was broken at the same time as the male strut was liberated. Drinking dens and gambling, the use of marijuana, ska and blues clubs were the inevitable results. West Indians in West London in 1956. 405,000 people from the Caribbean migrated to Britain between 1948 and 1958, mostly single men. Early black communities in Britain tended to cluster where the first arrivals had settled, which meant in the blighted inner cities. There, street prostitution was more open and rampant in the fifties than it was later so it is hardly surprising that young men away from home for the first time often formed relationships with prostitutes, and that some became pimps themselves. This was what fed the popular press’s hunger for stories to confirm their prejudices about black men stealing ‘our women’. The upbeat, unfamiliar music, illegal drinking and drugs and the sexual appetites of the young immigrants all combined to paint a lurid picture of a new underclass. Henry Gunter & the colour bar; Charles Parker & The Colony: The archive collections at the Library of Birmingham hold material which sheds light on the experiences of those newly arrived in the UK between the 1940s and 1970s. One Of Henry Gunter’s publications on racial inequality, A Man’s A Man, 1954. (ref MS 2165/1/3) Henry Gunter was born in Jamaica but moved to the UK in 1950 which was only two years after the Empire Windrush arrived. Gunter, as a campaigner against racism and injustice, was at the forefront of issues black people making a new life in Birmingham were facing. He wrote about the colour bar in housing whereby local people refused to give housing to black people. His campaigning activities involved writing articles to educate as he believed that the problems with local people were mostly due to fear. Gunter became President of a group called the Afro-Caribbean Organisation. He aimed to win influence with the Labour movement and other bodies with the aim of breaking down the colour bar. Although hospitals in Birmingham had welcomed workers from Commonwealth countries, The City Transport department refused to employ black workers. Gunter organised a march through Birmingham City Centre with banners including ‘No Colour Bar to housing and jobs.’ His campaigning eventually led to black people being employed as conductors and eventually to full integration into the transport system.  The Charles Parker Archive is another collection where the experiences of Commonwealth citizens living in Birmingham are documented. The archive holds material relating to Philip Donnellan’s documentary film The Colony. First broadcast in June 1964, the film consists of interviews with working-class black people living in Birmingham. It is notable that there is no commentary or narration. This allowed the interviewees’ experiences (in their own words) to be the focus of the programme. Charles Parker was responsible for the voice montages. Schedules and scripts for The Colony It was the first British television programme to give a voice to the new working-class Caribbean settlers. The themes covered included how the reality of England compared with their expectations of it before they arrived. They also talked about their encounters with English people when looking for accommodation and other services. One of the interviewees, Clarence Brandford described England as,
“… a land which we felt in coming, we were proud to come and we felt that coming here we would be at home.”
He also spoke about his contrasting experiences in dealing with English people in daily interactions and when trying to procure services:
“I must say, the people in the street that you meet, the bus conductors and the working men that you meet in the street are quite friendly, they would do anything for you. The snag is when it comes to the people around where you live.”
He then went on to explain a specific encounter when he was trying to find accommodation:
“There was one house in City Road that advertised accommodation for three or four working men. So I rung them up, and at the end of the line was a woman’s voice. She said “Yes, we have beds for three or four working men”, so to make sure I told her I was a West Indian, she said “Just a minute” and she came back to the ‘phone and she said “Sorry we are filled up”, and it went on like that, went on like that all the while.”
These documentary collections show that alongside the challenge of leaving their countries, making a long journey and building a new life in Birmingham, Caribbean migrants had far greater challenges to face when they arrived. Many of them persevered and some, like Henry Gunter, campaigned to improve conditions. They all contributed to enriching the communities in which they came to live. Pity the Poor Immigrant: In learning to come to terms with this prejudice, or fighting back against it, seeds of resentment and rebelliousness were sown in black families which would be partly tamed only when children and spouses began to arrive in large numbers in the sixties. Then, the Pentecostal churches reclaimed at least some of their own, sending out their gospel groups to entertain as well as evangelise among the previously lily-white nonconformist chapels in the early seventies. Housing was another crucial part of the story. For the immigrants of the fifties, accommodation was necessarily privately rented, since access to council homes was based on a long list of existing residents. So the early black immigrants, like the earlier immigrant groups before them, were cooped up in crowded, often condemned Victorian terrace properties in west London, Handsworth in west Birmingham, or the grimy back-streets of Liverpool and Leeds. Landlords and landladies were often reluctant to rent to blacks. Once a few houses had immigrants in them, a domino effect would clear streets as white residents sold up and shipped out. In addition, the 1957 Rent Act, initiated by Enoch Powell, in his free-market crusade, perversely made the situation worse by allowing rents to rise sharply, but only when tenants of unfurnished rooms were removed to allow for furnished lettings. Powell had intended to instigate a period during which rent rises could be cushioned, but its unintended consequence was that unscrupulous landlords such as the notorious Peter Rachman, himself an immigrant, bought up low-value properties for letting, ejecting the existing tenants and replacing them with new tenants, packed in at far higher rents. A map from a contemporary atlas. Thuggery and threats generally got rid of the old, often elderly, white tenants, to be replaced by the new black tenants who were desperate for somewhere to live and therefore prepared to pay the higher rents they were charged. The result was the creation of instant ghettos in which three generations of black British would soon be crowded together. It was the effects of Powell’s housing policies of the fifties which led directly to the Brixton, Tottenham, Toxteth and Handsworth riots of the eighties. Yet these were not, of course, the only direct causes of the racial tensions and explosions which were to follow. The others lay in the reactions of the white British. One Caribbean writer claimed, with not a touch of irony, that he had never met a single English person with colour prejudice. Once he had walked the entire length of a street, …
“… and everyone told me that he or she ‘ad no prejudice against coloured people. It was the neighbour who was stupid. If only we could find the “neighbour” we could solve the whole problem. But to find ‘im is the trouble. Neighbours are the worst people to live beside in this country.” 
Numerous testimonies by immigrants and surveys of the time show how hostile people were to the idea of having black or Asian neighbours. The trades unions bristled against blacks coming in to take jobs, possibly at lower rates of pay, just as they had complained about Irish or Welsh migrants a generation earlier. Union leaders regarded as impeccably left-wing lobbied governments to keep out black workers. For a while, it seemed that they would be successful enough by creating employment ghettos as well as housing ones until black workers gained a toe-hold in the car-making and other manufacturing industries where the previous generations of immigrants had already fought battles for acceptance against the old craft unionists and won. The overseas immigrants had been coming into Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country in a steady trickle since the end of the war for the same reason that the region had been attracting migrants from all over the British Isles since the mid-thirties: comparatively high wages and full, stable, employment. The trickle became a torrent in the months before the Commonwealth Immigrants’ Bill was enacted in 1962, restricting the influx for the first time. By 1964, the region had one of the biggest concentrations of immigrants in the country. Their integration into the communities of Birmingham and the Black Country had proceeded without the violent reaction which led to the race riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958. But tensions had been building up in the region as they had in every mixed community in Britain. One of the first open antagonisms took place in Birmingham in 1954 over the employment of coloured migrants as drivers and conductors on the local buses. After that, little was heard of racial pressures until the end of 1963, when events in Smethwick began to make national headlines. The situation there became typical in its effects on traditional allegiances, and in its ripeness for exploitation, of that in every town in England with a mixed community. The Singing Stewarts: The first black Gospel group to make an impact in Britain were ‘The Singing Stewarts’. They were originally from Trinidad and Aruba, where the five brothers and three sisters of the Stewart family were born. They migrated to Handsworth in Birmingham in 1961, part of the second major wave of Windrush migrants who came to Britain just before the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 ended the ‘open door’ policy for British overseas nationals. This was the period when many families were settling in Britain, many rejoining ‘menfolk’ who had come on their own some years earlier (see picture below). In the 1960s, women and children joined their men: 328,000 more West Indians settled in Britain. Many people moved to Britain before the Act was passed because they thought it would be difficult to get in afterwards. Immigration doubled from fifty-eight thousand in 1960 to over 115,000 in 1961, and to nearly 120,000 in 1962. The Stewarts were all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and under the training of their strict and devoted mother began to sing acapella-style spirituals that they mixed with traditional Southern gospel songs written by composers like Vep Ellis and Albert Brumley. To this material, they added a distinctly Trinidadian calypso flavour and by the mid-sixties were performing all around the Midlands. In later years they were joined by a double bass affectionately referred to as ‘Betty’. From childhood growing up in the church, they would refuse all offers to sing ‘secular’ music. Settling in Handsworth, they quickly made a name for themselves in West Birmingham and what is known today as Sandwell (then as Smethwick and Warley), especially among the nonconformist and Pentecostal churches where most of the Caribbean immigrant families were to be found. They also appeared at a variety of cross-cultural events and at institutions such as hospitals, schools and prisons. They performed on local radio and TV which brought them to the attention of a local radio producer and folk-music enthusiast Charles Parker, who heard in the group’s unlikely musical fusion of jubilee harmonies, Southern gospel songs and a Trinidadian flavour something unique. In 1964 they were the subject of a TV documentary produced by him which brought them to national attention. Parker helped them to cultivate their talent and to become more ‘professional’, opening them up to wider audiences. They took his advice and guidance on board and reaped dividends on the back of their TV appearances and national and European tours that increased their exposure and widened their fan base. For a while, in the early sixties, they were the only black Gospel group in the UK media spotlight. It was difficult to place them in a single category at the time, as they sang both ‘negro spirituals’ and traditional Gospel songs, which made them a novelty to British and European audiences. The Singing Stewarts were able to undertake a European tour where they played to crowds of white non-churchgoers. Thousands warmed to them, captivated by their natural and effortless harmonies. They demonstrated a remarkable ability, unprecedented and unique at that time, to permeate cultural barriers. This acted as an antidote to the racial tensions which existed in West Birmingham, Warley and Smethwick in the late sixties and seventies, stirred up by the Wolverhampton MP and Government Minister, Enoch Powell, who made his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in Birmingham in 1968, and in local election campaigns in Smethwick run by the National Front. Meanwhile, in the US in 1967, at the height of the Civil Rights movement, a Berkeley-based ensemble called the Northern California State Youth Choir found that a track on their independent album – a soulful arrangement of a Victorian hymn penned by Philip Doddridge – started getting plays on a San Francisco pop station. The choir was renamed the Edwin Hawkins Singers and was quickly signed to Buddah Records and “Oh Happy Day” went on to become a huge international pop hit. In Britain, the British record companies alerted to the commercial potential of US gospel music, looked around for a British-based version of that music and in 1968 The Singing Stewarts were signed to PYE Records. The following year, they were the first British gospel group to be recorded by a major record company when PYE Records released their album Oh Happy Day. In 1969, they appeared at the Edinburgh Festival, where they were exposed to a wider and more musically diverse public. Their folksy Trinidadian flavour delighted the arts festival-goers. The family went on to make more albums which sold better, but they never wavered from their original Christian message and mission. They continued to sing at a variety of venues, including many churches, performing well into retirement age. Neither did they compromise their style of music, helping to raise awareness of spirituals and gospel songs. They were pioneers of the British Black Gospel Scene and toured all over the world helping to put UK-based black gospel music on the map. The new Baptist Church building opened in the late summer of 1965. My own experience of  ‘The Singing Stewarts’ came as a fourteen-year-old at the Baptist Church in Bearwood, Warley, where my father, Rev. Arthur J. Chandler, was the first minister of the newly-built church. We had moved to Birmingham in 1965, and by that time West Birmingham and Sandwell were becoming multi-cultural areas with large numbers of Irish, Welsh, Polish, Indian, Pakistani and Caribbean communities. My grammar school on City Road in Edgbaston was like a microcosm of the United Nations. In the early seventies, it appointed the first black head boy in Birmingham, and was also a community of many faiths, including Anglicans, Nonconformists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostals, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus as well as the many followers of ‘Mammon’! Our neighbourhood, which ran along the city boundary between Birmingham and the Black Country in Edgbaston (the ‘border’ was literally at the end of the Manse garden), was similarly mixed, though still mostly white. Birmingham possessed a relatively wealthy working class, due to the car industry, so the distinctions between the working class and middle-class members of our church were already blurred. There were no more than a handful of ‘West Indian’ members and families in the congregation at that time, from the mid-sixties to mid-seventies, though after my father retired in 1979, it shared its premises with one of the new ‘black-led’ congregations. During the sixties and seventies, there were also more black children in the Sunday School, Boys’ and Girls’ Brigades and Youth Club, who attended these local facilities independently of their parents. These children and youths were especially popular when we played sports against other Baptist congregations in the West Birmingham area! The Stewart Family came to our church, at my father’s invitation, in 1970. Previously, my experience of Gospel music had been limited to singing a small number of well-known spirituals, calypso and gospel songs in the school choir, or accompanying my sister on the guitar in performances of ‘This Little Light of Mine’, ‘Born in Bethlehem’ and other songs which had not yet made it into an updated ‘Baptist Hymn Book’. Then there were the Christmas songs like ‘The Calypso Carol’ and ‘Mary’s Boy Child’. In the school choir at Christmas, we sang ‘Mary Had a Baby’ and ‘The Virgin Baby Had a Baby Child’. But the advent of the Singing Stewarts to our church was unlike any other experience in my Christian upbringing to that date. At the end of the ‘service’, a ‘call’ to commitment was made and I responded. The following Whitsun, in 1971, I was baptised and received into church membership. In 1974, a group of us from Bearwood and south Birmingham, who had formed our own Christian folk-rock group,  attended the first Greenbelt Christian Music Festival, where Andrae Crouch and the Disciples were among the ‘headline acts’. Thus began a love affair with Gospel music of various forms which has endured ever since. We were inspired by this event to write and perform our own musical based on the Book of James, which we toured around the Baptist churches in the west and south of Birmingham. The service led by the Stewart Singers in Bearwood also began, more importantly, my own ministry of reconciliation. I heard at that time, and have since read many stories about the coldness displayed by many ‘white Anglo-Saxon’ churches towards the Windrush migrants, and the failure of all churches to challenge prejudiced behaviour among their fellow Christians. However, I also feel that it is all too easy for current generations to judge the previous ones. It was not that many Christians were prejudiced against people of colour, though some were, or that they were ‘forgetful to entertain strangers’. Many sincerely, though wrongly thought (as we now know from Science) that God had created separate races to live separately from each other. In its extreme forms, this led to the policies of ‘separate development’ of the South African state, underpinned by the heretical theology of the Dutch Reformed Church, and the belief in, and practice of, ‘segregation’, supported by some white Southern evangelicals in the United States. I remember discussing these issues with my father, who was by no means a white supremacist, but who had fears about the ability of Birmingham and the Black Country, the area he had grown up in, to integrate so many newcomers, even though they were fellow Christians. However, he had also been a jazz-band leader and pianist in the 1930s, before becoming a minister, and was familiar with both Southern Baptist and Caribbean spirituals. So, rather than closing down discussion on the issue, as so many did in the churches at that time, mainly to avoid embarrassment, he sought to open it up among the generations in the congregation, asking me to do a ‘Q&A’ session in a Sunday evening service in 1975, aged eighteen. There were some very direct questions and comments, but we found common ground in believing that whether or not God had originally intended the ‘races’ to develop separately, first slavery and then famine and poverty, resulting from human sinfulness, had caused migration, and it was wrong to blame the migrants themselves for the process they had undergone. Moreover, in the case of the Windrush migrants, they had been invited to come and take jobs that were vital to the welfare and prosperity of our shared community. But as the National Front took to the streets, it soon became obvious that, sadly, these new forms of racism could no longer be defeated with discussion. I soon became involved in the Anti-Nazi League in Birmingham. In 1977, the group were signed to the Christian label Word Records, then in the process of dropping their Sacred Records name. The Singing Stewarts’ Word album ‘Here Is A Song’ was produced by Alan Nin and was another mix of old spirituals (“Every time I Feel The Spirit”), country gospel favourites (Albert Brumley’s “I’ll Fly Away”) and hymns (“Amazing Grace”). With accompaniment consisting of little more than a double bass and an acoustic guitar, it was, in truth, a long, long way from the ‘funkier’ gospel sounds that acts like Andrae Crouch were beginning to pioneer. The Singing Stewarts soldiered on for a few more years but clearly their popularity, even with the ‘middle-of-the-road’ white audience, gradually receded. In his book British Black Gospel, author Steve Alexander Smith paid tribute to them as one of the first black gospel groups to make an impact in Britain and the first gospel group to be recorded by a major record company. They clearly played their part in the UK’s gospel music’s continuing development. In addition, Frank Stewart (one of the brothers, pictured right) became one of the first black DJ’s to play gospel music on a BBC radio station. His death in Birmingham on 2nd April 2012 was the closing chapter in a key part of the development of British gospel music over half a century. Although in later years he was best known for his radio work in which for more than a decade he presented The Frank Stewart Gospel Hour on BBC Radio WM, it was the many years he spent running The Singing Stewarts which was arguably his most significant contribution to UK Christian music history and black music history. Immigration: The Case of Smethwick in 1964. In 1964, the well-known Guardian correspondent, Geoffrey Moorhouse (pictured above), ‘ventured’ out of his metropolitan England, caught up in the cobweb of roads and rails around London, into the interior of England to see how the other three-quarters live. The Penguin Special he produced was the first of its kind since J.B. Priestley published his English Journey thirty years beforehand. Looking behind the Cotswold stone and the dereliction of the Black Country … the vaunted development schemes of Birmingham, he attempted to uncover England as it was in the 1960s – beauty, traffic, tradition, negroes, noise, and all. The Black Country outside Birmingham may have appeared to have been standing still for a century or more, but by looking at its population it was possible to see that an enormous change had come over it in the late fifties and early sixties. The pallid, indigenous people had been joined by more colourful folk from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. The public transport system across Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country would certainly have ground to a halt had it not been for its immigrant labour supply. On buses, the unions operated a colour bar more or less openly until 1960 when Morris Minta, a Jamaican, became the first coloured busman in Coventry. The newcomers made an immediate impact on sporting life in Birmingham. Several years before the national press discovered the West Indian cricket supporters at Lord’s in 1963, they were already plainly visible and vocal at Edgbaston Cricket Ground. The cover of ‘Punch’ from May 1957, mirrors the stereotypical image described by Sir Neville Cardus. In the late seventies and eighties, batsman Viv Richards and fast bowler Andy Roberts were icons of West Indian Cricket both in Britain and Antigua. With a population of seventy thousand, Smethwick contained an immigrant community variously estimated at between five and seven thousand. It was claimed that this was proportionately greater than in any other county borough in England. The settlement of these people in Smethwick had not been the slow process over a long period that Liverpool, Cardiff and other seaports had experienced and which had allowed time for adjustments to be made gradually. It had happened in a rush, mainly at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties. In such circumstances, the host communities learnt to behave better, but it was always likely that a deeply rooted white population would regard with suspicion the arrival of an itinerant coloured people on its home ground, and that friction would result. In Smethwick, the friction followed a familiar pattern. Most pubs in the town barred coloured people from their lounge bars. Some barbers refused to cut their hair. When a Pakistani family were allocated a new council flat after slum clearance in 1961, sixty-four of their white neighbours staged a rent strike and eventually succeeded in driving them out of the ironically named ‘Christ Street’. Most of the usual white prejudices were keenly displayed in Smethwick, the reasons offered for hostility to the migrants being that they made too much noise, that they did not tend to their gardens with the customary English care, that they left their children unattended too long, and that their children were delaying the progress of white pupils in the schools. The correspondence columns of the local weekly newspaper, the Smethwick Telephone, provided a platform for the airing of these prejudices, as a letter quoted by a correspondent of The Times on 9 March 1964 shows:
‘With the advent of the pseudo-socialists’ ‘coloured friends’, the incidence of T.B. in the area has risen to become one of the highest in the country. Can it be denied that the foul practice of spitting in public is a contributory factor? Why waste the ratepayers’ money printing notices in five different languages? People who behave worse than animals will not in the least be deterred by them.’
At the time, no one seems to know who originated the slogan: If you want a Nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour, which was circulating in Smethwick before the 1963 municipal elections. The Conservatives were widely reported as using the slogan but Colin Jordan, leader of the neo-Nazi British Movement, claimed that his members had produced the initial slogan as well as spread the poster and sticker campaign; Jordan’s group in the past had also campaigned on other slogans, such as: Don’t vote – a vote for Tory, Labour or Liberal is a vote for more Blacks! Griffiths denied that this slogan was racist, saying:
‘I should think that is a manifestation of the popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that. I would say that is how people see the situation in Smethwick. I fully understand the feelings of the people who say it. I would say it is exasperation, not fascism.’ Quoted in The Times, 9 March 1964. 
Smethwick Town Council The specific issue that Labour and Conservatives debated across the Smethwick council chamber was how best to integrate immigrant children into the borough’s schools. The Tories wanted to segregate them, but Labour took the view that they should be taught in separate groups for English only and that the level of integration otherwise should be left to the discretion of the individual schools. But the party division soon got far deeper as the housing shortage in Smethwick, as great as anywhere in the Black Country, exacerbated race relations. The Conservatives said that if they controlled the council they would not necessarily re-house a householder on taking over his property for slum clearance unless he had lived in the town for ten years or more. While the local Labour Party deprecated attempts to make immigration a political issue, the Conservatives actively encouraged them. Councillor Peter Griffiths, the local Tory leader had actively supported the Christ Street rent strike. At the municipal elections in 1963, the Conservatives fared disastrously over the country in general, gaining no more than five seats. Three of these were in Smethwick. In the elections for aldermen of 1964, the Conservatives gained control of the council, their ‘prize’ for having been consistently critical of the immigrant community in the area. The Smethwick constituency had been held by Labour since 1945, for most of that time by Patrick Gordon-Walker, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary. But his majorities at successive general elections had dwindled from 9,727 in 1951 to 6,495 in 1955 to 3,544 in 1959. This declining majority could not, obviously, be solely attributed to Labour’s policy on immigration, either nationally or locally. It reflected a national trend since 1951, a preference for Tory economic management. But the drop in 1959 seemed to be in part, at least, a reaction to local issues. Moorhouse, writing in mid-1964, just before the general election, found few people who would bet on Gordon-Walker being returned to Westminster, however successful Labour might be in the country as a whole. His opponent in the election was Councillor Griffiths, who was so convinced of the outcome by the end of 1963 that he had already fixed himself up with a flat in London. Moorhouse wrote:
If he does become Smethwick’s next MP it will not simply be because he has attracted the floating voter to his cause. It will also be because many people who have regarded themselves as socialist through thick and thin have decided that when socialism demands the application of its principles for the benefit of a coloured migrant population as well as for themselves it is high time to look for another political creed which is personally more convenient.   
Above: The local government structure within North Worcestershire and South Staffordshire – Prior to the West Midlands Order 1965 reorganisation. There had been resignations from the party, and a former Labour councillor was already running a club which catered only for ‘Europeans’. The Labour Club itself (not directly connected to the constituency party) had not, by the end of 1963, admitted a single coloured member. Smethwick in 1964 was not, he commented, a place of which many of its inhabitants could be proud, regardless of how they voted. That could be extended to any of us, he wrote:
‘We who live in areas where coloured people have not yet settled dare not say that what is happening in Smethwick today could not happen in our slice of England, too. For the issue is not a simple and straightforward one. There must be many men of tender social conscience who complain bitterly about the noise being imposed on them by road and air traffic while sweeping aside as intolerant the claims others about the noise imposed on them by West Indian neighbours, without ever seeing that there is an inconsistency in their attitude. It is not much different from the inconsistency of the English parent who demands the segregation of coloured pupils whose incapacities may indeed be retarding his child’s school progress but who fails to acknowledge the fact that in the same class there are probably a number of white children having a similar effect. ‘One issue put up by Smethwick (and the other places where social problems have already arisen) does, however, seem to be clear. The fact is that these people are here and, to put it at the lowest level of self-interest, we have got to live amicably with them if we do not want a repetition of Notting Hill and Nottingham, if we do not want a coloured ghetto steadily growing in both size and resentment. … ‘Smethwick is our window on the world from which we can look out and see the street sleepers of Calcutta, the shanty towns of Trinidad, the empty bellies of Bombay. And what do we make of it? Somebody at once comes up and sticks a notice in it. ‘If you want a Nigger neighbour, vote Labour.’ ‘  
The 1964 general election involved a nationwide swing from the Conservatives to the Labour Party; which resulted in the party gaining a narrow five-seat majority. However, in Smethwick, the Conservative candidate, Griffiths gained the seat and unseated the sitting Labour MP, Patrick Gordon-Walker. Griffiths, however, polled 436 votes less in 1964 than when he stood unsuccessfully for the Smethwick constituency in 1959. He was declared “a parliamentary leper” by Harold Wilson, the newly-elected Labour Prime Minister (below). Griffiths, in his maiden speech to the Commons, pointed out what he believed were the real problems his constituency faced, including factory closures and over 4,000 families awaiting council accommodation. The election result led to a visit by Malcolm X to Smethwick to show solidarity with the black and Asian communities. Malcolm’s visit to Smethwick was “no accident”; the Conservative-run council attempted to put in place an official policy of racial segregation in Smethwick’s housing allocation, with houses on Marshall Street in Smethwick being let only to white British residents. Malcolm X claimed that Black minorities were being treated like the Jews under Hitler. Later in 1964, a delegation of white residents successfully petitioned the Conservative council to compulsorily purchase vacant houses in order to prevent non-whites from buying the houses. This, however, was prevented by Labour housing minister Richard Crossman, who refused to allow the council to borrow the money in order to enact their policy. Nine days after he visited Marshall Street, Malcolm X was shot dead in New York.  In 1965, Wilson’s new Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, tightened the quota system, cutting down on the number of dependents allowed in, and giving the Government the power to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, it offered the first Race Relations Act as a ‘sweetener’. This outlawed the use of the ‘colour bar’ in public places and by potential landlords, and discrimination in public services, also banning incitement to racial hatred like that seen in the Smethwick campaign. At the time, it was largely seen as toothless, yet the combination of restrictions on immigration and the measures to better integrate the migrants already in Britain did form the basis for all subsequent policies. The Labour Party regained the Smethwick seat at the 1966 general election when Andrew Faulds became the new Member of Parliament. Smethwick Baptist Church The actions taken in Smethwick in 1964 have been described as ugly Tory racism which killed rational debate about immigration. However, colour bars were then common, preventing non-whites from using facilities. As already noted, The Labour Club in Smethwick effectively operated one, as, more overtly, did the local Sandwell Youth Club, which was run by one of the town’s Labour councillors. Moorhouse pointed out that had the community has been on the economic rocks, it might have been possible to make out a case for controls on immigration. Had there been a high rate of unemployment, where the standard of living was already impoverished, there might have been a case for keeping migrants ‘at bay’ so as to prevent competition for insufficient jobs from becoming greater and the general sense of depression from deepening. But that was not the case in West Birmingham and the Black Country in 1964, or for at least another decade. For many of the southern English, It may have been as ugly as sin to look at, at least in parts, but outside the Golden Circle around London, there was no wealthier area in England and no place more economically stable. When the Birmingham busmen had objected to coloured colleagues a decade earlier, it was not because these would be taking jobs which might otherwise have gone to ‘Brummies’ but because it was feared they might have an effect on wages which a shortage of labour had maintained at an artificial level. These were real fears that had led to prejudice against previous immigrants to the region. At root, this was not a problem about colour per se, though there were cultural tropes and stereotypes at play. It was essentially about wages. This is how Anthony Richmond summarised it in his book, The Colour Problem:
The main objections to the employment of coloured colonials appeared to come from the trade unions, but less on the grounds of colour than because, if the number of drivers and conductors was brought up to full establishment by employing colonials, their opportunities for earning considerable sums as overtime would be reduced.
fearful social sickness? Smethwick’s problems in 1964 sprang from the same root, if not over wages, then over rents, with tenants fearing that competition for housing would drive these upwards, and quickly. According to Moorhouse, this was part of a fearful social sickness affecting the Midlands as a whole which seemed to be compounded by a desire to make money fast while the going was good, a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve this. For the first time in the industrial history of the West Midlands, it was possible for the working classes to reach their target of acquiring a surplus through full employment. This left no space or energy for any other considerations. It was an attitude of mind which had been copied from those higher up the social scale in industry and was most in evidence in the car factories. Their workers were earning over twenty pounds and sometimes thirty pounds a week on the production lines, putting them up among the highest-paid manual labourers in Britain. But Moorhouse presents no evidence to suggest that immigrant workers either hindered – or threatened to hinder – this ‘chase’ for ever- greater affluence among the indigenous population. We do know that in Coventry, the Caribbean and Asian immigrants were excluded from high-paying engineering jobs. The only inroads they made into engineering were in the lowest-paid and dirtiest end of the trade, particularly the foundries, of which there were many in Smethwick and the Black Country. Even there they were confined to the lowliest jobs by a tacit consensus of management and workers. As early as 1951, the management of Sterling Metals in Coventry, under union pressure, stated at the Works Conference that it was their main desire to recruit white labour and agreed to keep black and white ‘gangs’ segregated on the shop floor. Therefore, the case of Smethwick in 1964 cannot easily be explained by reference to economic factors, though we know that the social and cultural factors surrounding the issues of housing and education did play significant roles. The main factor underpinning the 1964 Election result in Smethwick would appear to be political, in that it was still acceptable, at that time and among local politicians of both main parties, together with public and trade union officials, for racial discrimination and segregation to be seen as instruments of public policy in response to mass immigration. In this, Smethwick was not that different from other towns and cities throughout the West Midlands, if not from those elsewhere in England. And it would take a long time for such social and industrial hierarchies to be worn down through local and national government intervention which went ahead of, and sometimes cut across the ‘privileged’ grain of indigenous populations. Smethwick represented a turning point in this process; four years later Wolverhampton and Birmingham would become the fulcrum in the fight back against violent, organised racism. Gang Violence, Organised Racism & Riots: White gangs of ‘Teddy boys’, like the one depicted above in London, went ‘nigger-hunting’ or ‘black-burying’, chalking Keep Britain White on walls. However, their main motivation stemmed, not from any ideological influence, but from a sense of young male competition and territory marking. They were often the poor white children of the remaining poor white tenants in the same areas being ‘taken over’ by the migrants.  As the black British sociologist, Stuart Hall has written, in the ‘society of affluence’,  which threw up paradoxical signals, it was easy to project the problems which life presented into simple and stereotyped remedies, as was demonstrated by the following response to a BBC radio enquiry of the late fifties:
“It is getting too bad now. They’re too many in the country and they’re over-running it. If they come into this country, they should be made to live to the same standards as we live, and not too many in their house as they always have done, unless someone puts their foot down. They bring in diseases and all sorts of things that spread to different people, and your children have to grow up with them and it’s not right.”               
‘They’ were, of course, West Indian or Asian sub-continental immigrants. A motorcycle lad said of his parents, they just stay awake until I get in at night, and once I’m in they’re happy,… but every time I go out I know they’re on edge. He talked casually about going down to Notting Hill Gate… to punch a few niggers up. All this came to a head at Notting Hill the next year, 1958, with the now infamous riots which took place there, though the anti-immigrant violence actually started in St Ann’s, a poor district of distant Nottingham, and spread to the capital the following day. The scene soon shifted onto a bigger backcloth, and not just from Notting Hill to Nottingham, but the story was the same and one which was to become more and more familiar over the coming decades – one of growing intolerance, if not cultural bigotry, in British society. Hostility to Commonwealth immigrants was pronounced in some sections of the local white population. One manifestation of this was the establishment of the Birmingham Immigration Control Association, founded in the early 1960s by a group of Tory MPs. At first, however, only a handful of MPs campaigned openly against immigration. Even Enoch Powell, in the mid-sixties, would only raise the issue in private meetings, though he had been keen enough, as health minister, to make use of migrant labour. The anti-immigrant feeling was regarded as not respectable, not something that a decent politician was prepared to talk about. The Westminster élite talked in well-meaning generalities of the immigrants as being fellow subjects of the Crown. Most of the hostility was at the level of the street and popular culture, usually in the form of the disguised discrimination of shunning, through to the humiliation of door-slamming and on to more overtly violent street attacks. In August 1958, as violence against coloured immigrants became a serious problem, The Times reported on the demands for immigration controls being made by Conservative MPs:
‘Seeing the Nottingham fight between coloured and white people on Saturday night a red light warning of further troubles to come, some Conservative M.P.s intend to renew their demand for control to be placed on immigration from the Commonwealth and the colonies when Parliament reassembles in October… ‘A resolution is on the agenda for the Conservative Party Conference. It has been tabled by Mr Norman Pannell, Conservative M.P. for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool, who obtained the signatures of about thirty Conservative M.P.s for a motion (never debated) during the last session of Parliament. This expressed the growing disquiet over ’the continuing influx of indigent immigrants from the Commonwealth and colonies, thousands of whom have immediately sought National Assistance’. Mr Pannell said yesterday, … “The Nottingham fighting is a manifestation of the evil results of the present policy and I feel that unless some restriction is imposed we shall create the colour-bar we all wish to avoid… “The object of my representation is to get some control, not to bar all colonial and Commonwealth immigration, but to see that the immigrants shall not be a charge on public funds, and that they are deported when they are guilty of serious crimes.” ‘
These ‘concerns’ were not new of course, even in the late fifties, and nor were the active forms of prejudice and discrimination which had accompanied them since the middle of the decade in the general population. In addition to dilapidated housing and racial discrimination in employment, and sometimes at the hands of the police, there was the added hazard of racial bigotry in older urban areas. What was new was the way in which this was articulated and amplified from the early sixties onwards by Conservative MPs and parliamentary candidates, leading to the emergence of the National Front as a political force in the early seventies. A Multicultural Society? By the end of the 1950s, although the populations of the nations and regions of the British Isles had become more permanently mixed than ever before, and added to by those refugees from central and eastern Europe who had now been exiled by the triumph of Soviet Communism in the establishment of the Warsaw Pact, as yet there had been very little New Commonwealth immigration to Britain. It was only in the sixties and seventies that the country began to be transformed into what came to be known, by the 1980s, as a multicultural society. Paradoxically, then, just as Britain was retreating from its formal imperial commitments, Commonwealth immigration into Britain, principally from the West Indies and South Asia, was becoming an increasingly important issue in domestic politics. During the 1950s, the number of West Indians entering Britain reached annual rates of thirty thousand. The importance attached to the Commonwealth in the 1950s prevented the imposition of immigration controls. However, by the 1960s, Britain’s retreat from the Commonwealth in favour of Europe and events such as the Notting Hill and Nottingham race riots in 1958 heralded a policy of restriction, which gradually whittled away at the right of British overseas citizens to automatic British naturalisation. Although the 1962 Immigration Act was intended to reduce the inflow of blacks and Asians into Britain, it had the opposite effect: fearful of losing the right of free entry, as many immigrants came to Britain in the eighteen months before restrictions were introduced as had arrived over the previous five years. But in the second half of the 1960s, the rate of immigration into the English West Midlands was reported, in local official statistics, to be slowing down. Community relations were also calming down, as the immigrants of the previous decades integrated and raised families. The Strange Case of Enoch Powell & The Immigration Acts: Enoch Powell, the influential opponent of immigration. The 1968 Immigration Act was specifically targeted at restricting Kenyan Asians with British passports. The same year, Conservative MP for Wolverhampton and government minister, Enoch Powell made a speech in Birmingham, that contained a classical illusion that most people took to be a prophecy of violent racial war if black immigration continued:
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ’the river Tiber foaming with much blood’.
But rather than simply opposing the immigration of Kenyan Asians, Powell also echoed various accusations against the established ‘black’ population, reportedly made by his constituents, that they had been persecuted by ‘Negroes’, having excrement posted through their letterboxes and being followed to the shops by children, charming wide-grinning pickaninnies chanting “Racialist.” If Britain did not begin a policy of voluntary repatriation, he stated, it would soon face the kind of race riots that were disfiguring America. Powell claimed that he was merely restating Tory policy, but the inflammatory language used and his own careful preparation of the speech suggests it was both a ‘call to arms’ by a politician who believed he was fighting for white English nationhood and a deliberate provocation aimed at Powell’s enemy, Heath. When a journalist asked whether he considered himself a ‘racialist’, Powell responded:
“We are all racialists. Do I object to one coloured person in this country? No. To a hundred? No. To a million? (A query). To five million? Definitely.
Did most people in 1968 agree with him, as Andrew Marr has suggested? It’s important to point out that, until he made this speech, Powell had been a Tory ‘insider’, though also seen as a maverick and a trusted member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet. He also drew sustenance from his constituents, who seemed to be excluded from mainstream politics. He argued that they had had immigration imposed on them without being asked and against their will. He was expelled from the shadow cabinet for his anti-immigration speech, not so much for its racialist content, which was mainly given in ‘reported speech’, but for suggesting that the race relations legislation being introduced was merely throwing a match on gunpowder. Those who knew Powell best claimed that he was not a racialist. The local newspaper editor, Clem Jones, thought that Enoch’s anti-immigration stance was not ideologically motivated, but had ‘simply’ been influenced by the anger of white Wolverhampton people who felt they were being crowded out; even in Powell’s own street, Jones said… 
“… of good, solid, Victorian houses, next door went sort of coloured and then another and then another house, and he saw the value of his own house go down.” 
Jones also added that Powell always worked hard as an MP for all his constituents, representing them regardless of colour. His speech became known, infamously, as The Rivers of Blood Speech and formed the backdrop of the legislation. The Immigration Bill had been rushed through in the spring of 1968 and has been described as among the most divisive and controversial decisions ever taken by any British government. Some MPs viewed it as the most shameful piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament, the ultimate appeasement of racist hysteria. The government responded with a tougher anti-discrimination bill in the same year. For many others, however, the passing of the act was the moment when the political élite, in the shape of Jim Callaghan, Home Secretary, finally woke up and listened to their working-class workers. Polls of the public showed that 72% supported the act. Never again would the idea of free access to Britain be seriously entertained by mainstream politicians. Edward Heath, leader of the Conservatives from 1965 & Prime Minister, 1970-74. Although Powell was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by the Tory leader, Edward Heath, more legislative action followed under the Tories themselves with the 1971 Immigration Act. This effectively restricted citizenship on racial grounds by enacting the Grandfather Clause, by which a Commonwealth citizen who could prove that one of his or her grandparents was born in the UK was entitled to immediate entry clearance. This operated to the disadvantage of Black and Asian applicants, while favouring citizens of the old Commonwealth, descendants of white settlers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Thus immigration control had moved away from primary immigration to restricting the entry of dependents, or secondary immigration, based largely on ethnic origin. Enoch Powell himself, from the back-benches, likened the distinction between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Commonwealth immigrants to a Nazi race purity law; he wanted a new definition of British citizenship instead. The grandparent rule was defeated by the right and left combining for opposite reasons but was restored two years later. In the meantime, the Kenyan crisis was replayed in another former East African colony, Uganda. Powell may have helped British society by speaking out on an issue that, until then, had remained taboo. However, the language of his discourse still seems quite inflammatory and provocative fifty years later, so much so that even historians hesitate to quote them. His words also helped to make the extreme-right Nazis of the National Front more acceptable. Furthermore, his core prediction of major civil unrest was not fulfilled, despite riots and street crime linked to disaffected youths from Caribbean immigrant communities in the 1980s. A plantation on the island of Barbados. To overcome increasing prejudice and outright racism, immigrants to Birmingham tended to congregate in poorer inner city areas or in the western suburbs along the boundary with Smethwick, Warley, West Bromwich (now Sandwell), and Dudley. Birmingham’s booming postwar economy attracted West Indian settlers from Jamaica, Barbados and St Kitts in the 1950s, followed by larger numbers of South Asians from Gujarat and Punjab in India, and Bangladesh from the 1960s onwards. The islands with the end dates of their status as colonies. By 1971, the South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards and in north-west Birmingham, especially in Handsworth, Sandwell and Sparkbrook. Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards more skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in the poorly paid, less attractive, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and health care sectors of the public services. In the 1970s, poor pay and working conditions forced some of these workers to resort to strike action. But hostility to Caribbean immigrants remained pronounced in some sections of the local white population as it became more prosperous by the mid-1980s, and what became known as ‘white flight’ took place, migration from the inner city areas to the expanding suburbs to the southwest and east of the city. However, it is still unclear to what extent this migration was really due to concerns about immigrants. The majority of British people did not want the arrival of large numbers of Irish, West Indians and South Asians, but neither did they want an end to capital punishment or membership in a federal European Union, or many other things that their political élite decided upon. In the 1980s, the fears and prejudices seemed to be realised in a series of riots by disaffected black youths in London, Liverpool and Birmingham. There were riots in Handsworth in 1981 and again in 1985. However, Enoch was not right about the growth of the immigrant population by the end of the century, which had been the main point of his 1968 speech. Just before the speech, Powell had suggested that by the end of the century, the number of black and Asian immigrants and their descendants would number between five and seven million, about a tenth of the population. According to the 2001 census, 4.7 million people identified as black or Asian, equivalent to 7.9 per cent of the total population. Immigrants were, of course, far more strongly represented in percentage terms in the English cities, but by the late 1980s, the overall numbers of West Indians were already in decline, and the proportion of the total British population made up of ethnic minorities was less than five per cent, as shown in the table below. Over the last decade of the twentieth century, it remained at that level. The Final Passage & Back Again: A new level of linguistic and cultural diversity was introduced by Caribbean and new Commonwealth immigration. This manifested itself not just in the various ‘new’ languages that entered Britain, but also in the variety of new dialects of English originating in different parts of the old Empire, especially in the West Indies. Within the British West Indian community, Jamaican English, or the patois – as it is known – has had a special place as a token of identity. While there were complicated social pressures that frowned on Jamaican English in Jamaica, with parents complaining when their children talk local too much, in England it became almost obligatory to do so in London. One Jamaican schoolgirl who made the final passage to the Empire’s capital city with her parents in the seventies put it like this:
It’s rather weird ’cos when I was in Jamaica I wasn’t really allowed to speak it (Jamaican creole) in front of my parents. I found it difficult in Britain at first. When I went to school I wanted to be like the others in order not to stand out. So I tried speaking the patois as well… You get sort of a mixed reception. Some people say, ’You sound really nice, quite different.’ Other people say, ’You’re a foreigner, speak English. Don’t try to be like us, ’cos you’re not like us.’
Despite the mixed reception from her British West Indian friends, she persevered with the patois, and, as she put it “after a year I lost my British accent, and was accepted.” However, for many Caribbean visitors to Britain, the patois of Brixton and Notting Hill was a stylised form that was not, as they saw it, truly Jamaican, not least because British West Indians came from all parts of the Caribbean. Another West Indian schoolgirl, born in London and visiting Jamaica for the first time, was teased for her patois. She was told that she didn’t “sound right and that.” The experience convinced her that…
“… in London the Jamaicans have developed their own language in patois, sort of. ’Cos they make up their own words in London, in, like, Brixton. And then it just develops into patois as well.”
Researchers found that there were already white children in predominantly black schools who had begun using the British West Indian patois in order to be accepted by the majority of their friends, who were black:
“I was born in Brixton and I’ve been living here for seventeen years, and so I just picked it up from hanging around with my friends who are mainly Black people. And so I can relate to them by using it, because otherwise I’d feel an outcast… But when I’m with someone else who I don’t know I try to speak as fluent English as possible. It’s like I feel embarrassed about it (the patois), I feel like I’m degrading myself by using it.”
The ‘unconscious racism’ of such comments pointed to the predicament of the Black Britons. Not fully accepted, for all their rhetoric, by the established native population, they felt neither fully Caribbean nor fully British. This was the poignant outcome of what the British Black writer Caryl Phillips called The Final Passage. Phillips, who came to Britain as a baby in the late 1950s, was one of the first of his generation to grapple with the problem of finding a means of literary self-expression that was true to his experience:
“The paradox of my situation is that where most immigrants have to learn a new language, Caribbean immigrants have to learn a new form of the same language. It induces linguistic schizophrenia – you have an identity crisis that mirrors the larger cultural confusion.”
In his novel, The Final Passage, the narrative is in Standard English. But the speech of the characters is a rendering of ‘nation language’:
‘I don’t care what anyone tell you, going to England be good for it going to raise your mind. For a West Indian boy you just being there is an education, for you going see what England do for sheself… It’s a college for the West Indian.’
The lesson of this college is, as Phillips puts it, that symptomatic of the colonial situation, the language has been divided as well. In the British Black community, and in the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean, English – creole or standard – was the only available language. The poets Mutabaruka and Linton Kwesi Johnson, are part of a new generation who use Jamaican English in a written form far removed from Standard English. By the end of the seventies, Caribbean and Rastafarian Reggae music, together with ‘dub poetry’ was beginning to have a broad impact on British pop culture. In Birmingham, a group of out-of-work young white men formed the band UB40, named after their benefit claim forms. The multicultural band Steel Pulse also became popular. On the other side of rock ‘politics’, there was an eruption of racist, skinhead rock, and a ‘casual’ but influential interest in the far right from among more established artists. At a concert I attended at the Birmingham Odeon in 1976, Eric Clapton, arriving on stage an hour late either drunk or stoned (or both), enquired as to whether there were any immigrants in the audience. He then said, to the shock and disgust of almost everyone there, Powell is the only bloke whose telling the truth, for the good of the country. Ska and Soul music also had a real influence in turning street culture decisively against racism. Coventry’s Ska revival band, The Specials captured and expressed this new mood. The seventies produced, in the middle of visions of social breakdown, a musical revival which reflected the reality of a lost generation, whilst in turn reviving their sense of enjoyment of life. As one contemporary cultural critic put it:
A lifestyle – urban, mixed, music-loving, modern and creative – had survived, despite being under threat from the NF.’
My experiences growing up with ‘the Windrush generation’ in 1965-75 have shaped my interests and actions in opposing racism in all its variety of forms over the subsequent decades, and they continue to do so today, half a century later. Multicultural Britain has not been made in a ‘melting pot’ but through the interaction of cultures and identities in mutual respect. That is reconciliation through integration and integration through reconciliation which I still believe Christians and people of other faiths must work towards. Appendix: The Singing Stewarts: Gospel & Negro Spirituals: Label: Impacto ‎– EL-205 Format: Vinyl, LP Country: Spain Released: 1976 Genre: Religious (Soul) Style: Gospel, Spiritual, Calypso Tracklist: A1 Oh Happy Day A2 Ezekiel Saw The Wheel A3 I Know The Lord Laid His Hands On Me A4 Every Time I Feel The Spirit A5 There Is Joy Down In My Heart A6 Noah Found Grace In The Eyes Of The Lord A7 On The Wings Of A Snow White Dove B1 I Couldn’t Hear Nobody Pray B2 Swing Them Chariots Round And Let Ride B3 We’re Climbing B4 Where Could I Go B5 No Grave’s Going To Hold My Body Down B6 Go Down Moses – Let My People Go Unfortunately, there are no CDs or online recordings of this LP, or these songs. However, there is a youtube recording of the group in concert, the link for which is given below. Sources & References for Further Research: crossrhythms.co.uk/artists/16786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Stewarts https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAqHSHOUC6bXWedFymWiMsA Steve Alexander-Smith, British Black Gospel: The Foundations of this Vibrant UK Sound https://books.google.hu/books?isbn=1854248960 https://chandlerozconsultants.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/britain-seventy-years-ago-1948/ https://chandlerozconsultants.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/the-latter-day-elizabethan-britons-1952-2002-chapter-three/ Geoffrey Moorhouse (1964), Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Bill Lancaster & Tony Mason (1980), Life & Labour in a Twentieth Century City: The Experience of Coventry. Coventry: Cryfield Press, University of Warwick. Andrew Marr (2007), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Barry Cunliffe, Asa Briggs, et.al. (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. London: Penguin Books. McCrum, Cran & MacNeil, (eds.) (1986), The Story of English. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Theo Baker (ed.) (1978) The Long March of Everyman. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Worldwide. Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents and Debates: Twentieth Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan. https://theironroom.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/windrush-pioneers-learning-more-about-the-experiences-of-caribbean-migrants/ https://theironroom.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/windrush-strikes-back/

AngloMagyarMedia's avatarAndrew James

Képtalálat a következőre: „singing stewarts gospel”

The first black Gospel group to make an impact in Britain were ‘The Singing Stewarts’.  They were originally from Trinidad and Aruba, where the five brothers and three sisters of the Stewart family were born. They migrated to Handsworth in Birmingham in 1961, part of the second major wave of Windrush migrants who came to Britain just before the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 ended the ‘open door’ policy for British overseas nationals. This was the period when many families were settling in Britain, many rejoining ‘menfolk’ who had come on their own some years earlier (see picture below). Many people moved to Britain before the Act was passed because they thought it would be difficult to get in afterwards. Immigration doubled from fifty-eight thousand in 1960 to over 115,000 in 1961, and to nearly 120,000 in 1962. The Stewarts were all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and under the training of their strict…

View original post 2,669 more words

Featured

Where in the World is Wales? Celebrating St David’s Day, 1st March – a retrospective after forty years ‘in exile’.

St. David’s Day (Dydd Gwyl Dewi)  is the first of the four national days or patron saints’ days in the British calendar. Saint David (Dewi Sant in Welsh) is the only of them to actually hail from the country for which he was canonised. Yet we know very little of a factual nature about his life. Apparently, according to the canonical records, David and his followers lived quietly in Wales, didn’t eat meat and drank only water. He became a famous teacher and an important monk in The Celtic Church. He died in 589, probably on 1st March when, according to legend, a host of angels bore his spirit to heaven with great singing to his glory and honour.

Saint David’s Cathedral (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thoughts of Wales from Abroad:

Wales celebrates its national saint’s day in 2023 in a mood of national self-confidence, despite its recent losses on the Rugby fields of the six nations. Hyfrydol! ‘Wonderful!’ as they say in Wales. The fact that, a decade ago, a third of the rugby team was born in England, with its captain hailing from King’s Lynn in Norfolk, and that my team Wolverhampton Wanderers FC used to have more Welsh international players in their first team than Cardiff or Swansea, hardly seems to matter. Neither should it, though it might have mattered in the past. There’s a renewed confidence about Wales which doesn’t simply come from returning exiles, sporting or otherwise. The Welsh Rugby team used to do better when the coal industry was booming, but by the mid-1980s, there was hardly any industry left to boom in the south Wales valleys, and, whenever the British economy caught a cold, Wales got influenza. When England got influenza, Wales got pneumonia, and the continuing general economic malaise also followed this pattern.

On 1st March 1979, a Referendum on the setting up of a Welsh Assembly saw the proposal defeated by a margin of four to one across Wales as a whole. As a student leader in Wales, then based in its capital, I was on the national steering committee of the ‘Yes’ campaign and, like my fellow Welsh students, was greatly disappointed by the result. It was not until nearly twenty years later (fifteen after I had left the country) and a decade after gaining my PhD from Cardiff University, that in 1998, a second Referendum led to a narrow ‘Yes’ vote. Since the elections that followed, there has been a Welsh Assembly meeting in Cardiff, with the Welsh Government having responsibility over ‘devolved matters’, including education and health care. In recent years, Wales has developed a strong government of its own, able to follow its own policies, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, in response to the needs of its people, independently from the Westminster Parliament.

The South Pembrokeshire Coast.

All this seemed light years away when I left Wales four decades ago, having studied for two degrees, one in the North and one in the South. While studying for the second of these, I took a sabbatical year to represent its students as the full-time Cadeirydd (Chair) of UCMC (the National Union of Students, Wales). I also trained as a teacher in West Wales. During my eight years as a student there, I learnt Welsh, climbed all its mountains over three thousand feet and a few more, walked its coastal footpaths, lived in three of its fine cities and one of its oldest market towns, and visited many of its valleys. In addition, I watched its sporting successes, supped and sang in many of its pubs and worshipped in some of its chapels! Oh, and I managed to do a fair bit of discussing, debating, researching and writing along the way. In fact, I’m still writing about the country and its people today, albeit from a safe distance!

Yma o hyd! – Still here! Landscape, Peaks & People:

Wales is on the western side of the island of Great Britain, sharing a land border with England to its East and a sea border with Ireland to the West. The largest part of it is located along two great peninsulas, one in the south and the other in the north, with a long bay stretching between them. To the south is the Severn Estuary, now crossed by two road bridges, forming giant gateways into the country, at the end of which you used to have to pay a toll. Wales has so much natural beauty that some people call it ‘God’s own country’! It also has a unique and very beautiful language of its own, Cymraeg or Welsh, which some people call ‘the language of heaven!’ However, many other people would agree with the anglo-Welsh poet, Dannie Abse:

Pen-y-fan in the Brecon Beacons

Much of the country is covered by huge mountains, like those in Eryri (Snowdonia) in the north, which rise to over three thousand feet from the coast. You can see these best from the large island of Anglesey, off the north Wales coast. In other areas, there are more gentle hills and valleys, sometimes with thick forests and woods. There are a large number of rivers, including the River Severn, which begins in mid-Wales as a trickle of water and then flows into England. These fast-flowing streams from the hills and mountains were what powered the early development of industry in Wales, though it was the vast mineral wealth discovered beneath them over the centuries, especially coal which led to the country’s development into the powerhouse of the industrial revolution. These attracted millions of workers to the mining and iron-producing areas of south Wales, not just from rural Wales, but also from the neighbouring counties of England.

Present into Past:

The Welsh people have a strong sense of their own identity as the first British people, going back to Roman times. They are proud of their past, which is the subject of many songs and poems and is very evident in their unique traditions and customs, different from many of those found in England. The National Anthem, Hen Wlad fyng nghadau (Land of My Fathers) is full of phrases remembering the heroic figures who fought to maintain these independent traditions and customs, as well as their distinctive language, still spoken by more than one in five of the population of just under three million. The majority of the population lives in the industrial south of the country, especially along the coastal plain with its major cities. There are also major centres of population in the north, especially in the north-east, which also became a centre of heavy industry in the last two centuries. The people living in mid and northwest Wales still work in forestry and agriculture, as well as in many small industries and businesses which depend on tourism, since Wales remains one of the most popular destinations for holiday-makers from the English cities, as well as from countries further away.

Who were the Welsh? – ‘Celts’ into ‘Cymry’:

One of the earliest westward migrations in Europe, between about four thousand and two thousand BC, was made by peoples from Celtic tribes, speaking similar languages, whose descendants now live in Cornwall and Devon (‘Dumnonia’ – south-west England), the Scottish highlands, Ireland, the Isle of Mann, Brittany (in modern-day France, hence the name Grande Bretagne), Galicia (north-western Spain) and Wales. These tribes, speaking something close to Scots and Irish Gaelic, became natives of the British Isles long before the English. The people of Wales call themselves Cymry in Welsh (Cymraeg), meaning ‘fellow-countrymen’, the name of their country being Cymru.

When the Romans successfully invaded what they called Britannia in 43 AD, adding it to their Empire, they quickly conquered most of the lowland areas of what we know today as England. However, they found it more difficult to take control of the ‘Celtic kingdoms’ in the north and west of the island. Caractacus, Caradoc in Welsh, the king of the Catavellauni, put up fierce resistance in battle until he was forced to flee further north, where he was arrested and handed over to Emperor Claudius in 51 AD.  He was so impressed by Caractacus’ courage in defeat that he allowed him to live out the rest of his days as a free man in Rome. In 60 AD, the Roman Governer of Britain, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus attacked the Druids of Anglesey, the religious leaders of the Celtic tribes, and defeated the Rebellion led by Buddica (Boadicea). However, it wasn’t until 78 AD that the Roman conquest of Anglesey, and therefore their control of the western tribes, was completed by General Agricola.

However, large parts of mainland Britain were never fully conquered, including what we know today as Scotland, and the Romans never tried to invade Ireland. That’s why, to this day, the Scots and Irish Gaelic languages contain very few words used by the Romans, in their Latin language. The forts built by the occupying army, including Caerleon and Caerdydd (Cardiff), were small pockets of Roman culture in uncertain or hostile territory. The native population continued to live much as it had always done. Some Britons traded with the forts and even settled there, but most ignored the Romans, whose main interest was extracting mineral wealth from the hills. They did little to establish towns, which slowly grew around their forts, and most of the native population stayed on their farms. When the Romans began to withdraw from Britain in AD 410, four centuries of trade and settlement had left its mark on the remaining tribes, including their languages, which became Romano-British, but within a generation, they separated into competing tribal kingdoms once more.

Cymraeg is all that remains of a written language, Brythonic, which was spoken and written by the Romano-British who lived in several kingdoms from Cornwall to Cambria (Wales), to Cumbria (northern England) and on to Strathclyde (Scotland). It is from the last of these territories that the earliest known writings were made, dating from the sixth century. Welsh is very different from Scots and Irish Gaelic, but is similar to Breton, so much so that the traditional Breton onion sellers who used to bicycle through the Welsh valleys in the summer were able to communicate with their Welsh-speaking customers.

A Breton onion-seller in South Wales in the 1970s.

Britons, Saxons and Vikings:

It was the invading Saxons of the sixth century who used their word wealas to describe the people whom they made ‘foreigners’ in their own land, though the idea that there was a mass migration into the west is a myth. The chieftains and warriors may have retreated to their forts in the hills and mountains, but recent genetic tests have shown that most of the farmers remained on their land and mixed with the newcomers, gradually adapting to Saxon manners, customs and languages, and adopting some of them. The process was two-way. Many British place names continued to be used in the Saxon-settled territories, including Afon or Avon, for ‘river’ and cwm or combe, for ‘valley’. The placenames along the current border are a peculiar mix of Latin, Romano-British, Old Welsh, West Mercian (Old English), Norman French, Middle English and ‘early modern’ Welsh. However, in what became the Mercian territories and then the ‘marches’, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ languages eventually overwhelmed the native British tongues as ‘lingua franca’ (the language of trade).

The gentler slopes of the Cambrian mountains along the Anglo-Welsh border.

The Cambrian mountains did give the retreating ruling families and their scribes a means to protect their language and culture from Anglo-Saxon influence for centuries. Despite the construction of a dike, or ditch, by the Mercian King Offa, mainly to discourage sheep-rustling, he was more interested in securing his dominant position over the other Saxon kingdoms, and the Welsh were more at risk from attacks from the sea, by Irish and Scandinavian raiders. But British monks recorded stories about the heroic battles fought by chieftains against the pagan Saxons. One of these British heroes, Artorius, or Arthur, became the basis for the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and the legends of his magician Merlin (Myrddin). These monks also wrote down the stories and legends connected with the British saints, including David and Patrick.

There was no common form of ‘Aenglisc’ at this time, but rather three different Saxon languages or dialects, Northumbrian (the root of ‘Scots’ English), Mercian (which eventually became the dominant form), and West Saxon. It wasn’t until around AD 1,000 that the word Englaland began to be used, though the Anglii (Angles) themselves were a minority group among the settlers, as were the Jutes who settled in Kent. The Welsh word for the English people is Saeson or Saxon, and the English language is Saesneg. A fragment of an early Welsh folk song tells of a young man going “with a leaden heart” to live in “the land of the Saxons.” However, the Anglo-Saxon languages were far from evolving into a standardised, written language, even in the time of Cnut, the Danish King of England, and Edward the Confessor. Latin, together with Christianity, had been brought into the Saxon kingdoms through Aidan’s mission to Northumbria by multilingual British monks like Cuthbert, Cedd and Ceadda (Chad) by the mid-seventh century, and later by Paulinus through Kent in the seventh century. It remained the standard written language throughout the British Isles.

Who Was Dewi Sant?

A stained glass depiction in Saint David’s Cathedral (Photo credit: Wikipedia).

David was born around the year 500, probably the illegitimate son of Sandde, a famous prince, and Non, who was also a Cymric saint. He grew up in the Christian faith and became an important churchman, taking part in great conferences and assemblies. He became the Primate, or Archbishop, of Wales. When he was thirty he founded a monastery at Glyn Rhosyn which was recognised as the centre of the Church in Wales. This became St David’s (Ty Dewi – ‘David’s House’) where the small cathedral city now stands, the smallest city in the UK. He founded many churches throughout Wales, fifty-three of which bear his name. By the time of the Norman Conquest of England, St David’s had become an important centre of pilgrimage. Little else is known of David himself, except that he became Primate or Archbishop of the western British Church, then independent from Rome, decades before the Augustinian mission to the English finally succeeded in gaining footholds in Kent, Sussex and Wessex.

David was the only one of the four patron saints of the four countries of the British Isles to be born in the country he represents, although it was then part of a much larger post-Roman British territory, stretching from Cornwall to Strathclyde. The rugged and picturesque Pembrokeshire Coast hosts many small chapels, like St Govan’s (above), dedicated to the Celtic saints whose Christianity predated, by centuries, the arrival of the Papal envoy in Canterbury to convert the pagan Saxons. On a two-stage personal pilgrimage around the coasts of Pembrokeshire in the late seventies, I camped by the chapel dedicated to Non, David’s mother, looking out to Ireland and the Atlantic. David was born near here in the time of the legendary Arthur, the early sixth century, a time when the Welsh still controlled much of the west and north of Britain, including modern-day Scotland, the north, midlands and south-western counties of England and, of course, Wales itself.

More than a century before David, his predecessor Patrick, was also a Welsh monk who introduced Christianity to Ireland. He was, in fact, an escaped British slave who was born in late Roman times, in about AD 389, the son of a small landowner at Banwen in Morgannwg (modern-day Glamorgan), who brought him up as a Christian. When he was sixteen a band of Irish raiders captured him and took him back to Ireland where he was made to look after the sheep of an Irish chieftain in Antrim. It was during these six years of captivity that he decided to become a monk, escaping by ship to the coast of Brittany. There he trained in a monastery, returning to his home in Britain, before beginning his mission to Ireland. Returning to Auxerre, he was ordained there, before sailing back to Ireland to commence his legendary mission.

The surviving stories about David, many of them in the Welsh tradition, are, as they say, the stuff of legend. Wells and mountains were said to spring up at his feet and he miraculously cured the blind, the lame and the sick. According to one of these legends, St David’s spirit was taken up to heaven by a host of angels amid great singing to his glory and honour, on 1st March 589. According to the history of the next fifteen hundred years, his people have never stopped singing since, nor could anyone stop them, not even Edward Plantagenet.

As with Patrick, many legends have grown up around the name of the Welsh patron saint. One of them tells how when David and his monks first arrived in the Glyn Rhosyn area, it was terrorised by a bandit named Boca. He was overcome by David’s personality and became converted to Christianity, although it took David longer to convert his wife! Another story tells of how when David prayed for fresh water a well sprang up at his feet. This useful miracle was repeated at several other sites, including Ffynnon Feddyg. A further tale describes a hill rising up under the saint so that all could see and hear him preach. The name of the village where this happened, Llanddewibrefi, also bears his name: The Church of St David.

Map B illustrates the ‘progress’ made in the settlement of eastern Britain by the Angles, Jutes and Saxons between the fifth and seventh centuries. Map C shows how two key battles, at Deorham and Chester, cut off and isolated Britons into the territories of Cornwall, (North) Wales, Cumbria and Strathclyde.

By the mid-eighth century, the three ‘British’ heartlands of the ‘Cymry‘ or ‘Compatriots’ had become separated by the Anglo-Saxon settlers, to whom they had become known as the ‘Waleas’, the ‘foreigners’ in their own land. Despite later Norman incursions following the Conquest of England, St David’s was still no more than a village in population, and is still the smallest city in Britain, due to the Cathedral which stands there today, dedicated to the patron saint. It then became a popular place of pilgrimage from the late eleventh century, before the Edwardian Conquest of Wales at the end of the thirteenth century.

When was Wales? Norman Lords, Princes and People:

Following their Conquest of England from 1066-80, The Norman kings placed the security of the Welsh border in the hands of ‘marcher’ barons who were allowed to conquer new lands in Wales. They built castles and monasteries in south Wales, giving ‘manors’ for rent to both Anglo-Norman and Welsh tenants. They encouraged Anglo-Norman settlement of the countryside and created new, fortified towns such as Swansea. English place names were used for new settlements, such as Fernhill and Oxwich, which grew next to Welsh villages. Meanwhile, Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, expanded his territory into Powys. However, the Norman kings left the native rulers of north and south Wales in place, provided they paid him homage. However, when Rhys ap Tewdwr was killed by the Normans in 1093, they established lordships over Gower, Kidwelly and Pembroke.

Llywelyn the Great, or Fawr (1172-1240) was a Prince of Gwynedd in north Wales and eventually ruled over most of north and mid-Wales. Through a combination of war and diplomacy, he dominated Wales for forty years. He was the sole ruler of Gwynedd by 1200 and made a treaty with King John of England that year. Llywelyn’s relations with John remained good for the next ten years. He married John’s natural daughter Joan in 1205, and when John arrested the Prince of Powys in 1208, Llywelyn took the opportunity to annex southern Powys. In 1210, Anglo-Welsh relations deteriorated, and John invaded Gwynedd in 1211. Llywelyn was forced to seek terms and to give up all lands east of the River Conwy in the north but was able to recover them the following year in alliance with the other Welsh princes. He allied himself with the barons who forced John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. By 1216, he was the dominant power in Wales, holding a council at Aberdyfi that year to apportion lands to the other princes.

A view of Conwy Castle on the cover of my Professor, Gwyn A. Williams’ popular book.

Following King John’s death, Llywelyn concluded the Treaty of Worcester with his successor, Henry III, in 1218. During the next fifteen years, Llywelyn was frequently involved in fights with Marcher lords and sometimes with the king, but also made alliances with several major powers in the Marches. The Peace of the Middle (March) in 1234 marked the end of Llywelyn’s military career, and the agreed truce of two years was extended year by year for the remainder of his reign. He maintained his position in Wales until his death in 1240 and was succeeded by his son Dafydd ap Llewelyn.

If Wales can be described as a nation in any sense in the late thirteenth century, it was certainly a divided one, divided into four parts; the marcher lordships established by the Anglo-Normans, mainly along the border and in the southern coastal plain, and the native princedoms of Gwynedd in the north, Deheubarth in the west, and Powys in the middle of the country. There was no overall kingdom, and the rivalry between the three princedoms was a cause of increasing concern to the English crown. So, in 1267, Henry III recognised Llewelyn ap Gruffudd of Gwynedd as ‘prince of Wales’, the overall ruler of the three native princedoms. However, Llewelyn did not want to accept the overall right of the Norman ‘Plantagenet’ kings to control Wales. He took advantage of their problems with the barons to expand his territories at the expense of both the marcher lords and the rival Welsh princes.

So in 1277 Edward Plantagenet began a campaign to bring Llewelyn under control. Marching his army into north Wales, he quickly seized Flint, Rhuddlan and Deganwy, forcing Llewelyn into a negotiated peace. He was forced to surrender these lands between Chester and the River Conwy, which Edward then used to create a new series of powerful marcher lordships. Edward also imposed a crippling fine on Llewelyn, which he had no chance of ever raising. Edward then waived this fine, demonstrating the control that he now had over the prince of Wales. However, in 1282, his brother Dafydd began a revolt against the Plantagenets, annoyed by his lack of reward for supporting the English crown. Edward then launched a full-scale war of conquest from the lands he now controlled in the north. He took control of the whole coast, including Anglesey, pushing Llewelyn into Snowdonia. Attempting to break out to the south, he was ambushed and killed at a bridge near Builth Wells. Edward’s troops then pushed into Gwynedd, capturing and brutally executing Prince Dafydd in June 1283.

Castles – Places to Show off, or Symbols of Oppression?

From the beginning of the twelfth century, the Norman lords had begun to build permanent stone castles. Kidwelly Castle (below), like Llansteffan in modern-day Carmarthenshire, began as a walled enclosure, to which round towers and an outer wall were added in the thirteenth century and a large gatehouse was added after 1300.

King Edward saw castles in the eastern Mediterranean during his crusade (1270-2) and introduced the ‘concentric’ design into Britain in the 1280s. It relied on a ring of walls and towers around an open bailey, or courtyard, with a strengthened gatehouse. His Welsh castles at Conwy, Caernarfon and Harlech are classic examples of this design. As well as encircling Wales with these castles, some, like Conwy, provided a good way of setting up new towns under his control, within the outer walls. The Conquest was then completed by the remarkable string of castles which also included Flint, Rhuddlan, Beaumaris on Anglesey, Criccieth, Aberystwyth and Builth. They stood both as bastions of military might and symbols of Plantagenet rule. However, the cost of his nine castles in Wales almost bankrupted him.

Caernarfon Castle.

Harlech Castle

The military occupation of Gwynedd was followed up by a constitutional settlement in 1284 imposing the Statute of Wales, which placed the former principality was placed under the direct jurisdiction of English law. Further revolts were ruthlessly put down by 1295. The King then went on a great circular march through Wales to reinforce his authority and then made his eldest son Prince of Wales in Caernarfon Castle in 1301. This was a reminder that the rule of the native princes was over, and the only important Welsh family to keep their lands were the former rulers of Powys. Other Welsh lands were ‘parcelled up’ and granted to English lords. Wales has remained a ‘Principality’ within an English kingdom ever since, though gradually including all the lands west of the border with England until the inclusion of Monmouthshire (Gwent) as late as 1973. The former Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, was invested with the title in Caernarfon Castle in 1969, despite attempts by extreme nationalists to disrupt the ceremony.

A poem in Hungarian, written by János Arany shortly after the Austrian Empire’s suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Walesi Bárdok (‘The Bards of Wales’) drew its inspiration from this determination of the Welsh to maintain independence from the invading Normans, whose King Edward built a ring of the castles to control the country. The poem tells of the refusal of the bards to sing Edward’s praises at Montgomery Castle after his invasion of the country and the slaying of Llewelyn, the last Welsh-born prince of Gwynedd and Powys, and of how Edward, according to legend, had every last one of them put to death as a punishment.

Symbols of Wales – The Red Dragon, Leeks & Daffodils:

The dragon is a popular mythical beast in the folklore of the British Isles as a whole. In fact, the first dragon standard to be flown in battle, according to dark-age records, was the white dragon of the first Saxons to land on the eastern coasts of Britain around AD 450. The Red Dragon (Y Ddraig Goch) of Wales comes from the Mabinogion, the cultural epic of Wales, which tells the story of the battle between the white dragon and the red dragon for control of Britain. According to the tale, the pained shrieks of the fighting dragons caused women to miscarry and crops to fail. The British king Lludd consulted his wise brother Llefelys, who told him to dig a pit and fill it with mead (a strong liquor made with honey).  When the dragons drank the mead and fell asleep, Lludd imprisoned them both in the pit.

The story is continued by the ninth-century monk, Nennius, in his Historia Britonum. He tells of how, centuries later, King Vortigern tried to build a castle at Dinas Emrys in Snowdonia, but each night the walls collapsed. A boy who grew up to be the wizard Merlin told the king about the two Dragons, who had continued their battle underground. The dragons were released and continued their fight until the Red Dragon triumphed. Later, in his History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth (1100-1155) wrote that this victory was a sign of the coming of King Arthur, also known as Arthur Pendragon. In Welsh, Pen Draig means ‘Chief Dragon’. Nennius also wrote about the legendary Artorius and his battles against the Saxons, in which he halted the Saxon advance at the Battle of Badon Hill in about AD 515.

Over the next thousand years following the Arthurian ‘period’, many British kings used the dragon standard. The legendary seventh-century king Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon of Gwynedd used the Red Dragon as his standard. Alfred The Great flew the White Dragon when his army defeated the Danes at the Battle of Edington in 878. Both Aethelstan and Harold II also flew it, and in 1191 Richard the Lionheart, who popularised the ‘long cross’ of St George, is also said to have carried a dragon standard on the Third Crusade. Henry V flew the Dragon standard at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, in which large numbers of Welsh archers fought. Henry VII, who claimed Cadwaladr as his ancestor, raised the Red Dragon on the background of Tudor white and green colours, giving rise to the Welsh flag still flown today.

Apart from the mythical dragon, Wales has two national emblems – the leek and the daffodil. The leek is a herb of the onion family, and it was worn as a battle emblem by the Britons against the Saxons, and again by Welsh soldiers at Poitiers in the Hundred Years’ War. In legend, the leek was said to have the property of carrying its wearer, uninjured, through battle. It became the official emblem of the Welsh Guards Regiment, worn on St David’s Day. Over recent decades the leek has given way to the daffodil, seen as David’s flower, appropriately blooming around 1st March. St David’s Cross, yellow on a black background (see below), is paraded through Welsh cities and towns on St David’s Day. The name ‘daffodil’ is a corruption of Asphodel, which grew on the banks of the Acheron in ancient Rome, delighting the spirits of the dead. It also grew, according to legend, on the Elysian fields, which may explain why they are placed on graves. In Wales, if you are the first to find a daffodil in bloom in your village on St David’s Day, they say that you will have more gold than silver for a year.

St. David’s Day is not a holiday, but there are parades, special concerts and competitions, called eisteddfodau, all over the country on this day, especially in schools, when children still dress in national costume (largely an invention of two centuries ago, as shown in the postcard picture below from about the same time).

Past into Present – The Dragon’s Two Tongues:

Even at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the vast majority of the people still spoke Welsh. Despite the anglicising effect of intermarriage, education and industrialisation, the persistence of the Welsh language and culture is a remarkable story. At the beginning of the twentieth century, two-thirds of the population was bilingual, and at its end, one-fifth claimed to be Welsh speakers. This has declined slightly, according to the recently-published 2021 Census, possibly due to the death of the last monolingual speakers. At the beginning of this century, Welsh is used in education, with every child learning it to sixteen, and it has equal status with English in law and administration.

Road signs throughout the country are bilingual and the Welsh television channel is popular and successful. In the 1980s the Conservative Government, so often hated by nationalists, made it its policy to support and subsidise the Welsh language. By contrast, English writing in Wales did not receive the same level of subsidy through the Welsh Arts Council. The strength of the Welsh language culture has also influenced the development of the Anglo-Welsh language and culture. Actors such as Richard Burton, Anthony Hopkins, Ioan Gruffudd and Michael Sheen have a rich, spoken English which combines the perfect accuracy of standard, or received pronunciation, with the fluency of melody, lilt and resonance supplied by Welsh-language intonation, with rounded vowels where most ‘Anglo-Saxon’ actors would flatten them.

Welsh also has a different word order, with the noun coming before the main verb, or the adjective coming after the noun. For example, a woman from the valleys, talking about a young man who had died, said “Pity it was that he died so early”. This was a direct translation of the Welsh structure into English. The (ungrammatical) use of the question tag ‘isn’t it?’ or the phrase ‘look you’ are further examples of direct translation in colloquial Welsh speech. Some Welsh words are used directly in English, like ‘cariad’ for ‘darling’ or ‘love’ and ‘cwtch for ‘hug’ (although the ‘ch’ phoneme in Welsh is a ‘guttural’ sound, as in German). You can also tell an Anglo-Welsh writing style by their use of hyperbole (exaggeration). This stems from the tradition of Welsh bards (poets) who recited to the warriors to work up their ‘hwyl’, or ecstasy, before going into battle.

A Nation Once Again? – The Tudor Revolution in Governance:

A century after the Plantagenet Conquest of Wales was complete, a Welsh nobleman named Owain Glyndwr lost a legal dispute with an English marcher lord. He turned to violence and his immediate supporters declared him to be Prince of Wales since he was descended from the princes of Powys. In June 1401 he defeated an English Army in an open battle and by 1404 had succeeded in driving the English lords out of Wales. He then set up an independent Welsh Parliament in Machynlleth in mid-Wales. In 1407, Prince Henry, later to become Henry V, began the re-conquest of Wales. Using the English Navy to stop French ships from bringing guns to the rebels, he took the towns and castles back one at a time, clearing the surrounding lands of Glyndwr’s supporters before moving on to the next town. But in 1412 Glyndwr led a successful ambush of the English Army at Brecon. However, he then vanished into the hills, never to be seen again. For these brief years under his rule, Wales became a truly independent country for the first and only time in its history. Still, the legends surrounding him inspired many subsequent ‘followers’ to campaign for a distinct political identity.

A direct descendant of Glyndwr, Henry Tudor, finally defeated the Plantagenets at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, and again at Stoke in 1487, ending the Wars of the Roses. Henry VII was Welsh-speaking, as were his two sons, Arthur and Henry. With his accession to the English throne, and with his son Arthur as Prince of Wales, it looked like the Welsh were on top again. One observer wrote that they…

“… may now be said to have recovered their former independence, for the wisest and fortunate Henry VII is a Welshman”.

However, Wales had been ruled for centuries by the Kings of England with no clear legal basis. It wasn’t until the Tudors that the relationship was codified. Between 1535 and 1542, Henry VIII passed a series of laws that established a formal system of government over Wales. The local lords put in place under the Plantagenets were stripped of their powers, which were passed to the government.  The marcher lordships were abolished, but Shrewsbury remained, in all but name, the administrative capital of the whole ‘region’ of the united realm of the former principalities and marcher lordships. The Council of the Marches, meeting there, was responsible for maintaining law and order both in Wales and the English border shires until it was abolished in the 1640s. Then, for the first time, Welsh MPs were able to sit in the Westminster Parliament, and the border was legally established and defined. Laws that discriminated against the Welsh were repealed and the counties of Wales were put on an equal basis as those of England. However, under the Act of Union of 1536, English became the official language to be used in all legal and government documents, though the majority of the people remained monolingual Welsh speakers.

However, one of the results of these changes was that the language of the ruling classes became English, but they at least ensured that justices of the peace and the men running the shires were Welsh, so that Wales was not simply seen as an extension of England. Even Monmouthshire, which was fully incorporated into England by the Act of Union, was eventually returned to Wales in 1972. Previous to the Act of Union, there were frequent border disputes like the one that led to the Glyndwr Rebellion. The Welsh were often falsely accused of stealing cattle or sheep, as in the English nursery rhyme, Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief, Taffy came to my house and stole a leg of beef. No doubt as many Welsh sheep got transferred across the indistinct border after a night raid in the opposite direction across Offa’s dike.

Like her father, Elizabeth Tudor was also brought up speaking Welsh, and, as Elizabeth I, was the last monarch to have learnt the language. She also had several important Welsh scientists, like Dr John Dee, scholars and explorers at her court. Her family’s ancient Celtic Christian roots had become even more important after the Reformation. The Pope had excommunicated her, and she was constantly threatened by plots, rebellions and invasions. She claimed her right to be Supreme Governor of the Church through reference to the saints and chieftains of the ancient Britons, chronicled by Geoffrey of Monmouth and others before him, and the coronation oath still contains this reference. The Welsh adopted Jesus College, Oxford, founded in 1571, and the Inns of Court in London as the ways to complete their education.

Members of the Welsh elite were enthusiastic Renaissance people, building houses and art collections comparable with collections anywhere else in Europe. They were also keen supporters of the Reformation. Oliver Cromwell was so named because his ancestors had changed their name from Williams during the Reformation. Richard Williams was the grandson of a Welshman who had followed Henry Tudor’s red dragon standard to the Battle of Bosworth and then settled at Putney, where he married his son Morgan to the niece of Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s minister. Richard helped his uncle-in-law to suppress the monasteries and was rewarded with former church lands in Huntingdonshire. He took his uncle’s name, and three generations later, in 1599, Oliver Cromwell, God’s Englishman, was born in a townhouse in Huntingdon. He might perhaps have been more accurately known as God’s Welshman. 

The Cromwells were certainly strong admirers of Good Queen Bess, especially when the Scottish Stuart kings became unpopular, though they continued to be guided by the Welsh Cecil dynasty. Robert Cecil uncovered (perhaps initiated and manipulated) the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, then allowed King James to take the credit, increasing his ‘poll ratings’. It is easy to forget that Scotland was widely seen as a hostile, foreign country when Oliver Cromwell was growing up and for the rest of the century. It only became united with England, Wales and Ireland in 1707 and even after the death of Anne, many Scots remained loyal to the Stuart ‘pretenders’, becoming ‘Jacobites’. Oliver’s favourite daughter was named Elizabeth, no doubt after her mother, but also after ‘Queen Elizabeth, of famous memory’.

Bishop Morgan’s translation of the Bible into Welsh secured the future of the language.

The Protestant Reformation took root in Wales, with Welsh translations of the creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer coming out as early as 1547. These were soon followed by translations of the Prayer Book and the Scriptures. The first Bible in Welsh was published in 1588 and contributed greatly to the survival of the Welsh language. Catholicism survived, with St Winifred’s Well at Holywell in north Wales remaining an important shrine and centre of pilgrimage to today. Although most of the Welsh people enthusiastically embraced Protestantism, it was Nonconformity and Methodism which by the eighteenth century became more popular than Anglicanism. There was a close relationship between literacy and Methodism in the latter part of the century. In Caernarfonshire, those areas with the highest attendance at Gruffydd Jones’ circulating schools between 1741 and 1777 were also those with the most Methodist chapels by 1800.

Though it was excluded from administration, the position Welsh gained as the language of religion helped to ensure its survival. Grammar School education was in English, but basic literacy in Welsh became widespread in the eighteenth century, due largely to the efforts of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, Gruffydd Jones and others, who sought to ensure that the people could read the Bible for themselves. A growing market for Welsh language books led to the establishment of the first Welsh printing presses in the early eighteenth century. Welsh medieval texts were collected and preserved. This enabled a Europe-wide rediscovery of the Celtic past and identification with its Celtic past helped the Welsh to assert their different identity from the English.

Interest in the bardic traditions was reawakened in the late eighteenth century and, under the direction of Iolo Morganwg, eisteddfodau re-emerged as vehicles for regional and national cultural activities. Druidism, long extinct, was revived through colourful if invented, ceremonies. Celtomania went some way to convincing the English that the Welsh had something to offer the partnership. Until the mid-nineteenth century Wales remained an agrarian country, specialising in cattle-rearing, dairy products and cloth manufacture. The countryside was gradually enclosed and deforested, but settlements remained small and scattered, with farmers maintaining upland summer houses and lowland winter homes. Market and textile-manufacturing towns in South and mid-Wales became increasingly important in the eighteenth century.

People of the ‘Abyss’ – The Proud Valleys:

The history of Wales from the mid-nineteenth to the late twentieth century was dominated by the growth and decline of the iron, steel and coal industries, and their social and economic consequences. Due to the demand for Welsh steam coal to power the industrial revolution and Britain’s expanding Empire, new and vibrant communities, with a unique lifestyle and culture, grew up in previously unpopulated areas of the two coalfields in the north and south of Wales. At its high point in 1913, the coal industry employed a quarter of a million men and women.

The valleys of south Wales span out across the hinterland from the coastal ports and cities of Newport, Cardiff and Swansea like the fingers of two linked, outstretched hands, from Monmouthshire to Carmarthenshire. The best-known valleys are those of the Rhondda Fach and Fawr (‘little’ and ‘great’) in central Glamorgan. By 1906, people were moving into these valleys at a rate second in the world only to those arriving in the northern United States. They mainly came from rural Wales so that Wales as a whole retained its Welsh population at a time when other parts of Britain and Ireland were experiencing mass emigration. As this supply of cheap labour began to dry up, many workers moved in from the English side of the River Severn and its estuary, especially from Somerset and Gloucestershire, both miners and farm-workers. Long terraces of houses were built in rows along the steep hillsides overlooking the pits and colliery winding towers.

A model Welsh miner by John Upton of Gowerton, c. 1980.

These were societies dominated by one industry, Coal, though there were also iron and steel foundries at both the ‘heads’ and ‘feet’ of the valleys. From the age of eleven or twelve, then fourteen, most boys started work with their fathers underground, working eleven-hour shifts. They were called ‘trappers’, because they would take care of the doors on the tramways, opening and closing them for the horse-pulled trams full of coal, while their fathers would cut the coal at the coal ‘face’ using picks, loading the trams using shovels. They were called colliers. My maternal grandfather was one, working in the smaller Warwickshire coalfield, where the coalface was more accessible, and conditions were generally better.

Sometimes the boys would push or pull the trucks themselves, so they were called ‘hauliers’. Their wages were often decided by how much coal they and their fathers could get to the surface by the end of each shift.

Map showing the extent and topography of the South Wales coalfield.

Often the seams of coal were very thin and could only be worked by the colliers lying on their sides, and conditions were hot, ‘sticky’ (humid) and wet, with water running through the rock. At the same time, there was a lot of dust, from both the coal and the rock, so miners developed, and died early, from the effects of lung diseases like pneumoconiosis and silicosis. The amount of dust in the atmosphere would sometimes result in serious, spontaneous fires. Gases were released from the rock and, since explosives had to be used to blast open new faces, there were frequent disasters in which hundreds and thousands of miners were killed. The worst disaster happened at the Senghenydd Colliery in 1913, when 430 colliers were killed. Even a spark from the tools used was enough to cause a major explosion, and roof falls were also common, resulting in miners being buried alive or suffocating. The miners ate and went to the toilet underground in the same places underground.

Coming home was difficult because the moleskin trousers would be stiff with the mixture of sweat, dust and mud as they dried in the summer or froze in winter. The boys were so exhausted that they fell asleep over dinner, and then they would have to wait their turn to wash in front of a zinc bath in front of the fire. The women would be continually boiling water since there could be as many as eight or nine men and boys working in the colliery. While the men were at work, the women would be continually fighting a losing battle to get the dust and dirt out of the house, as well as out of the clothes.

The eldest daughter would stay at home to help her mother, while the others would find work as maids, in shops, or sewing. Social life revolved around the pubs, the miners’ clubs, or ‘institutes’ which included libraries and theatre halls, and the nonconformist chapels, where there were social and cultural events every night of the week, as well as services on Sundays. The children would also attend Sunday schools, which organised picnics and ‘outings’ in the summer. Many men belonged to Male Voice Choirs, which regularly competed against each other, and there were also Community Singing events, Gymanfa Ganu, in which whole chapels and colliery villages would take part.

Tonypandy miners striking during the Cambrian Combine dispute of 1910-11.

In 1910-11 there were a series of strikes in the Cambrian Combine, in which many Rhondda miners worked. The company refused to increase wages, although they were making huge profits at that time. There was little strike pay at that time, and poor relief was restricted to those who lived in a rented property or were homeless. The miners organised soup kitchens, and communal lunches, and raised money for them by singing in the wealthier towns in south Wales. There were some riots and violent incidents at Tonypandy in 1910 when policemen from England were brought in to keep the miners ‘in line’.  Churchill, then Home Secretary, sent soldiers to south Wales, though they weren’t used. In 1926 the mine owners tried to cut the miners’ wages and locked them out of the collieries when their Trade Union refused to accept this. Other Trade Unions decided to call a General Strike throughout Britain in support, but this only lasted eight days. However, the miners stayed out for six months before they were starved back to work. Others left the valleys for good to find work in London, Birmingham, Coventry and Oxford (Cowley), where car manufacture and electrical engineering were expanding, mainly concentrated in the Midlands. To begin with, there was a trickle of single, independent men, but this was soon followed by whole families.

Wage cuts, lay-offs and the forceful use of police during the 1910s and 1920s led to the development of strong traditions of trade unionism and socialist politics throughout the south Wales Coalfield, especially in the Rhondda. However, just as Wales had benefited from the ‘boom’ time in the coal industry before the First World War, it suffered more than any other region from the slump in world markets for coal, iron and steel. Average unemployment reached 31% by the end of the thirties. In the valleys, however, this figure often reached more than two-thirds of the working population in particular towns and villages and by the 1930s only Durham had more people on poor relief. Even those in work in 1931 were on wages which were far worse than they had been five years earlier. At first, the National Government tried to persuade people to leave the valleys for work in England, believing that anything they did to make life better for the poor and unemployed would only hurt migration.

A contemporary map from the 1930s report above.

However, by 1934, when Britain as a whole was recovering from the Depression, the government decided to try to tackle the widespread unemployment and poverty in south Wales by providing incentives to industries to move into the area. Most of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire became part of the ‘Special Area’. However, the effects of these measures were slow to develop and inadequate in scale. At the same time, the effects of the high levels of poverty had become devastating, especially the accompanying levels of disease and malnutrition, as well as infant and maternal deaths. The incidence of tuberculosis was 130% above the natural average. Added to this, the results of outward migration meant that the number of Welsh speakers, which had increased and then remained stable over the previous decades, now went into decline. Local shops and services were no longer viable, and shopkeepers committed suicide rather than collect the money they were owed by customers who had no money to pay for essential food and clothing for their families. Others sold up and left for England to join the younger miners in their families. They were often deacons and elders in chapels, which were therefore now losing the leaders of their already dwindling congregations.

Between 1920 and 1940 Wales lost about 450,000 people, permanently, due to migration, 90% of whom were from the three counties of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire and Breconshire. Since about 10% of migrants failed to settle in the ‘new industry’ towns and cities of the Midlands and South East of England, the number of those experiencing ‘the exodus’ may have been well over half a million, a figure equivalent to one in five of the people of Wales in 1921. Very few of these went with the bribes offered by the Ministry of Labour, or under their control. Most of those who found their way to Cowley, Coventry and Birmingham did so with the help and organisation of their own families, or the friends they knew through Rugby, Boxing, Gymnastics and other sporting clubs, chapels, brass bands, choirs, and a whole ‘heavenly host’ of other cultural institutions.

It wasn’t just the individuals and families who migrated, therefore, but many of the organisations which they had set up in the valleys, and now transferred to the new places to which they moved. Membership in these traditional Welsh cultural institutions helped the migrants to settle and integrate. Fifty years later, the Welsh immigrants to Oxford, Birmingham and Coventry still retained the accents of the particular valleys in which they grew up and began work and their active membership of the remaining clubs and societies with Welsh origins and associations in these cities. Many had served in prominent positions in voluntary organisations and civic life, even becoming Lord Mayors. Among their children, there were a significant array of local sporting and musical ‘celebrities’.

Sport – Fields of Dreams:

Rugby may have been invented by an English public schoolboy, but it was the Welsh who turned into an art and a craft, not to mention a mass spectator sport, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Gareth Edwards was the greatest Rugby player in the world during his career, which spanned fifteen seasons. Still a student when he gained his first cap for Wales against France, this was the start of a run of fifty-three consecutive international appearances.

He captained his country thirteen times from his position behind the scrum (scrum-half).  During his career, he helped Wales to win seven Championships, five ‘Triple Crowns’ (victories over the other British countries) and three ‘Grand-Slams’ (victories in all four, now five matches). He also scored what most experts still agree was the finest ‘try’ (touch-down) of all time when appearing for the invitation Barbarian team in 1973. He also toured Australia and New Zealand with the British Lions three times, also playing against the visiting ‘All-Black’ team in 1971, the Lions’ first-ever series win against New Zealand. A more recent Lions team, with a core of Welsh players including George North and Leigh Halfpenny (pictured below), emulated the earlier successes in their tour ‘down under’ in 2013.

Although Rugby is still the most popular team sport, Wales has two Premier League teams, Cardiff City (‘the bluebirds’) and Swansea City (‘the Swans’). In 2012, the Cardiff team was promoted to the Premiership after a gap of fifty years outside the top division. Swansea had a great team in the 1980s and won promotion again in 2010. They finished high enough in the 2011-12 season to win a place in European competition. Since then, the twin ‘cities’ have struggled to retain that form and positions but last year, the national team took part in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, their first time in the finals since 1958. Unlike John Charles’s side, however, who lost to the eventual winning Brazilian team (and Pelé), Gareth Bale’s team failed to progress beyond the group stage.

Land of their Fathers Eisteddfodau & Other Annual Events:

Welsh people are proud of their country for a variety of reasons. Many regret the loss of independence and imposed rule, as many of them see it, from a foreign country, though they now have their own government in Cardiff. For the large minority who speak Welsh, a majority in many of the western and northern towns and villages, the Royal National Eisteddfod is perhaps their most important national institution. It is a major annual occasion when musicians, poets, artists and craftsmen gather during the first week in August on a site announced a year and a day before. ‘Eisteddfod’ literally means ‘being seated’ or, more formally, ‘Chairing’, referring to the ceremony in which the poet of the year is ‘invested’ or ‘installed’. The Archdruid of the ‘Order’ or Gorsedd of Bards presides over the chairing and crowning of the bard, which can only take place if the assembly answers his question A oes heddwch? ‘Is it Peace?’ in the affirmative by repeating the word ‘Heddwch’. But although the Eisteddfod is a purely Welsh invention, it is not as old as it seems, with its processions of white-robed druids. It dates from the Romantic Revival of the late eighteenth century.

Although this is perhaps the greatest ‘Cymric’ institution, smaller competitions, or festivals, are held throughout the year in towns, schools, colleges, churches and chapels the length and breadth of the country, especially on or around St David’s Day. The National Eisteddfod or Eisteddfod Cenedlaethol is held annually in a different place each year, announced a year and a day before. The Archdruid of the ‘Order’ or Gorsedd of the Bards presides over it and the mythology of the druidic ancestry symbolises that Wales is always ‘The Land of my Fathers’ (Hen Wlad fyng nghadau) and always, as the National Hymn goes on, a land of bards, singers and soldiers who spilt their blood for freedom. The language of the National Eisteddfod is Welsh, and besides the main competitions, there are many ‘side-shows’ from folk concerts to political gatherings. In fact, many visitors to the National Eisteddfod never go into the Pavillion, being able to view the competitions on the big screen (as pictured below). I attended the event in Caernarfon in 1979 as a student leader, and spoke, in my faltering Welsh, to a ‘fringe’ meeting of Welsh-speaking students.

Many visitors to the National Eisteddfod never go into the Pavillion (background), being able to view the competitions on the big screen (foreground). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I arrived in Wales as an undergraduate student in 1975, an ‘eisteddfod’ was not a new concept to me. In fact, I had already taken part in one in Birmingham, winning singing, recitation and drama competitions. It was also known as a ‘Festival of Arts’ and the competitions were in English, but the nature of the event was based on earlier events held by Welsh exiles in the city for more than a hundred years, mostly connected with the Welsh chapels. In the 1960s the ranks of these exiles had been swelled by Welsh teachers who formed at least half of those who taught me, whether at school or Sunday school. They twice helped my father, a Baptist pastor in the city from 1965 to 1979, to put on a very broad festival of competitions between the Baptist chapels in the west of the city. So, when I was asked to compete as a Welsh learner in the Inter-College Eisteddfod, involving students from all the universities and colleges in Wales, I was happy to do so. I learnt ‘Cofio’ (‘Remembering’) by Waldo Williams (see below), and remember it to this day, though I still don’t know the exact meaning of all the words. Unfortunately, I got flu just before the event was to be staged that year, 1976, in Aberystwyth, and was unable to compete since I had lost my voice. However, I did take part in local ‘Noson Lawen’, ‘Happy Nights’, and ‘Gymanfa Ganu’, Community Singing.

The River Dee near Llangollen

The International Eisteddfod is held in Llangollen, a picturesque north Wales town on the River Dee, in July each year, an event that draws participants and competitors from all over the world. Its folk-dance competitions are particularly colourful, and singers can use any language, making it open to all. The Royal Welsh Show is held annually in Builth Wells and attracts participants from all over the British Isles. The whole of rural life is there, from combine harvesters to prize bulls and sheep-shearing.

Writers of Wales & the World:

Dylan Thomas has often been described as one of the greatest writers in the English language, certainly of the first half of the twentieth century in which he lived. This is not just because of his poetry, written between 1934 and 1952, but also due to his short stories and plays. He was also a radio broadcaster, so we have many of his own recordings of his work. His work appeals to readers of all ages, including children, for whom the autobiographical stories of his own childhood are particularly interesting.

His origins are firmly rooted in southwest Wales. He wrote that his mother “came from the agricultural depths of Carmarthen” and his father was the son of a railway worker, “Thomas the Guard” in Johnstown, a small Carmarthenshire village, described in his short story, A Visit to Grandpa’s. Both parents were Welsh speakers, but Dylan grew up with only a few words and phrases in the language, although his name is taken from The Mabinogion, the great collection of medieval Welsh tales. He was born in Swansea in 1914 and lived in Cwmdonkin Drive, in a modest, semi-detached house on a steep hill with panoramic views across the town and the bay. His father was an English master at Swansea Grammar School and Dylan was encouraged to use his library. Besides poetry books, young Dylan’s other passion was the theatre and he was a good actor at school. In 1932 he acted in Noel Coward’s Hay Fever at the Little Theatre in Swansea

A drawing by Robin Jacques for the short story, A Visit to Grandpa’s.

After leaving school, he worked briefly as a junior reporter for the South Wales Evening Post. His first poem to be published in a national magazine was No man Believes (1933), but more significant was the publication of his poem Light in The Listener (1934), which was praised by T S Eliot and Stephen Spender, two leading London poets of the day. His first book, 18 Poems was published just before Christmas in the same year. This led him to London and the publication of his second book by J M Dent in 1936. It was there that he met Caitlin Macnamara, a stunningly attractive Irish dancer.  She was modelling for the Welsh painter Augustus John, who later painted Dylan’s two most famous portraits. Augustus introduced Caitlin to Dylan and within a year they got married in Penzance, Cornwall. Dylan had his work published in the US in 1939, and also began supplementing his modest income from writing by joining Wynford Vaughan Thomas at the BBC. He eventually made over eighty scripted broadcasts, some of which have become classics of the genre. The renowned Welsh actor Richard Burton was full of praise for Dylan’s broadcasting abilities.

Dylan & Caitlin at the Boathouse.

Dylan, Caitlin and their young daughter Aeronwy moved to ‘The Boathouse’ in Laugharne from the Cardigan Bay town of Aberaeron in 1949. He had first visited what he called “the strangest town in Wales” in 1934 and had briefly lived there in 1938. Like many other writers and artists, including Edward Thomas, Augustus John and Richard Hughes, Dylan loved the town and felt secure there. His friend and fellow-writer, Vernon Watkins, described it as being Dylan’s “last refuge and sanity in a nightmare world.” Settled there, with some degree of permanence, Dylan had a new burst of creativity, producing some of his finest poems. In 1950 he published what became his most famous story, A Child’s Christmas in Wales, an amalgam of two other stories, in an American magazine. Working high above the estuary in the primitive wooden structure which was his ‘workshed’, he also wrote one of his best-loved poems, Do not go gentle there, and worked on his radio play Under Milk Wood there, in between trips to the US.

A page from A Child’s Christmas illustrated by Edward Ardizzone.

These American trips were exhausting, but necessary, given his financial situation. Dylan prepared carefully for his readings, copying out each poem he intended to read into his best ‘copperplate’ handwriting. He travelled huge distances from city to city and from campus to campus. Not only was he expected to perform onstage, but also at the faculty parties which followed. Among those he met were Arthur Miller and Charlie Chaplin, whose films Dylan loved, identifying strongly with the character of the vulnerable little tramp. While in New York he fell into the Bohemian atmosphere of Greenwich Village with the same enthusiasm he had greeted Fitzrovia in London in the thirties. John Malcolm Brinnin chronicled these last years in his book Dylan Thomas in America, which came to be hated by Caitlin and Dylan’s friends in Britain because it described Dylan’s drunken behaviour. On his fourth and final, fatal trip to America, Dylan collapsed on the streets and died in New York’s St. Vincent’s Hospital on 9 November 1953, in circumstances which remain disputed.

The town centre in Laugharne, with Dylan’s favourite watering hole on the left.

Although Dylan Thomas’ reputation was quickly established as a poet in the 1930s, he is now better known for his brilliant radio play, Under Milk Wood, and for his wonderfully humorous stories based on his childhood and adolescent experiences in Wales. He was fascinated by the small-town characters which surrounded him, especially in Laugharne, which he renamed Llareggub (spell it backwards in English!) Their conversations are gently mimicked, while the sounds, sights and smells of those seaside towns he describes so wittily are as fresh and amusing today as they were more than half a century ago.

R S Thomas was born in March 1913. His reputation as a poet has been international for more than a generation, but his heart and soul belong to the Llyn Peninsula in north Wales, where he was both poet and priest. There he was inspired by the rugged and challenging landscape as well as by the people he met and ministered to. He had been a priest in successive parishes in Wales before he reached the last parish before Ireland, Aberdaron. As you travel down the peninsula, the land becomes starker and starker, narrowing to the headlands at the tip where the sea takes over. Thomas’ poems and the views connect with each other, encouraging us to explore the questions which arise from both the poetry and the landscape. Few poets ask as many questions as R S Thomas. They invite us to explore and to take to mind and heart questions that have no easy answers, or that are unanswerable.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldo_Williams
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Waldo Williams (1904-1972) was a native of Pembrokeshire and, in between writing, a junior school teacher. His poems, written in Welsh, are very mystical and intense, always relating to his Christian vision of the oneness of all mankind. His mastery of the language in a great variety of verse forms, often original and individual, and his use of imagery, give an unusual force and freshness to his expression of ancient themes. A strong pacifist, he was once imprisoned for his refusal to contribute taxes for military purposes. He was a very reserved Welshman, greatly loved by many. Late in life, he received a long-deserved Arts Council prize. His one volume of verse, Dail Pren, won him an enduring place in Welsh literature. Here is one of his best-loved poems, first in its beautiful, original Welsh, and then (the first four verses) in translation:

Remembering

“One short minute before the sun goes from the sky,

One gentle minute before the night starts on its journey,

To remember the forgotten things

Lost now in the dust of times gone by.

“Like the foam of a wave that breaks on a lonely shore,

Like the wind’s song where there is no ear to hear,

I know they call in vain upon us –

The old forgotten things of human kind.

“The achievement and art of early generations,

Small dwellings and great halls,

The fine-wrought legends scattered centuries ago,

The gods that no one knows about by now.

“And the little words of transient languages,

They were gay on the lips of men,

And pleasant to the ear in the chatter of little children,

But no tongue calls upon them any longer.”

‘Cofio/Remembering’ by Waldo Williams

The upright bluestone on Rhos Fach near Mynachlogddu was erected in memory of the great Welsh Nationalist, poet, pacifist and Quaker, who lived and taught in the area. Pentre Ifan (below) was once a burial chamber, standing nearby and overlooking the north Pembrokeshire coast, one of the ancient sites which inspired the poetry of Waldo Williams.

Dai Smith is a historian and writer who was born in Tonypandy in the Rhondda in 1945. He supervised my PhD research and doctoral thesis from 1978 to 1988. As the son of a Yorkshireman and a Welsh-speaking woman, he grew up speaking English. “You did unless you were the son of the manse,” he told one reporter. Sons of the manse were bogey figures in the new Wales which began to emerge in the late seventies and early eighties when he began writing on Wales.

A street in Pontypridd, looking up to the Rhondda Valleys in the eighties.

I was a Welsh-speaking Englishman and a son of the manse, so although I may not have been a ‘bogey man’, we had quite a ‘catalytic’ relationship. He remembered the sense of community that was left over from the Depression:

“You couldn’t survive as a family in the Depression. You were self-sufficient (only) as a street.”

Dai Smith (1984), Wales! Wales?

He also remembered the street parties and the local jazz concerts. But even then, in the ‘fag-end’ of the tradition he describes in his books, it was not a ‘parochial’ society. It looked outwards. Dai had returned to Wales in the mid-seventies from a sojourn studying in New York, to find that although there was an enormous upsurge in the writing of Welsh history, industrial Wales had, so far, been largely ignored. The Valleys were in decline, with the mines closing down one after another and with them the miners’ libraries. Nobody seemed interested, because the influential people of Wales were what he described as ‘born-again Welshmen’, English speakers who had learnt Welsh, often pretentiously changing their names in the process. The Wales he knew was urban and English-speaking because, throughout the twentieth century, fewer than half of the Welsh had been able to speak Welsh. He believed that one of the greatest myths ever propagated was that the Welsh language was ‘murdered’ or ‘kicked in the teeth’ by the English state.

At the centre of this myth was the ‘Welsh Not’, the wooden placard hung about the necks of pupils heard speaking Welsh at school. In the myth, this is the size of a breadboard. In one of his TV programmes Dai Smith handles one of the few surviving ‘Welsh Nots’: it is the size of a matchbox. Nor is there any evidence of a directive handed down by an English bureaucracy to schools. The ‘Welsh Not’ was in fact a much earlier phenomenon than the advent of universal elementary education, introduced only in voluntary schools. Also in fact, it was the product of the ambitions of Welsh parents who asked for it to be used to encourage their children to use English as a medium of instruction in science and mathematics, alongside Welsh, in those local areas where little English was spoken outside school. In his book and companion TV series, Wales? Wales! (1984), Dai explored, provocatively, what it really meant to be Welsh. He argued that the myths around Welsh identity had been used and added to by a ‘Cymricising’ leisure industry as much as by nationalists. Wales was busy reinventing its past to serve the needs of the present.

Dai also wrote about the English-language literature of Wales, discussing poets like R. S. Thomas and Idris Davies as well as novelists like Lewis Jones and Raymond Williams. He ruthlessly dissected Richard Llewellyn’s hugely popular book, How Green Was My Valley, which became an Oscar-winning Holywood film in 1940, and a more authentic television series in the 1970s. As an English-Speaking Welshman, Dai Smith has often felt that the Welsh language has been put on a life support machine by the British Government. More recently, of course, it has been supported directly from Cardiff, by the Welsh Assembly. The heavy subsidy for writing in Welsh, he argues, ignores how life in Wales has been lived for more than a century by the majority of its population. Saxons called its people ‘wealas’, strangers. Ironically, Dai Smith claimed, this is what the Anglo-Welsh majority in Wales has been increasingly made to feel like in their own country, this time by their own countrymen, the Cymry Cymraeg.

Offa’s Dyke in North Wales (foreground) with Chirk Castle in the distance. Photo by Kevin Bleasdale, Landscape Photographer of the Year. He wrote:

“I was walking the line of Offa’s Dyke in North Wales when
the slanting late afternoon winter light raked across the landscape,
illuminating the folds in the gently rolling hillside.”
(www.ukgreetings.co.uk)

Photograph of Valle Crucis Abbey, Denbighshire, Wales – detail of tracery (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By the time I left Wales in 1983, I was so in love with Welsh landscapes and cultural events that, at the first opportunity, I took a group of Lancashire kids from the school where I held my first teaching post, to the Llangollen International Eisteddfod, where we sang I like to go a-wandering in Valle Crucis Abbey and watched Hungarian folk-dancing by the picturesque River Dee. We also visited Welsh and Norman castles on either side of Offa’s Dyke, acting out sheep raids in both directions! I have yet to find a daffodil blooming here in Hungary on 1st March 2023 but am sure that there are already magnificent displays of them below the castle walls around Wales. I’m also sure they are blooming beneath the walls of Canterbury, the town founded by the Cantii and refounded by Romans, Britons, Jutes and Saxons and where I sojourned last in Britain.

Blwyddin Dydd Gwl Dewi! A Joyous St David’s Day, wherever and however you celebrate it!

Hwyl fawr i chi gyd!

DSC09239


Related articles:
https://chandlerozconsultants.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/galeri-gwalia-a-gift-for-st-davids-day-1st-march/
Major Additional Sources:

The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History (2001).

Featured

The Illusion of ‘Illiberal’ Democracy in Hungary & Russia’s Imperial War in Ukraine, 2010-23.

Welcome Back, Comrades!

‘Farewell, comrades!’ A poster from the first Hungarian free elections in 1990.

When I returned to Hungary in 2011 to live after a gap of fifteen years in the UK (including a year in the South of France), it was as a husband to a Hungarian citizen with family responsibilities back home in Hungary. So I took early retirement from teaching in the UK, something I had saved for even when working in Hungary in 1992-96, running a teachers’ exchange programme for Devon County Council and Baranya County Assembly, based in Pécs. At that time, I worked with politicians and officials of all political persuasions from both counties to bring about the transition to democracy that was then well underway in Hungary under a succession of liberalising governments, local and national, drawing their support from across the political spectrum. These were composed of broad coalitions of parties, and for four years we were careful, especially as ‘outsiders’ to work with all of them, without fear or favour. Moreover, the Councillors from Devon who regularly visited us were drawn from the Conservative, Liberal Democratic and Labour parties, yet demonstrated how local politics in Britain worked at its best. Added to this, we were keen to open up English Language learning to a wide diversity of students and pupils in the state education system, alongside the teaching of other ‘foreign’ languages.

Courting the Western Powers, 1998-2002:

As a ‘Christian socialist’ in British terms, and therefore, in European terms, a centrist Social Democrat, I had never had any difficulty in discussing questions of religious faith and politics in Hungary, even in my earliest ‘sojourns’ in Hungary in 1988-91 during my time working for nonconformist colleges and organisations in the English Midlands. So when I encountered misunderstandings and misinterpretations of these firmly-held beliefs in 2011-14, I was surprised by the growing sectarianism and intolerance that seemed prevalent in Hungarian public life at that time, contrasting sharply with the ‘liberal democratic’ atmosphere of the country in the 1990s, which had led to its accession to the EU and NATO by the early years of this century. My regular family visits to Hungary and my contacts among the growing Hungarian expatriate community in Britain did not suggest that anything fundamental had changed, even during the early Orbán government. But when it lost power in 2002, something did change within Fidesz, though it seemed that those now in power would be able to pick up the torch and run with it.

However, it was clear by 2010 that I was mistaken in this, and that western liberal democratic views were, already, no longer welcome. In particular, the ruling Fidesz Party was no longer the upholder of these views, despite President Bush’s speech in Budapest four years earlier. As a Christian, I supported the social conservatism of the Orbán government but saw no contradiction between ‘secular toleration’ and ‘sacred traditionalism’ in this respect.

‘Fitting in’ with Fidesz:

I had always rejected bigotry and ‘exceptionalism’ of any kind in Britain, but this was what I was now encountering for the first time in Hungary. Even in the churches and church schools, I came up against ‘exclusivist’ mantras and was made to feel that, despite (or perhaps because of) all my experience in bilingual, international and intercultural education, I “simply didn’t fit in”. I have since “shaken the dust from my feet” of those ‘church’ institutions I first served, and have kept my views to myself, except when my homeland has come under unprovoked attack for its multi-cultural and anti-racist values, which have proved to be in conflict with the increasingly monocultural direction of Hungarian society since 2015. Returning to my Anglican roots, however, I continue to be a ‘tolerated’ foreigner in the lower echelons of church-controlled (and therefore Fidesz-controlled) higher education. Here I am now permitted to express, in moderation, my ‘eccentric’ liberal educational views. Others, with similar views and values, have sadly not survived in these institutions.

The Hungarian Basic Law, the new constitution, was brought in by the second Orbán government in 2011.

However, as a British citizen and elector, I believe I have the right to comment on the UK’s relations with other NATO members and on its international relations, including the EU, even though it is no longer a member state of the latter organisation, as Hungary still is, at least for the time being. Since Ukraine is an ally of NATO in its resistance to Russia’s illegal invasions and occupations of its sovereign territory, I feel at liberty to explain and critique Hungary’s recent pro-Russian and therefore anti-NATO stance, especially on the first anniversary of the full-scale war begun on the orders of Vladimir Putin on 24th February 2022. In doing so, I will summarise and quote from Zsuzsanna Szelényi’s recently published (2022) book, Tainted Democracy: Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary, in which she gives a fuller critique of Hungary’s foreign and domestic policies under Fidesz rule.

Hungary – a Tainted Democracy?:
Cover image from Szelényi’s book: Silhouettes of demonstrators as they form a human chain around the Hungarian Parliament to protest against PM Viktor Orbán’s latest anti-LGBT law in Budapest on 14 June 2021. REUTERS/Marton Monus TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY.

Szelényi, like many former leading figures of Fidesz, was once, in the 1990s, a parliamentary ally of Viktor Orbán who has now become an outspoken political opponent. The book shows, in her terms, how Hungary, once the poster child of liberal democracy, is fast becoming an autocracy under Orbán’s fourth premiership in succession. After winning an absolute majority in 2010, Orbán launched a series of ‘reforms’, abandoning the country’s twenty-year-old, post-Cold War liberal consensus and 1989 Constitution of the second post-World War II Republic (see the picture & caption below).

For domestic supporters and foes alike, the rise of Hungary’s current prime minister is a vivid example of how democracy can be subverted from within. For foreign observers, it is puzzling, given Hungary’s history since 1945, but it seems to mirror the growth of Vladimir Putin’s tsarist autocracy in Russia. Except that Russia never, even briefly, became a true democracy at the end of the Cold War, but remained an autocratic, oligarchic, imperial power. Szelényi was a leading member of Orbán’s Fidesz in its early years after the first free elections took place in 1990. She witnessed first-hand the party’s shift from liberalism to populist nationalism. She explains how the party rose to leadership of the country under Órban to make sweeping legal, political and economic changes to solidify its grip on power – from the tightening of control over the public media to slashing the number of parliamentary seats. She also asks key questions as to why Orbán has been so successful in winning support in Hungary and wielding considerable influence in European politics.

Zsuzsanna Szelényi

After working at the Council of Europe for fifteen years, Zsuzsanna Szelényi returned to politics in 2012, representing the liberal opposition in Parliament from 2014. In the election campaign of that year, She writes:

‘We were filled with excitement as we left behind the city of Kecskemét after a busy day in early March 2014. A large crowd had gathered in the dance hall of ‘Hotel Aranyhomok’ for Együtt’s campaign rally. The town of Kecskemét was a Fidesz stronghold, so even we were surprised at how many people wanted to hear us a few weeks before the 2014 parliamentary elections – at how many people wanted political change.’

Szelényi (2022), p 127.

Together with her fellow party colleagues, she had already attended three hustings a day, and their progress around the country was going full steam ahead. They travelled home feeling positive, dissecting the afternoon’s events and surveying the latest opinion polls. The figures varied, but the trend was encouraging; Fidesz was leading with 30%, but the partial opposition alliance they had created in January of that year stood at 23%. Nevertheless, all the signs pointed to a Fidesz victory. It fought a hostile campaign, portraying the opposition leaders as communists. Gordon Bajnai, the Együtt leader faced a systematic smear campaign, with Fidesz’s paid campaigners marching in front of the Aranyhomok hotel in Kecskemét to slander him. The electoral system formed in 1989 had made it easy for Fidesz to win an absolute majority in parliament, a unique case in Europe. This also made it possible for them to win more than two-thirds of the seats with only 52% of the popular vote despite representing only one-third of the total electorate.

Trianon Tropes – Forming an Elective Dictatorship, 2014-2018:

But in the run-up to the 2014 election, the Fidesz government assisted its own party’s chances by changing the election rules. They justified changing the law by claiming it would be more democratic, making the results more proportionate to the votes cast, but the reverse happened. By abolishing the second round of voting for single-member constituencies, they prevented the smaller parties from collaborating against Fidesz, thus ensuring that they would always secure the ‘central force’. Secondly, the Electoral Act reduced the number of electoral districts from 176 to 106 and redrew all the constituency boundaries. This was a typical form of gerrymandering, the political manipulation of electoral boundaries with the intent of increasing undue advantage for Fidesz. A third change was that whereas previously a form of compensation had existed to boost the parties of individual candidates who were at a disadvantage because of the ‘winner-takes-all’ principle, now even greater rewards were given to the winning party. Moreover, the Constitutional Court, which by 2011 had a majority of Fidesz appointees, found no objection to these changes.

Present-day ‘revisionist’ symbols

What also affected the outcome of the elections was that the Fidesz government amended the Citizenship Act, making it possible for ethnic Hungarians living beyond its borders could obtain Hungarian citizenship even without ever having been domiciled in Hungary. What’s often referred to as the ‘Treason of the Trianon Treaty’ of 1920 has continued to sour relations between Hungary and its Slavic neighbours for more than a century, especially those to the East on the edges of the Carpathians. It was therefore no coincidence that Viktor Orbán chose to make his key speech announcing his policy of illiberal democracy in Transylvania. The government in Budapest actively supported Hungarian language organisations in Romania, Serbia and Ukraine that advocated the simplified naturalisation procedure. This meant that hundreds of thousands of ethnic Hungarians living in neighbouring countries were entitled to take part in Hungary’s parliamentary elections in 2014, 96% of them voting for Fidesz.

While these ‘newly minted’ citizens were eligible to cast postal votes, expatriate Hungarians studying or working abroad could only cast their votes abroad in person at Hungarian embassies and consulates. Exchange students living temporarily across the EU, including in the UK, had to travel for hours to their nearest consulate, whereas, in the Romanian region of Szekerland, Hungarians in small villages voted en masse by mail. They also had a vote in Romanian elections, of course, and did not pay taxes in Hungary. It was therefore no surprise when the turnout was far lower among ex-pats than among ethnic Hungarians from neighbouring countries. This discriminatory aspect of the new law was unsuccessfully challenged in the Constitutional Court.

Ethnic Hungarians campaigning for an autonomous homeland in Szekerland, Romania.

With campaigning rules tipped so heavily in favour of Fidesz, it was difficult to predict the extent to which this would distort the result. With less than 45% of the votes, Fidesz once more gained power. In 2010 they had won a two-thirds majority with 52% of the votes; now, in 2014, it gained the same result with less than half the votes, due to the changes in electoral law. Despite having lost a fifth of its supporters over the four years, it still retained its supermajority, if only by one seat. When Zsuzanna Szelényi was sworn into parliament in June 2014, she found herself surrounded by Fidesz politicians, and she felt isolated. Twenty-four years previously, when she had first taken her parliamentary seat bursting with pride, her experience had been completely different:

‘Back then, as members of Fidesz’s small team, we saw ourselves as the anointed representatives of democracy. In the 1990’s, the rule of law was one of Fidesz’s guiding principles, and not once did we critique a law without making reference to democratic norms:

“We responsibly declare that all of Fidesz’s policies in all circumstances are guided by its belief in pluralism, which includes a changing {government}”, we said in 1990 when debating the governmental programme.

Viktor Orbán criticised the government, saying:

“Stable legal principles worked out over millennia cannot be made subservient to short-term political aims”.

It was unacceptable, in our view, for the government to reject the opposition’s criticisms:

“… such scenes bode ill for the future of democracy”.

‘…In 2014, twenty-four years after first being sworn in, I had to ask myself another question: what point was there in working as an opposition member of Parliament? … The leaders of state institutions were chosen by a single person. Though it was difficult to imagine, Fidesz could do whatever it wanted.’

Szelényi, pp. 134-136.

Viktor Orbán in the first ‘liberal’ Fidesz government of 1998-2002.

However, Fidesz lost its supermajority in a by-election the following year and was therefore no longer able to alter the system ahead of the next contest in 2018. At the same time, the governing parties gained considerable influence in the market for billboards and other media. Government propaganda, disguised as public information advertising, flooded both state and commercial broadcasting stations. This further distorted the 2018 parliamentary contest. The Election Observation Mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) found that the elections were…

‘… characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resource, undermining contestants’ ability to compete on an equal basis’.

The report concluded that the media were highly biased towards the ruling party and that any intimidating rhetoric and opaque campaign financing had severely restricted the arena for genuine political debate and limited voters’ ability to make a fully informed decision. For the third of the voters who did not have access to the internet, it was as though the opposition was non-existent. When Fidesz regained its supermajority, it once again altered the Electoral Act. This further restricted the opposition’s room for manoeuvre.

Populism & ‘The Hungarian Fairy Tale’ – The EU’s funding of Fidesz:
Only Fidesz! Orbán the populist in April 2018.

“‘The Hungarian fairy tale’, or the Hungarian example, will be a successful one in a year” asserted György Matolcsy to Richard Quest, a CNN Business presenter, when asked about the quirks of Hungary’s unorthodox economic policy. International markets did not appreciate the Orbán government’s initial steps, and the political battles fought in support of this policy, and for a while, they turned their backs on it. But in 2016 international credit rating authorities raised Hungary’s rating to investment grade and by 2019, the national debt had fallen to 66% of GDP. Economic growth started slowly post-2012, but after 2014 it reached 4%-5% per annum, which was good even by global standards. In 2010, the GDP per capita in Hungary was 65% of the EU average, but by 2019 this had risen 73%. People’s income had risen significantly in ten years and unemployment had fallen to a very low level. Between 2010 and 2017 export revenues poured in from trade with the West. The decade saw a boom in public investments and several thousand kilometres of roads and railways were modernised, hundreds of public buildings, schools and kindergartens were built, and churches were renovated, as were castles and town squares, mostly with funds from the EU. And football stadia, in line with Orbán’s personal interests and priorities, were built in numbers hitherto unseen.

At first glance, the economic achievements of the Orbán government’s economic policies seem striking. Fidesz claimed that a country on the brink of state bankruptcy was saved because of its commitment to national sovereignty and unorthodox policies, breaking with the global liberal order. In reality, one of the fundamental sources for creating macroeconomic stability was the enormous sums flowing in from the EU. In the seven years following 2013, the EU funds arriving in the country were equivalent annually to 4%-6% of Hungary’s GDP. Never before had Hungary had access to such large funds that were not loans. In terms of their scale, these funds can be compared only with the Marshall Plan disbursed to the war-torn countries of Western Europe after the Second World War. Of course, countries in the ‘Soviet sphere of influence’, including Hungary, were prevented from accessing this aid. In exchange for the opening up of EU development funds to the ‘accession states’ of 2004, the Central European states opened up their internal markets, from which Western European companies profited greatly. However, few ‘public servants’ in Hungary benefited from the EU funds, certainly not health workers and teachers.

Many public sector workers benefited from working in other EU countries, including the UK. But, far from losing out from this mass temporary migration, the Hungarian economy benefited from the transfers made by these migrant workers. The sheer scale of this financial resource promoted economic growth and exercised a positive effect on the balance of payments. Paradoxically, the expatriates, many of them escapees from living under the Orbán régime, contributed to its continuity by sending money back home. Salaries and wages in Western countries were worth three times as much in central Europe, and though accommodation costs were concomitantly expensive, there was still a considerable surplus which could be redirected home.

One government-commissioned study showed that without the EU funds, the Hungarian economy would have flatlined and not grown at all. In addition, the second Orbán government came to power after the international financial crisis of 2008-2010, when productivity in EU countries was rising by 8% after the worldwide slump; in Germany, this figure was 14%. Since the Hungarian economy was already heavily dependent on German manufacturing, primarily through automotive, machine and electronics manufacturing, growth in Germany had a knock-on effect on Hungary. Finally, in 2014 oil prices on the world market fell, which also had a favourable impact on economic growth, with much of the country’s energy supplies coming cheaply from Russia. These fortunate circumstances naturally not only benefited Hungary but the whole of Central Europe. In fact, after 2008, Hungary’s achievements lagged behind those of its neighbours by 1% to 1.5%.

The unique ‘unorthodox economic policy’ called ‘the Hungarian Way’ by the Orbán government brought no special success to Hungary at all. The Hungarian National Bank kept interest rates even lower than other European banks so that the government’s so-called unorthodox actually merged into liberal European trends they liked to attack. It kept the budget deficit below 3% and reduced government debt until 2020. Its main trading partners continued to be in the EU, so a radically different economic policy would have been inconceivable. But government propaganda glossed over the reality that the good results were not only due to the performance of the Hungarian economy but to favourable external conditions and EU subsidies.

The funds that were disbursed did something to raise living standards and soften indignation at the enormous wealth amassed by political leaders. Szelényi maintains that the long-term interests of the country would have been better served if the government had reduced the deficit more significantly, improved the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), invested in developing a knowledge-based economy and the diversification of Hungary’s energy sources. Economists warned in vain that the Hungarian economy, beset by structural problems, was in no position to ride out an unexpected crisis. In the event, it faced two in quick succession, created by the Covid pandemic and then by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Blood or Oil? – The 2022 Hungarian Election, Propaganda & Putin’s War:

When the Russian all-out invasion of Ukraine occurred in February 2022, Hungary was at the height of its General Election campaign, with Fidesz and Orbán looking for a fourth successive term in office. The war revealed Orbán to be on the side of the aggressor, Vladimir Putin, but Fidesz’s by now well-developed communications apparatus was able to construct a narrative and reach every household within days. Government propaganda spun the opposition’s message to stand by Ukraine and with the rest of the West, claiming that they were dangerous warmongers whereas Orbán was a man of peace and stability. Billions of forints were spent on a billboard and social media campaign, and the news outlets, controlled by Fidesz, diluted the natural desire of Hungarians to help their stricken neighbour. Orbán’s message as his country’s leader was simple: Do you want blood or oil?

Millions were persuaded that they did not want the former, associated with the opposition and that neither did they want an oil embargo which would shut off their direct, cheap supplies from Russia by pipeline, ironically through Ukraine. People voted for the ruling party en masse, turning what had seemed like a highly unfavourable political position into another triumph for the Orbán propaganda machine. In his victory speech, Orbán went on to include President Zelensky as among his ‘opponents’, implying that Putin was his ally. When the Ukrainian leader expressed his objection to this and disappointment with Hungary for its refusal to back its NATO allies, Foreign Secretary Szíjjártó called in the Ukrainian Ambassador in Budapest for a severe reprimand.

Of course, every country has its communication institutions serving the aims of its government, exploiting these resources to gain an upper hand, and Ukraine’s, exemplified by its President’s speeches, has been an outstanding success over the past year, but in Orbán’s Hungary, the communications apparatus of government and Fidesz were, and are, one and the same. This has become most apparent in the use of ‘government’ questionnaires to bypass parliamentary debate and decision-making and to ignore EU solidarity. One recent such official ‘poll’ was widely advertised as showing that 97% of Hungarians were opposed to ‘Brussels’ sanctions on Russia. It was reminiscent of the Nazi plebiscite of 1938 in Austria (below), conducted with German tanks in occupation, except the tanks are now Russian, camped on Ukrainian territory.

The penultimate page of ‘These Tremendous Years, 1918-38’, a journalistic album. Below, are an article and the cartoon from The Moscow Times from 2014 showing the similarities between Hitler’s occupation of Austria and Putin’s initial invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Only a tiny minority of Hungarians return these questionnaires, whose usefulness seems mainly to be in expanding the Fidesz Party database. Tax databases were also used to send a letter from the government telling taxpayers that they would receive tax rebates, but only the return of the current government would guarantee these. Even expatriate taxpayers living and working in Hungary received these, even though most don’t have a vote. Besides these, there were a host of conspiracy theories spread through these Fidesz-controlled outlets. In any country with a free, diverse and balanced media, the government would have countered these. But in Hungary, they were allowed to spread, as in the case of a picture circulated on the internet of a bundle of mailed-in ballot papers in Transylvania, Romania, which had apparently been tampered with and destroyed (purportedly by ‘opponents’ of Fidesz).

Secrets in the Kremlin.
‘All that Gaz!’ Economic Imperialism & Weaponising Energy Supplies:

Orbán’s secret agreements with Putin on the construction of two new nuclear reactors in 2014 and on gas prices drew attention to his complete change of attitude to Russia. In 2008, when Putin stormed into Georgia, Orbán had said:

‘Nothing like this has happened since the end of the Cold War. The enforcement of brute imperial power politics that Russia has now undertaken has been unknown in the last twenty years.’

‘Russian military action reminds Orbán of 1956’ (Hungarian), Index, 14 August 2008 (index. hu).

One year later, in 2009, Orbán met Putin and a new chapter in their relationship began, in contrast to the cool reserve that had previously marked their interaction. Like most Central European states, including Germany, Hungary gets most of its energy sources from Russia, and so at this meeting, they talked about the oil and gas supplies. Later, it transpired that even then there was also talk about plans to expand the nuclear power station in Paks, Tolna County, an idea Orbán himself had previously condemned. One of the PM’s old acquaintances explained this ‘change of heart’ towards Russia to a journalist by saying that Viktor realised that this had the potential to give him leverage over the EU. However, it was not easy for the Orbán government to achieve this ‘volte fáce’ because of Fidesz’s traditional anti-Russian sentiment dating back to Orbán’s own famous speech in May 1989 at the re-internment of the Prime Minister in 1956, Imre Nagy (see the pictures below) executed by the Kádár régime in 1958, at which he called for the swift withdrawal of the Soviet troops that had been occupying Hungary since 1956. In 1990, the cries of Fidesz supporters at the elections were Ruszkik háza! (‘Russians go home!’)

To build a new, pragmatic relationship with Russia it was necessary for Orbán to commit to the construction of a new nuclear power station in Paks (II), based on a Russian system and using a Russian loan, although the country was not at that time in need of them, because the existing power station was guaranteed to produce electricity until 2032. Since only a small circle of ministers and officials knew of the secret Paks agreement, it took even Fidesz MPs by surprise and caused them grave concern. But they persuaded themselves that if a good relationship with Russia was necessary for pragmatic reasons, they should try to get the most out of it. This central-eastern ‘entente cordiále’ became a sensitive topic after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine. This territorial aggression was sternly condemned by the EU and the United States, who both introduced economic sanctions and suspended bilateral diplomatic relations with Russia. Orbán tried to ‘strike a balance’ in this increasingly divisive conflict. As a gesture towards Putin, he protested noisily against the sanctions, but in the European Council, he voted for them repeatedly. In February 2015, Putin arrived in Budapest with unprecedented security measures in place which blocked the capital’s transport network for an entire day and closed half the country’s airspace.

Opposition politicians were primarily outraged because Orbán’s reception of Putin was in contravention of the European Council’s decision to suspend diplomatic relations with Russia, which Orbán had voted for a year earlier. But MPs were never told what unusual matter justified Putin’s personal visit. Their indignation grew even greater when Putin made use of the Budapest press conference to call on Ukraine to abandon part of its own sovereign territory. Without any alternative reasonable explanation, the visit could only be interpreted as showing Orbán’s support for a demonstration of Russian strength to the western powers, showing that Putin could still be received with pomp in central Europe when the leaders of the continent were punishing his country with sanctions.

Protests in Budapest against Orbán’s ‘illiberal state’ laws.
The ‘Illiberal State’, Fake News & Geopolitics:

Despite the repeated assertions by government ministers that the Russian relationship was merely a matter of business, the political nature of the relationship became all too apparent when Orbán seemed to try to copy Putin’s ‘illiberal state’ system. For some years, Orbán had been systematically bolstering a national business ‘élite’ linked to himself, rather like Putin’s ‘oligarchs’. There were also many new laws curtailing democracy in Hungary, such as the ‘foreign-funded organisations’ law denigrating and intimidating NGOs, many of which had assisted Syrian refugees, and the so-called ‘anti-paedophile law’ which was actually homophobic, prohibiting schools from acknowledging same-sex relationships or dealing with student questions about them. These are similar in tone and content to Russian legislation on these social issues and responsibilities under human rights agreements. The huge Fidesz media empire systematically made use of fake news and propaganda disseminated by Russian state media.

Orbán’s belief in his own exceptional abilities, that he could keep Russian policy in check, could not be relied upon, because Putin’s policies were shot through with imperialism. Ever since 2005, Putin had been of the opinion that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century. Without it, of course, Hungary and the other central European states, including the GDR (DDR) could not have won their freedom. Putin himself had been a KGB operative in East Berlin at that time. I recall that in 1991, at the time of the attempted coup against Gorbachev in Moscow and Crimea, there were real concerns among my Hungarian relatives that the ‘Ruszkis’ would be returning to Hungary, just as they had in 1956.

From 2005 onwards, Putin pursued expansionist strategies and since he always considered NATO as the greatest threat to Russia’s security, Hungary, as a NATO member, could only play a role as a channel through which to influence Western institutions. However, this did not preclude Russia from making deals with various European countries, including Germany, which (under Merkel) had made itself dependent on the direct ‘Nordstream’ pipelines from Russia. It was convenient for Putin to trigger conflicts between the Western allies through Hungary.

Budapest & Brussels – poles apart?

After 2014 Hungary pursued contradictory politics with its neighbours, especially Ukraine. While, on the one hand, it appeared to stand in solidarity when Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas, within NATO the Orbán government made it impossible to set up a joint commission with Ukraine, claiming that the new Ukrainian language law infringed on the rights of the Hungarian minority in the sub-Carpathian west of the country. In 2017, Ukrainian legislators amended the country’s Education Act, restricting the rights of national minorities (primarily the Russian minority) to use their own languages as media of instruction in schools. The amendment would have had a potentially adverse effect on the 150,000-strong Hungarian community and the Orbán government used it as a means to forge a common cause with the Russian imperialists in their designs upon the largely Russian-speaking eastern parts of Ukraine. The law was later declared unconstitutional by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, but not before Orbán had used the row to block dialogue between Ukraine and NATO. This was a disproportionate reaction to the language law problems and continued to sour relations between the two neighbours.

‘Mutti’ has harsh words for Viktor.

Meanwhile, the Orbán government continued to improve Hungary’s economic ties with Russia. As well as his shift to ‘illiberalism’, and autocracy within Hungary, his anti-immigration stance in the wake of the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis served the same foreign policy end, antagonising Angela Merkel (above) and Germany in particular. In September 2021, he signed a new fifteen-year natural gas supply deal with Russia’s state-controlled giant Gazprom. Gas started to flow to Hungary through the TurkStream gas pipeline, which opened at almost the same time. This enabled Russia to transport gas to Hungary and other ‘southern’ EU countries by completely avoiding Ukraine, detrimental to Ukraine’s interests. Over several years, therefore, Hungary was actually representing Moscow’s interests on various platforms, and the long-term gas deals made Hungary’s energy supply almost entirely dependent on Russian gas for more than a decade. Thus, Orbán’s already decade-long special relationship with Putin put the Hungarian government in an almost inevitable conflict with its EU partners when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The War, the EU & NATO – the future of Hungary’s Foreign Policy:

The striking growth in the influence of Orbán’s regime in the 2010s was due to the flawed EU system which gives the smallest countries vetoes over decisions. They exploited this to the utmost with aggressive rhetoric and political manoeuvres. But for the Eastern autocratic powers, ‘little Hungary’ was only of interest as long as it sat at the same table as the most important decision-makers. These régimes made the most of Orbán’s ‘double-step’ diplomatic dance: they took advantage of a greedy, corrupt government to help divide the EU. The Hungarian autocracy, therefore, represented a threat to European integration. Hungary became an unreliable, perpetually revisionist partner.

But Vladimir Putin’s bloody war against Ukraine has shown clearly how restricted Hungary’s room for manoeuvre is in today’s rules-based world. Seeing Orbán’s reluctance and hesitation in standing by Ukraine, his central European allies have fallen away, especially Poland, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to opposition to Putin. But Hungary has lost its leadership of the Visegrád group of the five central European nations. Hungary’s overdependence on Russian energy gave Orbán a severe headache, as his country is both an established member of NATO and a full, though an increasingly isolated member state of the EU. In February 2022, with NATO and EU members rapidly converging and unifying in opposition to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Hungary had finally arrived at a crossroads and had to choose between its membership of the EU and NATO on the one hand and its support for the Russian autocracy on the other. A year on, Orbán continues to balance, precariously, on the fence.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission since 2019.

On the eve of the anniversary of Putin’s all-out invasion, Ursula von der Leyen sent the following message to the Ukrainian President and his people:

“We have been with you in this existential fight from the beginning. Ukraine has become the centre of our continent. The place where our values are upheld, where our freedom is defended, where the future of Europe is written. Слава Україні.”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the @EU_Commission. 23 February 2023.
🇪🇺

Looking forward, the effects and outcomes of the war in Ukraine are likely to further weaken Hungary’s roles in both international organisations, making them increasingly untenable, especially in the context of the Orbán government’s continuing issues in meeting the rule of law requirements of EU membership. Equally, its continual refusal to send or allow military aid to cross its territory to arm Ukraine may lead to eventual ‘retribution’ from NATO allies, including the USA. Either way, its international diplomatic relations within the transcontinental and transatlantic alliances will undoubtedly suffer long-term damage. That includes the UK, its first and strongest western ally in post-Soviet times, which is already seeking to improve its relations with its continental neighbours. If Ukraine wins the war, it is likely to gain access to EU membership in due course, perhaps by the end of the decade, perhaps sooner, and to become a strong liberal-democratic state within the bloc.

A poster outside Parliament in 2021, before the invasion, showing how unpopular Boris Johnson was until the war seemed to give him a lifeline, but he was forced to resign after a series of scandals continued in 2022. Britain’s relations with the EU have improved recently, due to cooperation over Ukraine.

No doubt Orbán’s autocratic régime will remain a serious challenge for Hungary’s European partners, at least until the next elections in 2026 by which time the outcome of Putin’s imperial war may be known. Although some steps have been taken by the European institutions to sanction the hard-line government in Budapest over its rule of law violations, the EU itself still lacks coherent and strategic policies to push back against autocracy both within the bloc and at its borders. However, Russia’s war in Ukraine has so far served as a warning sign for Europe’s complacent political élite that history does not progress like a consistently rising straight line on a graph, and that the turbulent geopolitical forces now in play must not be allowed to inhibit visionary thinking for an integrated European Union. Above all, if this war is to be won, the transcontinental alliance must not allow Trojan horses to be deployed among the allied European nations. It cannot rely on the USA’s involvement beyond the 2024 Presidential elections; it must work out its own strategic salvation, and that of Ukraine, before that.

Published Sources:

Zsuzsanna Szelényi (2022), Tainted Democracy: Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

Rudolf Joó (1999), Hungary: A Member of NATO. Budapest: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Susan Kovalik Tully, et. al. (2007), The United States & Hungary: Paths of Diplomacy, 1848-2006. Washington D. C.: US Department of State Publications

Bencsik Gábor (2015), Magyarország Alaptörvénye (2012. január 1.). Budapest: Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó Kft.

Online articles by this author:

Orbán’s Hungary – a member of NATO or Putin’s Fifth Column?: Hungarian Foreign Policy and Euro-Atlantic Integration, 1989-2019.

Who are the Ukrainians? Mythology & History, Part II: 1801-2001 – From Napoleon’s Empire to end of Empires?

Who are the Ukrainians? Mythology & History, Part I, 862-1796: Kyivan Rus & Cossacks; Great Powers & Empires.

Featured

Old Gold, ‘Golden Team’ & Ballon d’Or: The Globalisation of Football & The Legendary Career of Flórián Albert, 1953-93.

The ‘Magical Magyars’:

As I was born in June 1957, I have no personal recollection of the Hungarian national ‘Golden Team’ (Aranycsapat) of the early fifties that began a new era of football with their famous 6-3 and 7-1 victories over England, never before beaten at home in the ninety years of the Football Association. Nor was I at Molineux, the home of Wolverhampton Wanderers, Billy Wright’s club team, for the friendly floodlit visits of the ‘Mighty Magyars’ of Honvéd and MTK (‘Red Banner’) of 1954-56. Nevertheless, as soon as I was able to go to matches with my father, I heard all the legends from him and from my uncle and cousin who were ‘present’ for these games and either watched them at Molineux, the Wolves’ stadium or live on the NAAFI (Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes) Canteen television during National Service. By the 1966-1967 season, following the enthusiasm generated by England’s World Cup win, I became both a fan of the Wolves and ‘football mad’ in general. It was then that I became familiar with the name Ferencváros FC and of their star player, Flórián Albert (pictured below), who won the coveted French award of the Ballon d’Or for that season.

Spanning Revolutions – Hungarian Football, 1954-1989:

The two matches of 1953-54 were results and performances that radically changed everything the world of football in general and England in particular, the home of football, had until then thought about the game. This was a time when the former colonies of the British Empire were undergoing national awakenings and becoming independent and they were therefore delighted with the outcome. The Eastern bloc countries were also exuberant, celebrating it, at first, as a victory for socialism over imperialism in the early years of the Cold War. Ironically, for many Hungarians, however, Stalin’s death that spring and the resultant thawing in Soviet policy towards its satellites meant that the Hungarian leaders could no longer ignore or resist the calls for greater fraternisation with western associations and clubs. These, they knew, were controversial and even dangerous developments, running alongside the political changes that were already taking place in Hungary. When these changes were ended abruptly in 1956, the footballing contacts continued, despite the worst efforts of the restored Stalinist régime, until they re-emerged with the demands for a more liberal society and state in the 1980s.

These pendants were presented to Ferenc Puskás by his club Honvéd after his 75th goal for the team in 1955.

When Hungary began to emerge from behind its iron curtain twenty years later, these sporting links were among the first to be recalled and revived. As a boys’ football coach and player for the Binley Park teachers’ team in Coventry in the mid-1980s, when I was asked to develop an ‘East-West’ educational exchange programme, it was natural to look to Hungary. On arrival in Kecskemét, Coventry’s twin town on the Great Plain, I was interviewed by the local press and asked what ordinary people in the Midlands of England now knew about Hungary. I was surprised when my answer was used as the paper’s next front-page headline. Hungary was now ‘Not just goulash, Puskás, and 1956’. Compared with other countries in the ‘Eastern Bloc’, the roles of football players, sports people and other international artists were instrumental in maintaining a continuity of contacts throughout the Cold War. Ferenc Puskás’s autobiography in English became a bestseller in Britain in 1955 and was translated into various other languages.

The season 1953-54 was the zenith of success of the Aranycsapat, and I have written about the matches in other articles, listed below… But what is not so well known is that, behind the scenes, team unity had come undone for the first time, although supporters knew nothing about it at the time. The day before the second match at the Népstadion (the newly-built national stadium), the team management, led by the communist state-appointed Gusztáv Sebes, had handed out bonuses at the team’s hotel on the city’s Margaret Island.

The well-established players received substantial, but strongly differing amounts, which came to light almost immediately. The reason for the difference was the result of ill-judged political discrimination. The former Ferencváros players – Budai, Czibor and Kocsis received the smallest and disproportionate amounts, even less than the squad players, while the two long-serving Kispest Honvéd players who held the highest military ranks, Puskás and Bozsik, received the most. Of course, they themselves could do nothing about the injustice, and it was left to Czibor and Kocsis to let their feet make their protest in the match against England. When they stepped on the pitch, they played with a kind of “we’ll show them” determination. But the management had already begun what became a divide-and-rule strategy towards the players, facilitating the formation of cliques within the team.

After the final, Puskás congratulated the winning captain, Fritz Walter.

Following the dramatic 6-3 and 7-1 defeats of England in the 1953-54 season, the Mighty Magyars began their magical progress to the World Cup final in Bern, Switzerland, the following summer, where they were unlucky to be defeated 3-2 by the West Germans. People took to the streets of Budapest to vent their dissatisfaction at the defeat of their ‘Golden team’. There was no TV in Hungary at the time, but the final was broadcast on the radio from the Népstadion, and it was from there that thousands marched together towards the centre of Budapest. Shop windows were smashed and streetcars overturned before finally, the angry masses reached the building of Magyar Rádio, the state broadcaster, where they handed in a petition stating that the team ‘manager’ Gustáv Sebes shouldn’t dare return home after the ignominious failure. The spontaneous demonstration was quickly dispersed, the ringleaders arrested, and the press silenced over the whole event. But a huge grandstand being erected on Hősök tér (Heroes’ Square) had to be rapidly abandoned. And in one night, the State Security apparatus destroyed two million postage stamps the post offices were due to receive on the following Monday morning. They had ‘commemorating the victory achieved at the Fifth World Cup Finals’ printed on them.

Puskás in action v West Germany in the Bern final.

But something of a ‘football revolution’ began in 1954-56 in Hungary. For the first time under the harsh régime of Mátyás Rákosi and Gérő, the anger of the terrorised, destitute and starving Hungarians turned upon their political leaders, who had beforehand and for years basked in the successes of the footballers. These footballers, coaches and players also felt the disappointment and loss of confidence, and police kept a precautionary eye on Puskás’s flat for a couple of weeks just in case. Despite the loss in the final, however, FIFA had chosen him as the player of the tournament, and there was no apparent threat to his safety or that of his family from the people of Budapest. They did not blame him for the defeat, but rather the team’s communist party ‘managers’. As the historian, Tibor Fischer put it recently:

‘Hungarians don’t mind dictatorship, but they hate losing a football match.’

T. Fischer, Under the Frog.

The communist leaders of Hungarian sport: Gusztáv Sebes (speaking) and István Kutas.

The 1954 World Cup final result really did constitute a turning point in the history of both Hungarian football and society at large. This was the first time that ‘ordinary’ Hungarians could test out when and how they could express raise their heads above the parapet. But the devastating effects of this single sporting event were more palpable over a prolonged period than they were in the short term. Indeed, the régime no longer wished to employ its misfiring political musket and the sport itself fell out of favour. In addition to this, the football-supporting party leaders also fell from grace and, as János Kádár rose to power, especially after the Soviet-backed counter-revolution in 1956, Hungarian football went into a slow decline. But in the two seasons of 1954-56, the Aránycsapat soon found their form again and followed up on their four-year undefeated run before the Bern débácle by going on another magnificent stretch over the next eighteen months. In the autumn of 1954, they beat Romania 5-1 and then, after a 1-1 draw with the USSR in Moscow, defeated the Swiss 3-0 and Czechoslovakia 4-1, both in Budapest, before taking on the Scots in Glasgow, beating them 4-2.

Anglo-European Club Nights & International Friendlies, 1954-58:

The defeats of 1953-54 were still fresh in the minds of English fans when, in December 1954, the ‘Mighty Magyars’ club team of the Hungarian Army, ‘Honved’, arrived in Wolverhampton. Their team contained many stars from the national, ‘Golden team’, including the legendary Lieutenant-Colonel Ferenc Puskás and his well-drilled fellow soldiers, Bozsik, Kocsis, Lóránt, Czibor and Budai. Kocsis had been the leading scorer in the World Cup, so, following their own sensational win over Moscow Spartak a month earlier, the first-time English Champions ‘Wolves’ were eager to welcome the tormentors of England to Molineux. It was good news for Wolves that ace goalkeeper Grosics, though named in the pre-match line-up (see below), was not available for selection by Honvéd, but they were probably unaware that this was because, as a soldier, he had been disciplined, ‘banned’ and ‘exiled’ from the club by the communist authorities in Hungary. The team was well-chaperoned by officials, which was symptomatic of the political cloud that had hung over Hungarian football ever since the team’s surprise defeat by West Germany in the final in Bern in the summer of that year and their victimisation of Grosics was meant to send a clear warning shot to both the Honvéd soldiers and the rest of the national team.

The game was played under the new floodlights on a Monday night, 13th December, with 55,000 cheering fans watching at the ground and many more on the new phenomenon of TV. The BBC broadcast the game live, which pleased the National Servicemen who were allowed to watch it in their canteens. Millions more tuned in to the radio, as not many people had acquired TV sets at this time. Just as they had twice led out their national teams in 1953/4, Billy Wright and Ferenc Puskás were again side-by-side (pictured below). Wolves came out in their specially-made satin shirts while Honvéd wore their traditional tracksuits. But it was Puskás’ team that first began to ‘dazzle’ under the lights.

Honvéd visiting Molineux

The visitors immediately began to play with fantastic ball control and speed of passing. The press reported that ‘despite being a bit on the chunky side, Puskás was surprisingly very quick’. However, ‘it was his mesmerising skill with the ball that was so wonderful to see’. By half-time, Honvéd were 2-0 up and in full control, their precision passing and speed of attack drawing gasps of appreciation from the crowd. The first goal came from a pin-point Puskás free kick which found the head of Kocsis and the ball flew past Bert Williams in the Wolves’ goal like a bullet. This was followed up by a second from the speedy winger, Machos, who was put through the Wolves’ defence by Kocsis. That was in the first quarter-hour! England keeper Williams pulled off a string of saves to keep the score down to two at the interval. As the teams left the field, the crowd rose to salute the Hungarian artistry but were worried that the home team might be humiliated in the second half, just as England had been at Wembley a year earlier. What happened, however, was more like a repeat of the Bern final between Hungary and West Germany.

Bert Williams, England and Wolverhampton goalkeeper, in training.

In the second half, the Wolves called upon all their fighting spirit and energy reserves. Johnny Hancocks scored a penalty soon after the restart, walloping the ball past Farago’s left hand, and with fifteen minutes left, the skilful Hungarians were tiring on what had become a very muddy pitch. Dennis Wilshaw combined well with Roy Swinbourne, who scored twice to win the game 3-2. The crowd went wild with joy on a night on which it became good to be an English football fan once more. They were singing all the way home on the bus, and there were great celebrations in the canteens where the National Servicemen were watching. Their morale had also been boosted by this victory. Wolves’ archivist Graham Hughes recounted:

Billy Wright in action for the Wolves.

The shadowy Hungarian Vice-Minister for Sport who attended the match said that the game had been a clean-spirited fight and praised Wolves’ fighting qualities. Apparently, he did not mention Grosics’s absence and the political ‘cloud’ hanging over the club, or that many of its players were tired from playing for the national team against Scotland only five days earlier. Other Hungarians complained about the pitch, which was far from dry at the beginning of the match and was further watered at half-time at the request of Stan Cullis, the Wolves head coach, who later admitted this. This had the effect of slowing down the play, favouring the Wolves’ long-ball tactics. ‘Wolves are champions of the world’ was one of the headlines in the national newspapers the next morning. However, if this was seen as ‘revenge’ for the ‘dents’ in national pride that the defeats of the previous season had inflicted, this was also a friendly match, since the European Champions’ Cup had not yet come into being. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and others would have something to say about that claim in future seasons. Certainly, for the time being, at least, the club’s prestige had been taken to a higher level than ever before as Wolves gave English football a much-needed boost. Meanwhile, Hungarian football continued to be manipulated by its communist ‘handlers’.

In the spring of 1955, after a 2-2 draw with Austria in a European Cup match in Vienna, the Hungarian national team undertook a tour of Scandinavia, handing out thrashings to all four, concluding with a 9-1 victory over Finland. Then, when the Scots paid a return visit to Budapest in May, they were beaten 3-1 by their hosts. In the second half of the year, they came from behind in Lausanne with two late goals from Puskás to beat the Swiss 5-4 in the European Cup and won three more cup matches in the year, including a 6-1 thrashing of Austria in Budapest, the hundredth meeting between the two neighbouring national teams.

The official programme for the hundredth match between Hungary and Austria at the National Stadium in Budapest; the cover picture is from the match in Vienna the previous April.

Puskás shoots against Austria; on the right is a celebration menu for the after-match supper.

They finished the year with an impressive 2-0 victory over Italy, but then, on 19th February 1956, in terrible winter conditions, they suffered an unexpected 3-1 defeat at the hands of Turkey in Istanbul. In those days, Turkey was not highly respected as a footballing nation. Although Puskás scored the consolation goal, he was no longer the Puskás of 1953-54, already struggling with weight problems. There was a good deal of speculation that he would soon be dropped from the national team and might even retire. The team continued to suffer unexpected defeats in the first half of the year, and produced more unacceptable performances, drawing 2-2 with Yugoslavia in Budapest in a European Cup game and losing to Belgium in Brussels. Gusztáv Sebes had been becoming increasingly unpopular since the Bern disaster and had also been losing political influence. He was ousted after the 2-2 draw with Portugal in Lisbon and replaced with Márton Bukovi, an excellent, expert coach. He was the MTK coach and a member of Sebes’s coaching staff.

A postcard picture of the Népstadion to mark the hundredth match with neighbours Austria.
A photograph which appeared in the Wembley programme for the FA’s November 1953 international.

The completion of the half-finished Népstadion did not come to pass until 2006, fifty years after the Uprising. It became a symbol of Hungarian football’s loss of prestige, and the Party reached a decision which led to much criticism that instead of spoilt footballers the hardworking athletes of other sports should be supported. In reality, this implied ‘pampering’ consisted of a humiliating system whereby, despite being among the finest players in the world, ‘élite’ footballers didn’t receive any official income other than the paltry bonuses which topped up their basic workplace wages. To keep them from defecting to the West, the authorities turned a blind eye to them bringing back goods from their international sojourns which could be sold for a tidy profit on the black market. In many cases, the players were positively encouraged in this smuggling by politicians. Customs checks were regularly omitted by border guards in return for petty bribes. However, at the first sign of failure, the fickle leaders began blackmailing the players who had become accustomed to such ‘solutions’. They ordered arrests of players, including house arrests, banned them from playing, and in some cases instituted internal exiles, such as that of the Honvéd and national team goalkeeper, Gyúla Grosics, who was sent to the mining town of Tatabánya in 1954.

Although the national team continued its winning streak in these seasons, partly out of the financial imperatives facing its players, behind the scenes the players were losing real motivation under this system. Even Puskás was subject to this since he bought his first family house in the Zugló district of Budapest shortly before the 1954 World Cup. He could only keep up the mortgage payments if the team kept winning and he was therefore able to earn his win bonuses. The increasingly anti-football dictatorship continued to humiliate the footballers, whose popularity they envied. As long as they and their families continued to have a better standard of living than the average person in the country, the footballers did not rebel openly.

Ferenc Puskás with his daughter, Anikó

The second half of 1956 began with a fantastic five-match winning streak, Bukovi bringing Grosics back into the team from ‘exile’ and giving Puskás an ultimatum to slim down or be left out. After beating Poland, Yugoslavia, the USSR, France and Austria, the team was preparing for their next match against Sweden at their training camp in Tata in late autumn when a student demonstration became an armed uprising in Budapest. The players returned to Budapest to be with their families and Zoltán Czibor became directly involved in the revolutionary cause. The Honvéd sportsmen elected him as president of the army sports club’s revolutionary committee. The Honvéd players were due to play Athletico Bilbao in the European Cup on 22nd November, and Czibor arranged the squad’s passports with Imre Nagy’s government once, after a few days, the ‘revolution’ seemed to have been successful. On 1st November, the squad set off to prepare for their match.

Following in the wake of MTK, who had participated the previous year as league champions, Honvéd were competing for the first time. Accompanied by the solidarity and compassion of western Europeans, the team played matches across the continent for charity and to cover their own expenses. They donned black armbands and tore out the red star from the Honvéd (army sports cub) badges on their shirts. Then, on 4th November, more than a thousand tanks streamed into Hungary across the eastern border from the USSR to replace the ones already neutralised or destroyed by the revolutionaries. The Honvéd players did everything they could to get their families out of the country to join them in the West, including Puskás’s wife, ‘Bözsike’, and his four-year-old daughter, Anikó, who managed to escape across the border on 1st December. They were reunited with Ferenc in Milan, where they spent Christmas with the rest of the team and their relatives. Because of the volatile situation in Budapest, the return leg of the match against Bilbao took place in Brussels on 20th December. The first had finished 3-2 to the Basques and the second ended in a 3-3 draw, an aggregate of 6-5 to them. Honvéd were out of the cup, but a lucrative tour of South America awaited.

Puskás in his Honvéd Sports Club colours, complete with a red star on the badge, which the players tore out on their 1956 tour.

For Kispest Honvéd, the ‘Golden’ club football team of the mid-fifties, the events of October-November 1956 brought a premature end to their glory days. They were touring at the time of the conflict, and many of the players decided against returning to their homeland, preferring instead to use their skills in western Europe. Almost exactly two years to the day after the match with Honved, on 11th December 1956, Wolves entertained ‘Red Banner’ or MTK Budapest, as they preferred to be known from now on, for another floodlit friendly. Although not as great a match in footballing terms, the game was, if anything, even more significant. It was held as a benefit match and raised what was then a huge sum of £2,312, to be donated to the Hungarian Relief Fund. At the pre-match banquet, the Hungarians, who had expressed their wish to be known by their original name of MTK, rather than ‘Red Banner’, had promised to play the very best football they could in honour of their gracious hosts. Responding, the Wolves Chairman told his guests that the motto of both the town of Wolverhampton and its football club was ‘out of darkness comes light’ and that he hoped that very soon that would be the way in their native land. They had to wait forty years for the light to shine through the gloom at home. Nevertheless, the match was a worthy contest, as the report below demonstrates.

MTK’s team was packed with Hungarian internationals, three of whom had played in the humiliating victories over England a few years earlier. They became only the second team to escape floodlit defeat at Wolves’ Molineux lair, demonstrating a brand of top-class individual football artistry. In the game itself, the Wolves gave the impression of holding something back. Certainly, they didn’t unleash the kind of power we had witnessed on previous occasions…. The rather subdued Molineux crowd, sensing this, produced what can only be described as ’the Molineux murmur’ instead of the customary ’roar’. The biggest cheer came when Johnny Hancocks replaced Jimmy Murray eight minutes from time. Everyone was looking for the little magician to provide a fairy-tale ending, but the winger only touched the ball three times… The wolves couldn’t break down the visitors’ defensive system, which was one of the coolest under pressure ever seen at Molineux.

The Hungarians took the lead in the sixth minute, Palotás whipping the ball past the diving Bert Williams following some excellent work by world-famous centre-forward Hidegkúti. Portsmouth schoolboy Pat Neil, making his debut for Wolves, saved their blushes and their proud unbeaten record under the Molineux floodlights. He scored the equaliser after Veres palmed away a corner. Neil was unmarked, having drifted outside the goal area: his smartly hit shot passed through the ruck of players to beat Veres to his left.… The cool, calculating football of MTK saw them too frequently guilty of trying one pass too many… At half-time, the talented Hidegkúti was replaced by Karasz. The game wasn’t exactly dull; there were chances at both ends. Both goalkeepers acquitted themselves well, making a string of acrobatic saves, but the solemnity of the occasion, set against the backdrop of the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian Uprising, was really responsible for the fayre served up that night.

The day after the Molineux match, the MTK players were on their way to Vienna, where their future movements would be dictated by the course of political events in their stricken country. Meanwhile, the Honvéd players decided to accept the offer of travelling to Brazil in a deal negotiated by Emil Östreicher, the club’s technical director, in which Honvéd would play ten matches for $10,000 each match, plus travel and accommodation expenses. The Kádár government and the Hungarian Football Association did their best to stop the tour, sending Gusztáv Sebes to the team hotel to persuade the players to return to Hungary, but they decided to travel and, despite the threat of international sanctions, the Brazilians staged several games, which attracted hundreds of thousands of spectators.

The majority of the players returned to Hungary, as promised, in February. But Puskás, Czibor, Kocsis, coach Jenő Kalmár, and Östreicher, together with most of the Hungarian youth team, which had also been touring in the west, chose to remain abroad. Puskás chose emigration because, as captain, he would face at least a one-year ban when got home. In the end, he was banned for two years anyway, by FIFA, which was then dominated by many Eastern European associations. What was more of a concern to him, however, was that as an army officer he could be charged with absconding from his post, an offence punishable by death under Hungarian military law. The military tribunals had already tried refugee officers ‘in absentia’ and given sentences which the communist secret services had already carried out summary executions abroad.

Puskás and Kubala, friends since Kispest’s schoolboy matches in 1941, were now both exiles from their native land.

Puskás was, of course, protected to a certain extent by his fame and popularity, but with constant surveillance from the Hungarian secret service and his relatives remaining in Hungary, he couldn’t ‘rest at ease’. He rode out the ban for a time in Vienna, where he was allowed to train with Wiener SC. Still, he had no income and the only person to help him financially was the great Hungarian forward László Kubala, who had played with Puskás in a Schoolboy XI in Kispest in the early 1940s, and was a settled favourite at Barcelona. When Santiago Bernabéu, Real Madrid’s legendary president, invited Emil Östreicher to be his advisor in Madrid, Östreicher persuaded him to sign Puskás, despite his coach’s concerns that the Hungarian star was ‘over the hill’, unfit and conceited. Eventually, Puskás was given a four-year contract and a signing-on fee of $100,000 after he had lost sixteen kilograms in two months.

In October 1957, Wolverhampton Wanderers met Real Madrid in another floodlit friendly at Molineux. This was in the years when Puskás was banned from playing by FIFA, so he was not yet playing for the Spanish Champions alongside their mouth-watering mix of players from South America and France as well as from Spain. The Spanish giants had already dominated the first two years of the European Champions Cup, and would therefore be a stern test for Wolves. Real Madrid had already developed into a huge club by Santiago Bernabéu, whose vision had transformed a club with just sixteen thousand supporters into a footballing colossus. He had spotted the vast money-making potential of a premier European Cup competition and set out to develop the financial clout to buy the best players in the world.

In one of the most thrilling games ever witnessed at Molineux, Real’s footballers unveiled their artistry with the ball, giving a display of controlled athleticism and intuitive running off the ball to create space for their fellow players to move into. However, the Wolves came from behind to beat the maestros with their own display of long-range precision passing together with rapid attacking and approach play. Wolves went into the match in a confident mood after their recent victories over foreign opposition. But as with Honvéd, they allowed the Spanish team to get into the game; they probed away at the Wolves’ defence and finally got their reward when Marsal scored with a bullet-like header. But seven minutes after the break Broadbent equalised when Finlayson punted an enormous kick at the Madrid penalty area, which Murray headed on for Broadbent to lob home. On the hour, Wolves took the lead from a Norman Deeley corner from which Murray scored with a downward header. Then followed a nervy final twenty minutes when after Marsal scored again for Real, but then Dennis Wilshaw calmly lifted the ball over their keeper from Mullen’s corner with ten minutes left.

A Real Madrid Rosette from the late fifties.

So the Old Gold team ran out 3-2 winners again, as they had done against Honvéd, having beaten the pride of Europe, enhancing their own reputation once more as one of the world’s greatest club sides at that time and subduing, in the process, the great Argentinian Alfredo di Stéfano, though he went close with two shots, one of which brought out a fine diving save from Finlayson. The return match against Real Madrid was played under the fantastic Bernabéu floodlights on 11th December 1957, a year to the day since their match with MTK at Molineux and about three years since Honvéd had visited Wolverhampton. In those three short years, so much had happened in the lives of these four clubs.

Wolves produced another fighting performance, withstanding both heavy rain and heavy pressure from the Real players, who were set on revenge. However, it was the home team who were in danger of losing their five-year unbeaten record in Madrid. The only goal of the first half was scored by Bobby Mason for the Wolves, putting the visitors ahead on the half-hour mark with a powerful header. Mateo equalised for Real twenty-five minutes after the restart and in the seventies minute, Di Stéfano put the Spanish team ahead after running into a gap in Wolves’ defence to slot home from Kopa’s defence-splitting cross. But Wolves grabbed an equaliser when Jimmy Mullen’s cross was turned in by a defender’s boot. It finished as a 2-2 draw, but unhappy with some decisions, the Wolves fans felt they had scored a moral victory.

World Cups and European Champions Cups, 1958-62:
John Charles, pictured in 1954 at the match between Wales and Scotland at Ninian Park, Cardiff. (2023, February 8).
In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charleshttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/John Charles

In the 1958 World Cup finals in Sweden, England’s team were defeated in the group play-offs by the USSR. The English side had been weakened by the Munich air disaster on 6th February, which killed three internationals on the books of Manchester United, including England’s young star Duncan Edwards. It was a tragedy which hit the whole country and the entire footballing world. However, Wales had qualified for the first time, with a strong forward line. The group match between Hungary and Wales in Sandviken became the northernmost World Cup match in history. It finished 1-1, with John Charles, then playing for Italian giants Juventus, scoring for Wales and Bozsik for Hungary, who were no longer the force they had been after in the previous tournament. The Hungarian team had been dealt a blow by the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 after which star players like Sándor Kocsis and Ferenc Puskás fled their homeland in the wake of the failed uprising against the communist regime.

From the 1954 ‘Golden’ team, only goalkeeper Gyula Grosics, defender József Bozsik and forward Nándor Hidegkuti remained. But the latter was by now thirty-six years old and, although named as captain, was nowhere near his previous form, and was dropped to the substitutes’ bench for two of the four matches. But in spite of Hungary’s recent travails, they were still considered a strong side and were expected to advance from their group. The success of Wales was a surprise, but they drew all their group games and beat the Hungarians in a play-off match, with Ivor Allchurch scoring the first goal, equalising Lajós Tichy’s 33rd-minute strike before Terry Medwin scored the winner in the 76th minute. The Welsh were beaten by Pelé’s first World Cup goal in the quarter-final. This was the Welsh team’s first appearance at the FIFA World Cup and they would not qualify for another sixty-four years. This tournament also marked the debuts of fellow United Kingdom side Northern Ireland, as well as the Soviet Union.

Di Stéfano pictured with Puskás after the latter began playing for Real Madrid in 1958.

Meanwhile, Real Madrid had managed to persuade FIFA to shorten Puskas’s ban by six months so that he was able to begin the 1958-59 season alongside Alfredo di Stéfano, beginning his second career, which lasted until his retirement in 1966. In the course of this, besides his three winners’ medals in the European Cup, he came second in the 1960 Ballon d’Or competition, which he would probably have won had his own native country’s representatives and the other Eastern bloc FAs not voted against him as a ‘defector’ to the West.

Meanwhile, in 1958-59, the Old Gold of Wolverhampton had finished English First Division champions once again, qualifying them to compete in the European Champions Cup for the second time the following season. They hoped to recapture some of their devastating league form against foreign opposition. However, after their disappointing performance in the 1958-59 competition, losing on aggregate in the second round to FC Schalke, Wolves had to play a preliminary round against ASK Vorwaerts of East Berlin, winning 3-2 on aggregate at the end of September 1959. In the first round, they went on to beat Red Star Belgrade 4-1 over two legs. But then they came up against two of the most brilliant Hungarian exiles in the quarter-final against Barcelona, László Kubala and Sándor Kocsis, who between them scored five of the nine goals Barca netted against them over the two legs, Kocsis getting four of the five in the second leg in Wolverhampton. Czibor didn’t play in either leg, perhaps a sign of how talented the team was.

Billy Wright had retired at the end of the previous season and the new Wolves and England backline trio of Clamp, Slater and Flowers proved powerless to halt the fantastic flair of the Hungarian pair, especially Kocsis, in what was the last time Wolves played in the premier European competition. In a wonderful exhibition of running off the ball to create space for others to move into, the Catalan team out-thought and out-played the best team in England. There is no doubt that a huge doubt existed between the tactical sophistication of the top continental teams and their English challengers. In the two legs against Barcelona, Wolves’ traditional long-ball game had been exposed by intelligent defending behind inventive counter-attacking. Patience was now required when probing for an opening, and guile was more effective than bravery and enthusiasm. In the semi-final, the Catalan team was beaten 6-2 on aggregate by their great rivals Real Madrid, the eventual winners.

Wolves attacking the Blackburn goal in the 1960 FA Cup Final

By winning the 1960 FA Cup, beating Blackburn Rovers 3-0 in the final, Wolves at least ensured that they would be competing in Europe again in 1960-61, this time in the newly-created Cup Winners’ Cup. They lost 3-1 on aggregate in the semi-final to Glasgow Rangers but still finished third in the league behind Tottenham Hotspur, the first double winners.

Bill Slater is on his teammates’ shoulders holding the FA Cup.

Perhaps Puskás’s greatest club performance came in the 7-3 victory over Eintracht Frankfurt in the 1960 European Cup final in which he scored four goals, a record for a club final. It was called Club Football’s Match of the Century and brought Real Madrid their third cup in as many years. After retiring as a player in 1966, and a third career as a coach, he was welcomed back to Hungary in 1981 as an honoured guest, but didn’t feel secure enough to return permanently until after the régime change of 1989.

Puskás with the 1960 European Cup winning team.
Kubala (centre) with special guests Alfredo di Stéfano (left) and Ferenc Puskás in a match held in his honour in 1961

Meanwhile, in the 1961-2 season, the wheels finally came off the ‘Wolverhampton omnibus’, as Wolves slipped to eighteenth in the First Division, their first time outside the top six in ten seasons. By the summer of 1962, the talented multi-trophy-winning Wanderers’ squad had all but broken up. In the summer of 1962, it was World Cup time again, in Chile. England lost their opening match 2-1 to Hungary, with their new star, Flórián Albert (see below). The newly naturalised Ferenc Puskás followed in the footsteps of Kubala in playing for his adoptive country (Kubala, pictured right, was included in the Spanish squad but was injured).

Puskás in action for Spain in the 1962 World Cup finals.

Spain had beaten Morocco 1-0, in Casablanca, in Puskás’ first match the previous November, but after losing to Czechoslovakia in their first group match at the World Cup, the Spanish team was eliminated by Brazil, 2-1. Ron Flowers was England’s only Wolverhampton representative at the tournament, and, after recovering from a 2-1 defeat to Hungary in their opening match, the English team were also, eventually, beaten 3-1 by holders Brazil in the quarter-finals.

The Return of Honvéd to Molineux, December 1962:

Wolves kicked off their 1962/63 season in fine style, thumping Manchester City 8-1 at Molineux. Ted Farmer, their number nine, scored four of these goals, and the Wolves were unbeaten after their first eleven fixtures. In that time they scored thirty-one goals and conceded only thirteen in a sequence of eight wins and three draws. Farmer scored eight goals in nine games, missing only two matches until received an injury in September. At that time, the Wolves were topping the First Division table, but Farmer only recovered in time to play in the final three matches of the season. By then, the tide had turned against his team and the title had been lost. Wolves finished a disappointing fourth, given their remarkable start to the season, but it was a lot better placing than they had achieved in the previous season. One of the highlights of the season was the 7-0 thrashing of Black Country neighbours West Bromwich Albion on 6th March 1963. In December 1962, Wolves once again entertained Honvéd at Molineux, completing ten years of floodlit friendlies from September 1953 onwards. There was no clamour for tickets this time like there had been eight years earlier when Wolves had defeated Honvéd 3-2.

Admission for this match played on 3rd December 1962, was ‘pay on the night’. The Hungarian teams, both local and national, were no longer the pride of Europe, due largely to the exodus of their players after the Soviet Union’s crushing of the October 1956 Hungarian Uprising. Gone were the likes of the legendary Ferenc Puskás, Sándor Kocsis, and their talented countrymen, among hundreds of thousands of more ordinary citizens who became refugees at that time. But Honvéd were currently second in Hungary’s top division and so would provide robust if friendly, opposition. Újpest Dózsa occupied the top place in the Hungarian league, with MTK (‘Red Banner’) in third. Flowers, Slater and Broadbent were happy to renew old acquaintances. Two of the members of the 1954 Honvéd team had returned to Molineux: József Bozsik was now the club president and Gyula Lóránt was the club coach. Lájos Farago, who as the understudy goalkeeper to the great Grósics, had played such a storming role in his previous appearance at Molineux, would be in goal again.

The teams were:

Wolves: Davies; Showell, Thomson; Kirkham, Slater, Flowers; Wharton, Crowe, Murray, Broadbent, Hinton.

Honvéd: Farago; Levai, Morosi, Dudás; Perecsi, Kotasz; Nagy, Komora, Nógrádi, Tuschinger, Vági.

Attendance: 13,914.

The game bore little resemblance to the classic encounter of 1954. Many of the fans had stayed at home, perhaps anticipating this, but also because it was a bitterly cold night. Farago was once again magnificent, earning the accolade of Star of the Show. He stopped everything Wolves threw at him, except one effort from Wednesbury lad Alan Hinton, who could easily have had a hat-trick by the hour mark. Other Wolves’ strikers missed a hatful of chances before Honvéd’s speedy winger Vági broke away dangerously. He fluffed his chance, but the omens were not good for the Wolves. Next, it took an excellent, headed, off-the-line clearance by Bobby Thomson to keep the visitors out. Then, with only five minutes left, Komora chipped the ball over magnificently for György Nagy to score what he must have thought was the winner. Fortunately, Hinton crashed home a terrific equaliser with only three minutes left, thus earning a 1-1 draw. After the match, Bozsik announced that he wanted to make this fixture an annual event, and a year later the two teams met again in Budapest.

At Molineux in this decade from 1953 to 1962, Wolves had played a total of seventeen games against teams from other European leagues, winning thirteen and drawing four. They also played in six home ties in European competitions, winning three, drawing two and losing only once, to Barcelona. In the following season, Wolves travelled to Budapest to play the promised return friendly against Honvéd on Wednesday 6th October 1963, this time losing 2-1 in the Népstadion. In fine weather, a crowd of nearly thirty-one thousand witnessed a quiet game that the Wolves were lucky only to lose by the odd goal. Tuschinger and Komora netted for Honvéd before Ray Crawford pulled one back for the Wolves. Wolves clearly missed a number of players from the previous season, including Bill Slater and Peter Broadbent.

In the rest of that season, there were many other changes at the club, and ultimately Wolves plummeted to sixteenth place in the First Division. They had to face the obvious fact, like Honvéd, that their current team without their old stars was just not good enough to challenge for the Championship or even the European qualifying places. In particular, although they kept scoring in the early sixties, they had not compensated at the back for Billy Wright’s retirement in the 1959-60 season and they were leaking goals. Then, despite new signing Crawford’s twenty-six goals from thirty-eight games, they managed only seventy in total in 1963-64. The team’s performance worsened the following season, resulting in relegation from the First Division in 1965.

‘Fradi’ &The Wanderers Return to Europe, 1971-72:

Derek Dougan

The ‘Old Gold’ had to wait another decade to shine again against continental opposition under the lights at Molineux. In the interim, they suffered relegation from the First Division and spent two seasons in the Second Division, until finishing second to Coventry at the end of the 1966/67 season, winning promotion back to the top flight. Wolves had acquired some brilliant attacking players, including Derek Dougan, ‘the Doog’, Peter Knowles and Dave Wagstaffe. In January 1968 they were joined by Frank Munro, to play in midfield at first, but then in the centre of defence where he was outstanding for both Wolves and Scotland. But with floodlit friendlies now a thing of the past, it was not until finishing fourth in the First Division in the 1970/71 season that they were able to qualify for the UEFA Cup, renamed from the Inter-City Fairs Cup.

Frank Munro

The fans looked forward to being back in Europe and in this competition, Wolves took on and beat some of the most illustrious teams, starting with the Portuguese club Academia Coimbra in the first round. They then went on to beat FC Den Haag and Carl Zeiss Jena, before meeting Juventus in the Quarter Final. They beat the Italian giants 3-2 on aggregate. In the Semi-final they were to play the Hungarian aces Ferencváros and their great centre-forward Flórián Albert. The first leg was played on a beautiful, sunny late afternoon in April 1972, in the Nepstadion where they had last met Honvéd. The attendance was 44,763 and kick-off was at 5.30 p.m. Wolves managed to maintain their excellent away form in the competition, drawing a hard-fought game, 2-2. They showed a determined effort after their brilliant young striker John Richards had put them ahead after nineteen minutes. Derek Dougan cleverly drew the defenders away before back-healing the ball back to Richards, who didn’t miss.

John Richards

Ferencváros came back strongly, however, scoring two in eight minutes. István Szőke got the first on the half-hour from the penalty spot, and then the Magyars took a two-goal lead. Flórián Albert netted from open play, shooting past Phil Parkes following Szőke’s tempting cross, making it 2-1 to ‘Fradi’ at half-time. At seventy-four minutes, the home team was awarded another penalty, but this time Parkes magnificently saved Szőke’s shot with his left foot. The Budapest team went close again when Kű headed just over. The Wolves then rallied and won a corner. Dave Wagstaffe swung the ball in and Frank Munro was perfectly placed to nod home the equaliser. After that, Kenny Hibbitt and Jimmy McCalliog smacked in powerful shots, but they didn’t result in a winning goal. The Wolves had almost three times the number of efforts on goal as the home team but the two sides went into the return leg on equal terms. The two teams in Budapest were as follows:

Ferencváros: Vörös; Novák, Pancsícs; Megyesi, Vépi, Bálint; Sőke, Bránkovics, Albert, Kű, Múcha (Rákósi). Subs: Rákósi, Fusi, Hórváth, Géczi.

Wolves: Parkes; Shaw, Taylor; Hegan, Munro, McAlle; McCalliog, Hibbitt, Richards, Dougan, Wagstaffe. Subs: Arnold, Parkin, Daley, Sunderland, Eastoe.

Phil Parkes in action at Molineux.

Front cover of the programme for the second leg at Molineux.

The second leg was held at Molineux a fortnight later on 19th April 1972 in front of a disappointingly small crowd (for a European semi-final) of just over twenty-eight thousand. The Wolves were determined not to lose this semi-final as they had their last in Europe, against Glasgow Rangers in 1961. Phil Parkes (pictured above) was once again outstanding, Alan Sunderland came in at right back for the suspended Shaw, and Steve Daley, aged eighteen, made his European debut in place of the also-suspended Dave Wagstaffe. New boy Daley’s dream came true when he put Wolverhampton ahead in the first minute. Goalkeeper Vörös missed Sunderland’s high floating cross, the ball falling to Daley. Just before half-time, up popped Frank Munro as he had in the away leg to put the home team 2-0 up. Lájos Kű pulled a goal back for ‘Fradi’ two minutes after the interval and then Phil Parkes saved another penalty from Szőke with his leg. It was a very entertaining game, worthy of a final, in which Daley and Hibbitt went close, Dougan hit the bar and Sunderland sent in a thirty-yard screamer before Taylor cleared a József Múcha effort off the line. Wolves won a close match 2-1 and tie 4-3 on aggregate.

Sixty-four clubs had initially set out to contest the competition, so it was testimony to the strength of English football that two First Division clubs reached the final. Unfortunately for Wolves, the other team was Tottenham Hotspur, one of their cup bogey teams. Wolves lost their home tie 2-1, Martin Chivers scoring both goals for the visitors, and the second leg was drawn 1-1, so the cup went to Spurs. Wolves should have won their first European trophy, and the 3-2 aggregate score over the two legs was not a fair reflection of the games, according to many media reports the day after the match at White Hart Lane. Dave Wagstaffe’s equalising goal in the forty-first minute was one of the greatest goals ever scored by a man in the golden shirt. It was said by those present to be better than the one he scored in the 5-1 thrashing of Arsenal at Molineux the previous November which had won the BBC’s Goal of the month competition.

Memorabilia from the UEFA Cup Final versus Tottenham Hotspur. on display in the Wolves trophy cabinet.

Although the Wanderers’ 1971-72 European Campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, it seems curious that it is not remembered at least as favourably as the floodlit friendly matches of 1953-54 against Honvéd in the club’s annals. In many ways, the Wolves’ victory against Ferencváros in the semi-final of the UEFA Cup, a real competition, can be seen as the pinnacle of the Old Golds’ distinguished history. Their team that season was perhaps as great as the one that faced Honvéd in 1954, especially in its forward line, though Billy Wright’s defence will always be remembered as the finest ever to take the field for his club and for England. In what was their first European cup final, the fact that their opponents were Tottenham, though a star-studded team themselves, made it seem less of a European final. The game against Ferencváros had been much more of a transcontinental clash, with Florián Albert and other stars in the ‘Fradi’ team.

The Emperor – The Career and Legacy of Flórián Albert, 1959-74:

On 24 September 2021, the Ferencvárosi Torna Club (FTC Budapest) organised an interactive exhibition in honour of their great striker at the FTC stadium. Albert’s career-long contribution to Fradi and Hungarian football has been somewhat under-rated compared with that of Puskás and his Arany Csapat (‘Golden Team’) at Honvéd. Still, the exhibition of ‘the Emperor’s’ most valuable artefacts covered an area of almost three hundred square metres. The main attraction was of course the Ballon d’Or, which he won in 1967. The objects of the exhibition and career of Albert have been recorded in the book, Albert 80: The Legacy of the One and Only Hungarian Ballon d’Or Winner, published in a bilingual edition in Hungary for what would have been his eightieth birthday. I have attempted to highlight and summarise some of the main points of this below.

Flórián Albert was born on 15th September 1941 in Hercegszántó, a village in the south of Bács-Kiskun county, close to the then Yugoslav border, and died seventy years later on 30th October 2011 in Budapest. From 1959 to 1974, he played 540 times for Ferencváros, scoring 395 goals. Fifty-eight of these matches were international, in which he scored thirty-five goals. He won four Hungarian championships with Fradi, between 1962 and 1968, and the Hungarian Cup in 1971-72, scoring the winning goal in the eighty-fourth minute. Before that, he was a member of the 1962-63 Inter-City Fairs Cup semi-finalist team, the 1964-65 winning team and the 1967-68 finalists, besides the 1971-72 UEFA Cup semi-finalist team. He also played seventy-five times for the national eleven, scoring thirty-one goals. He was an Olympic bronze medallist in 1960, and a World Cup participant in 1962 (three matches, four goals) and 1966 (four matches). He also played two matches for Hungary in each of the 1964 and 1972 European Championships, finishing third and fourth respectively. Besides these achievements, he was given a string of honours and awards, though none to match the Ballon d’Or as Best Footballer of Europe in 1967.

Flórián started primary school as a half-orphan; his mother had died in his early years and he was raised by his father. Growing up in multilingual Hercegszántó, it was natural for him to learn Serbo-Croat in addition to Hungarian. He then left his village, feverish with Slavic ‘buzz’, together with his family, in 1952, to live in Erzsébetváros in the capital city. For an eleven-year-old boy from deeply rural Hungary, this was a huge shift in location and culture. After finishing his primary education, he attended Imre Madách Grammar School (gimnázium) in the seventh district of Budapest. He joined the Ferencváros youth team at the time of the 1954 World Cup Final in Bern, and two years later he could see that the key players, many originally from Fradi, but then playing for Honvéd, had already left the country after the Soviet invasion. In the late fifties and early sixties, it was not an easy thing to wear the Hungarians’ cherry red jersey. It was only a few years earlier that the Kocsis team had appeared, and ultimately disappointed, in the 1954 World Cup final. The Aranycsapat had then disintegrated after the Soviet invasion of 1956, with several members, including Ferenc Puskás, emigrating. The legendary Golden team was over for good and the national team lost a lot of respect at the 1958 World Cup tournament in Sweden.

Albert, on his introduction to the Hungarian national team in 1959.

By the end of the fifties, Flórián had matured into a forward at Ferencváros and with the Hungarian national team. He passed the secondary school matriculation exam which he needed in order to join the senior Hungarian national team. He was not even eighteen when he could claim, without arrogance, to be “one of the best forwards in the world.” But Flórian Albert was still known as little Flóri when he made his début for the national team against Sweden, not even yet eighteen, but awarded a place in the national line-up next to Gyula Grosics and Károly Sándor. Lajos Baróti’s team won 3-2. Albert did not score in that match, but goals came in his third appearance for the national team when he netted a hat-trick against Yugoslavia.

Before Albert’s début for Ferencváros. Flórián is in the centre of this group of FTC players with Horváth, Győri-Kiss and Mátrai on his right and Kiss III, Vilezsál and Berta to his left. Fradi beat DVTK 3-1, with two goals from Albert and one from Rákosi (out of the picture).

Flórika became a player at Ferencváros Torna Club during one of the most difficult times in the Club’s history, when it was called Kinizsi, and had been abandoned by its most influential footballers, under duress from the Kádár régime to move to the army team, Kispest Honvéd. Those who remained kept Fradi alive in a period when it became a team of ‘the people’. Talent made its way, as ever, under any circumstances, and even in the enclosed Hungary of these difficult years, when it was still licking its wounds after the events of 1956, it was suddenly enlightened by a bright new star, who went on to light up the old, tired continent, and then the whole world. But Florika never forgot the difficult times his club and its fans had endured, and never left it. Neither money nor power could alter his mind and drag him away. Although he would not have been out of place in the 1950s ‘Golden Team’ and foreign clubs would have given anything for him, he played only for the fans of Ferencváros.

In November 1958, Albert was introduced to the senior Ferencváros team.

The 1960 Rome Olympic Games were Albert’s first major adult world competition, then still ahead of his nineteenth birthday. The Hungarian team beat India 2-1, Peru 6-1 and France 7-0. In the semi-finals, they were beaten 2-0 by the Danes, but in the bronze match, they defeated the Italians 2-1, returning home with a medal. The young Albert played in all five matches, from start to finish, scoring a goal against India and a double-brace against Peru and France, thus finishing the five games with five goals.

Playing for the national team in Rome, in 1960.

The 1960 Rome Olympics Bronze medal

Two years after Rome, Albert appeared in his first World Cup in Chile, where the Hungarian team played four matches, of which Albert played three from start to finish. He scored in the 2-1 defeat of England and took his fair share of goals in the 6-1 win over Bulgaria, scoring a hat-trick. He didn’t start in the last group match against the Argentinians but was again in the line-up in the quarter-final when the Magyars were beaten by Czechoslovakia. With four goals in the tournament, he became its joint top scorer.

His 1964 gold medal was for Albert’s second league championship title with FTC. Fradi won the championship with forty-one points, ahead of Honvéd with thirty-eight (when a win resulted in two points being added). He ended the season with twenty goals, third in the leading goalscorers behind Ferenc Bene (Újpest Dózsa) and Lájos Tichy (Honvéd). The Inter-City Fairs Cup was the predecessor of the UEFA Cup and today’s Europa League. Victory in 1964-5 was the greatest success for Fradi to date. They defeated Juventus in the final, 1-0, with the winning goal scored by Máté Fenyvesi from a chipped cross. Just before the goal, Flórián had been pushed to the ground with both hands by one of the Italian defenders. The Fradi No. 9 could not see that the ball had fallen into the net from the head of Fenyesi. Albert would have questioned the referee, but his friends told him ‘no worries, we’re ahead!’ The joy of scoring could come later. As long as his bones were able to withstand the relentless kicking of opponents, he always stood in battle in many great matches, with an eccentric but easy-going style.

At the 1966 World Cup in England, the name of Flórian Albert was unmissable; he was on the field for all four Hungarian matches. After a 3-1 defeat by Portugal, the team bounced back to beat Brazil 3-1, making the whole world pay attention, once more, to the Mighty Magyars. However, after defeating the Bulgarians 3-1, the team lost to the USSR in the quarter-finals, 2-1. Despite not scoring in this tournament, Albert impressed the crowds and television viewers with his fantastic skills. Proof of this was his selection in the World Cup ‘dream team’ alongside Gordon Banks, Franz Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton and Eusébio. After the World Cup, Flamengo of Brazil left no stone unturned to sign Albert on loan. Albert was given the opportunity to play as a guest for two weeks in January 1967, the customary break in the Hungarian league programme, but he was warned by the state authorities that if he stayed there with his wife (he had married a well-known actress, Irén Bársony, in 1963), his daughter would be taken into care. Albert scored two goals in four matches at the Brazilian club, where he was adored by the fans. The press paid him the ultimate compliment of likening him to Pelé.

During their league success of 1967, Fradi were eight points ahead of Újpest Dózsa, and Albert was the second top league scorer with twenty-eight goals, behind Antal Dunai II, who had scored thirty-six. At the end of the year, he was chosen as footballer of the year in Hungary and Europe. Managed by Károly Lakát, FTC went on to win their twentieth title at the end of the season. Újpest, with Fazekas, Göröcs and Bene in the team, and coached by the legendary Lajos Baróti, finished as runners-up. The fans had been attracted to the terraces by Albert and these other star players, with the Budapest Derby matches between Vasas and Újpest, and MTK and FTC, with over eighty thousand fans attending. Fradi also won the championship in 1968, their last championship before Újpest overtook them the following season. Flórian Albert, with nineteen goals, finished third in the leading scorers’ list, behind Dunai II and Bene of Újpest (32, 22). They had to wait until 1976 to win the First Division Championship again, by which time Albert had retired.

Albert in his FIFA tracksuit for the 1968 Brazil-World XI match.

According to contemporary reports, the Brazil-World XI match began on 6th November 1968, at 10:30 p.m.; alongside Flórián Albert, his compatriots, Lajos Szűcs and Dezső Novák also took part in the starting line-up. The two defenders played throughout the match and although Albert was replaced at half-time, János Farkas from Vasas came on for the second half. In the twentieth minute, Rivellino (of 1970 World Cup-winning fame) put Brazil ahead, but Albert levelled in the 33rd minute. The South Americans finally won the match in the 89th minute with Tostao’s goal. Four days after the World XI team match Flórián Albert was back to earth in Hungary, playing against Dunaújváros and scoring a brace of goals in Fradi’s 3-0 win.

The 1972 European Championship bronze match against Belgium was the last national team match to feature the legendary striker for a full ninety minutes. He was already struggling to overcome a knee ligament injury sustained three years earlier. In a 1969 World Cup Qualifier against Denmark, the Danish keeper had slid onto his foot, which twisted, rupturing a knee ligament. He was no longer able to perform at his former level. But he battled on for five more years, helping his club to win more trophies and reach the two-leg UEFA Cup semi-final against Wolverhampton Wanderers in April 1972 and scoring the opener in the first leg at the Népstadion in Budapest (as described in the reports above).

This pendant was awarded for Albert’s 75th and last international appearance.

Sadly, in 1974, Albert was forced to retire from the national team he had represented for fifteen years, making seventy-five appearances. He retired, aged thirty-three after it became clear that his knee could no longer bear the strain of top-level competition. His last match, appropriately, was against Yugoslavia, the team he had scored his first three goals for the national team against. In the friendly match played at Székesfehérvár, he was in the starting eleven and led the team onto the pitch as team captain. However, he had to leave the field after fifteen minutes to a standing ovation. The Yugoslavs, who had already been attacking strongly before that, seemed to have been waiting for the moment. As soon as Albert left the pitch they scored two quick goals, but the Magyars fought back with two goals from János Máté and a third from László Fazekas, winning 3-2. Albert played his last match for Ferencváros on 17th March 1974, at the Népstadion. During the farewell match, Albert replaced Lajos Kű in the 54th minute, scoring in the 78th to set the seal on the 3-0 victory. At the end of the match, it was reported that the whole of the People’s Stadium was sobbing, not only Albert himself, his teammates and the adoring Fradi fans.

The Népstadion (National Stadium) where Flórian Albert played many times both in the colours of the national team and Ferencváros (against Wolves in 1972, for example). It was finally renovated and completed in 2006 and renamed the Ferenc Puskás National Stadium.

Although his professional playing career ended in 1974, ‘the Emperor’ continued to play football and was issued a new playing license in 1978. He played several times for Fradi’s ‘Old Boys’, continuing to display his never-ending genius. Foreign readers eagerly read the results of the Hungarian championship, of the fight between the five Budapest ‘giants’: Ferencváros, Vasas, Honvéd, MTK and Újpest. It was as if football, although invented in England, had been made for this ‘loner’ nation, hiding behind ‘the iron curtain’, hardened by centuries of oppression and speaking an exotic language. It seemed enough for the people of Pest to go out at the weekend to any of the capital’s stadiums and watch their ‘little Messiahs’ of which there were two or three in each of the top teams. They were the ones who wrote the history of Hungarian football, and as important as the hot gúlyás (‘goulash) soup or pörkölt (paprika) pork stew they enjoyed once a week, particularly in winter after the savage pig-slaughtering. The rivals of these teams in the freedom of the West knew little of what it took to be a football player with Ferencváros and the other Budapest teams, waiting for the doorbell to ring, nor did they see much of the ‘sports washing’ of the Communist régime by its leaders’ cynical political manipulation and financial exploitation of the players of the Hungarian national team.

By staying at Ferencváros, Albert became a subtle symbol of resistance, a specialist sniper with a silencer on his rifle, featured in the pages of nearly all the football history books with his knowledge of the game. Born and nurtured in the age of the Cold War and the Space Race, Albert’s genius and goals became even more valuable, longed for, and adored over time, like a classic, future-proof poem or painting. After his retirement, he worked as a coach in Africa, with Al-Ahly Benghazi of Libya between 1978 and 1982 and again, briefly, in 1985. He then returned to Ferencváros in the mid-eighties to work alongside his good friend Gyula Rákosi as his assistant, mainly coaching Fradi’s youth team, but also helping Rákosi with the first team.

Coaching the Fradi youth players, and first team as assistant coach to Gyula Rákosi, FTC Head Coach.

It was a journalist from the MTI (Hungarian Telegraphic Office) who told the Albert family the great news of the award of the Ballon d’Or over the phone. That was when his wife, Irén Bársony, first heard of it. The Hungarian national newspaper, Népszabadsag (‘People’s Freedom’) did not even put this sensational news on its front page, as would have happened on other national newspapers. Even the sports paper, Népsport, only included it in a small space at the bottom of the front page. It could already be felt that the authorities would not handle Albert’s recognition as it deserved and would do their best to ensure that no real people’s celebration would take place in Hungary to mark his success on the international football stage. In fact, he received the award almost in secret. Initially, it was intended that the presentation would be made before the national team’s match against the Soviets but, just eleven years after their brutal putting-down of the 1956 Uprising, the communist politicians in power feared that such a celebration might lead to a spontaneous demonstration for freedom. So Flórián received the accolade at the post-match banquet at the Gundel restaurant in the city centre, in near complete secrecy. This was the first time in the history of the Ballon d’Or that the prestigious award had not been presented prior to a big match. Albert never spoke publicly about this treatment, but he admitted privately to being hurt by the leaders’ lack of respect.

In 1966, Flórián Albert played at the level of the world-class players on show in the World Cup finals. It became clear at the tournament that he had matured into one of the best footballers in the world. A year earlier he had won the Inter-City Fairs Cup with Ferencváros, beating Juventus in the final. In 1967, he scored twenty-eight goals in twenty-seven games in FTC colours in the Hungarian Championship, so his position was beyond dispute: Albert’s sixty-eight points were followed by Charlton with forty points and Johnstone with thirty-nine points. In 1997, on the thirtieth anniversary of the Ballon d’Or presentation, Albert received a beautiful ‘golden boot’ from Adidas.

Wolves’ Final European Matches of the Century, 1973-93:

Wolves made their next European appearance in the second round of the UEFA Cup against the East Germans, Lokomotiv Leipzig, in October 1973. In the first leg, in Leipzig, the Wolves were without their midfield king-pin Mike Bailey and strikers John Richards and Dave Wagstaffe. But no one in the Wolves camp could quite believe the result, a 3-0 defeat, and their first away defeat on their UEFA Cup travels. Not since meeting Barcelona in the Quarter-final of the European Champions Cup in 1960 had a side put three past Wolves in a competitive European game. The Old Gold tried to rally and rescue the tie in the second leg at Molineux, in a match that the fans who went to see it felt privileged to witness. They had scored the four goals they needed by the 83rd minute, but Locomotiv had scored the all-important away goal in the 72nd minute. So the tie finished 4-4 on aggregate, but the Wolves went out on the away goals rule. The half-coloured picture below features two of the Wolves’ frustrated goalscorers, Steve Kindon and Derek Dougan, kneeling and sitting on the ground after another Wolves attack came to nothing.

It was some compensation that in March 1974 Wolves won the League Cup, beating Manchester City 2-1 in the final at Wembley and so qualifying for one more season in the UEFA Cup. Man City had one of the best forward lines in the business from Mike Summerbee on the right, through Colin Bell, Francis Lee, Denis Law and Rodney Marsh. But the Wolves also had an impressive striking pair in Derek Dougan and John Richards. Richards scored the winning goal at Wembley but didn’t play again that season, while the ageing ‘Doog’ was now restricted to the substitutes’ bench.

In their first season together, 1971-72, they scored forty goals in the League and the UEFA Cup. I remember watching them in action at the Hawthorns, against West Bromwich Albion, and at Molineux. The duo scored a total of 125 goals in 127 games in their partnership in two-and-a-half seasons. Dougan played his last six full games in 1974-75, two of them in the UEFA Cup when Wolves went ‘one worse’ than their performances in previous seasons by losing in the first round to FC Porto, albeit to a team packed with world stars, including the Brazilian World Cup star, Flavio. Wolves went down 4-1 in the away leg but again came back at Molineux on 2nd October, winning 3-1, with Dougan scoring one of the goals. But his team lost 5-4 on aggregate.

Picture: Steve Daley after scoring the second against Porto

Wolves were relegated to Division Two at the end of the 1975-76 season, and after a brief return and another ‘Indian summer’, again at the end of the 1981-82 season. During the period between relegations, they qualified for the UEFA Cup for a fourth time in 1980-81. But Dutch masters PSV Eindhoven pretty much put an end to the Wolves’ hopes in mid-September by beating them 3-1 in Holland. Although Wolves won the second leg with a goal from Mel Eves (above), they lost the overall tie 3-2 on aggregate. This was their last appearance in a major European competition for thirty-nine years, as they slumped to the Fourth Division and almost went bankrupt.

Mel Eves attacking on the Wolves’ left. From the cover of the Match Magazine for Wolves v PSV Eindhoven, Wolves’ last European match of the century.

Lifelong fan Jack Hayward stepped in to purchase the club in 1990 and immediately funded the extensive redevelopment of a, by then, dilapidated Molineux into a modern all-seater stadium. With work completed in 1993, Hayward redirected his investment onto the playing side in an attempt to win promotion to the newly formed Premier League, which took another ten years, into the twenty-first century.

To mark the official opening of the new stand and the renovation of the Molineux stadium, the Hungarian side Kispest Honvéd was invited to play Wolves. On Tuesday 7 December 1993, a capacity all-seater crowd of 28, 245 watched the visitors hold the home team to a 2-2 draw. For the first time in nine years, Molineux was once again a proper four-sided stadium, all four having black and gold seats.

Interestingly, in this third match against Honvéd at Molineux, thirty-nine years after the first, there was a short delay because of problems with the floodlighting. But compared with some of the darker days of the previous fifteen years, this was not a major issue since, as Wolves fans knew, Out of Darkness Cometh Light.

A Gallery of Artefacts & Additional Photographs from the FTC Exhibition in Honour of Flórián Albert, 2021:

Sources:

Pál Czigányi, et. al. (2021), Albert 80: The Legacy of the One and Only Hungarian Ballon d’Or Winner. Budapest: Ferencvárosi Torna Club.

György Szöllősi (2015), Ferenc Puskás: The Most Famous Hungarian. Budapest: Rézbong Kiadó.

György Szöllősi, Zalán Bodnár (2015), Az Aránycsapat Kinceskönyve (‘The Golden Team Treasure Book’). Budapest: Twister Media.

Bán Tibor, Harmos Zotán (2011), Puskás Ferenc. Budapest: Arena2000.

John Shipley (2003), Wolves Against the World: European Nights, 1953-1980. Stroud (Glos.): Tempus Publishing.

Previous articles on these topics:
Featured

Ukraine from Askold to Zelensky: Language, Culture, Art & Architecture, 862-2022.

We Are All Here, We Were Here, We Will be Here:

At the time of my writing this, we are approaching the first anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24th February 2022. On the following day, thirty-eight hours after Russia began its unprovoked all-out war against his country, President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a thirty-two-second speech, recorded on his phone, with various members of his senior team outside a government building. He spoke very simply:

“Good evening, everyone. We are all here. Our soldiers are here. Civil society is here. We defend our independence. And this is how it will always be from now on.”

Quoted by Arkady Ostrovsky, in his preface to Zelensky’s (2022) book, p. ix, cover pictured below.

The book includes speeches Zelensky personally selected to tell the story of the Ukrainian people. All his proceeds from it, amounting to 60p per copy of the print edition sold in the UK goes to United 24, his initiative to collect donations in support of Ukraine. For more info, go to u24.gov.ua.

By the time the video appeared on social media on the evening of 25th February, much of eastern and central Ukraine had been under relentless fire for more than a day. Russian paratroopers were storming a military airport in Kyiv, commandos were hunting for Zelensky and people were fleeing their homes. There were rumours that Zelensky had left the country, spread by Russian officials, who claimed that his government had collapsed. The half-minute video proved otherwise. In fact, it was proof that Putin’s plan for a lightning-quick victory was failing if it had not already failed. Zelensky did not run, the Ukrainian capital did not fall and people in the Russian-speaking east did not welcome Putin’s troops with flowers. In the weeks leading up to the invasion, Zelensky refused to prepare for it, downplaying its likelihood. He suddenly became an unlikely war leader when he turned down an offer of an airlift within hours of the invasion. His reply to the proposal was concise: I need ammo, not a ride.

Zelensky’s simple rhetoric highlighted a stark contrast between the two sides. The short, warm word tut (‘here’) felt like the kind of reassurance a parent might use to comfort a scared child whose house was being invaded. Zelensky’s use of technology was also significant; where Putin, as a deluded dictator, broadcast to his subjects from inside the Kremlin, Zelensky stood exposed, with his people. Posting his selfie video online showed him to be an everyman, an integral part of Ukraine’s social network as well as its President. By February 2022, Zelensky had been President for just under three years. Voters had first known him as Vasyl Holoborodko, a plain-speaking history teacher who was miraculously catapulted into the job of President after taking on Ukraine’s entire political system – the role Zelensky played in a television satire called Servant of the People. After launching his presidential campaign in December 2018, Zelensky’s background as an actor and producer would prove crucial to his success. He knew how to mirror his audience, read their lips and articulate their feelings. He also knew his national history, expressing this in the introduction to his book of speeches made in 2022:

‘Ukraine did not appear on the world map in early 2022. Ukrainians were not born in the moment of the *rf’s invasion. We were, we are and we will be; we have existed, we exist and we will continue to exist. And so, while we appreciate the help, support and attention the world has given us, the bravery of our people must not be taken for granted. War must not become routine. Supporting Ukraine is not a trend, a meme or a viral challenge. It is not a force to rapidly disappear into oblivion. If you want to understand who we are going, you must first learn more about this.’

Zelensky (2022), pp. 3-4. (*rf = Russian Federation)

Zelensky’s little book chronicles the last three years and three months of Ukraine before the counter-surge in the east, from 20th May 2019 to 24th August 2022, consciously taking his people through a new period in Ukrainian history. He points out that he and his people did not want war and did everything they could to prevent it. He was uttering words to this effect from the moment he was sworn into office until the final hours before the Russian invasion. That was why the Ukrainians did not react to or give in to the series of Russian provocations. They remained committed to a diplomatic solution, to dialogue and negotiations. But on 24th February, Putin gave his clear answer. He wanted to destroy Ukraine as an independent country, a state and a people. It was an answer which had been heard many times before, uttered in many languages across the ages, by many invaders. Ultimately every invading army fled back across the frontier they had made the mistake of crossing, abandoning their weapons and equipment. So, to understand those three years and three months, we need an understanding of the previous thousand and forty years. I have written more extensively about this long-term history in a series of articles published here in the early months of the war, so here I simply give an outline of that history in the shape of the chronology below…

Pre-History to c. 862:

A painting by Pál Vágo (1853-1928) depicting Hungarians and Ukrainians trading at Kyiv. See also the close-up below.

Before the mid-ninth century, it is impossible to speak of nations or states, particularly nation-states, which were not formed until the following century. The Turkish Khazar’s state, the Kaganate, was unstable, and under threat from a new Turkic people attacking from the East, the Pechenegs. The ancestors of both the Ukrainians and the Hungarians moved further west from an area to the north of the Sea of Azov and the Don River. By the mid-ninth century they had moved into the foreground of the Carpathians, along the Dnieper, the Dniester and the Bug, becoming familiar with the shores of the Black Sea down to Byzantium. Among them were Muslims and Jews, and a small number of Christians. A few of them were farmers or rather herdsmen, and the rest were unruly nomadic military people, raiding and trading in slaves, gold and silver which had been taken as plunder. This is probably how they came into contact with the Rus Vikings. But the various tribes living in the lands between the Dnieper and Dniester were, according to Byzantine sources, before the end of the ninth century, familiar with the Balkan peninsula, the Carpathian Basin and the lands along the Danube to the west.

A Timeline of Key Historical Events, c. 860 – 2019:

c. 860-882: The reign of Kyivan Prince Askold was first mentioned in Byzantine sources.

988: The baptism of the Kyivite Rus by Prince Volodymyr (see the fresco below by V. Vasnetsov in St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral).

1015-1016: Conclusion of the first legal code, Ruska Pravda.

1017-1037: Construction of St. Sophia Cathedral, pictured below, and the Golden Gate in Kyiv. The Cathedral was built to mark the victory of the Kyivan prince Yaroslav the Wise over the nomadic Pechenegs.

1239-1241: The Mongol Invasion. Batu Khan conquered Chernihiv and Kyiv. The Papal envoy Carpini reported that “after they had besieged the city for a long time, they took it and put the inhabitants to death.” Following the Triumph of the Sajo River over the Hungarian army in 1241, they reached the outskirts of Vienna. They withdrew after the death of their emperor, returning home to elect a new one, only to return in 1247. But an outbreak of civil wars and the re-emergence of the Mamluk Turks from the Black Sea area down to Syria prevented another full-scale Mongol invasion of Europe.

1253: Envoys of Pope Innocent IV crown Galician Prince Danylo Romanovych as ‘the king of the Rus’.

1343-1362: Division of Ukrainian lands between the Polish kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

1550s: Foundation of Zaporzhzhian Sich on Mala Khortytsia Island in the Dnipro River.

1569: Polish kingdom and the grand Lithuanian duchy unite into the federal State of Rzeczpospilita.

1574: Ivan Federov founded the first Ukrainian printing house in Lviv.

1581: Publication of the first printed Bible in the Old Church Slavonic language.

1596: Conclusion of the union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches at the Council in Berest, leading to the foundation of the Uniate Greek-Catholic Church.

1648: Beginning of the War of Liberation under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky leading to the foundation of the Ukrainian Cossack State (Hetmanate).

An old kobza-player

1654: Decision of the Pereyaslav Rada (Council) to adopt the protection of the Russian Czar for the Cossack State.

1658-1686: Polish-Russian War ended in the division of Ukrainian territory between Russia and Rzeczpospolita.

1772-1795: Collapse of Rzeczpospolita and transfer of Ukraine’s western regions to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and central-eastern territories to the Russian Empire. In 1775, Catherine II published her Manifesto for the liquidation of the Zaporozhzhian Sich. In 1784, Lviv Jesuit Collegium became the first university on Ukrainian territory.

1805-1834: Opening of universities in Kharkiv (1805) and Kyiv (1834).

1845-1846: Foundation of Cyrill-and-Methodius Brotherhood, a cultural and educational Christian Democratic organisation.

1848: Abolition of Serfdom in Austria-Hungary, including the western Ukrainian territories.

1848-1906: Publication of the first Ukrainian newspapers in Lviv and Kyiv. Ukrainian national cultural organisations at work in Petersburg and Kyiv, 1860-1900. In 1861, Serfdom was abolished within the Russian Empire. In 1866, the first railways began operation in the Ukrainian territories of Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Bird’s-eye view of St Michael’s Square in Kyiv, with St Volodymyr’s Cathedral at its centre.

1917: The overthrow of Tsarist autocracy; declaration of two independent Ukrainian states – the Ukrainian People’s Republic with its capital city in Kyiv, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with its capital in Kharkiv.

1918-1921: Change of governments, Civil War, Russian-Ukrainian and Polish-Ukrainian wars in the territory of Ukraine; defeat of the Ukrainian nationalist movement.

1922: Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of it.

1929-1933: Liquidation of private land property and formation of collective farms, mass deportation of the rural population to the north of Russia; the Stalinist organisation of artificial famine (Holodomor) in the countryside of 1932-33.

1939: Outbreak of World War II; the reunification of Eastern and Western Ukraine by the Soviet troops; occupation of Carpathian Ukraine by the Hungarian army.

1941: Outbreak of the Great Patriotic War on Soviet territory; occupation of Ukraine by Nazi Germany.

1945: USSR gained victory over Nazi Germany; inclusion of western Ukrainian lands, Bukovyna and Carpathian Ukraine in the Union.

1954: Crimea was removed from the Russian Federation and transferred to Ukraine.

1956-1964: Relaxation of totalitarian régime under Khrushchev (the “thaw” in the Cold War).

1965-1977: End of the ‘thaw’; Political repression, growth of the dissident movement among intellectuals; organisation of the 1976 Ukrainian Helsinki Group.

1990: 16th July – The Verkhovna Rada (State Council) of the Ukrainian SSR approved the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

Ukrainians protested against continued Soviet domination. Ukraine was one of several Soviet republics to assert this claim to independence in 1990.

1991: US President George Bush visited Kyiv in early August, after Moscow. The Ukrainians wanted his support for Ukrainian independence, but he denounced “suicidal nationalism” (Croatia & Slovenia were already at war after leaving the FYR). Bush’s speech was dubbed the ‘Chicken Kyiv’ speech. On the 18th, Russian military leaders imprisoned Gorbachev at his villa on the Black Sea in Crimea. The attempted coup failed by the 20th, and on the 21st Estonia & Latvia declared independence, Lithuania reaffirmed its 1990 declaration, followed by Ukraine and several other republics soon after. The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. Gorbachev resigned & by the end of August, the Soviet Communist Party dissolved itself. On 8th December, in Minsk, Yeltsin for Russia, Kravchuk for Ukraine and Shushkevich for Belarus signed a pact ending the USSR and creating the Commonwealth of Independent States. It came into effect on 25th December.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 010.jpg

Above: The map shows the territory of independent Ukraine from 1991.

1994: In the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, larger than that of the UK, France and China in return for assurances that Russia, the US and the UK would respect its sovereignty.

1996: The ‘Rada’ adopted the Constitution of independent Ukraine, introducing a national currency, the hryvnia.

2004: Pomarancheva (Orange) Revolution and election of Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine. Singer ‘Ruslana’ gave Ukraine its first win in the Eurovision song contest for Ukraine.

2008: NATO summit in Bucharest discussed Ukraine’s membership. The proposal was rejected, to appease Russia.

2010: The leader of the opposition, Viktor Yanukovich won the presidential elections.

2012: Football matches in the European Championships were held in stadiums in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lviv.

2013 (Nov.) – 2014: Large-scale civilian protests against the policy of the Kyiv government; the confrontation, the Revolution of Dignity (Euromaidan), lasted several months.

Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) in Kyiv, was the location for the Revolution of Dignity (Euromaidan).

2014 (25th May): Petr Poroshenko won the presidential elections.

2014-15: Russian military aggression against Ukraine; annexation of Crimea; war in Donbas.

2016-17: Ukrainian singer Jamala won the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest, leading to the 2017 contest being held in Kyiv.

Paton Bridge in Kyiv at night, 2017.
Language & Culture:

Spoken by forty-five million people in the world as a first language, Ukrainian belongs to the Slavic group of Indo-European languages. The Ukrainian language, alongside Russian and Byeolorussian, developed on the basis of the dialects of the Old Rus language. The most important phonetic, grammatical and lexical peculiarities of Ukrainian were conceived in the time of the Kyivan Rus. Old Slavic lexemes that have remained unchangeable number about two thousand and the number of words built upon this basis and loan words is nearly 150,000. At the same time, the Ukrainian vocabulary contains many words unknown to other Slavic, including Russian. The ancestors of the Ukrainians became proficient in writing by the end of the eighth century. They had two alphabets: Glagolithic and Cyrillic. After they converted to Christianity, the Cyrillic alphabet became firmly established as the preferred form.

Pages from an old chronicle.

The oldest examples of the language have come down to modern users in the form of numerous songs, ballads and Cossack chronicles. The first grammar of the Ukrainian language was composed in 1643, Slavonic Grammar by Ivan Uzhevych. The foundations of the new Ukrainian literary language were laid by the poet and dramatist Ivan Kotliarevsky, and the initial role in its formation was played by Taras Shevchenko. The great Ukrainian poet did not confine himself to a certain dialect but collected the most typical words and grammatical constructions from the folk language as a whole. In addition, he made use of the best features of the old Ukrainian language, enriching its vocabulary with necessary neologisms and borrowing foreign words. It is to the credit of Panteleimon Kulish, a writer and political figure, that he worked out the Ukrainian alphabet. Used for the first time in 1856 and later reformed by Borys Hrinchenko in his (1908) Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language, this alphabet has underlined present-day Ukrainian phonetic orthography. It consists of thirty-three letters and also has two special punctuation signs: apostrophe and accent. The language is relatively difficult for foreigners to learn. Ukrainian words have three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Also, verbs change by numbers and persons, and nouns by numbers and cases. Understanding the language is complicated by shifting stress, usually changing the meaning of the word.

A miniature from the Ostromyrov Gospel

On the other hand, word order is free, facilitating the process of learning at the sentence level and so on. Idiomatically, the language is rich in proverbs, sayings and riddles that represent the collective memory of the people and their reflections on their life experiences; they demonstrate the people’s views on ethics, morals, history and politics. Ukrainian is full of imagery and melody, but in spite of its richness and beauty it continually had to prove itself as worthy of existence. According to the Tsars, it was simply a little Russian dialect and was only allowed to be used on the stage and in journals for authentic dialectical purposes, but not in serious scientific texts. It was therefore prohibited from the language of professional culture and academic discourse. The aim of the imperial prohibition was to turn Ukraine into part of the provinces, a kind of internal colony of the Russian Empire. Ukrainian was only recognised as an official language after the 1905 Revolution. In independent Ukraine, the language has again been proclaimed as the official language. By 2022 it had become the language of public and political institutions, the mass media, education, theatre, science and engineering, and each citizen of Ukraine now has the right to use it in every aspect of everyday life.

The country’s sporting life is a unique phenomenon. Ukrainian athletes have been well-known throughout the world ever since independence, and in some cases even before 1991, when many of them became famous for performing as part of the USSR’s Olympic team. The women’s handball club Spartak won twenty Soviet Championships in a row and thirteen European cups. The Ukrainian women’s handball team won a bronze medal at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. Women’s teams have gone on to win gold medals in 2008 in sabre fencing and in 2012 in rowing. The first individual Olympic gold medal was won by Oksana Baiul (1994) and the fencer Yana Shemyakina also won gold in London 2012.

Football is the most popular sport in Ukraine. Dynamo Kyiv FC, which dates back to 1924 has won the Cup Winners’ Cup twice (1975, 1986). These accomplishments are associated with the legendary coach Valeriy Lobanovsky, who groomed three Ballon d’Or winners, including Andriy Shevchenko (pictured right).

The continuing strength of Ukrainian football clubs, also including Shakhtar Donetsk FC, who won the UEFA Cup in 2009, accounts for the country’s ranking in the top ten for men’s football. In 2006 the National Team made it to the quarter-finals of the FIFA World Cup and qualified for the European Championship Finals in 2016 and 2020. The Klitschko brothers, Volodymyr and Vitaliy, pictured above, hold a record of wins in professional boxing being WBA, WBO, IBE, and IBO heavyweight champions. Since retiring from the ring, Vitaliy has become Mayor of Kyiv, now famous for his resistance to the Russian incursions and the heroic defence of his city. World records of pole vault athlete Sergey Bubka and triple/ long jumper Innessa Kravets have remained unbroken for over twenty-five years now. Yana Klochkova (below) is the only swimmer in Olympic history to win consecutive gold medals in the two hundred and four hundred medleys. Ukraine has also enjoyed success in Olympic gymnastics. Despite its limited budget, and since 2014 Russia’s invasion, the country has taken care to create conditions for raising athletes. Ukraine has hundreds of sports education institutions while building new training facilities with new members of the coaching staff.

Ukrainian theatre was born in the period of the folk art revival of the mid-nineteenth century. Therefore, it absorbed the romanticism of that period, traversing a complicated path of evolution from the theatre of the baroque epoch to the formation of the professional theatre of the late nineteenth century, when there was a rapid development of dramatic art. Present-day theatrical life in Ukraine is rather diversified, embracing various directions and genres; from classic comedy to tragedy, from the avant-garde tendencies of the early twenty-first century, and from the absurdity theatre to the post-modernist drama of today. The repertoire of the drama theatres of Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk and other cities includes works by foreign playwrights and novelists as well as by Ukrainian authors. Ukrainian theatrical companies also take an active part in Ukrainian and international festivals of dramatic art.

A scene from a ballet of Dnipropetrovsk Theatre of Opera and Ballet.

The first attempts to create a distinct Ukrainian cinematography were made back in the early twentieth century. But it only became famous in the interwar period due to the creative work of the film director Oleksandr Dovzhenko (pictured in the monument on the right). His Earth movie got shortlisted by UNESCO among the world’s five greatest masterpieces. Ukrainian Poetic Cinema dominated during the 1960s and 1970s. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, a film by Sergei Parajanov, won thirty-nine international awards. The film also became a landmark for the Dissident Movement as its premiére in Kyiv turned into a massive protest against arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals. There were six State film studios in Ukraine in the late 1980s and in the early 1990s film production was intensified as private enterprise came into the industry and new studios were founded. Ukraine began to acquire its own cinematography which had been impossible in Soviet times.

Shooting the film The Gadfly (Director M. Maschenko)

Oleksandr Rodniansky, director and general producer of the company Studio 1 +1 made a valuable contribution to the development of national documentary cinema. His films, Mission of Raoul Wallenberg, Farewell to the USSR and others received numerous awards at international film festivals. Myroslav Slaboshpytskyi’s film The Tribe was acclaimed by thirty of these and won forty awards, as well as three Cannes Film Academy awards. Hollywood listed it among the best films of 2015.

The National Academic Theatre of Opera & Ballet is named after T. Shevchenko.

Professional music in Ukraine has developed on the basis of folk music culture. The creative work of Samion Hulak Artemovsky, Mykola Lysenko, Kostiatyn Dankeyvych, Reingold Gliere, Anatoliy Kos-Anatolsky and other composers played an important role in the development of Ukrainian classical music. The repertoire of the National Philharmonic Society in Kyiv and many concert halls all over Ukraine includes classical works from both national and international repertoires. The Taras Shevchenko National Academic Theatre of Opera and Ballet is the best opera and ballet company in Ukraine. The National Opera House, Odesa Opera and Ballet Theatre and Lviv Opera House are among the hundred best theatres in the world.

Ukrainian bagpipes

Choral singing is perhaps the most powerful form of Ukrainian professional music culture. The country has several choirs of international reputation. There are many other genre groups that embrace different styles and meet different tastes, from hard-rock to punk-rock and from hip-hop to whimsical musical conglomerations and elements of folk music.

Visual Art & Architecture:

Icon painting began to develop among the Kyivan-Rus in the tenth century after Prince Volodymyr baptised them. Byzantine traditions were a model for local masters. Quite independent and original schools of icon painting came into being later. The Kyiv School was the most refined among them. Unfortunately, most of the works of the early Middle Ages have been lost. Chronicles alone have preserved the marvellous works by outstanding icon painters, in particular those by Alipiy, a monk of the Kyiv-Pechersk Monastery. Mosaics and frescos of St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv are the most distinguished among the monumental paintings. Built during the reign of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, this Cathedral became one of the first monuments of old-Rus architecture. After the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the decline of the Old-Rus State, the Halychyna-Volyn principality inherited the art traditions of the Kyivan Rus. The icon of the Virgin of Volyn (above) is a thirteenth-century masterpiece of that exact place.

The icon St George the Dragon Fighter, early sixteenth century.

The ancestors of the Ukrainians had no problem with building materials, and there was more than enough timber for construction purposes. A thousand and a half years ago, using axes, hammers, chisels and saws, and without nails, they raised towns, fortifications, palaces, modest huts and pagan temples. During the old princely period, from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, building in stone was widespread under the influence of Christian culture. Stone was used primarily for churches, however; their foundations were laid with rubble, and their walls were built with small, thin bricks. Lime served for mortar and the floors were paved with marble slabs. The oldest churches were adopted from Byzantium, Orthodox churches differing from western, Romanesque structures in their ‘drums’, spherical roofs looking like helmets. The number of drums varied, but they were always cruciform in alignment. Interiors were divided into naves separated by columns or arcades. Ukrainian churches look higher than they are in reality, an illusion achieved by a gradual diminution in stories and rhythmic repetition of lines and decorations. Inside the churches were furnished with representations that depicted the Bible stories for the illiterate. They also served as treasure houses, libraries and fortresses during frequent wars and invasions.

Interior of St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral.

Among the structures of princely Ukraine, the St Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv occupies a special place. It was built to celebrate the victory of the Kyivan Prince Yaroslav the Wise over the nomadic Pechenegs. Its golden dome is seen from all the hills surrounding Kyiv. The Cathedral consists of five naves, the main volume of the structure surrounded by two rows of galleries; their open arches connect the building with its environment. The whole complex is crowned with thirteen drums with a high central dome. The interior of the church is decorated with frescoes and mosaics, making it one of the best art ensembles of the early Middle Ages. Among the most valued monuments of the 11th-12th centuries is the Cathedral of Our Saviour in Cherniv, the Dormition Cathedral of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (pictured below) and the remnants of the Golden Gate.

Dormitian Cathedral in Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.

The next phase of native Ukrainian art followed in the sixteenth century when the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance had a great impact on culture. At the same time, Ukrainian professional art was influenced more and more by folk traditions. Simple images, decorative character and sincerity created an authentic Ukrainian iconography. Renaissance architecture came to Ukraine predominantly from Italy. Italian architects created the famous ‘ensemble’ Rynok in Lviv. Another outstanding monument of the Renaissance in the city is the ensemble of the Lviv Brotherhood – the Ukrainian Orthodox community there. The main structure is the Dormition Church, pictured below.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 005-1.jpg

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the Cossack territory gained its own statehood after the bloody War of Liberation, Ukrainian architecture achieved its most flourishing period. Under the influence of western styles, Ukrainian baroque came into being. In these centuries baroque became a widespread trend in Ukrainian and European art as a whole. In Ukraine, it was closely linked with traditional folk art. Such unification enriched the art of icon painting with the festive and colourful mood of the country on the one hand and toned down the exaltation of images characteristic of Catholic baroque on the other. Icon painting acquired secular colouring from the countryside and artists began to use chiaroscuro, the principles of spatial and aerial perspective. Also, oil painting became increasingly popular with local schools such as the Lviv painting guild, studios at Kyiv-Pechersk and Pochaiv Lvras, monasteries and nobleman’s estates, all of which played a significant role.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 004-2.jpg

A Cossack Mamay.

Ukrainian baroque also manifested itself in majestic temples symbolising numerous Cossack victories. Buildings constructed under Hetman Ivan Mazepa are particularly distinguished for their decorative magnificence. In Hetman’s Ukraine, churches became a subject of public concern and self-respect. Every urban and rural community considered it their honourable duty to build a church and as a result, architectural masterpieces sprang up in the provinces exciting the envy of capital cities: the Syronchist Church in Poltava province, founded by Hetman Danylo Apostol, the Trinity Cathedral of the Hustyn monastery, and the Transfiguration Cathedral at the Mharsk monastery, near Lubny in Poltava province, and the Intercession Cathedral in Kharkiv, are all fine examples.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 002-3.jpg

The period of the Hetmanite State coincided with the flourishing of wooden cult construction. Wooden churches with bell towers continue to fascinate visitors with their lyricism, picturesque forms and technical perfection. The common construction element of the walls and ceilings of all wooden churches is their framework of a rectangular or octahedral form. In spite of their small dimensions, the churches produce an impression of monumentality that is intensified by spacious and high interiors. The wooden Cathedral of Trinity in Novoselytsi (Novomoskovst) is the only church in Ukraine with nine drums built in 1773-1781 by the self-taught master Yakym Pohrebniak. A simpler, more typical wooden construction is St Michael’s Church in Pyrohovo (above).

Lviv Opera-House.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Ukraine formed a metaphorical frontier that divided religious and secular art. The period is marked by the creative work of such outstanding portrait painters as Dmytro Levytsky and Volodymyr Borovyskovy who made Ukrainian art world-famous. At the turn of the nineteenth century, too, classicism became the dominating trend in European art. The establishment of the style took place at a time when Ukraine lost the remains of the Cossacks’ autonomy, and through the mediation of Russian culture, classicism became established in Ukraine. Spreading among the Ukrainian nobility, the classical style manifested itself in the magnificent palace-and-park ensembles. They were followed by the landlords who built thousands of Graeco-Roman courtyards all over the country, with porticoes, colonnades and triangle pediments on the facades. The French variant of the classical style in combination with Polish baroque and rococo spread widely in western Ukrainian lands. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, architectural structures in modernist styles were built.

Portrait of the Burgomaster of Poltava by V. Borovykovsky (top left); Water-mill by V. Shternberg (top right) & Landscape by H. Narbut (below).

There were artistic benefits of Ukraine being part of the Russian Empire at this time. The Petersburg Academy of Arts opened its doors to Ukrainian artists and, as a result, in the middle of the nineteenth century, Ukrainian art became closely associated with the name Taras Shevchenko. A former serf, he became a member of the engraving class at the Petersburg Academy and consolidated the principles of realism in his creative work. He had the original idea of creating an album, Picturesque Ukraine, which he devoted to the history, monuments, life and nature of his native land. His poetic images of the country aroused his compatriots’ patriotic spirit and inspired the works of his fellow artists, leading to the establishment of a national school of landscape painting. Ukraine became known as the Italy of the East as artists from the Russian Empire and other European countries sojourned in the country to enrich themselves with new themes and images. One such artist was Vasyl Schternberg, a friend of Shevchenko and a master of lyrical landscape.

Odesa Archaeology Gallery

Odesa art school and Kyiv drawing school occupied an important place at the beginning of the twentieth century. Ukrainian art and architecture at the turn of the century could not avoid the influence of the leading European art trends – impressionism and post-impressionism, art nouveau and various avant-garde tendencies. The Kharkiv School, where artists were under the influence of constructivism, was notable for its originality. Oleksandr Ekster, a well-known reformer of theatrical art, propagated the ideas of cubiform futurism, working from Kyiv. An original phenomenon of the early twentieth century was the Mykhailo Boychuk Art School which strived to create national monumental art on the principles of religion, uniting it with the traditions of folk art, local primitive painting and cheap popular printing. Unfortunately, most of these artists were subjected to Stalinist repression in the 1930s.

The Bridge by O. Ekster

The first attempt at a certain synthesis of architecture within the Ukrainian national spirit was made by the brothers Vasyl and Fedir Krychevsky who designed a range of civic buildings in various towns which remained the highest attainments of national-democratic aesthetics. Between World War I and II constructivism came to Ukraine for a short time, leaving its trace in the form of Dzerzhinsky Square in Kharkhiv (1925-39). The Socialist epoch also found its expression in architecture and an example of its heavy ‘heroic’ style is the government building of the Ukrainian SSR, the Verkhovna Rada, built between 1936 and ’39 to a design by V. Zabolotny (pictured below). The so-called Stalinist neoclassicism remains in the official structures of that period. The post-war decades were not the time for architectural innovations: every effort was made to restore ruined cities and villages. Kyiv was rebuilt according to an overall plan and even in the 1960s, the top priority in construction was housing.

The Rebirth of a Nation, 2014-2019:

The birthplace of modern Ukraine was Maidan Nezalezhnosti – Independence Square – in Kyiv, the site of revolutionary uprisings in which Ukrainians had come together to decide their own future. In 2014 they went there to say that they belonged to Europe and to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych, a Moscow-backed thug who had tried to deny them this right. The peaceful revolution ended in violence. Yanukovych fled, and Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, starting a war in the east of Ukraine. The still relatively-free Moscow press warned the world of Putin’s intentions, as the cartoons below demonstrate, but little attention was paid to these warnings. Volodymyr Zelensky was among those who called for Yanukovych to step down, though he was not himself on the Maidan and did not participate in the ‘Revolution of Dignity’. As a successful television producer, he had a strong sense of his audience and during the revolution, many of them stayed at home watching his sitcoms.

He cringed when politicians used lofty language while scheming for their own financial gain, and was appalled when the old élites regrouped, wrapped themselves in new banners and went back to their old ways. But while the establishment carried on as before, the country was changing; its civil society was growing and it was no longer prepared to put up with business as usual. In 2019, Ukrainians rebuked the corrupt post-Soviet élite by voting for Holoborodko, Zelensky, as President. It was a case of real-life imitating art, but they knew exactly what they were doing in electing him. Yet the idea of an outsider bursting into an oligarchical system where money decided everything seemed almost as improbable a story as Holoborodko’s. But, as we have seen, Ukrainians have a taste for the improbable and the avant-garde. A pro-Ukrainian Russian speaker from a Jewish family in Eastern Ukraine, Zelensky received the votes of three-quarters of the electorate across the entire country. Never before had the electoral map of Ukraine looked so cohesive.

Some liberals both inside Ukraine and those watching the country from outside were sceptical about Zelensky. They were concerned about his lack of either a comprehensive programme or a team of professional politicians. But what he lacked in experience, he made up for in his sense of humour and communication skills, a set of assets crucial to survival in Kryvyi Rih, the rough industrial city in central Ukraine where he grew up. Zelensky reflected Ukraine not as some romantic idyll, but as it really was, with all its flaws and eccentricities.

The Post-historical President, 2019-22:

In April 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. Over the first four months of the year, the former TV producer and comedian had fought a campaign that emphasised his outsider status and his determination to take on Ukraine’s political élite. He now had the chance to remake his country. As he said in his inaugural address, Ukraine was on the verge of a ‘new era’, defined by a new set of values. In the three and a half years that followed his inauguration in May 2019 and October 2022, President Zelensky delivered more than a thousand different speeches and addresses around the world. To begin with, these described his vision for his reborn country as a democratic, fully independent nation, free of corruption and confident in its place at the heart of Europe. But as the threat of war loomed, he also outlined the greatest threat to this new era: Russia. Putin, he warned, could not accept the choice the Ukrainian people had made, for Europe over Russia, and democracy over autocracy. Russian journalists had also warned of this, as the article and cartoon below show.

On 25th September 2019, he gave an address to the UN General Assembly in which he reminded the assembled ambassadors that the war in the Donbas had already lasted five years, together with the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula. Yet despite the requirements of international law and the hundreds of organisations designed to defend it, Ukraine had been left to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity alone, fighting with and losing its citizens. More than thirteen thousand had been killed, and one and a half million people had been forced to leave their homes. Every year these statistics had been recited at the UN, and every year the numbers kept getting bigger. In his speech, Zelensky reminded his audience of Erich Maria Remarque, who had died on that day in 1970, and that his novel, All Quiet on the Western Front had been published ninety years ago. He recalled the words from its preface, promising that it would try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war. That makes it especially fitting that the film version of the book, in its original German language medium, has recently been released and has been nominated for the 2023 Academy Awards. His conclusion was that:

” The world must remember that every generation destroyed by war paves the path to the next one: a new war, which in turn will be impossible to win through victory alone. “

Zelensky, p. 24.

Almost two years later, on 1st September 2021, the anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Zelensky made an address to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Naturally, he spoke about Nazism as its major cause. One and a half million Ukrainian Jews were murdered in the war, about one in four of the total number of European Jews. He told his audience the story of four brothers, three of whom were shot by the German invaders who had attacked Ukraine in 1941 as part of their Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union. The wives, children and all other relatives of the three brothers were also murdered. The fourth brother survived because he was away fighting at the front. He fought until the end of the Second World War and the defeat of Nazism. He returned home and had a son and after thirty-one years, his grandson was born, Volodymyr Zelensky.

He is one of the thousands whose family lives were touched in some way, even crippled, by the Nazis, in addition to those who lost their lives fighting them or just trying to survive their reign of terror. But while the ideas of the Nazis, of violent nationalism, racism and xenophobia, still existed in many different countries and forms, in modern Ukraine, Zelensky said, racism and intolerance had no influence and stood even less chance of resurgence, despite Putin’s later perverse claims that he was invading the country to purge it of Nazism (the Kremlin has continually stated that one of the objectives of its ‘special military operations’ was to denazify Ukraine). Even in historical terms, the claims are negated by the 2,659 Ukrainians who were given the title Righteous Among the Nations, a title used by the State of Israel to non-Jews who saved the lives of Holocaust victims; people who saved Jewish lives, often at the cost of their own. Ukraine was fourth-highest on this list.

Moreover, as President, Zelensky had established lifelong pensions for surviving Ukrainian citizens who had saved Jews. Zelensky was categorical in his rejection of accusations of anti-Semitism, saying that the evils of Nazism had no place in the hearts of the people who survived Babyn Yar. Already, on Holocaust Memorial Day 2020, the Ukrainian government had unveiled a memorial in the middle of Kyiv to the victims of Babyn Yar where, in two days in September 1941, thirty-four thousand Jews were murdered, to be followed by a further two hundred thousand over the next two years throughout Ukraine. Throughout Soviet times, there was no memorial, and a sports complex and a shooting range were built on the site of the massacre. From 1991 onwards, Babyn Ya was bulldozed rather than memorialised. At the end of 2020, Zelensky signed the decree creating the Babyn Yar Memorial Reserve, going some way to correcting the previous post-war presidents’ failure to honour the Nazis’ victims. On 29th September 2021, marking the eightieth anniversary of the beginning of the mass shootings and in the week leading up to 6th October, inter-faith prayers were said in Kyiv for all those who died during the Holocaust. Zelensky ended his speech by warning his audience not to think that the war in the Donbas was a matter concerning only Russia and Ukraine…

“… For Nazism begins with the violation of international law, with the violation of human rights, with murders and imprisonments. Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Laureate and survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, said ‘The opposite of love is not hate. It is indifference.’ “

Zelensky, p. 31

In his Address on the Day of Dignity and Freedom made in Kyiv on 21 November 2021, Zelensky spoke of the terror of the Soviet era. Vasyl Stus (1938-85) was a Ukrainian poet and dissident who responded to the wave of arrests of creative young people across Ukraine by staging a protest at the premiére of Sergei Parajanov’s film, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, referred to above. He rose to his feet and called on everyone who opposed the arrests to do the same. A few people did so, then a few more, and then even more. Snus knew that by this act he might lose his freedom, but he also knew that if he didn’t, he would certainly lose his dignity. Leonid Bykov, the Soviet Ukrainian actor and film director (1928-79) wanted to film his masterpiece, Only ‘Old Men’ Are Going into Battle in colour, but the authorities would only give him black-and-white film to make it with. He did not lose his dignity but made a film that is adored by millions, a film about people who are dignified and free. They are, Zelensky said, like those who stood on Maidan Square in the uprisings of 1990, 2004 and 2014 and like those holding the trenches in eastern Ukraine, defending our state. They are ‘lads’ from western Ukraine and from the southeast; Russian speakers from Kharkiv and Kryvi Rih, Ukrainian speakers from Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk; Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Zelensky’s Political Strategy, 2021-22 – ‘No Exit’:

Zelensky’s approach to politics was similarly distinct from that of his predecessors since he chose not to exploit regional and linguistic differences in the way many previous politicians had done. Instead, he chose to exploit what people had in common; a desire for dignity, normality and a rejection of state centralisation of power under the old élites. This may have been populism of a sort, but Zelensky was far more than simply another Eastern European populist. One of his favourite quotes in 2021 was:

“I have been impetuous in my drive for change, but I am not the kind of person who starts off with an exit strategy.

Ostrovsky, pp. xv-xvii

Ostrovsky, ‘Russia and Eastern Europe Editor’ of The Economist wrote that when he first met Zelensky in Kyiv at the end of 2021, the President seemed to him as out of place in the Stalinist era halls as he was as out of his depth, taking on a system that would almost certainly demolish him. The journalist could not, at that stage, have imagined him as a war leader.

At 12.30 a.m. on 24th February, Zelensky delivered an Address to the Ukrainian and Russian people from Kyiv. He declared a state of emergency for thirty days across the whole of Ukraine, a decision already supported by 335 deputies of the Parliament. A ‘great defensive coalition’ had begun its work. Parliament also adopted a package of measures to finance the defence sector. The next day, the deputies would depart the capital for the regions to support their constituents. International partners were mobilising to support Ukraine while Zelensky met with the representatives of major Ukrainian businesses, who all pledged to remain in the country with their teams and to work to protect the country. He then switched to Russian and addressed the citizens of Russia on the other side of the two-thousand-kilometre border, along which the two-hundred-thousand-strong invasion force was massed with thousands of military vehicles:

“Your leaders have given approval for them to step into the territory of another country. This step could mark the beginning of a huge war on the European continent.

“Today, the whole world is talking about what will happen next. Any provocation – any spark – could burn everything to the ground. You are told that this flame will bring freedom to the people of Ukraine. But the Ukrainian people are already free. We remember our past, and we are building our future ourselves: building it, not destroying it, despite what you are told every day on the television. …

“The Ukraine in your news and the Ukraine in real life are two completely different countries. And the main difference is that ours exists.

“You are told that we are Nazis. How can a country that gave more than eight million lives in the struggle against Nazism support Nazism? How could I be a Nazi? Tell that to my grandfather. He went through the war fighting as an infantryman for the Soviet Army, and died as a colonel in independent Ukraine.

You are told that we hate Russian culture. How is it possible to hate a culture? Neighbours always enrich each other culturally. But that does not make us a single entity; it does not dissolve us into you. We are different. But that is no reason to be enemies. We merely want to create our history ourselves: peacefully, calmly, honestly.”

Zelensky, pp. 49-50.

The claim that Ukraine could present a threat to Russia was dismissed by Zelensky, pointing out that this was not considered the case in the past, that it was not the case at present and would not be so in the future. The truth was that while Russia demanded security guarantees from NATO, it was not prepared to honour its own guarantees of Ukrainian security given in the Budapest Memorandum along with the US, the UK and France. Ukraine was not a member of NATO, though its security was connected to that of its neighbours who are, most notably Poland. That was why, he said, was why it was necessary to talk about the security of the whole of Europe. Of course, Zelensky knew that his last-minute appeal for peace would not be shown on Russian television, but he hoped that the citizens of Russia might see it because this situation needs to end before it is too late.

The Thirteen Days: Leaders in War and Peace, February-March 2022:

But it was already well past midnight in Moscow, both metaphorically and literally, and too late already, as just four hours later, at 4.30 a.m. in Kyiv on 24th February, the Russian Army crossed into Ukraine from the North and advanced in the East. Over the previous year, Putin had amassed well over a hundred thousand troops along the country’s borders with both Russia and Belorussia, demanding that Ukraine renounce its sovereignty and give up its aspiration to join the EU. Later that morning, at 6 a.m., by which time all Ukrainians were already wide awake, having been woken up by the Russian barrage of cruise missiles, the President gave another address, this time exclusively to his own people. Explosions had been heard in many Ukrainian cities, and martial law had been introduced across the country. Zelensky also reported on his phone call with President Biden, who had already started to gather international support for the Ukrainians. Much of the USA was still awake, of course. After admonishing his people not to panic and assuring them that the whole military, defence and security forces were working to protect them, Zelensky went to prepare an address for the rest of Europe, which he delivered the next day.

In this, he was critical of the slowness of Europe’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand had introduced sectoral sanctions against Russia – namely against the largest Russian banks and businesses, and against Russia’s access to Western technologies. But Russian tanks were still shooting at residential blocks and armoured vehicles were still attacking civilians. Europe, said Zelensky, had sufficient force to stop this aggression: What more would it do? Would it cancel visas for Russians? Would it cut Russia off from SWIFT, the international payments system used by most banks, recall ambassadors, agree to an oil embargo, and impose a no-fly zone? All of these should be on the table, he said, because Russia is a threat to all of us; to all of Europe.

Most observers assumed that the Ukrainian military, massively outnumbered, would buckle and that the régime in Kyiv would collapse. But the war did not play out as Putin expected it would, and in the days and weeks following, Ukraine fought back and halted the advance. Far from fleeing the country, Zelensky stayed in Kyiv and assumed a new role: delivering daily addresses that powerfully captured the resilience and strength of his people. And with his speech to the UK Parliament on 8th March, Zelensky opened a new front in Ukraine’s war with Russia: a communication front. Over the next six months, he delivered over a hundred speeches to audiences around the world. Everywhere from the US Congress to the Israeli Knesset, Zelensky emphasised the need for the world to offer military aid to Ukraine and impose sanctions on Russia. Along the way, he gave the Ukrainian people an unprecedented voice on the world stage. In his speech to Westminster, delivered to a packed House of Commons by video link, Zelensky recalled the first thirteen days of the war in Ukraine:

On the second day, we fought off attacks in the air, on land and at sea. Our heroic border guards on Zminyi Island in the Black Sea showed everyone how the war will end. When a Russian ship demanded that our guys lay down their weapons, they answered him with – well, an answer so firm, that one cannot repeat it in Parliament. In that moment, we felt strong. It was the strength of a people who will resist the invader to the end.”

Zelensky, p. 66.

On the sixth day, Russian missiles hit Babyn Yar, where the Nazis had murdered over a hundred thousand people, Putin dishonouring their memories by hitting them for a second time. On the seventh day, the Russian forces began hitting churches, and on the eighth day, they began firing at a nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe. That was when the world began to understand that this was an act of great terror against the whole of the continent. On the ninth day, a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly ended without the agreement and display of courage Ukraine was looking for. It demonstrated that the Atlantic Alliance was not working, since it could not impose a no-fly zone. It has not yet done so, nearly a year later. Zelensky believed that this demonstrated that the security guarantees in Europe would need to be re-established from their foundations. On the eleventh day, children, cities and hospitals were hit by rockets and children even had to be evacuated from a cancer ward. On the thirteenth day, a child died of dehydration in the besieged city of Mariupol, because the Russian forces had cut off the supplies of food and water. In these first thirteen days, fifty children had been killed. Zelensky concluded his summary of events with the following memorable statement:

We were not looking for this war. Ukraine did not seek greatness. But over these last thirteen days, Ukraine has become great. Ukraine: a country that is saving lives despite the terror of the occupiers. A country that is defending freedom despite the blows of one of the biggest armies in the world. And a country that is defendng itself, despite its sky still being open to Russian missiles, planes and helicopters.”

Zelensky, pp. 68-69.

Finally, he added some words to those of Winston Churchill of 1940:

“We shall fight on the spoil tips, on the banks of the Kalmius and the Dnieper. We shall never surrender.”

Zelensky, p. 69.

Just over a week after this Churchillian speech to the UK Parliament, Zelensky went on to address the US Congress, also via video link. He made reference to the 7th of December 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the 11th of September 2001…

“… when evil tried to turn your cities into a battlefield… when innocent people were attacked from the air, in a way nobody expected and nobody could stop.”

Ibid., p. 70.

The Ukrainian President said that every night for the past three weeks Russia had transformed the sky over Ukraine into a place of death, claiming the lives of thousands and that Russian troops had already fired more than a thousand missiles at his country, and countless bombs. He again raised the issue of a no-fly zone and also asked for defensive weapons and aircraft. He then spoke in English, directly addressing President Biden both as a fellow president and as the leader of the free world:

“Today, I am almost forty-five years old. And in the weeks leading up to today, the hearts of more than one hundred children have stopped beating. I see no sense in my life if it cannot prevent death. … You are the leader of a great nation. I wish you to be leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means being the leader in peace.”

Ibid., p. 73
The Ides of March: Ukraine stabbed in the back?

Next, on 17th March, Zelensky made an address to the German Bundestag in Berlin via video link. He told it that it was behaving as if Germany was behind a wall again, not the Berlin Wall, but another metaphorical wall in central Europe, one between freedom and slavery. This wall, he said, was growing stronger with each bomb falling on Ukraine, and with every decision that was not made by governments in the name of peace. He claimed that Ukraine had warned Germany, under Angela Merkel, that Nord Stream, the gas pipelines connecting Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, was a weapon being built in preparation for a great war, but they had been told by Berlin that it was about nothing more than ‘the economy’. But, he said, it was cement for a new wall. He also reminded his listeners that Germany had opposed Ukraine being considered for NATO membership and delayed the beginning of Ukraine’s EU accession process. Germany also, at first, had resisted preventative sanctions against Russia in the name of supporting its own economy and trade routes. So he was addressing the Bundestag on behalf of the residents of Mariupol, a city that Russian troops had blockaded and raised to the ground. As the graph below shows, Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled gas giant was supplying more than a third of all of Europe’s gas via pipeline, making huge profits which went primarily to financing Putin’s war in Ukraine.

Financial Times, 8th April 2020

He asked the Bundestag members to recall what the Berlin Airlift meant to the city’s citizens, preventing it from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence. It was made possible because the skies were first made ‘safe’. The sky over Ukraine offered up only Russian missiles and bombs for as long as the western allies refused to put a ‘no-fly zone’ in place. After the destruction of Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and Donbas for the second time in eighty years, Ukraine needed all the support Germany could offer. Otherwise, he added, Germany’s historic responsibility for World War II would go unredeemed. He concluded with a reference to Ronald Reagan’s historic visit to Berlin at the beginning of the end of the Cold War and his call to ‘Mr. Gorbachev’ to ‘tear down this wall’. He would tell Chancellor Scholz the same, and to ‘give Germans the leadership they deserve.’

On 20th March 2022, the Ukrainian President turned his attention to the Israeli Knesset. In his speech to it, again by video link, he pointed to the similarity between the two states in facing neighbours who threatened the total destruction of a people and culture. They even wanted to deprive both nations of their names: Ukraine, and Israel. The Russian full-scale invasion of 24th February was begun by a criminal order beginning a treacherous war, aimed at destroying a whole people. Its goal was clearly to eliminate Ukrainian families, including their children, the state of Ukraine, its cities, communities, and culture. Russian troops were doing this deliberately in order to send Putin’s message to the world. The words ‘final solution’ had returned to the European lexicon, and the term ‘Ukrainian issue’ had replaced the term ‘Jewish issue’. These were the words and phrases coming out of Moscow. They were used openly, at an official meeting in Moscow, the minutes of which were published online and quoted in Russian state media. They said that without their ‘special military operation,’ they would not be able to ensure a ‘final solution’ to the supposed problem of Russia’s security. He called on the Knesset to help Ukraine defend itself with its missile defence systems. Yet Israel had not supplied these, neither had it imposed strong sanctions on Russia nor even put pressure on Russian businesses.

The Volunteer-in-chief:

Ostrovsky met Zelensky again in late March 2022 when his editor from The Economist travelled with him to Kyiv by train. Towns were under curfew and train lights dimmed to avoid detection. There was an eerie silence at Lviv railway station, despite it being filled with people running from the war: women with sunken eyes, too exhausted to talk; children too exhausted to cry. When Ostrovsky reached Kyiv, Zelensky spoke to him not like a commander-in-chief but like an ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances. He had also aged about ten years and grown a beard. He engaged in a conversation conducted in three languages:

“We are not heroes. We do our job, and we are where we are.”

Ostrovsky, p. xvii

It was clear, Ostrovsky observed, that Zelensky was not commanding the army. The generals were doing that, and he was wise enough to leave them to it. Nor was he micromanaging mayors and local communities. Everyone in Ukraine was doing what they did best, and Zelensky was no exception: he concentrated on communicating with the Ukrainian people, lobbying governments and businesses to supply arms. Ukraine had become a volunteer nation, and Zelensky was its volunteer-in-chief. He did not just appeal to politicians, but to the people who elected them.

When Putin launched his all-out war, the Russian armed forces reportedly packed their parade uniforms in their kit bags as they advanced towards Kyiv; soldiers were told that they would be welcomed with open arms and would be parading through the capital within days. Yet, at the end of March, Ukraine’s resistance had taken both Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world’s leaders by surprise. The government did not collapse and disperse, and Zelensky had not fled into exile. In many parts of the country, the Ukrainian military pushed the Russian forces back. But while life in Kyiv had returned to something resembling ‘normality’ by early April, with every new city liberated evidence of Russian war crimes mounted. This was not just a struggle of armies; it was a confrontation of values.

The Financial Times, 8th April edition.

There were large pro-Ukrainian demonstrations in Berlin, Paris and London, galvanised by his addresses so that governments were compelled to go further in their support for Ukraine than anyone had thought possible. Putin has miscalculated that western governments would not sacrifice their economic prosperity for the cause of Ukrainian resistance. Zelensky delivered a message of such moral clarity and force that it left few people indifferent. His words contained something that people in the West, especially younger people, had been searching for: a sense of meaning and purpose in a post-ideological society in which liberty and prosperity had long been taken for granted by their elders. The world had not heard words of such significance since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the so-called ‘end of history’.

Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war against Ukraine’s identity, culture and people was a reminder that history was far from over, and that fascism was far from dead. But Zelensky challenged Putin’s narrative for the war almost as soon as it started. There is no distinction between the words ‘history’ and ‘story’ in either Ukrainian or Russian and in his powerful speeches Zelensky recounted both: the stories of individual people and his narrative of the most deadly European conflict since the end of the Second World War. As winter gave way to spring, their references and examples would change, but Zelensky’s message stayed the same. The war now being fought in Ukraine was not a regional war for territory, like that fought by Russia for Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, or even a struggle for geopolitical hegemony. It was a war between a corrupt, nuclear state and a people who merely wished to live in peace in their own land and in their own way. It was a war between empathy and hatred, dignity and enslavement, and Zelensky argued on that basis, that it was therefore everyone’s war.

In Zelensky’s speeches from April onwards, he would emphasise how these values had brought Ukrainians together as a nation. Putin had tried to destroy a people, and he had failed. From the ruins of the war Ukraine had emerged more defiant and united than ever before. It was, genuinely, a nation reborn. But on 3rd April, he had to speak about the atrocities revealed in Bucha and the other cities from which the occupiers were expelled. Hundreds of people had been killed, and many civilians tortured and then executed. Their corpses were left lying on the streets to decompose. Landmines had been left across the city, even inside the bodies of the dead. Old people had been shot while riding home from the market on their bicycles, and others in the back of their heads, with their hands tied behind their backs. Women had been raped and then killed in front of their children. The effects of looting were visible everywhere. One woman had been strangled after her earrings were ripped out. Corpses were desecrated and crushed by tanks. Russian culture and humanity had died along with the men and women killed, Zelensky said.

Zelensky announced that he had approved the creation of a special judicial mechanism in Ukraine to investigate every crime committed by the occupiers of Ukrainian territory, drawing upon the joint efforts of national and international expert investigators, prosecutors and judges. He went on:

“The world has seen war crimes before, committed on many occasions and on many countries. But we must make the war crimes of the Russian military the last time this evil plagues the earth. Everyone guilty of such crimes will be included in a special ‘Book of Torturers’. They will be found and they will be punished.”

Zelensky, pp. 91-92.

Calls to bolster Ukraine’s defences and toughen sanctions on Russia multiplied after the evidence emerged of the atrocities carried out by Russian troops before they pulled out of Kyiv’s outskirts. The war crimes committed in Bucha and other cities were to be considered by the United Nation Security Council within a few days of Zelensky’s statement, along with a new package of sanctions against Russia. Ukrainian troops, government officials and journalists had found the corpses of hundreds of civilians, some with indications they had been tortured, and heard accounts of summary killings, rape and other human rights abuses from surviving residents. The US President, French President Emmanuel Macron and other western leaders called for an investigation of Russian officials responsible for what they called ‘war crimes’.

Zelensky was speaking on the fourteenth anniversary of the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest when the members had an opportunity to remove Ukraine from ‘the grey zone’ in Eastern Europe, a zone in which Moscow thought they could do anything they liked, even committing the most horrific war crimes. During these talks about Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the Alliance concealed its intention to refuse access in order to appease Russia; to persuade Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and live peacefully with its neighbour. This was a miscalculation, Zelensky said, pointing to the fourteen years since in which Ukraine experienced a revolution rejecting Russian hegemony, followed by eight years of war in the Donbas. He invited Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy to visit Bucha to see what their concessions to Russia had led to fourteen years later. While Zelensky did not blame the West for Bucha, he contrasted Ukraine’s own decisiveness with the dithering and duplicity of individual western ‘leaders’:

“But we have the right to talk about indecision and to identify the path that led us to Bucha, to Hostomel, to Kharkiv, to Mariupol.

“Fourteen years ago, in Bucharest, Russia’s leader told the West that there was no such state as Ukraine. But we have proved that there is. There has long been such a country and long will there be.”

Zelensky, p. 93

While the Kremlin continued to claim that the Bucha massacre was staged by Ukrainian forces, the western heads of Russian-owned companies began to express condemnation of the conflict and to call for investigations into the reports of war crimes:

Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, said that Ukraine was still demanding “a full oil and gas embargo for Russia”, adding that he hoped it would not take more allegations of war crimes to force the West to take additional measures:

“Frankly speaking, I hope we will never face a situation again when we… need atrocities like Bucha to be revealed and to impress and to shock other partners to the extent that they sit down and say ‘OK, fine, we will introduce new sanctions’ “

Quoted by John Reed in The Financial Times.

Although Russian troops retreated from the suburbs of Kyiv and the north of the country in the early spring, Ukraine’s military authorities warned in the second week of April that invading Russian troops were regrouping and preparing an offensive in the eastern Donbas region, aimed at seizing territory in the two administrative regions that separatists had partially occupied since the Moscow-backed uprising in 2014. The general staff of the armed forces said that:

“The main efforts of the occupiers are focused on preparing for an aggressive operation in eastern Ukraine, which aims to establish complete control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.”

Quoted by John Reed in The Financial Times, April 2022.

The State of War in Eastern & South-Eastern Ukraine, April 2022. Source: The Financial Times, 8th April.

They called on the residents living in the two ‘Oblasts’ of the Donbas, as well as in parts of the Kharkiv region, to leave “while they still had the chance”. Borys Filatov, the Mayor of Dnipro, recommended the evacuation of women, children and the elderly from the city in anticipation of a flare-up of fighting in the Donbas. Zelensky also told his people as a whole that Moscow was planning an “aggressive operation in eastern Ukraine”.

FT, 8th April 2022.

Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelensky continued to plead with the international community to provide more military supplies and to impose tighter sanctions on Russia, saying that failure to do so would equate to giving Moscow “permission” to intensify its offensive. Washington responded by imposing its most severe sanctions on Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, and Alpha-Bank, its biggest private bank. The EU moved to target more oligarchs and ban coal imports from Russia.

Zelensky also called again on Russian citizens to demand an end to the war as it entered its seventh week. In one of his nightly addresses, he told them:

“In demanding peace, it is better to lose something, to face down the Russian repressive machine, than to be equated with Nazis for the rest of your life.”

The Financial Times, April 2022.

But Russia responded to the news of its atrocities in Bucha by claiming to its citizens that this was “fake news”, as Jemima Kelly noted in her article in The Financial Times (8th April 2022):

The President’s Easter Address, ‘God save Ukraine’, was given in St. Sophia’s Cathedral in Kyiv, the site of the victory of the Kyivan Rus over the Pechenegs. He pointed out that it had stood since then and was destroyed by neither the Mongol Horde nor the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Above the mosaic of the Virgin Mary were words from the Psalms: God dwells in that city; it cannot be destroyed. From the very break of day, God will protect it. The image was known as the ‘Oranta’, meaning ‘the one who prays’ and Zelensky’s address mostly consisted of a long prayer for Ukraine and its people, but he also reminded the worshippers that the previous year, they had to celebrate Easter at home due to the pandemic and that this year they were afflicted by another virus: the plague of war. But, he said, the holiday offered them…

faith that light will overcome darkness; good will overcome evil; life will overcome death

Zelensky, p. 101.

On the Ukrainian Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation, 8th May, commemorating the end of World War II, Zelensky delivered an address at Borodyanka, in which he said that for Ukraine, the exclamation mark in the familiar phrase Never Again! had now been replaced with a question mark. He went further in stating that Russia’s all-out war, masquerading as a ‘special operation’ had erased the word ‘never’. It had been shot through and bombed out by hundreds of missiles at 4 a.m. on the 24th of February so that all that remained was the word ‘again?!’ The small town of Borodyanka had been shelled by 250-kilogram bombs which rendered it mute within a minute, unable to say anything, let alone Never Again! In the Second World War, fifty men from the town were sent to Germany as forced labour. Other people were burned alive when the Nazis set a hundred houses on fire, and two hundred and fifty soldiers from Borodyanka died fighting fascism on the fronts. These numbers were out of a total population at the time of only a thousand. Many of the people of Ukraine were now experiencing a second occupation; for the citizens of Mariupol, it was a third. During two years of occupation, the Nazis killed ten thousand of them; in the two months following the incursion there, Russia had killed twenty thousand. Zelensky characterised this as the return of Nazism:

“A bloody reconstruction of Nazism has taken place in Ukraine. A reconstruction of the old ideas, actions, words and symbols. A reconstruction of its atrocities and its attempts to imbue evil with some legitimate purpose. … It aims to set a new record for xenophobia, hatred and racism, and for the number of victims it can harm. ”

Zelensky, p. 105.

The truth, he stated, was understood by all those countries who endured the Second World War, and who support Ukraine today:

“The Poles have not forgotten how evil first accuses you, calls you an aggressor, and then attacks at 4 a.m. while calling it self-defence. … When they recall the Nazi-destroyed Warsaw, and they see what was done to Mariupol, they remember.

“The British have not forgotten how the Nazis wiped out Coventry, … bombed forty-one times. They have not forgotten the Luftwaffe’s so-called ‘Moonlight Sonata’, in which the city was under contant air-raids for eleven hours. They have not forgotten how Coventry’s historic centre, how its factories, how St Michael’s Cathedral were destroyed. When they see the missiles hit Kharkiv and damage its historic centre, its factories and the Assumption Cathedral, they remember. … when they recall how Birmingham was bombed, and they see its sister city Zaporizhzhia under attack, they remember.”

Ibid., pp. 106-7

He concluded:

The Reckoning, Retrenchment & Revival of Summer:

By mid-summer, the EU had moved to cut the consumption of Russian gas among member states, including Germany and excluding Hungary, and the UK agreed to send more weapons to Ukraine. Other NATO countries soon followed suit, but these did not include planes and missiles, and NATO still refused to implement a no-fly zone.

Pages from the ‘i’ paper, c. 21st July 2022

Exactly six months after Russia’s all-out attack, on Ukraine’s Independence Day, there were Russian tanks in the centre of Kyiv: burned out and mangled ones. This ‘reverse’ display of destroyed Russian armour was a parade of Ukraine’s defiance, not to mention its sense of humour. Students and scientists, musicians and actors, teachers and doctors, engineers and farmers come together with the military. They had halted what was supposed to be the world’s second-strongest army, literally in the tracks of its tanks and armoured vehicles. They had also sent the flagship of the Russian fleet to the bottom of the Black Sea and had mastered the M270 MLRS and the US HIMARS system in under a week. In his speech on 24th August, Zelensky declared defiantly that he would not reach an understanding with the terrorists. Looking forward to the day when he could sit around the negotiating table, he promised that…

“… it will not be because of fear, with a gun pointed at our head. Because for us, the most terrible steel is not within missiles, aircraft and tanks – but in shackles. We would rather live in trenches than live in chains. …

“We do not bargain away our lands and our people. Ukraine means all of Ukraine. All twenty-five regions, without any ‘concessions’ or ‘compromises’. We no longer recognise such words. They were destroyed by missiles on 24 February.

“Donbas is Ukraine. And it will return to us, whatever the path may be. Crimea is Ukraine. And it will return to us …

Zelensky, p. 117.

Zelensky’s speech on that day marked a turning point in the war. Ukraine no longer wanted peace with Russia, he said. It wanted victory. In the weeks that followed that day, Ukrainian forces launched an impressive counter-offensive, liberating more territory in a few days than Russia had managed to take in the previous five months. Putin, desperate and humiliated, lashed out at Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and threatened a nuclear strike. The rhetorical power of Zelensky’s address came from the quality that has defined so many of his speeches: truth.

In October 2022, President Zelensky wrote in To Change the Past, his introduction to his book of speeches, of the thousands of lives already taken by the war unleashed by Russia:

“If only we could change the past. There is so much I would give up in an instant. The acclaim and admiration from around the world. I would prefer that when people heard the name Zelensky, they replied ‘Who?’ I would rather I had never heard the applause of the US Congress, the British House of Commons or the European Parliament – and that Ukrainians had never heard the sound of explosion or gunshots in our homeland.

” … I would rather it wasn’t my face on the cover of TIME magazine … I would give up every mention of my name in the global press, every re-post on social media …

all I feel is my heart breaking for the thousands killed in Bucha and Izyum …”

Zelensky, p. 2.

In this article, I have tried to provide a simple narrative of the history and culture of Ukraine before the Russian invasion to enable an understanding of how the war has changed Ukraine and why. In order to understand the events of the past year, it is essential to place them, not just in the context of the past three years of Zelensky’s presidency, nor even the nine years since the first incursions in Crimea and Donbas, but in that of the previous 1,500 years of Ukraine’s history.

Sources:

Volodymyr Zelensky (2022), A Message from Ukraine: Speeches, 2019-22. London: Hutchinson Heinemann (Penguin Random House).

Oleksandr Bilousko (2017), Ukraine: Nature, Traditions, Culture. Kyiv: Baltia Druk Publishers.

István Lázár (1990), An Illustrated History of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina.

Jeremy Isaacs & Taylor Downing (1998), Cold War. London: Transworld Publishers.

By this author, online:

Featured

Majesty & A Fall from Grace: The Lives & Times of the Latter-Day Windsors – Part Two: Borders, Brexit & Bombings, 2002-17.

The Twin Causes of ‘Brexit’ – Migration & Asylum:

In 2015, David Cameron and the Conservatives surprisingly won an overall majority of MPs and were able to form a government by themselves. In their Manifesto, they had promised to conduct a renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership in the EU, and then ask the electorate in a referendum, whether they accepted these terms and wished Britain to remain in the EU, or whether they wanted to leave.

Now it was not De Gaulle or even the Brussels ‘Eurocrats’ who were asking the question, but the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the ‘Brexiteer’ Conservatives in his cabinet and on the back benches. The people themselves had not asked to be asked, but when they answered at the 2016 Referendum, they decided, by a very narrow majority, that they preferred the vision (some would say a blurred one) of a ‘global’ Britain to the ‘gold-card benefits’ available at the European table it was already sitting at. The Tory rebels’ ‘tenacious attachment’ to ‘bloody-minded liberty’ led, among other factors, to them expressing their desire to detach themselves from the European Union, though it was by no means clear whether they wanted to remain semi-detached or move to a detached property at the very end of the street which as yet had not yet been planned, let alone built. All they had was a glossy prospectus of what may or may not be delivered or even be deliverable.

An internet poster from the 2016 Referendum Campaign

Looking back to 2002, the same year in which Simon Schama published his BBC series book, The Fate of Empire, the latest census for England and Wales was published. Enumerated and compiled the previous year, it showed the extent to which the countries had changed in the decade since the last census was taken. Douglas Murray, in the first chapter of his book, The Strange Death of Europe, first published in 2017, challenged his readers to imagine themselves back in 2002, speculating about what England and Wales might look like in the 2011 Census. Imagine, he asks us, that someone in our company had projected:

“White Britons will become a minority in their own capital city by the end of this decade and the Muslim population will double in the next ten years.”

How would his readers have reacted in 2002? Would they have used words like ‘alarmist’, ‘scaremongering’, ‘racist’, and ‘Islamophobic’? In 2002, a Times journalist made far less startling statements about likely future immigration, which were denounced by David Blunkett, then Home Secretary (using parliamentary privilege) as bordering on fascism. Yet, however much abuse they received for saying or writing it, anyone offering this analysis would have been proved absolutely right at the end of 2012, when the 2011 Census was published. It proved that only 44.9 percent of London residents identified themselves as ‘white British’. It also revealed far more significant changes, showing that the number of people living in England and Wales born ‘overseas’ had risen by nearly three million since 2001. In addition, nearly three million people in England and Wales were living in households where not one adult spoke English or Welsh as their primary language.

Parish Churches like the one shown above, in Framlingham, Suffolk, though picturesque, had dwindling congregations of mainly elderly worshippers.

These were major ethnic and linguistic changes, but there were equally striking findings of changing religious beliefs. The Census statistics showed that adherence to every faith except Christianity was on the rise. Since the previous census, the number of people identifying themselves as Christian had declined from seventy-two per cent to fifty-nine. The number of Christians in England and Wales dropped by more than four million, from thirty-seven million to thirty-three. While the Churches witnessed this collapse in their members and attendees, mass migration assisted a near doubling of worshippers of Islam. Between 2001 and 2011 the number of Muslims in England and Wales rose from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. While these were the official figures, it is possible that they were underestimated, because many newly-arrived immigrants might not have filled in the forms at the beginning of April 2011 when the Census was taken, not yet having a registered permanent residence.

The London Boroughs

The two local authorities whose populations were growing fastest in England, by twenty per cent in the previous ten years, were Tower Hamlets and Newham in London, and these were also among the areas with the largest non-response to the census, with around one in five households failing to return the forms. Yet the results of the census clearly revealed that mass migration was in the process of altering England completely. In twenty-three of London’s thirty-three boroughs (see map above) ‘white Britons’ were now in the minority. A spokesman for the ONS regarded this as demonstrating ‘diversity’, which it certainly did, but by no means all commentators regarded this as something positive or even neutral. When politicians of all the main parties addressed the census results they greeted them in wholly positive terms.

This had been the ‘orthodox’ political view since in 2007 the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had spoken with pride about the fact that thirty-five per cent of the people working in London had been born in a foreign country. For years a sense of excitement and optimism about these changes in London and the wider country seemed the only appropriate tone to strike. This was bolstered by the sense that what had happened in the first decade of the twenty-first century was simply a continuation of what had worked well for Britain in the previous three decades. This soon turned out to be a politically-correct pretence, though what was new in this decade was not so much growth in immigration from Commonwealth countries and the Middle East, or from wartorn former Yugoslavia, but the impact of white European migrants from the new EU countries, under the terms of the accession treaties and the freedom of movement provisions of the single market.

Besides the linguistic and cultural factors, there were important economic differences between the earlier and the more recent migrations of Eastern Europeans. After 2004, young, educated Polish, Czech and Hungarian people moved to Britain to earn money to send home or to take home with them in order to acquire relatively cheap, good homes, marry and have children in their rapidly developing countries. And for Britain, as the host country, the economic growth of the 2000s was fuelled by the influx of energetic, skilled and talented people who, working, for example, in the NHS, were also denying their own country their much-needed skills for a period. But the UK government had seriously underestimated the number of these workers who wanted to come to Britain. Ministers suggested that the number arriving would be around twenty-six thousand over the first two years. This turned out to be wildly wrong, and in 2006 a Home Office minister was forced to admit that since EU expansion in 2004, 427,000 people from Poland and seven other new EU nations had applied to work in Britain. If the self-employed were included, he added, then the number might be as high as 600,000. There were also at least an additional thirty-six thousand spouses and children who had arrived, and twenty-seven thousand child benefit applications had been received. Even if most of these turned out to be temporary migrants, they still needed to find houses, schools and various services, including health for the period of their stay.

It has to be remembered, of course, that inward migration was partially offset by the annual outflow of around sixty thousand British people, mainly permanent emigrants to Australia, the United States, France and Spain. By the winter of 2006-07, one policy institute reckoned that there were 5.5 million British people living permanently overseas, nearly ten per cent of Britons, or more than the population of Scotland. In addition, another half a million were living abroad for a significant part of the year. By 2016, the number of ex-pats was estimated to have grown to over ten million. Aside from Europe, the Middle East and Asia were seeing rising ‘colonies’ of expatriate British. A worrying proportion of them were graduates; Britain was believed to be losing one in six of its graduates to emigration. Many others were retired or better-off people looking for a life in the sun, just as many of the newcomers to Britain were young, ambitious and keen to work. Government ministers tended to emphasise these benign effects of immigration, but their critics looked around and asked where all the extra people would go, where they would live, and where their children would go to school, not to mention where the extra hospital beds, road space and local services would come from, and how these would be paid for.

Members of the campaign group Citizens UK hold a ‘refugees welcome’ event outside Lunar House in Croydon. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA

A secondary issue to that of ‘numbers’ was the system for asylum seekers. In 2000, there were thirty thousand failed asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, a third of those who had applied in 1999, when only 7,645 had been removed from the country. It was decided that it was impossible to remove more, and that to try to do so would prove divisive politically and financially costly. Added to this was the extent of illegal immigration, which had caught the ‘eye’ of the British public. There were already criminal gangs of Albanians and Kosovars, operating from outside the EU, who were undermining the legal migration streams from Central-Eastern Europe in the eyes of many. The social service bill for these ‘illegal’ migrants became a serious burden for the Department of Social Security. Towns like Slough protested to the national government about the extra cost of housing, education and other services.

In addition, there was the sheer scale of the migration and the inability of the Home Office’s immigration and nationality department to regulate what was happening, to prevent illegal migrants from entering Britain, to spot those abusing the asylum system in order to settle in Britain and the failure to apprehend and deport people. Large articulated lorries filled with migrants, who had paid over their life savings to be taken to Britain, rumbled through the Channel Tunnel and the ferry ports. A Red Cross camp at Sangatte, near the French entrance to the ‘Chunnel’, was blamed by Britain for exacerbating the problem. By the end of 2002, an estimated 67,000 had passed through the camp to Britain. The then Home Secretary, David Blunkett finally agreed on a deal with the French to close the camp down, but by then many African, Asian and Balkan migrants, believed the British immigration and benefits systems to be easier than those of other EU countries, had simply moved across the continent and waited patiently for their chance to jump aboard a lorry to Britain.

Successive Home Secretaries from Blunkett to John Reid tried to deal with the trade, the latter confessing that his department was “not fit for purpose”. He promised to clear a backlog of 280,000 failed asylum claims, whose seekers were still in the country after five years. The historic Home Office was split up, creating a separate immigration and nationality service. Meanwhile, many illegal immigrants had succeeded in bypassing the asylum system entirely. In July 2005, the Home Office produced its own estimate of the number of these had been over the previous four years. It reckoned that this was between 310,000 and 570,000, or up to one per cent of the total population. A year later, unofficial estimates pushed this number up to 800,000. The truth was that no one really knew, but official figures showed the number applying for asylum was now falling, with the former Yugoslavia returning to relative peace.  Thousands of refugees were also being returned to Iraq, though the signs were already apparent that further wars in the Middle East and the impact of global warming on sub-Saharan Africa would soon send more disparate groups across the continents.

To begin with, the arrival of workers from the ten countries who joined the EU in 2004 was a different issue, though it involved an influx of roughly the same size. By the government’s own figures, annual net inward migration had reached 185,000 and had averaged 166,000 over the previous seven years. This was significantly more than the average net inflow of fifty thousand New Commonwealth immigrants which Enoch Powell (pictured below) had referred to as ‘literally mad’ in his 1968 Rivers of Blood speech, though he had been criticising the immigration of East African Asians, of course. But although Powell’s speech was partly about race, colour and identity, it was also about the numbers of immigrants and the practical concerns of his Wolverhampton constituents in finding hospital and school places in an overstretched public sector. These concerns persisted, though they were largely ignored by senior politicians.

Enoch Powell

It seems not unreasonable, and not at all racist, to suggest that it is the duty of the central government to predict and provide for the number of newcomers it permits to settle in the country, though until 2015 this was largely left to local authorities, which were already struggling with centrally-imposed austerity cut-backs. In 2006, the Projections based on many different assumptions suggested that the UK population would grow by more than seven million by 2031. Of that increase, eighty per cent would be due to migration. The organisation, Migration Watch UK, set up to campaign for tighter immigration controls, said this was equivalent to requiring the building of a new town the size of Cambridge each year, or five new cities the size of Birmingham over the predicted quarter century.

But such characterisations were, in fact, caricatures of the situation since many of these new Eastern European migrants did not intend to settle permanently in the UK and could be expected to return to their countries of origin in due course. This eventually came to pass, after the UK finally left the EU in 2019 and during the subsequent Covid19 pandemic. However, before that happened, the massive underestimations of the scale of the inward migration were, of course, obvious to anybody with any knowledge of the history of post-war migration, replete with vast underestimates of the numbers expected. But it did also demonstrate that immigration control was simply not a priority for New Labour or the Con-Libs. They gave the impression that they regarded all immigration control, and even discussion of it, as inherently ‘racist’, which made any internal or external opposition to it hard to voice. The public response to the massive upsurge in immigration and to the swift transformation of parts of Britain it had not really reached before, was exceptionally tolerant. There were no significant or sustained outbreaks of racist abuse or violence before 2016, and the only racist political party, the British National Party (BNP) was subsequently destroyed, especially in London.

In April 2006, Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking since 1996 (pictured right), commented in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph that eight out of ten white working-class voters in her constituency might be tempted to vote for the British National Party (BNP) in the local elections on 4 May 2006 because “no one else is listening to them” about their concerns over unemployment, high house prices and the housing of asylum seekers in the area. She said the Labour Party must promote…

Margaret Hodge MP

“… very, very strongly the benefits of the new, rich multi-racial society which is part of this part of London for me”.

There was widespread media coverage of her remarks, and Hodge was strongly criticised for giving the BNP publicity. The BNP went on to gain 11 seats in the local election out of a total of 51, making them the second-largest party on the local council. 

It was reported that Labour activists accused Hodge of generating hundreds of extra votes for the BNP and some local Labour members began to privately discuss the possibility of a move to deselect her. The GMB union wrote to Hodge in May 2006, demanding her resignation. The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, later accused Hodge of “magnifying the propaganda of the BNP” after she said that British residents should get priority in council house allocations. In November 2009, the Leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, announced that he intended to contest Barking at the 2010 general election, which saw New Labour finally defeated under Gordon Brown’s leadership. In spite of the union’s position, Hodge was returned as MP for Barking, doubling her majority to over 16,000, while Griffin came third behind the Conservatives. The BNP subsequently lost all of its seats on Barking and Dagenham Council.

Opinion polls and the simple, anecdotal evidence of living in the country showed that most people continued to feel no personal animosity towards immigrants or people of different ethnic backgrounds. But poll after poll also showed that a majority were deeply worried about what ‘all this’ migration meant for the country and its future. But even the mildest attempts to put these issues on the political agenda, such as the concerns raised by Margaret Hodge, were often met with condemnation from the established Labour left, especially in London, with the result that there was still no serious public discussion of them. Perhaps successive governments of all hues had spent decades putting off any real debate on immigration because they suspected that the public disagreed with them and that it was a matter they had lost control over anyway. This was done through charges of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’, such as the accidental ‘caught-on-mike’ remark made by Gordon Brown while getting into his car in the 2010 election campaign, when confronted by one of his own Labour councillors in a northern English town about the sheer numbers of migrants. It is said to have represented a major turning point in the campaign.

A series of deflecting tactics became a replacement for action in the wake of the 2011 census, including the remark that the public should ‘just get over it’, which came back to haunt David Cameron’s ministers in the 2016 Referendum campaign. Even Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, in his Daily Telegraph column of December 2012, titled Let’s not dwell on immigration but sow the seeds of integration, responded to the census results by writing…

We need to stop moaning about the dam-burst. It’s happened. There is nothing we can now do except make the process of absorption as eupeptic as possible … 

It did not seem to have occurred to Johnson that there were those who might be nursing a sense of righteous indignation about the fact that for years all the main parties had taken decisions that were so at variance with the opinions of their electors, or that there was something profoundly disenfranchising about such decisions, especially when addressed to a majority of the voting public. In the same month as Johnson’s admonition, a poll by YouGov found two-thirds of the British public believed that immigration over the previous decade had been a ‘bad thing for Britain’. Only eleven percent thought it had been a ‘good thing’. This included majorities among supporters of all three main parties. Finally, the leaders of all three parties conceded that immigration was indeed too high. But none had any clear or proven policy on how to change course. By 2015, public opinion surveys were suggesting that a failure to do anything about immigration even while talking about it was one of the key areas of the breakdown in trust between the electorate and their political representatives.

At the same time, the coalition government of 2010-15 was fearful of the attribution of base motives if it got ‘tough on immigrants’. The Conservative leadership was trying to reposition itself as more socially ‘liberal’ under David Cameron. Nevertheless, at the election, they had promised to cut immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year, but they never succeeded in getting near that target. To show that she meant ‘business’, however, in 2013, Theresa May’s Home Office organised a number of vans with advertising hoardings to drive around six London boroughs where many illegal immigrants and asylum seekers lived. The posters on the hoardings read, In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest, followed by a government helpline number. The posters became politically toxic immediately. The Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, described them as “divisive and disgraceful” and the campaign group Liberty branded them “racist and illegal”.

After some months it was revealed that the pilot scheme had successfully persuaded only eleven illegal immigrants to leave the country voluntarily. Theresa May admitted that the scheme had been a mistake and too “blunt”. Indeed, it was a ‘stunt’ designed to reassure the ‘native’ population that their government was getting tough, and it was not repeated, but the overall ‘hostile environment’ policy it was part of continued into the next majority Conservative government after the 2015 election, leading to the illegal deportation of hundreds of ‘Windrush generation’ migrants from the Caribbean who had settled in Britain before 1968 and therefore lacked passports and papers identifying them as British subjects. In fact, under Cameron’s Conservative government, net immigration reached a record level of 330,000 per year, numbers which would fill a city the size of Coventry. The movement of people, even before the European migration crisis of 2015, was of an entirely different quantity, quality and consistency from anything that the British Isles had experienced before, even in the postwar period. Yet the ‘nation of immigrants’ mythology continued to be used to cover the vast changes of recent years and to pretend that history could be used to provide precedents for what had happened since the turn of the millennium.

Brexit – The Turning of the Tide for British Tolerance?

Following the 2011 Census, net migration into Britain continued to be far in excess of three hundred thousand per year. The further rise in the population of the United Kingdom recorded in 2021 was almost entirely due to inward migration, and higher birth rates among the predominantly young migrant population. In 2014 women who were born overseas accounted for twenty-seven per cent of all live births in England and Wales, and a third of all newborn babies had at least one overseas-born parent, a figure that had doubled since the 1990s. However, since the 2016 Brexit vote, statistics have shown that many recent migrants to Britain from the EU have been returning to their home countries so it is difficult to know, as yet, how many of these children will grow up in Britain, or for how long. But based on the increases projected by the Office for National Statistics in 2017, Douglas Murray asks the following rhetorical questions of the leaders of the mainstream political parties:

All these years on, despite the name-calling and the insults and the ignoring of their concerns, were your derided average white voters not correct when they said that they were losing their country? Irrespective of whether you think that they should have thought this, let alone whether they should have said this, said it differently or accepted the change more readily, it should at some stage cause people to pause and reflect that the voices almost everybody wanted to demonise and dismiss were in the final analysis the voices whose predictions were nearest to being right.

One might retort with the observation that Murray seems to lay too much emphasis on the ‘average white voter’ and hints at the need for a policy based on reversing what he seems to see as the ‘racial replacement’ of the previous half-century. In the 2016 Referendum Campaign, the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) campaign also seemed to confuse the question of asylum seekers with that of freedom of movement within EU borders by using the following photo, taken in 2015, on one of the eastern external borders:

A pro-EU campaign poster from 2016 countering an original UKIP poster which used a picture of Syrian refugees in 2015 to warn of ‘mass immigration’.

Indeed, the issue of immigration as it affected the 2016 Referendum in Britain was largely about the numbers of Eastern European migrants arriving in the country, rather than about illegal immigrants from outside the EU, or asylum seekers. Inevitably, all three issues became confused in the public mind, something that UKIP used to good effect in its campaigning posters. The original version of the poster above, featuring UKIP leader Nigel Farage, caused considerable controversy by using pictures from the 2015 Crisis in Central-Eastern Europe to suggest that Europe was at a ‘Breaking Point’ and that once in the EU, refugees and migrants would be able to enter Britain and settle there. This was untrue, as the UK was not, in any case, in the ‘Schengen’ area, as shown by the map below. Campaigners against ‘Brexit’ pointed out the facts of the situation in the adapted photo on the internet.

The Schengen Area in 2004. Applicant countries are marked in orange. Croatia joined in 2022.

In addition, during the campaign, Eastern European leaders, including the Poles and the Hungarians, complained about the misrepresentation of their citizens as ‘immigrants’ like many of those who had recently crossed the EU’s Balkan borders in order to get to Germany or Sweden. As far as they were concerned, their citizens were temporary internal migrants within the EU’s arrangements for ‘freedom of movement’ between member states. Naturally, because this was largely a one-way movement in numeric terms, this distinction was lost on many voters, however, as ‘immigration’ became the dominant factor in their backing of Brexit. On 23rd June 2016, the UK electorate, with a turnout of 72%, voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Leave won the majority of votes in England and Wales, while every council in Scotland saw Remain majorities, and Northern Ireland voted to remain by 56% to 44%.(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results)

An Ipsos poll published after the referendum result was declared, in July 2016, surveyed public attitudes towards immigration across Europe. It revealed just how few people thought that immigration had had a beneficial impact on their societies. To the question – Would you say that immigration has generally had a positive or negative impact on your country? – very low percentages of people in each country thought that it had had a positive effect. In fact, Britain had a comparatively positive attitude, with thirty-six per cent of people saying that they thought it had had a very or fairly positive impact. Meanwhile, only twenty-four per cent of Swedes felt the same way and just eighteen per cent of Germans. In Italy, France and Belgium only ten to eleven per cent of the population thought that it had made even a fairly positive impact on their countries. Despite the Referendum result, the British result may well have been higher because, despite UKIP’s posters, Britain had not experienced the same level of immigration from outside the EU as had happened in the inter-continental migration crisis of the previous summer.

Migrants/ Asylum Seekers arriving on the shores of the Greek island of Lesbos during the refugee crisis of 2015.

In Britain, the issue of Calais remained the foremost one in discussion in the autumn of 2016. The British government announced that it was going to have to build a further security wall near the large migrant camp there. The one-kilometre wall was designed to further protect the entry point to Britain, and specifically to prevent migrants from trying to climb onto passing lorries on their way to the UK. Given that there were fewer than 6,500 people in the camp most of the time, a solution to Calais always seemed straightforward to some. All that was needed, argued these activists and politicians, was a one-time generous offer and the camp could be cleared. But the reality was that once the camp was cleared it would simply be filled again. For 6,500 was an average day’s migration to Italy alone.

In the meantime, while the British and French governments argued over who was responsible for the situation at Calais, both day and night migrants threw missiles at cars, trucks and lorries heading to Britain in the hope that the vehicles would stop and they could climb aboard as stowaways for the journey across the Channel. The migrants who ended up in Calais had already broken all the EU’s rules on asylum in order to get there. They had not applied for asylum in their first country of entry, Greece, nor even in Hungary. Instead, they pushed on through the national borders of the ‘Schengen’ free passage area (see map above) until they reached the north of France. If they were cold, poor or just worse off, they were seen as having the right to come and settle in a European Union that seemed no longer to have the heart, and/or will, to turn anyone away.

The Disintegration of Multiculturalism in Britain:

After the 9/11 attacks on the USA, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 7/7 London bombings, there was no bigger cultural challenge to the British sense of proportion and fairness than the threat of ‘militant Islam’ or rather ‘Islamist‘ terrorism. There were plenty of angry young Muslim men prepared to listen to fanatical ‘imams’ and to act on their narrow-minded and bloodthirsty interpretations of ‘Jihad’. Their views, at odds with those of the well-established south Asian Muslim communities in Britain, referred to above, were those of the ultra-conservative ‘Wahhabi’ Arabs and Iranian mullahs who insisted, for example, on women being fully veiled. But some English politicians, like Norman Tebbit, felt justified in asking whether all Muslim communities throughout Britain really wanted to fully integrate. Would they, in Tebbit’s notorious ‘test’, support the English Cricket team when it played against Pakistan?

Britain did not have as high a proportion of Muslims as France, and not many, outside London and parts of the South East, were of Arab and North African origin. But the large urban centres of the Home Counties, the English Midlands and the North of England had third-generation Muslim communities of hundreds of thousands. They felt like they were being watched in a new way and were perhaps right to feel more than a little uneasy. In the old industrial towns on either side of the Pennines and in areas of West London there were such strong concentrations of Muslims that the word ‘ghetto’ was being used by ministers and civil servants, not just, as in the seventies and eighties, by right-wing organisations and politicians. White working-class people had long been moving, quietly, to more semi-rural commuter towns in the Home Counties and on the South Coast, and in the cities of the Midlands, like Birmingham, to the ‘suburbs’.

But those involved in this ‘white flight’, as it became known, were a minority if polling was an accurate guide, and their motives for leaving the inner city areas were often complicated, not linked to ‘race’ or culture. Only a quarter of Britons said that they would prefer to live in white-only areas. In retrospect, this may seem to be a significant minority. Yet even this measure of tolerance or ‘multiculturalism’, colloquially defined as ‘live and let live’, was being questioned. How much should the new Britons ‘integrate’ or ‘assimilate’, and how much was the retention of traditions a matter of their rights to a distinctive cultural identity? After all, Britain had a long heritage of allowing newcomers to integrate on their own terms, retaining customs and contributing elements of their own culture. Speaking in December 2006, Blair cited forced marriages, the importation of ‘sharia’ law and the ban on women entering certain mosques as being on the wrong side of this line. In the same speech he used new, harder language. He claimed that, after the London bombings, …

“… for the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that out very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us … Our tolerance is what makes is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don’t come here. We don’t want the hate-mongers … If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.”

His speech was not just about security and the struggle against terrorism. He was defining the duty to integrate. Britain’s strong economic growth over the previous two decades, despite its weaker manufacturing base, was partly the product of its long tradition of hospitality. The question now was whether the country was becoming so overcrowded that this tradition of tolerance was finally eroding. England, in particular, had the highest population density of any major country in the Western world. It would require wisdom and frankness from politicians together with watchfulness and efficiency from Whitehall to keep the ship on an even keel. Without these qualities and trust from the people, how can we hope for meaningful interactions between Muslims, Christians, Jews and Humanists?; between newcomers, sojourners, old-timers and exiles?; between white Europeans, black Africans, south Asians and West Indians?

Map showing the location of Rotherham in South Yorkshire

In January 2011, a gang of nine Muslim men, seven of Pakistani heritage and two from North Africa, were convicted and sentenced at the Old Bailey in London for the sex trafficking of children between the ages of eleven and fifteen. One of the victims sold into a form of modern-day slavery was a girl of eleven who was branded with the initials of her ‘owner’ and abuser: ‘M’ for Mohammed. The court heard that he had branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew about it. This did not happen in a Saudi or Pakistani backwater, nor even in one of the northern English towns that so much of the country had forgotten about until similar crimes involving Pakistani heritage men were brought to light. This happened in Oxfordshire between 2004 and 2012. Nobody could argue that gang rape and child abuse were the preserve of immigrants, but these court cases and the official investigations into particular types of child-rape gangs, especially in the case of Rotherham, have identified specific cultural attitudes towards women, especially non-Muslim women, that are similar to those held by men in parts of Pakistan. These have sometimes been extended into intolerant attitudes toward other religions, ethnic groups and sexual minorities. But they are cultural attitudes which are anathema to the teachings of the Qu’ran and mainstream Imams, but fears of being accused of ‘racism’ for pointing out such factual connections had been at least partly responsible for these cases taking years to come to light.

British Muslims and members of the British-Pakistani community condemned both the abuse and that it had been covered up. Nazir Afzal (pictured below), Chief Crown Prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for North West England from 2011–2015, himself a Muslim, made the decision in 2011 to prosecute the Rochdale child sex abuse ring after the CPS had turned the case down. Responding to the Jay report, he argued that the abuse had no basis in Islam:

Above: Nazir Afzal, Crown Prosecutor for North-West England.
Left: The front page of The Times, 24 September 2012.

“Islam says that alcohol, drugs, rape and abuse are all forbidden, yet these men were surrounded by all of these things. … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude toward women that defines them.” 

Even then, however, in the Oxfordshire case, the gangs were described as ‘Asian’ by the media, rather than as men of Pakistani and Arabic origin or heritage. In addition, the fact that their victims were chosen because they were not Muslim was rarely mentioned in court or dwelt upon by the press. But despite sections of the media beginning to focus on Pakistani men preying on young white girls, a 2013 report by the UK Muslim Women’s Network found that British Asian girls were also being abused across the country in situations that mirrored the abuse in Rotherham. The unfunded small-scale report found thirty-five cases of young Muslim girls of Pakistani heritage being raped and passed around for abuse by multiple men. In the report, one local Pakistani women’s group described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted them for sex.

The Jay Report, published in 2014, acknowledged that the 2013 report of abuse of south Asian-heritage girls was ‘virtually identical’ to the abuse that occurred in Rotherham, and also acknowledged that British Asian girls were unlikely to report their abuse due to the repercussions on their family. South Asian girls were ‘too afraid to go to the law’ and were being blackmailed into having sex with different men while others were forced at knife-point to perform sexual acts on men. Support workers described how one teenage girl had been gang-raped at a ‘party’ her ‘boyfriend’ had taken her to:

“When she got there, there was no party, there were no other female members present. What she found was that there were five adults, their ages ranging between their mid-twenties going on to the late-forties and the five men systematically, routinely, raped her. And the young man who was supposed to be her boyfriend stood back and watched”.

Groups would photograph the abuse and threaten to publish it to their fathers, brothers, and in the mosques, if their victims went to the police.

In June 2013, the polling company ComRes carried out a poll for BBC Radio 1 asking a thousand young British people about their attitudes towards the world’s major religions. The results were released three months later and showed that of those polled, twenty-seven per cent said that they did not trust Muslims (compared with 15% saying the same of Jews, 13% of Buddhists, and 12% of Christians). More significantly, perhaps, forty-four percent said that they thought Muslims did not share the same views or values as the rest of the population. The BBC and other media in Britain then set to work to try to discover how Britain could address the fact that so many young people thought this way.

Part of the answer may have had something to do with the timing of the poll, the fieldwork being carried out between 7-17 June. It had only been a few weeks before this that Drummer Lee Rigby, a young soldier on leave from Afghanistan, had been hit by a car in broad daylight outside an army barracks in South London, dragged into the middle of the road and hacked to death with machetes. The two murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale identified as Muslims of African origin who were carrying letters claiming justification for killing “Allah’s enemies”. It’s therefore reasonable to suppose that, rather than making assumptions about a religious minority without any evidence, those who were asked their opinions connected Muslims with a difference in basic values because they had been very recently associated with an act of extreme violence on the streets of London.

Unfortunately, attempts to provide a more balanced view and to separate these acts of terrorism from Islam have been dwarfed by the growing public perception of a problem which will not simply go away through the repetition of ‘mantras’. The internet has provided multiple and diverse sources of information, but the simple passage of the various events related above, and the many others available examples, meant that people were able to make their own judgements, and they were certainly not as favourable as they had been at the start of the current century. By 2015, one poll showed that only thirty per cent of the general public in Britain thought that the values of Islam were ‘compatible’ with the values of British society. The passage of terrorist events on the streets of Europe continued through 2016 and 2017. 

On 22 March 2017, a 52-year-old British-born convert to Islam, Khalid Masood, ploughed his car across Westminster Bridge, killing two tourists, one American and the other Romanian, and two British nationals. Dozens more were injured as they scattered, some falling into the River Thames below. Crashing into the railings at the side of Parliament, Masood then ran out of the hired vehicle and through the gates of the palace, where he stabbed the duty policeman, PC Keith Palmer, who died a few minutes later. Masood was then shot dead by armed police, his last phone messages revealing that he believed he was “waging jihad.” Two weeks later, at an inter-faith Service of Hope at Westminster Abbey, its Dean, the Very Reverend John Hall, spoke for a nation he described as ‘bewildered’:

What could possibly motivate a man to hire a car and take it from Birmingham to Brighton to London, and then drive it fast at people he had never met, couldn’t possibly know, against whom he had no personal grudge, no reason to hate them and then run at the gates of the Palace of Westminster to cause another death? It seems that we shall never know.

Then on 22 May thousands of young women and girls were leaving a concert by the US pop singer Ariana Grande at Manchester Arena. Waiting for them as they streamed out was Salman Abedi, a twenty-two-year-old British-born man, whose Libyan parents had arrived in the UK in the early nineties after fleeing from the Gadaffi régime. In the underground foyer, Abedi detonated a bomb he was carrying which was packed with nuts, bolts and other shrapnel. Twenty-two people, children and parents who had arrived to pick them up, were killed instantly. Hundreds more were injured, many of them suffering life-changing wounds.

Next in what began to seem like a remorseless series of events, on 3 June three men drove a van into pedestrians crossing London Bridge. They leapt out of it and began slashing at the throats of pedestrians, appearing to be targeting women in particular. They then ran through the Borough Market area shouting “this is for Allah”. Eight people were murdered and many more were seriously injured before armed police shot the three men dead. Two of the three, all of whom were aged twenty to thirty, were born in Morocco. The oldest of them, Rachid Redouane, had entered Britain using a false name, claiming to be a Libyan and was actually five years older than he had pretended. He had been refused asylum and had absconded. Khurram Butt had been born in Pakistan and arrived in the UK as a ‘child refugee’ in 1998 when his family moved to the UK to claim asylum from ‘political oppression’, although Pakistan was not on the UNHCR list of ‘unsafe’ countries. On the evening of 19 June, at end of the Muslim sabbath, in what appeared to be a ‘reprisal’, a forty-seven-year-old father of four from Cardiff drove a van into crowds of worshippers outside Finsbury Park Mosque who were crossing the road to go to the nearby Muslim Welfare House. One man, who had collapsed on the road and was being given emergency aid, was run over and died at the scene. Almost a dozen more were injured.

Up to this point, all the Islamist terror attacks, from 7/7/2005 onwards, had been planned and carried out by ‘home-grown’ terrorists. Even the asylum seekers involved in the June attack in London had been in the country since well before the 2015 migration crisis. But in mid-September, an eighteen-year-old Iraqi who arrived in the UK illegally in 2015, and had been living with British foster parents ever since, left a crudely-manufactured bomb on the London Underground District line during rush hour when the carriages were also crowded with schoolchildren. The detonator exploded but failed to ignite the homemade device itself, leading to flash burns to the dozens of people in the carriage. A more serious blast would have led to those dozens being taken away in body bags, and many more injured in the stampede which would have followed at the station exit with its steep steps. As it was, the passengers remained calm during their evacuation.

Of course, it would have been difficult to predict and prevent any of these attacks, either by erecting physical barriers or by identifying individuals who might be at risk from ‘radicalisation’, much of which takes place online. Most of the attackers had been born and radicalised in the UK, so no reinforcements at the borders, either in Calais or Kent would have kept them from enacting their atrocities. But the need for secure borders is not simply a symbolic or psychological reinforcement for the British people if it is combined with a workable and efficient asylum policy. We are repeatedly told that one of the two main reasons for the 2016 referendum decision for Britain to leave the EU was in order to take back control of its borders and immigration policy, though it was never demonstrated how exactly it had lost control of these, or at least how EU membership had made it lose control over them.

‘Globule’ Britain, Exceptionalism & the Globalisation of Populism:

By 2017, there were already signs that, due to the fall in the value of the pound since the Referendum, many Central-Eastern European migrants were returning to their home countries, but the vast majority of them had already declared that they did not intend to settle permanently in the UK anyway. The fact that so many came from 2004 onwards was entirely down to the decision of the British government not to delay or derogate the operation of the accession treaties. But, after ‘Brexit’ was finally done in 2019, the reality remained that, even if they were to be replaced by other European ‘immigrants’ in future, the UK would still need to control, as ever, the immigration of people from outside the EU, including asylum seekers, and that returning failed or bogus applicants would become more difficult. So, too, would the sharing of intelligence information about any potential threats of terrorists attempting to enter Britain as bogus refugees. Other than these considerations, the home-grown threat from Islamist terrorists was unlikely to be affected by Brexit one way or another, and could only be dealt with by anti-radicalisation strategies, especially through education and more active inter-cultural community relations aimed at full integration, not ‘parallel’ development.

‘Populism’

Since the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the election of Donald Trump, it seemed that ‘gutter’ journalists, the ‘global media’, especially ‘social media,’ just couldn’t get enough of Populism in the form of tropes and memes. In 1998, the Guardian alone published about three hundred articles that contained the term. In 2015, it was used in about a thousand articles, and one year later this number had doubled to almost two thousand. Populist parties across Europe have tripled their vote in Europe over the past twenty years and more than a quarter of Europeans voted for populists in their last elections. So, in deciding to leave the EU, the British were, ironically, not demonstrating how exceptional they were, but becoming more like their transcontinental European and American allies and partners in supporting nativist, populist and extremist policies and parties.

From the Ladybird book, The Story of Brexit (see below)
The Green & Pleasant Land under siege:

But, in reality, the biggest threat that Britain faced was not from the Brussels Eurocracy, nor from immigration. It was the threat of climate change, a physical threat rather than a demographic one, waves of water, not people. It promised to reshape the outline of Britain, as seen from space or on any map. Nothing was more sensitive to the British people than the shape of their island. Rising sea levels could make its entire coastline look different. They could eat into East Anglia, centuries after the wetlands were reclaimed with Dutch drainage, and submerge the concrete-crusted, terraced marshlands around London, and drown idyllic Scottish islands, forcing the abandonment of coastal towns which had grown up in Victorian and Edwardian times. Long-established wildlife would die out and be replaced by new species – these were already making their presence known in British gardens. All this was beyond the power of Britain to control alone since it was responsible for just two per cent of global emissions. Even if the British could be persuaded to give up their larger cars, their foreign holidays and their gadgets, would it make a real difference?

The village of Corton Denham, Somerset, with views across the Dorset countryside.

In 2009, Andrew Marr concluded, somewhat prophetically:

Without a frank, unheated conversation between the rest of us and elected politicians, who are then sent out into the the world to do the bigger deals that must be done, what hope for action on climate change? It seems certain to involve the loss of new liberties, such as cheap, easy travel. It will change the countryside as grim-looking wind farms appear. It will change how we light and heat our homes and how we are taxed. All these changes are intensely political, in a way the British of the forties would have recognised. Politics is coming back as a big force in our lives, like it or not. …

Without this frankness, what help is there for a sensible settlement between Muslim and Christian, incomer and old timer?

… The threats facing the British are large ones. But in the years since 1945, having escaped nuclear devastation, tyranny and economic collapse, we British have no reason to despair, or emigrate. In global terms, to be born British remains a wonderful stroke of luck.

Andrew Marr (2007-9), A History of Modern Britain pp. 601-2.

Postscript – The Last Years, Platinum Jubilee & A Royal Tribute:

Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth of Nations celebrated HM The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee (70th Anniversary of her Accession to the throne) for four days in June. Queen Elizabeth turned ninety-six on 21st April 2022. She had witnessed many triumphs and tragedies since she became heir to the throne, at the age of ten in 1936, becoming Princess Elizabeth, and turned twenty-one in 1947 when, in a radio broadcast, she told the Kingdom and the Commonwealth:

‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.’

She successfully adapted to a rapidly changing world from 1952, when there was no TV, to the digital age of the Internet. Her influence and inspiration are far-reaching, and she has definitely earned every ounce of love and respect she received during the Platinum Jubilee celebrations. She was nearly never late for anything or anyone and was extremely courteous and respectful towards everyone, no matter what their position was. She considered tardiness a sign of disrespect and her deep respect for her employees was manifested in the way she treated all twelve hundred of them. She never saw them as ‘servants’ and never called them when they were off-duty since she valued their privacy and family life as much as her own. She had a tremendous memory for detail and a great deal of compassion for each individual in her family and the royal household.

She exuded a serene authority, Majesty and calmness in the faithful conduct of her duties and frequently expresses her faith in God. Although she never attended university, she was well educated and served as a confidante to seventeen Prime Ministers from Winston Churchill to Elizabeth Truss. Her charities and patronages deal with a wide range of social problems from youth opportunities to wildlife and environmental protection. Her Majesty balanced all her public responsibilities with a full family life, raising four children, and welcoming grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The four-day UK bank holiday weekend culminated in a series of magnificent activities held across the country, but especially in central London, to commemorate Her Majesty’s extraordinary milestone. The Trooping of the Colours, comprising fifteen hundred soldiers and commanders, four hundred musicians, 250 horses and seventy aeroplanes, kicked off the festivities. Across the country, large jubilee street parties were held, with people coming together to honour the Queen and their local communities. As part of the Jubilee celebrations, a pageant was staged in the Mall on Sunday 5th June, bringing together five thousand people from across the UK and the Commonwealth, to commemorate the Queen’s reign. It included street art, music, puppets and costume.

The bells of Westminster Abbey pealed as they did on Coronation Day, 1953. The Gold Ste Coach, pulled by eight Windsor Grey horses was led by the mounted band of the Household Cavalry. There were four acts in the pageant. The first was led by the featured a military march with 1,750 participants and two hundred horses. The second depicted changes in culture, music and fashion during the last seven decades. The third act told the story of the Queen’s life in twelve chapters, and Ed Sheeran sang ‘God Save the Queen’ in the fourth act. The Queen watched the finale of the pageant from the balcony of the Palace where she was joined by three generations of her family.

Elsewhere, a new underground line called the Elizabeth Line was inaugurated, operating twelve trains per hour between Paddington and Abbey Wood. Queen Elizabeth’s portraits were projected onto the standing stones of Stonehenge, each picture from one of the seven decades of her reign. A twelve-foot-tall floral crown was installed in St James’ Park, sparkling with the brilliant blooms of 13,500 plants in the colours of the precious stones in the crown worn on Coronation Day. The Queen also surprised and delighted millions of viewers by appearing in a special comic sketch filmed in the Palace with Michael Bond’s Paddington Bear to start the Jubilee Concert outside. The Queen and Paddington engaged in dialogue about their mutual love of marmalade sandwiches. As the long weekend’s events drew to a close, the Queen issued a statement:

“When it comes to how to mark seventy years as your Queen, there is no guidebook to follow. It really is a first. But I have been humbled and deeply touched that so many people have taken to the streets to celebrate my Platinum Jubilee. While I may not have attended every event in person, my heart has been with you all; and I remain committed to serving you to the best of my ability, supported by my family. I have been inspired by the kindness, joy and kinship that has been so evident in recent days, and I hope this renewed sense of togetherness will be felt for many years to come…”

Over the next few months, as the Queen’s health became increasingly more fragile, Prince Charles stepped up to cover duties. He had already become known as a thoughtful and caring champion of a wide range of worthy causes, as well as a hardworking, dutiful Prince and a kind, humourous man, happy to meet and chat with the public in the streets. After the Queen’s death, dealing with his own grief, supported by Camilla, the Queen Consort, he steadfastly followed his mother’s coffin, dutifully fulfilling all the ceremonial roles and providing comfort to vast numbers of the Queen’s mourning subjects. At his address to the Accession Council on 9th September, he pledged:

“… throughout the remaining time God grants me to uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation.”

Text Sources:

Douglas Murray (2018), The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. London: Bloomsbury.

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain III: 1776-2000, The Fate of Empire. London: BBC Worldwide.

Andrew Marr (2009), A History of Modern Britain. London: Pan Macmillan.

John Morrill (ed.), (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Previous articles on the web:

Photos/Graphics:

Igloobooks.com (2013), The History of Britain. Sywell, NN6 OBJ: Igloo Books Ltd.

Christine Lindop (2013), Factfiles: William and Kate. Oxford: OUP (Oxford Bookworms Library):

The book contains a full list of photo acknowledgements.

Featured

Majesty & A Fall from Grace: The Lives & Times of the Latter-Day Windsors – Part One: Big Days, Budgets & Bigotry 2002-17

Another Royal Fairy Tale Begins – William & Kate, 2002-2011:

The sun was coming up over Westminster Abbey on Friday 29th April 2011, and on the Mall, some of the visitors were sleeping on chairs near the road, and others were standing and talking. They came from all over the capital city, as well as from other towns and cities all over Britain, and from other countries too. Later in the morning, Catherine Elizabeth Middleton was getting ready for her very special day. Her parents, sister and brother, were staying in the same hotel – the Goring Hotel in Belgravia. She would soon have to put on her specially designed dress.

At the same time, not far away, Prince William was getting ready too. He and his brother, Prince Harry, were putting on their uniforms – red for him, black for his brother.

Prince William was then second in line to the throne of the United Kingdom, after his father, Prince Charles. William and Kate came from two very different families, the Windsor-Mountbatten royal family, and the Middletons, an upper-middle-class family. Kate’s parents were Michael and Carole Middleton. They met when they worked for British Airways. Kate is their eldest child and she has a sister, Pippa, and a brother, James. When Kate was six, Carole Middleton began a business called Party Pieces and later Michael Middleton worked with her. It made a lot of money for the family.

But although she was from a perfectly respectable, wealthy family, Kate was a ‘commoner’, had no title and was not therefore a member of the aristocracy. Before William’s great-grandmother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the then Duke of York, the future George VI, marriages like this, between princes and ‘commoners’ could not happen. When his grandmother, as heir to the throne, married Philip Mountbatten in 1947, she was marrying into the Greek royal family. His father had originally married Lady Diana Spencer, who was from a ‘stately home’. But modern princes and princesses from countries around the world do not always, or even usually, marry people from other royal families, or even the aristocracy.

Carole, James, Michael and Pippa Middleton.

Kate was born in January 1982, six months before William, in Reading. The Middletons had lived in the (Home County) Berkshire village of Bradfield Southend since 1986 when they returned from two years in Amman, Jordan. Kate went to primary school in the village before the family moved to a large detached house in Bucklebury in 1995. She then went to Marlborough College in Wiltshire, where she played hockey and tennis for the school teams, and succeeded academically. When she left Marlborough in 2000, she took a gap year during which she went to Florence, Italy and to Chile in the New Year of 2000, arriving there, by coincidence, a few weeks after William had returned from there on his gap year, so they didn’t meet. She worked as a teaching assistant before returning to England to get ready to go to the University of St Andrew’s in Scotland as a student of art history. The University is the oldest in Scotland, first opened in 1413, and the third oldest in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge. It has a student population of over eight thousand. William and Kate lived in the same building, were both students of art history and had some of the same friends.

In March 2002, Kate was in a fashion show at the university, and William and some of his friends went to watch. First, Kate modelled a colourful jumper, and then she walked out in an exciting black dress, catching William’s attention. William and Kate soon became good friends and remained so for over a year before, in the summer of 2003, Kate turned twenty-one (she was six months older than William), and he went to a party at her parents’ house in Berkshire, together with other friends from St. Andrew’s. Later that year, Prince Charles had an ‘African’ party for William’s twenty-first, and Kate was one of the guests. In September 2003, they began their third year and William moved to a house in the country called Balgrove House, not far from the town and the university, but a quiet place, away from photographers and reporters. Then in March 2004, William and Kate were in the news together. They went on a skiing holiday to Klosters in Switzerland with some friends and William’s father. Soon, newspapers from all over the world had a photo of William and Kate. Now everybody wanted to know, Who is Kate Middleton? The newspapers started to write about Will and Kate as a couple.

September 2004 was the beginning of their last year at St. Andrew’s. There were often photos of William at parties and weddings, but without Kate. As she was not part of the royal family and its official entourage, she couldn’t go with him, but they were still a courting couple. In 2005, they graduated and Her Majesty, Prince Philip and Prince Charles all came up for the ceremony. Kate’s mother and father were there too, but the two families did not meet.

Soon after graduation, William went to New Zealand for a second time, his first official visit overseas, which lasted eleven days. Then he went on a month’s holiday to Lewa Downs in Kenya, where he was later joined, for a short time, by Kate and some of their mutual friends. William then began to have a very busy time, working in the City of London and learning about banking. He also worked for the Football Association at Chatsworth House in Derbyshire. In December, he spent two weeks with a mountain rescue team and after another skiing holiday together at Klosters in January 2006, William and Kate agreed to ‘separate’ while they both established themselves in work. William went to Sandhurst to train as an army officer, where he stayed for almost the rest of the year, not seeing Kate very often. She was trying to find work, but as the girlfriend of the future monarch, she was plagued by photographers who waited near her house and ran after her in the street. For a lot of the time, she worked in her parents’ business; there she could get away from the newspapers. In November 2006, she began work with a women’s clothes business called Jigsaw, which had a chain of high-street shops throughout the UK. The next month, William graduated from Sandhurst, and Kate and her parents were invited to the ‘passing out’ ceremony.

But the media’s invasion of Kate’s privacy got worse in 2007 and at twenty-four, William was not ready to get married. He was still very busy in the army in Dorset, and Kate was working in London, a hundred miles away. Sometimes photos appeared in the papers of William with other girls. Couples in the public eye often stop being together in these circumstances, and of the Queen’s four children, three had divorced. Only Edward, her youngest, was still in his first marriage. In April 2007, they decided to announce that they were no longer a couple. Kate probably needed time to decide whether she wanted to be a future queen consort, and went back to her parents’ house, away from London and the cameras. But she did not stay at home for very long, and she was often seen out shopping with her sister, Pippa. Nor did she stay away from William for long, since on 1st July she accepted his invitation to be among his guests at a special concert organised by Harry and himself to honour their mother, Diana, on her birthday. She did not sit next to William but was not far away and seemed happy again. After two months, they were back together again and flew to The Seychelles for a week together.

Kate goes shopping with her sister, Pippa.

William next spent twelve weeks with the RAF, learning to fly, and he then had two months with the Royal Navy, before returning to the RAF to learn how to fly a helicopter, like his father and uncle, in the autumn of 2008. Meanwhile, Kate continued to work for her parents’ business, taking photographs for them, and people took an interest in her clothes. In January 2010, William finished his helicopter training and went to the island of Anglesey in North Wales to train with the RAF in search and rescue work. He lived in a little house on a farm, and Kate visited him there frequently. William’s training ended in September 2010, and soon after that he and Kate went to Kenya for a three-week holiday.

For some of the time they were in Kenya, William and Kate were with friends. But near the end of the holiday, they had some time alone as a couple again. William had taken his mother’s engagement ring with him, gold with a big blue sapphire surrounded with little diamonds. He carried it carefully with him all through the holiday, and on 19th October, he proposed to Kate with it. She agreed to marry him, and the couple returned to the UK, but could not tell the exciting news to their friends, and Kate could not wear the ring. Finally, on 16th November, the couple appeared on TV at St. James’ Palace and announced their engagement to the public. Kate wore a stunning blue dress to match the sapphire in her ring. William had already asked the Queen and Kate’s father for their consent to the marriage. Both of them gave it.

Prudence takes a Back Seat – New Labour Spending:

In January 2000, Tony Blair announced directly to it that he would bring Britain’s health spending up to the European average within five years. That was a huge promise because it meant spending a third as much again in real terms, and his ‘prudent’ Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, was unhappy that Blair had not spoken enough on television about the need for health service reform to accompany the money, and had also ‘stolen’ his budget announcements. On Budget day itself, Brown announced that until 2004 health spending would rise at above six per cent beyond inflation every year, …

… by far the largest sustained increase in NHS funding in any period in its fifty-year history … half as much again for health care for every family in this country.       

The tilt away from Brown’s sharp spending controls during the first three years of the New Labour government had begun by the first spring of the new millennium, and there was more to come. With a general election looming in 2001, Brown also announced a review of the NHS and its future by a former banker. As soon as the election was over, broad hints about necessary tax rises were dropped. When the Wanless Report was finally published, it confirmed much that the winter crisis of 1999-2000 had exposed. The NHS was not, whatever Britons fondly believed, better than health systems in other developed countries, and it needed a lot more money. ‘Wanless’ also rejected a radical change in funding, such as a switch to insurance-based or semi-private health care. Brown immediately used this as objective proof that taxes had to rise in order to save the NHS. In his next budget of 2002, Brown broke with a political convention that had reigned since the mid-eighties, that direct taxes would not be raised again. He raised a special one per cent national insurance levy, equivalent to a penny on income tax, to fund the huge reinvestment in Britain’s health.

Public spending shot up with this commitment and, in some ways, it paid off, since by 2006 there were around 300,000 extra NHS staff compared to 1997. Hardly anyone was left waiting for an inpatient appointment for more than six months. Death rates from cancer for people under the age of seventy-five fell by 15.7 per cent between 1996 and 2006 and death rates from heart disease fell by just under thirty-six per cent. Meanwhile, the public finance initiative meant that new hospitals were being built around the country. But, unfortunately for New Labour, that was not the whole story of the Health Service under their stewardship. As Andrew Marr (2007-9) has attested,

…’Czars’, quangos, agencies, commissions, access teams and planners hunched over the NHS as Whitehall, having promised to devolve power, now imposed a new round of mind-dazing control.

By the autumn of 2004 hospitals were subject to more than a hundred inspections. War broke out between Brown and the Treasury and the ‘Blairite’ Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, about the basic principles of running the hospitals. Milburn wanted more competition between them, but Brown didn’t see how this was possible when most people had only one major local hospital. Polling suggested that he was making a popular point. Most people simply wanted better hospitals, not more choices. A truce was eventually declared with the establishment of a small number of independent, ‘foundation’ hospitals. By the 2005 general election, Michael Howard’s Conservatives were attacking Labour for wasting money and allowing people’s lives to be put at risk in dirty, badly run hospitals. Many newly and expensively qualified doctors and even specialist consultants could not find work. It seemed that wage costs, expensive new drugs, poor management and the money poured into endless bureaucratic reforms had resulted in a still inadequate service. 

As public spending had begun to flow during the second Blair administration, vast amounts of money had gone into pay rises, new bureaucracies and on bills for outside consultants. Ministries had been unused to spending again, after the initial period of ‘prudence’, and did not always do it well. Brown and his Treasury team resorted to double and triple counting of early spending increases in order to give the impression they were doing more for hospitals, schools and transport than they actually could. As Marr has pointed out, …

… In trying to achieve better policing, more effective planning, healthier school food, prettier town centres and a hundred other hopes, the centre of government ordered and cajoled, hassled and harangued, always high-minded, always speaking for ‘the people’.  

The railways, after yet another disaster, were shaken up again. In very controversial circumstances Railtrack, the once-profitable monopoly company operating the lines, was driven to bankruptcy and a new system of Whitehall control was imposed. At one point, Tony Blair boasted of having five hundred targets for the public sector. Parish councils, small businesses and charities found that they were loaded with directives. Schools and hospitals had many more. Marr has commented, …

The interference was always well-meant but it clogged up the arteries of free decision-taking and frustrated responsible public life. 

Throughout the New Labour years, with steady growth and low inflation, most of the country grew richer. Growth since 1997, at 2.8 per cent per year, was above the post-war average, GDP per head was above that of France and Germany and the country had the second lowest jobless figures in the EU. The number of people at work increased by 2.4 million. Incomes grew, in real terms, by about a fifth. Pensions were in trouble, but house price inflation soured, so the owners found their properties more than doubling in value and came to think of themselves as prosperous. By 2006 analysts were assessing the disposable wealth of the British at forty thousand pounds per household. However, the wealth was not spread geographically, averaging sixty-eight thousand in the southeast of England, but a little over thirty thousand in Wales and northeast England.

The Click & Collect Economy – Buying & Selling Britain by the Acre:

The internet, also known as the ‘World-Wide Web’, which was ‘invented’ by the British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee at the end of 1989 (pictured right in 2014), was advancing from colleges and institutions into everyday life by the mid- ‘noughties’. It first began to attract popular interest in the mid-nineties: Britain’s first internet café and magazine, reviewing a few hundred early websites, were both launched in 1994.

The introduction of new forms of mail-order and ‘click and collect’ shopping in the mid-nineties quickly attracted significant adherents from different ‘demographics’. But the ‘dot-com’ bubble burst due to its own rapid and excessive expansion, and following a pause and a lot of ruined dreams, the ‘new economy’ roared on again. By 2000, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), around forty per cent of Britons had accessed the internet at some time. Three years later, nearly half of British homes were ‘online’. By 2004, the spread of ‘broadband’ connections had brought a new mass market in ‘downloading’ music and video. By 2006, three-quarters of British children had internet access at home.

001

Above: The Albert Dock in Liverpool was an example of a redundant industrial relic that took on a multitude of other uses. By the new millennium, its nineteenth-century buildings housed a maritime museum, an art gallery, a shopping centre and a television studio, becoming a major tourist attraction.

Simultaneously, the rich of America, Europe and Russia began buying up parts of London and other ‘attractive’ parts of the country, including Edinburgh, the Scottish Highlands, Yorkshire and Cornwall. ‘Executive houses’ with pebbled driveways, brick facing and dormer windows were growing across farmland and by rivers with no thought of flood-plain constraints. Parts of the country far from London, such as the English southwest and Yorkshire, enjoyed a ripple of wealth that pushed their house prices to unheard-of levels. From Liverpool to Gateshead, Belfast to Cardiff Bay, once-derelict shorefront areas were transformed. For all the problems and disappointments, and the longer-term problems with their financing, new schools and public buildings sprang up – new museums, galleries, vast shopping complexes, corporate headquarters in a biomorphic architecture of glass and steel, more imaginative and better-looking than their predecessors from the dreary age of concrete.

Supermarket chains exercised huge market power, offering cheap meat and dairy products to almost everyone’s budgets. Factory-made ready meals were transported and imported by the new global air freight market and refrigerated trucks and lorries moved freely across a Europe shorn of internal barriers. Out-of-season fruit and vegetables, fish from the Pacific, exotic foods of all kinds and freshly cut flowers appeared in superstores everywhere. Hardly anyone was out of reach of a ‘Tesco’, a ‘Morrison’s’, a ‘Sainsbury’s’ or an ‘Asda’. By the mid-noughties, the four supermarket giants owned more than fifteen hundred superstores throughout the UK. They spread the consumption of goods that in the eighties and nineties had seemed like luxuries. Students had to take out loans in order to go to university but were far more likely to do so than previous generations, as well as to travel more widely on a ‘gap’ year, not just to study or work abroad.

Those ‘Left Behind’ – Poverty, Pensions & Public Order:

Materially, for the majority of people, this was, to use Marr’s term, a ‘golden age’, which perhaps helps to explain both why earlier real anger about earlier pension decisions and stealth taxes did not translate into anti-Labour voting in successive general elections. The irony is that in pleasing ‘Middle Englanders’, the Blair-Brown government lost contact with traditional Labour voters, especially in the North of Britain, who did not benefit from these ‘golden years’ to the same extent. Gordon Brown, from the first, made much of New Labour’s anti-poverty agenda, especially child poverty. Since the launch of the Child Poverty Action Group, this latter problem had become particularly emotive. Labour policies took a million children out of relative poverty between 1997 and 2004, though the numbers rose again later. Brown’s emphasis was on the working poor and the virtue of work. So his major innovations were the national minimum wage, the ‘New Deal’ for the young unemployed, the working families tax credit, and tax credits aimed at children. There was also a minimum income guarantee and a later pension credit, for poorer pensioners.

The Tories, now under new management in the shape of a media-marketing executive and old Etonian, David Cameron, also declared that they believed in this concept of relative poverty. After all, it was on their watch, during the Thatcher and Major governments, that it had tripled. A world of ‘black economy’ work also remained below the minimum wage, in private care homes, where migrant servants were exploited, and in other nooks and crannies. Some 336,000 jobs remained on ‘poverty pay’ rates. Yet ‘redistribution of wealth’, a socialist phrase which had become unfashionable under New Labour lest it should scare away Middle Englanders, was stronger in Brown’s Britain than in other major industrialised nations. Despite the growth of the super-rich, many of whom were also immigrants anyway, overall equality increased in these years. One factor in this was the return to the means-testing of benefits, particularly for pensioners and through the working families tax credit, subsequently divided into a child tax credit and a working tax credit. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, concluded that if he was to direct scarce resources at those in real poverty, he had little choice but to reintroduce means-testing.

Apart from the demoralising effect it had on pensioners, the other drawback to means-testing was that a huge bureaucracy was needed to track people’s earnings and to try to establish exactly what they should be getting in benefits. Billions were overpaid and as people did better and earned more from more stable employment, they then found themselves facing huge demands to hand back the money they had already spent. Compared with Mrs Thatcher’s Victorian Values and Mr Major’s Back to Basics campaigns, Labour was supposed to be non-judgemental about individual behaviour. But a form of moralism did begin to reassert itself. For the minority who made life hell for their neighbours on housing estates, Labour introduced the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (‘Asbo’). These were first given out in 1998, and granted by magistrates to either the police or the local council. It became a criminal offence to break the curfew or other sanctions, which could be highly specific. Asbos could be given out for swearing at others in the street, harassing passers-by, vandalism, making too much noise, graffiti, organising ‘raves’, flyposting, taking drugs, sniffing glue, joyriding, prostitution, hitting people and drinking in public.

001 (2)

By the ‘mid-noughties’, more than four million closed-circuit television cameras were watching the British in what was fast becoming a surveillance society.

Although Asbos served a useful purpose in many cases, there were fears that for the really rough elements in society and their tough children they became a badge of honour. Since breaking an Asbo could result in an automatic prison sentence, people were sent to jail for crimes that had not warranted this before. But as they were refined in use and strengthened, they became more effective and routine. By 2007, seven and a half thousand had been given out in England and Wales alone and Scotland had introduced its own version in 2004. Some civil liberties campaigners saw this development as part of a wider authoritarian and surveillance agenda. In addition, the number of mobile phones was already equivalent to the number of people in Britain. With global satellite positioning chips (GPS) these could show exactly where their users were and the use of such systems in cars and even out on the moors meant that Britons were losing their age-old prowess for map-reading.

The ‘Seven Seven’ Bombings – War on Terror & Home-grown ‘Jihadis’:

Despite these increasing means of mass surveillance, Britain’s cities have remained vulnerable to terrorist attacks, more recently by so-called ‘Islamic terrorists’ rather than by the Provisional IRA, who abandoned their bombing campaign in 1998. On 7 July 2005, at rush-hour, four young Muslim men from West Yorkshire and Buckinghamshire, murdered fifty-two people and injured 770 others by blowing themselves up on London Underground trains and on a London bus. The report into this worst such attack in Britain later concluded that they were not part of an al Qaeda cell, though two of them had visited camps in Pakistan, and that the rucksack bombs had been constructed at the cost of a few hundred pounds. Despite the government’s insistence that the war in Iraq had not made Britain more of a target for terrorism, the Home Office investigation asserted that the four had been motivated, in part at least, by ‘British foreign policy’.

They had picked up the information they needed for the attack from the internet. It was a particularly grotesque attack, because of the terrifying and bloody conditions in the underground tunnels and it vividly reminded the country that it was as much a target as the United States or Spain. Indeed, the long-standing and intimate relationship between Great Britain and Pakistan, with constant and heavy air traffic between them, provoked fears that the British would prove uniquely vulnerable. Tony Blair heard of the attack at the most poignant time, just following London’s great success in winning the bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. The ‘Seven Seven’ bombings are unlikely to have been stopped by CCTV surveillance, of which there was plenty at the tube stations, nor by ID cards (which had recently been under discussion), since the killers were British subjects, nor by financial surveillance, since little money was involved and the materials were paid for in cash. Even better intelligence might have helped, but the Security Services, both ‘MI5’ and ‘MI6’ as they are known, were already in receipt of huge increases in their budgets, as they were in the process of tracking down other murderous cells.

In 2005, police arrested suspects in Birmingham, High Wycombe and Walthamstow, in east London, believing there was a plot to blow up as many as ten passenger aircraft over the Atlantic. After many years of allowing dissident clerics and activists from the Middle East asylum in London, Britain had more than its share of inflammatory and dangerous extremists, who admired al Qaeda and preached violent jihad. Once 11 September 2001 had changed the climate, new laws were introduced to allow the detention without trial of foreigners suspected of being involved in supporting or fomenting terrorism. They could not be deported because human rights legislation forbade sending back anyone to countries where they might face torture. Seventeen were picked up and held at the Belmarsh high-security prison. But in December 2004, the House of Lords ruled that these detentions were discriminatory and disproportionate, and therefore illegal.

Five weeks later, Home Secretary Charles Clarke hit back with ‘control orders’ to limit the movement of men he could not prosecute or deport. These orders would also be used against home-grown terror suspects. A month later, in February 2005, sixty Labour MPs rebelled against these powers too, and the government only narrowly survived the vote. In April 2006 a judge ruled that the control orders were an affront to justice because they gave the Home Secretary, a politician, too much power. Two months later, the same judge ruled that curfew orders of eighteen hours per day on six Iraqis were a deprivation of liberty and also illegal. The new Home Secretary, John Reid, lost his appeal and had to loosen the orders.

Britain found itself in a struggle between its ancient laws and liberties and a new, borderless world in which the hallowed principles of ‘habeas corpus’, free speech, a presumption of innocence, asylum, the right of British subjects to travel freely in their own country without identifying papers, and the sanctity of homes in which the law-abiding lived were all coming under increasing jeopardy. The new political powers seemed to government ministers the least that they needed to deal with a threat that might last for another thirty years in order, paradoxically, to secure Britain’s liberties for the long term beyond that. They were sure that most British people agreed, and that the judiciary, media, civil rights campaigners and elected politicians who protested were an ultra-liberal minority. Tony Blair, John Reid and Jack Straw were emphatic about this, and it was left to liberal Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to mount the barricades in defence of civil liberties.

As Gordon Brown eyed the premiership, his rhetoric was similarly tough, but as Blair was forced to turn to the ‘war on terror’ and Iraq, he failed to concentrate enough on domestic policy. By 2005, neither of them could be bothered to disguise their mutual enmity, as pictured above. A gap seemed to open up between Blair’s enthusiasm for market ideas in the reform of health and schools, and Brown’s determination to deliver better lives for the working poor. Brown was also keen on bringing private capital into public services, but there was a difference in emphasis which both men played up. Blair claimed that the New Labour government was best when we are at our boldest. But Brown retorted that it was best when we are Labour. 

002 (2)Tony Blair’s legacy continued to be paraded on the streets of Britain, here blaming him and George Bush for the rise of ‘The Islamic State’ in Iraq.

Immigration & Identity at the Beginning of the New Millennium:

Immigration had always been a constant factor in British life, now it was also a fact of life that Europe and the whole world had to come to terms with. Earlier post-war migrations to Britain had provoked a ‘racialist’ backlash, riots, the rise of extreme right-wing organisations and a series of new laws aimed at controlling it. New laws had been passed to control both immigration from the Commonwealth and the backlash to it. The later migrations were controversial in different ways. The ‘Windrush’ arrivals from the Caribbean (see the photo below) and those from the Indian subcontinent were people who looked different but who spoke the same language and in many ways had had a similar education to that of the ‘native’ British. Many of the later migrants from Eastern Europe looked similar to the white British but shared little by way of a common linguistic, educational and cultural background.

As Simon Schama pointed out in 2002, it was a fact that even though half of the British-Caribbean population and a third of the British-Asian population were born in Britain, they continued to constitute only a small proportion of the total population. It was also true that any honest reckoning of the post-imperial account needed to take account of the appeal of separatist fundamentalism in majority Muslim communities. At the end of the last century, an opinion poll found that fifty per cent of British-born Caribbean men and twenty per cent of British-born Asian men had, or once had, white partners. In 2000, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown found that, when polled, eighty-eight per cent of white Britons between the ages of eighteen and thirty had no objection to ‘inter-racial’ marriage; eighty-four per cent of West Indians and East Asians and fifty per cent of those from Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds felt the same way. Schama commented:

The colouring of Britain exposes the disintegrationalist argument for the pallid, defensive thing that it is. British history has not just been some sort of brutal mistake or conspiracy that has meant the steamrollering of Englishness over subject nations. It has been the shaking loose of peoples from their roots.

A Jewish intellectual expressing impatience with the harping on ‘roots’ once told me that “trees have roots; Jews have legs”. The same could be said of Britons who have shared the fate of empire, whether in Bombay or Bolton, who have encountered each other in streets, front rooms, kitchens and bedrooms.

Until the Summer of 2001, this ‘integrationist’ view of British history and contemporary society was the broadly accepted orthodoxy among intellectuals and politicians, if not more broadly in the population. At that point, however, partly as a result of riots in the north of England involving ethnic minorities, including young Muslim men, and partly because of events in New York and Washington, the existence of parallel communities began to be discussed more widely and the concept of ‘multiculturalism’ began to become subject to fundamental criticism on both the right and left of the political spectrum. In the ‘noughties’, the dissenters from the multicultural consensus began to be found everywhere along the continuum.

The Breaking of the Multicultural Consensus:

One result of the long Iraqi conflict, which President Bush finally declared to be over on 1 May 2003, as part of his war on terror, was the arrival of many Iraqi asylum-seekers in Britain; Kurds, as well as Shiites and Sunnis. This attracted little comment at the time because there had been both Iraqi and Iranian refugees in Britain since the late 1970s, especially as students. But soon there was a much larger migration into the country which changed it fundamentally during the Blair years. This was a multi-lingual migration, including many Poles, some Hungarians and other Eastern Europeans whose countries had joined the EU and its single market in 2004. There were also sizeable inflows of western Europeans, though these were mostly academics and students, who (somewhat controversially) were also counted in the immigration statistics, and young professionals with multi-national companies.

At the same time, there was continued immigration from Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan, as well as from Russia, Australia, South Africa and North America. In 2005, according to the Office for National Statistics, ‘immigrants’ were arriving to live in Britain at the rate of fifteen hundred a day. Since Tony Blair had been in power, more than 1.3 million had arrived. By the 2010s, English was no longer the first language of half the primary school children in London, and the capital had more than 350 different first languages. Five years later, the same could be said of many towns in Kent and other Eastern counties of England.

001

Polish tradesmen, fruit-pickers and factory workers were soon followed by shops owned by Poles or stocking Polish and East European delicacies and selling Polish newspapers and magazines. Even road signs appeared in Polish, though in Kent these were mainly put in place along trucking routes used by Polish drivers, where for many years signs had been in French and German, a recognition of the employment changes in the long-distance haulage industry. Even as far north as Cheshire (see below), these were put in place to help monolingual truckers using trunk roads, rather than local Polish residents, most of whom had enough English to understand road signs either upon arrival or shortly afterwards. Although specialist classes in English had to be provided in schools and community centres, there was little evidence that multi-lingual migrants had any long-term impact on local children and wider communities. In fact, schools were soon reporting a positive impact in terms of the migrant children’s attitudes toward learning and in improving general educational standards.

‘Globalisation’

More serious problems were beginning to be posed, however, by the operations of people smugglers and criminal gangs. Chinese migrants were involved in a particular tragedy when nineteen of them were caught while cockle-picking in Morecambe Bay by the notorious tides and drowned. Many more were working for ‘gang-masters’ as virtual and in some cases actual ‘slaves’. Russian voices became common on the London Underground, and among prostitutes on the streets. The British Isles found themselves to be ‘islands in the stream’ of international migration, the chosen ‘sceptred isle’ destinations of millions of newcomers. Unlike Germany, Britain was no longer a dominant manufacturing country but had rather become, by the late twentieth century, a popular place to develop digital and financial products and services.

When the EU expanded Britain decided that, unlike France or Germany, it would not try to delay opening the country to migrant workers. The accession treaties gave nationals from these countries the right to freedom of movement and settlement. With average earnings three times higher in the UK, this was a benefit that the Eastern Europeans were keen to take advantage of. Some member states, however, exercised their right to ‘derogation’ from the treaties, whereby they would only permit migrant workers to be employed if employers were unable to find a local candidate. In terms of European Union legislation, a derogation involved a delay to the full implementation of the treaty for five years. Unlike other member states, including France, the UK decided not to exercise this option.

Featured Image -- 20189

Within the EU, however, British politicians maintained Thatcher’s earlier determination to resist the Franco-German federalist model, with its ‘social chapter’ involving ever tighter controls over international corporations and ever closer political union. Britain, it was argued, had always gone out into the world. Now, increasingly, the world came to Britain, whether poor migrants, rich corporations or Chinese manufacturers. The poorer of the new migrant groups were almost entirely unrepresented in politics, but radically changed the sights, sounds and scents of urban Britain, and even some of its market towns. The veiled women of the Muslim world or its more traditionalist Arab, Afghan and Pakistani quarters became common sights on the streets, from Kent to Scotland and across to South Wales.

An unspoken consensus existed whereby immigration, while always gradually increasing, was controlled. However, with the advent of hundreds of thousands of migrant EU workers, politicians and commentators began to break with this multicultural consensus, and their views began to have an impact because while those on the right were suspected of having ‘nativist’ if not ‘racist’ tendencies in the ‘Powellite’ tradition, those from the left could generally be seen as having less easily assailable motives. What happened after the accession treaties of 2004 was therefore a breaking of the multicultural consensus.

The journalist Douglas Murray, author of the recent (2017) book, The Strange Death of Europe has claimed that once in power in 1997, Tony Blair’s government oversaw an opening of the borders on a scale unparalleled even in the post-war decades. His government abolished the ‘primary purpose rule’, which had been used to filter out bogus marriage applications. The borders were opened to anyone deemed essential to the British economy, a definition so broad that it included restaurant workers as ‘skilled labourers’. And as well as opening the door to the rest of the world, they opened the door to the new EU member states after 2004. It was the effects of all of this that created the changed picture of the country which was eventually revealed in the 2011 Census, published towards the end of 2012.

Trevor Phillips (pictured right), the first black President of the National Union of Students in 1978-79 (of Ghanaian parentage), became the Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality in 2003, opening up territory in discussion and debate that others had not dared to ‘trespass’ into.

His realisation that the race-relations ‘industry’ was part of the problem, and that partly as a result of talking up diversity the country was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ was an insight that others began to share. Simon Schama had argued, in his influential BBC TV (2002) series on the History of Britain looking back from the beginning of the new millennium, that Britain should not have to choose between its own multi-cultural, global identity and its place in Europe. Interestingly, he put the blame for the pressure to do so primarily on continental leaders and, latterly, on the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, suggesting that…

 … the increasing compulsion to make the choice that General de Gaulle imposed on us between our European and our extra-European identity seems to order an impoverishment of our culture. It is precisely the the roving, unstable, complicated, migratory character of our history that ought to be seen as a gift for Europe.

It is a past, after all, that uniquely in European history combines a passion for social justice with a tenacious attachment to bloody-minded liberty, a past designed to subvert, not reinforce, the streamlined authority of global bureaucracies and corporations.

Our place at the European table ought to make room for that peculiarity or we should not bother showing up for dinner. What, after all, is the alternative? To surrender that ungainly, eccentric thing, British history, with all its warts and disfigurements, to the economic beauty parlour that is Brussels will mean a loss. But properly smartened up, we will of course be fully entitled to the gold-card benefits of the inward-looking club…

Nor should Britain rush towards a re-branded future that presupposes the shame-faced repudiation of the past. For our history is not the captivity of our future; it is, in fact, the condition of our maturity. 

The Royal Wedding of 2011- A Gallery:

At the time of the royal wedding, Britain was not just becoming increasingly divided over immigration and EU membership, but it was also in recession, following the international financial crash of 2010. Some businesses were forced to close and people were losing their jobs, and it was difficult for young people to borrow enough money to buy or rent their first home. The royal wedding cheered everyone up, but the royal family were concerned that it should not be too lavish. The wedding was meant to be very traditional, but simple.

William and Catherine’s wedding day was set for 29th April 2011, in Westminster Abbey. The Queen asked about nineteen hundred people to attend the wedding. Many of these guests were family and friends, but she also invited kings and queens from around the world. A wedding ring was made of Welsh gold, a tradition within the royal family going back to his great-grandmother. William’s brother Harry was to be his best man, and Kate’s sister, Pippa, her chief bridesmaid. Then there were to be four little bridesmaids and two page boys. On the eve of the big day, thousands of people began to arrive in London, determined to camp near Westminster Abbey and on the Mall. The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William himself came out to meet them. The day of the Wedding was warm and dry. Hundreds of thousands waited on the streets, and five thousand police officers were deployed around the route. Spread over different parts of the capital, there were more than eight thousand radio and television reporters, ready to tell people around the world about the wedding.

At eight o’clock the news came from Buckingham Palace that William and Kate would be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. At mid-morning, William and Harry came into the abbey, William wearing an Irish Guards uniform and Harry the uniform of a captain in the Blues and Royals. Minutes later, Kate’s mother arrived and soon after that, the Queen and Prince Philip. Then, just before eleven, people saw Kate leaving the hotel to get into a Rolls-Royce with her father. Unlike previous royal brides, brides, Kate did not arrive at the wedding in a horse-drawn coach. Ten minutes later, she arrived at the Abbey and everyone could see her dress, by British designer Sarah Burton, for the first time. It was made from ivory and white satin, with a V-neck bodice with lace detailing. It had a big skirt and long lace sleeves. The train measured 270cm, 110ins. Kate wore a white veil over her face, held in place by a diamond tiara, lent to her by the Queen. It was originally given by King George V to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, in 1936. They had given it to the then Princess Elizabeth on her eighteenth birthday. According to reports, a blue ribbon was stitched inside the dress. In her hands, Kate carried small white flowers.

As she walked in with her father, there were hundreds of white and green flowers lining the abbey nave, and eight tall trees. Her sister Pippa walked behind, carefully carrying the long train of the dress. Pippa almost stole the show, wearing a simple white shift dress with buttons down the back. The ceremony took a little more than an hour. Then the new Duke and Duchess walked out of the abbey with the four children, bridesmaids and pages, Prince Harry, Pippa, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, and Kate’s parents. The bells of Westminster Abbey were rung for three hours after the wedding.

The Duke & Duchess leaving the Abbey for the ‘breakfast’ party at the Palace.

The bride and groom got into an open-top gold and black coach, the 1902 State Landau, to go to Buckingham Palace, with the other important royal guests and Carole and Michael Middleton in the following carriages. After they arrived at the Palace, thousands of people began to walk up the Mall behind a cordon of police officers. Then everyone in the crowd watched the balcony and waited for the royal couple to appear. A royal bride and groom first did this in 1858, and William’s parents, Charles and Diana famously kissed there in 1981. So when Kate and William came out onto the balcony, the crowd expected them to do the same. The noise created by the crowd’s approval made one of the little bridesmaids put her hands over her ears!

Then there were the formal photographs inside the palace, with the bride and groom together, with their pages and bridesmaids, and with their families. After that, there was a party for 650 guests in nineteen rooms, and Prince Charles made a speech. There were further speeches at the dinner for three hundred guests, from Prince Harry, Michael Middleton and from Prince William. Two of the couple’s friends also spoke. In the ballroom, the guests talked and danced until 3 a.m., when the bride and groom left and the party ended. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, gave the couple a tandem bike as a wedding present.

The big wedding cake was made from seventeen different cakes, but Prince William asked for a chocolate cake as well, to remind him of when he was visiting her from Eton, at Windsor, his grandmother would give him this cake.

Of course, the party at the palace was not the only one in the Kingdom. The day of the wedding was a bank holiday, and there were more than five thousand street parties across the different countries. In Scotland, at St Andrew’s, more than two thousand people came together to watch the ceremony on a giant TV. David Cameron, the Coalition Government‘s PM, also had a party in Downing Street, inviting elderly people and children to join him. His wife, Samantha, made the cakes. In cities and towns throughout the Kingdom, people closed their streets to traffic and came together for the day, watching the wedding together.

There were parties in many other places around the world, from Afghanistan to India to Canada. In a hundred and eighty countries, many millions of people watched the pictures from London with fellow members of the British armed forces, families and friends. In the early morning in Times Square in New York City, three couples got married just after William and Kate. However, there was no immediate honeymoon, and after three days away, they went back to Anglesey as, on the following Tuesday, William had to return to work with the search and rescue team. Ten days after the wedding, they flew to The Seychelles for ten days, away from the prying eyes of press photographers.

After the Wedding – The Working Duke & Duchess:

After their honeymoon, the couple returned to Anglesey, and a new life for Kate in the royal family. Before long they had their first visit as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to Canada, from 30th June to 8th July. Again, thousands of people came out to see them as they attended official ceremonies. William gave speeches in both English and French. On leaving Canada, they went to California for three days, where they attended a big dinner in Los Angeles, meeting Jennifer Lopez, Nicole Kidman and other rich Hollywood celebrities. At these overseas functions, Kate wore dresses specially designed for her, but she usually wore things from British shops. So, when young women saw her wearing a new dress made in Britain of this kind, they went to their nearest high-street fashion store to see if they could get the same dress. Often, the shops sold out of these ‘Kate’ dresses within hours of her appearing on TV in it, so she was good news for the British clothes shops and fashion ‘houses’. But while in California they also spent time at the charitable foundation, Inner-City Arts, where children from poorer families went to have lessons in dance and the arts. The Duke and Duchess watched the dances and made pictures with the children.

Back home, too, many charities asked for ‘patronage’ from them as members of the royal family. The charity Centrepoint was sponsored by his mother, and William gave his time to it as well, including sleeping out on the cold streets of London for a night to learn something, firsthand, about the experience of homeless people. The Duchess also began helping four charitable organisations. One of them is the East Anglia Children’s Hospice, which helps seriously and terminally ill children and their families. Another, building on her background in art history, is the National Portrait Gallery.

When they got engaged, Kate said, “Family is very important to me,” and William said, “We want a family.” By 2022 they had two new royal princes, George (b. 2013) and Louis, and a princess, Charlotte. Had she been born first, Charlotte would have become third in line to the throne following a change in the law of succession to permit the eldest child of the Monarch to become heir to the throne, whether they are male or female. So it seems that British subjects will have two more kings after Charles III, William and George before they have another queen. In the meantime, after overcoming the difficult obstacles placed in their way in their courtship, the new royal couple has been in the news for all the right reasons over the past dozen years, balancing their private family life together with their public work for the Monarchy.

Together, while working in Canada

Prince William was a patron of a mountain rescue organisation and often did work for the Football Association, including joint bids for the British nations to stage the European Championships and World Cup. He also helped with the organisation of the summer 2012 London Olympic Games. It was a very busy time for the whole royal family, who greeted and talked with many famous visitors from around the world and went to the big opening and closing ceremonies (see the section below on the Olympics).

The Diamond Jubilee:

By 2012, Queen Elizabeth had reigned for almost as long as her great-grandmother Queen Victoria, the longest-reigning monarch to date. In 2012, Elizabeth celebrated sixty years on the throne. By 2022, of course, she had also surpassed Victoria, reaching her Platinum Jubilee before her death later in the year. There had already been a big celebration in 1977 to mark the Queen’s Silver Jubilee and another one in 2002 for her Golden Jubilee. For 2012, a celebration was planned that would be even bigger than the earlier ones. Celebrations went on throughout the year, with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh making special visits around the country, but the focal point was London and the Jubilee Weekend in June. A special bank holiday was declared on Tuesday 5th June, so that everyone in the UK had a four-day weekend. Celebrations were held in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth:

The Jubilee Concert was held outside Buckingham Palace. It was a joint venture between the BBC and Gary Barlow, who, together with Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a special anthem, Sing, which was performed by a choir from many Commonwealth countries. Other artists who appeared at the concert included Robbie Williams, the pianist Lang Lang, Tom Jones, Shirley Bassey and Elton John. Two thousand and twelve beacons were lit by communities and individuals throughout the Kingdom, as well as in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Commonwealth. Her Majesty herself lit the National Beacon in central London.

The River Thames Flotilla on Sunday was made up of nearly a thousand boats from around the UK, the Commonwealth and other parts of the world. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh travelled in the Royal Barge, which formed the centrepiece of the flotilla.

The 2012 London Olympics Games:

The spectacular opening ceremony was an unforgettable start to the Olympic Games. The whole spectacular event was orchestrated by composer Danny Boyle and writer Frank Cottrell Boyce, providing a unique journey through British history. The visual effects team created a thrilling animated journey down the river from its source to the Olympic stadium itself, passing sights real and imaginary. The sound of the shipping forecast and billowing blue sheets transformed the ‘meadow’ of ‘the Green and Pleasant Land’ into an Isle of Wonder, to the stirring sounds of Elgar’s Nimrod, played by the London Symphony Orchestra’s On Track Project. Frank Turner’s acoustic songs performed in the stadium perfectly captured the atmosphere of a long summer evening.

Above. The opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics

The intense sporting action from the first ten days of the Games began with Team GB’s first medal from Lizzie Armistead, the silver she won in the Road Race. Although she was beaten to the gold in a sprint finish with Marianne Voss, this was the focus of national attention. Their first gold came from rowers Helen Glover and Heather Stanning. In cycling, Bradley Wiggins (“Wiggo”), who had just won the Tour de France, won gold in imperious style in the time trial. This brought his total of Olympic medals to seven, a record shared with Chris Hoy, who later won gold in the indoor team sprint. Both men were subsequently knighted, and Wiggins was named BBC Sports Personality of the Year for 2012. Many more thrilling moments followed with US swimmer Michael Phelps’ record nineteenth Olympic medal in the pool and rower Katherine Grainger’s long-awaited gold for GB. In athletics, millions watched as Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt successfully defended his hundred-metre title.

In the middle, ‘Super Saturday’, with an electric atmosphere in the stadium, Jessica Ennis won gold in the heptathlon, a combination of seven field and track events, and Mo Farah won gold in the ten thousand metres, followed by a third gold from Greg Rutherford in the Long Jump. In tennis, Andy Murray beat Roger Federer in an emotional final, making up for his loss to Federer at Wimbledon just a few weeks before. In the final six days, the Brownlee brothers found triathlon glory, Usain Bolt completed a historic sprint treble, and Nicola Adams punched her way to the first women’s boxing gold. There was incredible tension in Greenwich Park for Team GB’s Equestrian dressage victory, the world record-breaking US sprint relay and Samantha Murray (no relation to Andy), securing the 65th and final medal for Team GB.

The London Olympics ended in style with a celebration of British musical and sporting achievements, created by Kim Gavin. It marked the end of an amazing chapter in London’s life and featured an array of British artists from the previous sixty years, including Eric Idle, The Kinks, The Spice Girls and Jessie J. As the whole event drew to a close, Britain seemed, despite the recession, to be once more at ease with itself.

(to be continued…)

Featured

Majesty & Grace X: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor – Winter of Discontent to Golden Jubilee, 1979-2002; Part 2 – The Peace Process & The People’s Princess.

The Sectarian Divide in Belfast & the Peace Process, 1980-98:

After the Provisional IRA assassinated Lord Mountbatten on his boat off the Western coast of Ireland in 1979, the mainland bombing campaign went on with attacks on the Chelsea barracks, then Hyde Park bombings, when eight people were killed and fifty-three injured. With hindsight, the emergence of Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Provisional IRA, as a political party in the early 1980s can be seen as one element in the rethinking of British policies. Yet throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were still periodic major incidents in various places across the province. After the Provisional IRA’s cease-fire in 1994, these were initiated by dissident republican splinter groups. However, much of the continuing street violence throughout these decades was concentrated in the areas of Belfast where the population was mainly either predominantly republican or unionist, as shown on the map below.

Sectarian divisions in Belfast, c. 1985

Another preliminary element in the Peace Process was the belated interest successive Irish governments began to take in Northern Ireland during the same period. The fear that the disturbances in the North might spread south and destabilise their state lay behind the Dublin government’s decision to start talking directly to Downing Street from 1980 onwards. This led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which essentially represented a reiteration of British policy aims in the province, but now with an added all-Ireland dimension, which the Unionists continued to find difficult to accept.

The political violence in Belfast was largely confined to the confrontation lines where working-class unionist districts, such as the Shankhill, and working-class nationalist areas, such as the Falls, Ardoyne and New Lodge, border directly on the city centre and/or on one another. The mixed middle-class areas did not experience any significant political violence.

It was in the wake of this agreement that an entirely new approach emerged. Sinn Féinn’s dual strategy of ‘ballot box and bullet’, and its realisation that the war could not be won militarily, led to secret negotiations with both Dublin and London in the late 1980s in pursuit of a way into active participation in the political process. Britain’s recognition that if the extremists could be brought into the search for a political solution then the mainstream parties in Northern Ireland politics would follow suit was a complete reversal of its previous approach. Once the IRA had accepted the need for a ceasefire, the remaining difficulty was to persuade unionists that the reformed ex-paramilitaries could be trusted.

US President Bill Clinton addressed a peace rally in Belfast during his visit in 1995. Clinton played a significant role as a peace broker in negotiations leading up to the Good Friday Agreement.

The willingness of some unionists to give up previous policies – which had consisted of trying to recover the power they had lost in 1972 – sprang from their pragmatic realisation that only sharing power with nationalists would guarantee unionists some say in the future government of Northern Ireland. It was not until the late 1990s that the Irish constitution was amended, recognising British sovereignty over Northern Ireland. US President Bill Clinton acted as a peace broker, contributing to an uneasy cease-fire in the North from 1994.

Unionist rioters pelt police with stones after Orangemen are prevented from marching through nationalist Drumcree, near Portadown, in July 1996.

Still, the street violence persisted and intensified during the marching season in July, when the protestant Orange Order held its traditional but often offensive or provocative parades near or through Catholic areas around Belfast.

The Good Friday Agreement & the Omagh Bombing of 1998:

After long negotiations, and with the help of former US senator George Mitchell, the Good Friday Agreement was signed between all the parties to the conflict in 1998. This sought to establish a power-sharing government at Stormont, as well as acknowledging both British and Irish interests in the future of the province. The impressive Parliament Buildings in Stormont, shown below, were built in 1921 to house the new Government of Northern Ireland after Partition, and since the Belfast Agreement, they have been the home to the Northern Ireland Assembly and its power-sharing executive. Despite recurrent crises and accusations of bad faith, the peace survived more or less intact.


Picture & graphic from BBC History Magazine.

Sadly, however, it did not immediately bring an end to the bombing. The Omagh bombing was a car bombing on 15 August 1998 in the town of Omagh in County Tyrone carried out by the Real Irish Republican Army (Real IRA), a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) splinter group that opposed the IRA’s ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement, signed earlier in the year. The bombing killed twenty-nine people and injured about 220 others, making it the deadliest single incident of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There was a strong regional and international outcry against ‘dissident’ republicans and in favour of the Northern Ireland peace process. Prime Minister Tony Blair called the bombing an “appalling act of savagery and evil.” Queen Elizabeth expressed her sympathies to the victims’ families, while the Prince of Wales paid a visit to the town and spoke with the families of some of the victims. Pope John Paul II and President Bill Clinton also expressed their sympathies. Churches across Northern Ireland called for a national day of mourning. Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh Robin Eames said on BBC Radio that,

“From the Church’s point of view, all I am concerned about are not political arguments, not political niceties. I am concerned about the torment of ordinary people who don’t deserve this.”

The Return & Results of Widespread Mass Unemployment in Britain:

In February 1986, across the UK as a whole, there were over 3.4 million unemployed, although statistics were manipulated for political reasons and the real figure is therefore a matter of speculation. The socially corrosive effects of the return of widespread mass unemployment, not seen since the early thirties, were felt throughout the country, manifesting themselves in the further bouts of inner-city rioting that broke out in 1985. This was more serious for the government than the rioting against the Means Test of half a century before because it occurred in cities throughout the country, rather than in depressed mining areas. London was just as vulnerable as Liverpool, and a crucial contributory factor was the number of young men of south Asian and Caribbean heritage who saw no hope of ever entering employment: opportunities were minimal and they felt particularly discriminated against. The term underclass was increasingly used to describe those who felt themselves to be completely excluded from the return of prosperity to many areas in the late eighties.

By 1987, service industries were offering an alternative means of employment in Britain. Between 1983 and 1987 about one and a half million new jobs were created. Most of these were for women, many of whom were entering employment for the first time, and many of the jobs available were part-time and, of course, lower paid than the jobs lost in primary and secondary industries. By contrast, the total number of men in full-time employment fell still further. Many who had left mining or manufacturing for the service sector also earned far less. By the end of the century there were more people employed in Indian restaurants than in the coal and steel industries combined, but for much lower pay. The economic recovery that led to the growth of this new employment was based mainly on finance, banking and credit. Little was invested in home-grown manufacturing, however, but far more was invested overseas, with British foreign investments rising from 2.7 billion pounds in 1975 to 90 billion in 1985.

At the same time, there was also a degree of re-industrialisation, especially in the Southeast, where new industries employing the most advanced technology were growing. In fact, many industries shed a large proportion of their workforce but, using new technology, maintained or improved their output. These new industries were certainly not confined to the M4 Corridor by the late eighties. By then, Nissan’s car plant in Sunderland had become the most productive in Europe, while Siemens established a microchip plant at Wallsend. However, such companies did not employ large numbers of local workers. Siemens invested more than a billion pounds, but only employed a workforce of about eighteen hundred.

Regionally based industries suffered a dramatic decline during this period. Coal mining, for example, was decimated in the decade following the 1984-85 miners’ strike, not least because of the shift of the electricity-generating industry to other alternative energy sources, especially gas. During the period 1984-87 the coal industry shed a hundred and seventy thousand miners, and there was a further net loss of employment in the coalfields, with the exception of north Warwickshire and south Derbyshire, in the early 1990s. The economic effect upon local communities could be devastating, as the 1996 film Brassed Off accurately shows, with its memorable depiction of the social impact on the Yorkshire pit village of Grimethorpe of the 1992 closure programme. The trouble with the economic strategy followed by the Thatcher government was that South Wales, Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Tyneside and Clydesdale were precisely those regions that had risen to extraordinary prosperity as part of the British imperial enterprise. Now they were being written off as disposable assets, so what interest did the Scots in particular, but also the Welsh, have in remaining as part of that enterprise, albeit a new corporation in the making?

The Two Britains & the Demise of Thatcher, 1987-1990:

The understandable euphoria over Thatcher and her party winning three successive general elections disguised the fact this last victory was gained at the price of perpetuating a deep rift in Britain’s social geography. Without the Falklands factor to help revive the Union flag, a triumphalist English conservatism was increasingly imposing its rule over the other nations of an increasingly disunited Kingdom. Although originally from Lincolnshire, Thatcher’s constituency was, overwhelmingly, the well-off middle and professional classes in the south of England, where her parliamentary constituency of Finchley lay. Meanwhile, the distressed northern zones of derelict factories, pits, ports and terraced streets were left to rot and rust. People living in these latter areas were expected to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, retrain for work in the up-and-coming industries of the future and if need be get on Tory Chairman, Norman Tebbitt’s bicycle and move to one of the areas of strong economic growth such as Cambridge, Milton Keynes or Slough, where those opportunities were clustered.

However, little was provided by publicly funded retraining and, if this was available, there was no guarantee of a job at the end of it. The point of the computer revolution was to save labour, not to expand it. In the late 1980s, the north-south divide seemed as intractable as it had any period in the previous six decades, with high unemployment continuing to be concentrated in the declining manufacturing areas of the North and West of the British Isles. That the north-south divide increasingly had a political dimension as well as an economic one was borne out by the 1987 General Election in the UK. Margaret Thatcher’s third majority was largely based on the votes of the South and East of England. North of a line running from the Severn estuary through Coventry and on to the Humber estuary, the long decline of Toryism, especially in Scotland, where it was reduced to only ten seats, was apparent to all observers. At the same time, the national two-party system seemed to be breaking down so that south of that line, the Liberal-SDP Alliance was the main challenger to the Conservatives in many constituencies.

In June 1988, 185 men died when a North Sea oil platform, Piper Alpha, blew up.

Even though the shift towards service industries was reducing regional economic diversity, the geographical distribution of regions eligible for European structural funds for economic improvement confirmed the continuing north-south divide. The pace of change quickened as a result of the 1987 Single European Act, as it became clear that the UK was becoming increasingly integrated with the European continent. The administrative structure of Britain also underwent major changes by the end of the nineties. The relative indifference of the Conservative ascendancy to the plight of industrial Scotland and Wales had transformed the prospects of the nationalist parties in both countries. In the 1987 election, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, previously confined mainly to middle-class, rural and intellectual constituencies, now made huge inroads into Conservative areas and even into the Labour heartlands of industrial south Wales and Clydeside.

Culturally, the Thatcher counter-revolution ran into something of a cul-de-sac, or rather the cobbled streets of Salford typified in the long-running TV soap opera, Coronation Street. Millions in the old British industrial economy had a deeply ingrained loyalty to the place where they had grown up, gone to school, got married and had their kids; to the pub, their park, and their football team. In that sense at least the Social Revolution of the fifties and sixties had recreated cities and towns that, for all their ups and downs, their poverty and pain, were real communities. Fewer people were willing to give up on Liverpool and Leeds, Nottingham and Derby than the pure laws of the employment marketplace demanded. For many working-class British people, it was their home which determined their quality of life, not the width of their wage packet.

The notoriously violent poll-tax riot of 1990 in Trafalgar Square.

Not everything that the Thatcher government did was out of tune with social reality, however. The sale of council houses created an owner-occupier class which, as Simon Schama has written, corresponded to the long passion of the British to be kings and queens of their own little castles. Sales of remaining state-owned industries, such as the public utility companies, were less successful since the concept of stakeholdership was much less deeply rooted in British traditions, and the mixed fortunes of both these privatised companies and their stocks did nothing to help change customs. Most misguided of all was the decision to call a poll tax imposed on the house and flat owners a community charge, and then to impose it first, as a trial run, in Scotland, where the Tories already had little support. The grocer’s daughter from Grantham thought that it would be a good way of creating a property-owning, tax-paying democracy, where people paid according to the size of their household. This was another mistaken assumption.

The Tories had Nigel Heseltine as their conference darling. He also became Thatcher’s nemesis when he challenged her for the leadership of the party in 1990. But although he wielded the knife, he did not ascend the throne.

Later in 1990, the iron lady was challenged for her leadership of the Party by Michael Heseltine, and although she beat him in the first ballot, the margin was insufficient to prevent a second ballot. With her supporters and cabinet fearing her defeat and humiliation, she felt obliged to step down from the contest. She was then replaced as PM by one of her loyal deputies, John Major, another middle-class anti-patrician, the son of a garden-gnome salesman, apparently committed to family values and a return to basics. In 1990, some EEC leaders thought that Britain was too slow in making decisions. In 1986, President Mitterand had signed an agreement with Margaret Thatcher to build the long-planned Channel Tunnel between France and England. But while the French had pressed ahead with constructing road and high-speed train links to the tunnel, Britain had been slow to act.

In the cartoon above, President Mitterand of France (left) and Helmet Kohl of Germany (right) try to force the new PM, John Major to agree to the terms and conditions in the Maastricht Treaty, agreed by 1993, which aimed at bringing freer trade between member states. Britain refused.

Throughout his time in office, a significant number of Conservative back-bench MPs continued to oppose closer economic and political ties within the EEC, which then became the European Community (EC). Against all the odds, at Maastricht in 1991, he managed to slip Britain out of paying fealty to the EC on most of what was demanded. He and his Chancellor, Norman Lamont, negotiated a special opt-out from the monetary union and managed to have the social chapter excluded from the treaty altogether. For a man with a weak hand, under fire from his own side at home, it was quite an accomplishment. Briefly, he was a hero, hence the cartoons of him wearing his Y-fronts outside his trousers. He described his reception by his own party in the Commons as the modern equivalent of a Roman triumph, quite something for a boy from Brixton.

The Brixton Boy & New Growth, 1992-97:

Soon after his Maastricht triumph, flushed with confidence, Major called the election that most observers thought he must lose. The economy was still in a mess, the poll tax issue so fresh and Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party now so well purged of Militants and well organised that there was a widespread belief that the ‘Thatcher era’ was at an end. But then, Lamont’s pre-election budget came to the rescue of his PM. It proposed cutting the basic rate of income tax by five pence in the pound, which would help people on lower incomes, badly wrong-footing Labour. During the campaign, Major found himself returning to Brixton, complete with a soapbox, which he mounted to address raucous crowds through a megaphone.

012

On 9th April, Major’s Conservatives won fourteen million votes, more than any party in British political history. It was a great personal achievement for Major, based on voters’ fears of higher Labour taxes. It was also one of the biggest percentage leads since 1945, but the vagaries of the electoral system gave only gave Major a majority of just twenty-one seats.

010

Never has such a famous victory produced such a rotten result for the winners. Major was back in number ten, but Chris Patten, tipped by many as a future PM, lost his seat in Bath to the Liberal candidate.

Unlike his predecessor and successor as Prime Minister, both of whom won three elections, in a parliamentary system under which greatness is generally related to parliamentary arithmetic, John Major has not gone down as a great leader of his country, though he was far more of a unifying figure than those who went before and came after. Despite its somewhat surprising victory in the 1992 General Election, the Major government ended up being ignominiously overwhelmed by an avalanche of sexual and financial scandals and blunders. Added to this, the ‘Maastricht rebels’ on the Tory back-benches now openly campaigned for Britain to leave the European Community.

Left: Labour leader Neil Kinnock attacking ultra-left members of the Militant Tendency at the Labour Party conference in 1985. Right: John Smith MP, Kinnock’s successor after Labour’s third successive defeat in the 1992 election, who would probably have become PM in 1997 but for a heart attack.

Kinnock was devastated by the 1992 result and quickly left front-line politics, becoming even less of a footnote in parliamentary history than Major, though deserving of an honourable chapter in the history of the Labour Party. Despite his popular mandate, the smallness of his majority meant that Major’s authority in the Commons was steadily chipped away by the Labour Opposition under their less bellicose but more able parliamentary leader, Kinnock’s Scottish Shadow Chancellor, John Smith.

Deindustrialisation & Re-industrialisation into the Nineties:

The process of deindustrialisation continued into the nineties with the closure of the Swan Hunter shipyard on the Tyne in May 1993. It was the last working shipyard in the region but failed to secure a vital warship contract. It was suffering the same long-term decline that reduced shipbuilding from an employer of two hundred thousand in 1914 to a mere twenty-six thousand by the end of the century. This devastated the local economy, especially as a bitter legal wrangle over redundancy payments left many former workers without any compensation at all for the loss of what they had believed was employment for life. As the map above shows, the closure’s effects spread far further than Tyneside and the Northeast, which were undoubtedly badly hit by the closure, with two hundred and forty suppliers losing their contracts. The results of rising unemployment were multiplied as the demand for goods and services declined.

Swan Hunter suppliers in 1993. The closure of the shipyard had a ‘knock-on’ effect as far afield as London and Glasgow.

As the map above shows, the closure of Swan Hunter certainly had a widespread impact on Suppliers as far afield as Southampton and Glasgow, as well as in the West Midlands and the Southeast. They lost valuable orders and therefore also had to make redundancies. Forty-five suppliers in Greater London also lost business. Therefore, from the closure of one single, large-scale engineering concern, unemployment resulted even in the most prosperous parts of the country. In the opposite economic direction, the growing North Sea oil industry helped to spread employment more widely throughout the Northeast and the Eastern side of Scotland, with its demands for drilling platforms and support ships, and this benefit was also felt nationally, both within Scotland and more widely, throughout the UK. However, this did little in the short term to soften the blow of the Swan Hunter closure.

Oil rig in the North Sea, drilling for oil and then pumping it ashore.

The old north-south divide in Britain seemed to be eroding during the recession of the early 1990s, which hit southeast England relatively hard, but it soon reasserted itself with a vengeance later in the decade as young people moved south in search of jobs and property prices rose. Overall, however, the 1990s were years of general and long-sustained economic expansion. The continued social impact of the decline in coal, steel and shipbuilding was to some extent mitigated by inward investment initiatives. Across most of the British Isles, there was also a continuing decline in the number of manufacturing jobs throughout the nineties. Although there was an overall recovery in the car industry, aided by the high pound in the export market, much of this was due to the new technology of robotics (shown below) which made the industry far less labour-intensive and therefore more productive.

004

The service sector expanded, however, and general levels of unemployment, especially in Britain, fell dramatically in the 1990s. Financial services saw strong growth, particularly in the London Docklands (pictured below), which saw the transformation of former docks areas into offices and fashionable modern residential developments, with a new focus around the huge Canary Wharf scheme, to the east of the city on the previously isolated Isle of Dogs. On the right is an aerial view of the complex being built in the late 1980s. But although the new development was expected to boost commerce and local businesses.

A decade later, however, many of the buildings were still unoccupied.

In addition, by the end of the decade, the financial industry was the largest employer in northern manufacturing towns like Leeds, which grew rapidly, aided by its ability to offer a range of cultural facilities that helped to attract an array of UK company headquarters. Manchester, similarly, enjoyed a renaissance, particularly in music and football. Manchester United’s commercial success led it to become the world’s largest sports franchise. Edinburgh’s banking and finances sector also expanded. Other areas of the country were helped by their ability to attract high technology industry. Silicon Glen in central Scotland was, by the end of the decade, the largest producer of computer equipment in Europe. Computing and software design was also one of the main engines of growth along the silicon highway of the M4 Corridor west of London. But areas of vigorous expansion were not necessarily dominated by new technologies. The economy of East Anglia, especially Cambridgeshire, had grown rapidly in the 1980s and continued to do so throughout the 1990s. While Cambridge itself, aided by the university-related science parks, fostered high-tech companies, especially in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, expansion in Peterborough, for instance, was largely in low-tech areas of business services and distribution.

022
The Road and Airport Network 1973-2000.

Getting around Britain was, at last, getting easier. By 1980 there were nearly one and a half thousand miles of motorway in Britain. In the last twenty years of the century, the stretching of the congested motorway network to just over two thousand miles mostly involved the linking of existing sections. Motorway building and airport development were delayed by lengthy public enquiries and well-organised public protests. Improving transport links were seen as an important means of stimulating regional development as well as combating local congestion. Major road developments in the 1990s included the completion of the M25 orbital motorway around London, the Skye bridge and the M40 link between London and Birmingham. However, despite this construction programme, congestion remained a problem: the M25 was labelled the largest car park on the planet, while average traffic speeds in central London fell to only ten miles per hour in 2001, a famous poster on the underground pointing out that this was the same average speed as in 1901. Environmental concerns became an important factor in limiting further expansion of both roads and runways and in a renewed focus on improving the rail network both between regions and within them.

003

Improvements to public transport networks tended to be concentrated in urban centres, such as the light rail networks in Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon. At the same time, the migration of some financial services and much of the Fleet Street national press to major new developments in London’s Docklands prompted the development of the Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee line extension, as well as some of the most expensive urban motorway in Europe. Undoubtedly, the most important transport development was the Channel Tunnel rail link from Folkestone to Calais, completed in 1994. By the beginning of the new millennium, millions of people had travelled by rail from London to Paris in only three hours.

027
The Channel Tunnel was highly symbolic of Britain’s commitment to Europe in the 1990s. By the end of the decade, millions of people and vehicles had already travelled from London to Paris in a mere three hours.

The development of Ashford in Kent, following the opening of the Channel Tunnel rail link, provides a good example of the relationship between transport links and general economic development. The railway had come to Ashford in 1842 and railway works were established in the town. This was eventually run down and closed between 1981 and 1993, but this did not undermine the local economy. Instead, Ashford benefited from the Channel Tunnel rail link, which made use of the old railway lines running through the town, and its population actually grew by ten per cent in the 1990s. The completion of the Tunnel combined with the M25 London orbital motorway, with its M20 spur, gave the town an international catchment area of some eighty-five million people within a single day’s journey.

009
Source: Penguin Books, 2001 (see list below).

This, together with the opening of Ashford International railway station as the main terminal for the rail link to Europe, attracted a range of engineering, financial, distribution and manufacturing companies. Fourteen business parks were opened in and around the town, together with a science park owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, and a popular outlet retail park on the outskirts of the town. By the beginning of the new millennium, the Channel Tunnel had transformed the economy of Kent. Ashford is closer to Paris and Brussels than it is to Manchester and Sheffield, both in time and distance. By the beginning of this century, it was in a position to be part of a truly international economy.

010
Ashford in relation to its British hinterland and the European Continent. Source: Penguin Books (see list below)

Even the historic market relocated to Orbital Park to the South of the town, reflecting in microcosm a national trend towards siting not only industrial estates but also retail parks on the edge of towns.

010 (2)
At the beginning of the new century, modern-day affluence was reflected in the variety of goods and services concentrated in shopping malls: They were often built on major roads outside cities and towns to make them more accessible to the maximum number of people.

New Labour & The Renewal of the United Kingdom, 1997-2002:

In a 1992 poll in Scotland, half of those asked said that they were in favour of independence within the European Union. The enthusiasm the Scottish National Party discovered in the late 1980s for the supposed benefits that would result from independence in Europe may help to explain its subsequent revival. In the General Election of the same year, however, with Mrs Thatcher and her poll tax having departed the political scene, there was a minor Tory recovery north of the border. Five years later this was wiped out by the Labour landslide of 1997 when all the Conservative seats in both Scotland and Wales were lost. Nationalist political sentiment grew in Scotland and to a lesser extent in Wales. In 1999, twenty years after the first devolution referenda, further votes led to the setting up of a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh, Wales got an Assembly in Cardiff, and Northern Ireland had a power-sharing Assembly again at Stormont near Belfast. In 2000, an elected regional assembly was established for Greater London, the area covered by the inner and outer boroughs in the capital, with a directly elected Mayor. This new authority replaced the Greater London Council which had been abolished by the Thatcher Government in 1986 and was given responsibility for local planning and transport.

In 1997, Tony Blair won the first of three elections, creating ‘New Labour’.

The devolution promised and instituted by Tony Blair’s new landslide Labour government did seem to take some of the momenta out of the nationalist fervour, but apparently at the price of stoking the fires of English nationalism among Westminster Tories, resentful at the Scots and Welsh having representatives in their own assemblies as well as in the UK Parliament. Only one Scottish seat was regained by the Tories in 2001. In Scotland at least, the Tories became labelled as a centralising, purely English party.

After the 1992 defeat, Blair had made a bleak public judgement about why Labour had lost so badly. The reason was simple: Labour has not been trusted to fulfil the aspirations of the majority of people in the modern world. As shadow home secretary he began to put that right, promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. He was determined to return his party to the common-sense values of Christian Socialism, also influenced by the mixture of socially conservative and economically liberal messages used by Bill Clinton and his New Democrats. So too was Gordon Brown but as shadow chancellor, his job was to demolish the cherished spending plans of his colleagues. Also, his support for the ERM (the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism) made him ineffective when Major and Lamont suffered their great defeat. By 1994, the Brown-Blair relationship was less strong than it had been, but they visited the States together to learn the new political style of the Democrats which, to the advantage of Blair, relied heavily on charismatic leadership. Back home, Blair pushed John Smith to reform the party rulebook, falling out badly with him in the process. Media commentators began to tip Blair as the next leader, and slowly but surely, the Brown-Blair relationship was turning into a Blair-Brown one.

The Blair-Brown partnership’ was to survive until 2007 when Tony Blair stepped down as PM and Gordon Brown replaced him unopposed.
This photo was taken at the Labour Conference in 2005, by which time neither could disguise their personal enmity.

When it arrived, the 1997 General Election demonstrated just what a stunningly efficient and effective election-winning team Tony Blair led, comprising those deadly masters of spin, Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. ‘New Labour’ as it was now officially known, won 419 seats, the largest number ever for the party and comparable only with the seats won by the National Government of 1935. Its Commons majority was also a modern record, with 179 seats, thirty-three more than Attlee’s landslide majority of 1945. The swing of ten per cent from the Conservatives was another post-war record, roughly double that which the 1979 Thatcher victory had produced in the opposite direction. But the turn-out was very low, at seventy-one per cent the lowest since 1935. Labour had won a famous victory but nothing like as many actual votes as John Major had won five years earlier. But Blair’s party also won heavily across the south and in London, and in parts of Britain that it had been unable to reach or represent in recent times.

It had also a far more diverse offer of candidates, especially in terms of gender. A record number of women were elected to Parliament, 119, of whom 101 were Labour MPs, nicknamed Blair’s babes at the time. Despite becoming one of the first countries in the world to have a female prime minister, in 1987 there were just 6.3% of women MPs in government in the UK, compared with ten per cent in Germany and about a third in Norway and Sweden. Only France came below the UK with 5.7%. Before the large group of female MPs joined her in 1997, Margaret Hodge (pictured below, c.1992) had already become MP for Barking in a 1994 by-election. While still a new MP, Hodge had endorsed the candidature of Tony Blair, a former Islington neighbour, for the Labour Party leadership, and was appointed Junior Minister for Disabled People in 1998. Before entering the Commons, she had been Leader of Islington Council and had not been short of invitations from constituencies to stand in the 1992 General Election. She had turned these offers down, citing her family commitments:

“It’s been a hard decision; the next logical step is from local to national politics and I would love to be part of a Labour government influencing change. But it’s simply inconsistent with family life, and I have four children who mean a lot to me. 

“It does make me angry that the only way up the political ladder is to work at it twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. That’s not just inappropriate for a woman who has to look after children or relatives, it’s inappropriate for any normal person.

“The way Parliament functions doesn’t attract me very much. MPs can seem terribly self-obsessed, more interested in their latest media appearance than in creating change.” 

Alistair Campbell, Toy Blair’s Press Secretary, guards the door as Blair dictates a statement.

As the sun came up on a jubilant, celebrating Labour Party returning to power after an eighteen-year absence, there was a great deal of Bohemian rhapsodizing about a new dawn for Britain. Alistair Campbell (pictured above, right) had assembled crowds of party workers and supporters to stand along Downing Street waving union flags as the Blairs strode up to claim their victory spoils. Briefly, at least, it appeared that the whole country had turned out to cheer the champions. The victory was due to a small group of self-styled modernisers who had seized the Labour Party and made it a party of the ‘left and centre-left’, at least for the time being, though by the end of the following thirteen years, and after two more elections, they had taken it further to the centre-right than anyone expected on that balmy early summer morning; there was no room for cynicism amid all the euphoria. Labour was rejuvenated, and that was all that mattered.

Blair needed the support and encouragement of admirers and friends who would coax and goad him. There was Mandelson, the brilliant but temperamental former media boss, who had now become an MP. Although adored by Blair, he was so mistrusted by other members of the team that Blair’s inner circle gave him the codename ‘Bobby’ (as in Bobby Kennedy). Alistair Campbell, Blair’s press officer and attack dog was a former journalist and natural propagandist, who had helped orchestrate the campaign of mockery against Major. Then there was Anji Hunter, the contralto charmer who had known Blair as a young rock singer and was his best hotline to middle England. Derry Irvine was a brilliant Highlands lawyer who had first found a place in his chambers for Blair and his wife, Cherie Booth. He advised on constitutional change and became Lord Chancellor in due course. These people, with the Brown team working in parallel, formed the inner core. The young David Miliband, son of a well-known Marxist philosopher, provided research support. Among the MPs who were initially close were Marjorie ‘Mo’ Mowlem and Jack Straw, but the most striking aspect about ‘Tony’s team’ was how few elected politicians it included.

The small group of people who put together the New Labour ‘project’ wanted to find a way of governing which helped the worse off, particularly by giving them better chances in education and to find jobs, while not alienating the mass of middle-class voters. They were extraordinarily worried by the press and media, bruised by what had happened to Kinnock, whom they had all worked with, and ruthlessly focused on winning over anyone who could be won. But they were ignorant of what governing would be like. They were able to take power at a golden moment when it would have been possible to fulfil all the pledges they had made. Blair had the wind at his back as the Conservatives would pose no serious threat to him for many years to come. Far from inheriting a weak or crisis-ridden economy, he was actually taking over at the best possible time when the country was recovering strongly but had not yet quite noticed that this was the case. Blair had won by being ruthless, and never forgot it, but he also seemed not to realise quite what an opportunity ‘providence’ had handed him.

How European were the British in the Nineties?:

The European Community in c. 1992 (Turkey did not join and still hasn’t)

Transport policy was only one of the ways in which the EU increasingly came to shape the geography of the British Isles in the 1990s. In 1992, British people in general were far more positive about membership in the European Community (EC) than they were twenty years later, especially those employed in transport. Roy Clementson, a fifty-nine-year-old long-distance truck driver for more than thirty years was interviewed about his attitude to driving in the EC. He said that he preferred driving in Europe to the UK because the facilities were better:

“It’s easier to get a shower and there are far more decent places to eat, especially in France. I’m not one of those drivers who won’t eat anything except sausage, eggs, beans and chips. I like French food and I like the prices they charge. In France, if you look around, you can get a five-course meal and as much wine as you can drink for Ł5.50. In Italy, the food is very good, but it is more expensive: more like ten pounds per meal.

“I can assure you all the drivers would welcome a single European currency. It would be much better if you didn’t have to change money all the time. I’ve got nothing against the Royal Family, but not having coins with the Queen’s picture on doesn’t make any difference to me.

” I don’t see any disadvantages of going into Europe. I think the French and Germans have a better standard of living than we do. I recently saw a beautiful four-bedroomed house that cost about Ł75,000 in France. Now my house is worth more than that, but it’s only about one-third the size.

“People talk about our being ruled by Brussels; well, I think we could pick up a lot of good ideas. I wouldn’t say I feel European, but I don’t agree with people who have this attitude that we’re somehow better than they are. We have a lot to learn.”

The Independent.
Roy Clementson; photo by Nicholas Turpin.

Transport policy became a key factor in the creation of the new EU administrative regions of Britain between 1994 and 1999, as shown on the map below. At the same time, a number of British local authorities opened offices in Brussels for lobbying purposes. The European connection proved less welcome in other quarters, however. Fishermen, particularly in Devon and Cornwall and along the East coast of England and Scotland, felt themselves the victims of the Common Fisheries Policy quota system. A strong sense of Euroscepticism developed in parts of southern England in particular, fuelled by a mixture of concerns about sovereignty and economic policy. Nevertheless, links with Europe had been growing, whether via the Channel Tunnel, the connections between the French and British electricity grids, or airline policy, as were the number of policy decisions shaped by the EU.

Britain and Ireland in the 1990s, showing EU Regional Policy Areas, 1994-99.

With these better transport links, international travel became easier and cheaper for ordinary Britons. In particular, the cost of air travel began to fall, with the establishment of budget airlines, package holidays were affordable for families, and more independent, longer-term cultural links were forged between individuals, families and organisations. Holiday consultant Suzi Stembridge, also featured in the article from The Independent, exemplified many of these developments and the changing attitudes to a growing European community they brought:

Suzi Stembridge was clearly enthusiastic about the vision of a new Europe that membership of the European Community offered. It seems that, with the exception of fishermen and some Tory Westminster politicians, the majority of British people were becoming more European and more enthusiastic about EC membership, especially those involved in transport and travel, education, entertainment and culture. In addition, they were no longer concerned about its effects on food prices and the cost of living, as many had been at the time of the 1975 Referendum. They could see from their own experience that, if anything, the standard of living on the continent was higher than that in Britain, and that the quality of life was, in many ways, better. On the other hand, they were not so enthusiastic about Britain joining a single currency and wanted each country to be able to keep its own identity. They may not have felt as ‘truly European’ as people on the continent, but neither were they, at that point (the time of the Maastricht Treaty negotiation and implementation), opposed to, or even sceptical of membership of the European institutions.

The Growth of Celebrity Culture:

In 1997, Tony Blair arrived in power in a country with a revived fashion for celebrities, offering a few politicians new opportunities, though often at a high cost to their privacy and family lives. It was not until 1988 that the full shape of modern celebrity culture had become apparent. That year had seen the publication of the truly modern glossy glamour magazines when Hello! was launched. Its successful formula was soon copied by OK! from 1993 and many other magazines soon followed suit, to the point where the yards of coloured ‘glossies’ filled the newsagents’ shelves in every town and village in the country. Celebrities were paid handsomely for being interviewed and photographed in return for coverage which was always fawningly respectful and never hostile. The rich and famous, no matter how flawed in real life, were able to shun the mean-minded sniping of the ‘gutter press’, the tabloid newspapers. In the real world, the sunny, airbrushed world of Hello! was inevitably followed by divorces, drunken rows, accidents and ordinary scandals. But people were happy to read good news about these beautiful people even if they knew that there was more to their personalities and relationships than met the eye.

In the same year that Hello! went into publication, ITV also launched its most successful of the daytime television shows, This Morning, hosted from Liverpool by Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, providing television’s celebrity breakthrough moment. A new form of television, Reality Television, was created that featured ‘ordinary’ people rather than actors or celebrities. This idea was developed from the fly-on-the-wall documentaries and talent shows of previous decades. The programme Big Brother, taking its title from the phrase in George Orwell’s novel 1984, ‘Big brother is watching you,’ was first aired in 1999. Members of the public were locked in a house and observed on camera. This turned ordinary members of the public into media stars overnight, though mostly only for a short time afterwards. The pop ‘agent’ Simon Cowell (b. 1959) created Pop Idol in 2001. Young singers were auditioned and then coached to become pop stars, eliminated one by one until a winner was chosen and then given a recording contract. This format continued into the X-factor and Britain’s Got Talent which included acts other than pop singers and was open to people of all ages and backgrounds. These programmes were ‘interactive,’ inviting viewers to vote by phone.

Just as in sixties Britain, in the nineties Britain started producing music that became popular all over the world. Boy bands included Take That, including Robbie Williams and Gary Barlow who later had solo singing careers. Unlike The Beatles, however, these ‘bands’ had to rely on backing instrumentalists, however. Girl bands like The Spice Girls promoted a fashion for “girl power” and one of them, Victoria Adams, ‘Posh Spice’, married the footballer David Beckham. Together, they became a notable celebrity couple in Britain and around the world.

There had been a feeling that life under John Major’s government was rather dull, and that its politics was full of men in dark grey suits. Tony Blair’s victory in 1997 brought a change of mood in which it was ‘cool’ to be British again. The Blair government captured this mood, inviting pop stars, sporting heroes and other celebrities to Downing Street for ‘photo opportunities’ and encouraging a ‘rebranding’ of Britain as ‘Cool Britannia’.

Monarchy as the Indispensable Marker of British Identity, 1981-2002:
The Royal lineage in 1992

By the early 1990s, another indispensible marker of British identity, the monarchy, began to look tired, under the strain of being simultaneously a ceremonial and familial institution. Behind the continuing hard work and leadership of HM Queen Elizabeth and her Consort, Philip, and the Queen Mother, there were growing signs that the younger generation of the Royal Family, including the heir, Charles, Prince of Wales, was struggling to live up to the high standards set by the older ones. The seeds of these problems were sown at the beginning of the previous decade, if not earlier, with the deliberate development of the monarchy into a ‘family’ institution.

Top: The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, was given his title after his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947. The Duke took a great deal of interest in the achievements of young people – in 1956 he founded the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme (through which awards are made to young people aged 14-21 for enterprise, initiative and achievement.


Below: The Queen’s Official Birthday, the second Saturday in June, is marked by the Trooping of the Colour, a ceremony during which the regiments of the Guards Division and the Household Cavalry parade (troop) the regimental flag (colour) before the sovereign.

Ever since the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, which suddenly propelled the ten-year-old Princess Elizabeth into the spotlight as the heir apparent, the membership of this institution was thought to require standards of personal behaviour well above the general norm of late twentieth-century expectations.

A Page from a school textbook.

This celebrity fantasy world, which continued to open up in all directions throughout the nineties, served to re-emphasise to alert politicians, broadcasting executives and advertisers to the considerable power of optimism. The mainstream media in the nineties was giving the British an unending stream of bleakness and disaster, so millions tuned in and turned over to celebrities. That they did so in huge numbers did not mean that they thought that celebrities had universally happy lives. And in the eighties and nineties, no star gleamed more brightly in the firmament than the beautiful yet troubled Princess Diana. The fairy-tale wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer at St Paul’s in 1981, which had a worldwide audience of at least eight hundred million viewers, meant that for fifteen years she was an ever-present in the media. Yet, as an aristocratic girl whose childhood had been blighted by the divorce of her parents, she found herself pledging her life to a much older man who shared few of her interests and did not even seem to be truly in love with her.

Above: Hello! looks back on the 1981 Royal Wedding from that of Catherine Middleton and William in 2011.

At first, Princess Diana seemed shy, naive and slightly awkward in front of the cameras. She suffered from an eating disorder, Bulimia, and lost weight. But as she became more confident she began to enjoy the attention she was attracting. In 1982, a little over a year after her fairy-tale wedding, Diana had her first son, William Arthur Philip Louis, who was born in London on the 21st of June. He lived at Kensington Palace with Prince Charles and Princess Diana. When he was only nine months old, his parents made an official visit to Australia and New Zealand. His mother did not want to be away from him for six weeks, so the little prince went with his parents.

Becoming ever more popular, she was soon dubbed The People’s Princess by the tabloid press. She also became the world’s most-photographed woman, and she was frequently seen on the covers of magazines and on television. She was even filmed dancing with the star of Saturday Night Fever and Grease, John Travolta.

In 1984, the royal couple had a second son, Prince Harry. William and Harry were always in the public eye as the new additions to the royal family. Photographers, newspaper reporters and TV cameras were part of their everyday life.

The two little boys enjoyed playing with each other at Kensington Palace. Young children in the royal family usually had nursery lessons at home, but Princess Diana, herself a nursery assistant, changed things. When William was three, he began to go to school in London with other young children. When he was eight, he went to Ludgrove School, about forty miles away from London, so he lived at the school and only went home once a month. At first, he was unhappy, but he soon began to enjoy football and other sports. Two years later, his brother Harry joined him at the school.

Above: The State Opening of Parliament in November 1991, for the last session before the 1992 General Election.

As ever, the opening ceremony, shown above, was a mixture of pageantry and serious political business. Once the Queen took her seat on the throne in the House of Lords, she sent ‘Black Rod’ to the Commons chamber to summon the MPs to join her and the Lords for her reading the speech outlining the new laws the Government was planning to make in the forthcoming parliamentary year. The Speaker of the Commons, Betty Boothroyd, was then followed by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition into the House of Lords, followed by the rest of the MPs. Of course, it was not really the Queen’s Speech at all, but the Government’s, written by the Prime Minister at the time, in this case, John Major, and his colleagues to be read out by the Queen. In 1991, the Speech contained fewer proposals, or bills, than in previous years because the Government wanted to cut short the parliamentary year and call a General Election in the Spring (as it turned out, for 9th April). The main bills referred to in the Speech were on criminal justice and the environment, a ‘green’ bill. Other anticipated measures to bring in privately financed toll roads and new rules to ease traffic congestion in London.

From a Profile of Charles III in an English Language magazine.

Just as the monarchy had gained from its ceremonies, especially its royal weddings, so it lost commensurately from the failure of those unions. As a young man, Charles had dated Camilla Shand. But when he was sent abroad with the Royal Navy, Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Even though he eventually married Diana, it became obvious that Charles was still in love with Camilla. When rumours spread of Diana’s affairs, they no longer had the moral impact that they might have had in previous decades. By the nineties, Britain was now a divorce-prone country, in which what’s best for the kids and I deserve to be happy were phrases which were regularly heard in suburban kitchen diners. Diana was not simply a pretty woman married to a king-in-waiting but someone people felt, largely erroneously, would understand them. There was an obsessive aspect to the admiration of her, something that the Royal Family had not seen before, and its leading members found it very uncomfortable and even, at times, alarming. They were being weighed in the balance as living symbols of Britain’s ‘family values’ and found wanting. 

Yet as the two contemporary stories from The Daily Mail (below) show, even as they became increasingly estranged, the couple were able to support each others’ concerns, passions and charitable work. In the article on the left, Prince Charles pointed to the danger of teachers using teaching methods recommended by educational ‘experts’ leading to teaching only fashionable topics, neglecting students’ cultural heritage. Though controversial with some in the profession, his call for more resources for schools was well-received by most. Opening a London conference on children with AIDS, Princess Diana spoke about the confused understanding of HIV that existed and encouraged people through her own actions as well as words, to overcome their fear of touching people, especially children, with the virus. She also outlined the tragic situation of children with HIV and the prejudice they felt.

From the Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, by the mid-1990s, the monarchy was looking shaky, perhaps even mortal. The year 1992, referred to by the Queen, in her Christmas Speech, as her annus horriblis, had seen not just the separations of Charles and Diana (of Wales) as well as Andrew and Sarah (the Yorks), but also a major fire at Windsor Castle in November. When it was announced that the Crown would only pay for the replacement and repair of items in the royal private collection and that repairs to the fabric would therefore come from the tax-paying public, a serious debate began about the state of the monarchy’s finances and its tax status. In a poll, eight out of ten people asked thought the Queen should pay taxes on her private income, hitherto exempt. A year later, Buckingham Palace was opened to public tours for the first time and the Crown did agree to pay taxes.

In December 1992, Diana went to see William and Harry at school. She told them that Charles and she were not a couple anymore. Naturally, William and Harry were very upset about this. Later the same month, John Major announced the separation of Charles and Diana to the House of Commons. After their separation, Diana continued her charity work, especially with AIDS victims and in the campaign against the use of land mines in wars, all of which kept her in the public eye and maintained her popularity in Britain and worldwide.

William with his mother in the early nineties.

The journalist Andrew Morton claimed to tell Diana’s True Story in a book which described suicide attempts, blazing rows, her bulimia and her growing certainty that Prince Charles had resumed an affair with his old love Camilla Parker-Bowles, something he later confirmed in a television interview with Jonathan Dimbleby. There was a further blow to the Royal Family’s prestige in 1994 when the royal yacht Britannia, the floating emblem of the monarch’s global presence, was decommissioned. Mr and Mrs Parker-Bowles, Andrew and Camilla, divorced in 1995 and then came the revelatory 1995 (now discredited) interview on BBC TV’s Panorama programme between Diana and Martin Bashir. Breaking every taboo left in Royal circles, she freely discussed the breakup of her marriage, claiming that there were three of us in it, attacked the Windsors for their cruelty and promised to be ‘queen of people’s hearts.’ When Charles and Diana finally divorced in 1996, she began a relationship with Dodi al-Fayed, the son of the owner of Harrods, Mohammed al-Fayed.

Meanwhile, William continued his education at Eton College, near Windsor Castle, so that he could go there to visit his grandmother when she was at home. William worked hard at Eton and was also successful at sports. Then, on 31st August 1997, William and Harry were on holiday with his father and grandparents at Balmoral when the terrible news of their mother’s death in a car accident in Paris. On 6th September, the boys walked behind his mother’s coffin through the streets of London to Westminster Abbey for her funeral. Prince Harry, Prince Charles, Prince Philip and Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, walked alongside them. Everyone felt heartbroken for the two young princes on what was a terrible day for the British royal family. William left Eton three years later, in 2000, and then went on a gap year, including a stint in Chile, where he worked as a resident teaching assistant.

To many in the establishment, Diana was a selfish, unhinged woman who was endangering the monarchy. To many millions more, however, she was more valuable than the formal monarchy, her readiness to share her pain in public making her even more fashionable. She was followed all around the world, her face and name selling many papers and magazines. By the late summer of 1997, Britain had two super-celebrities, Tony Blair and Princess Diana. It was therefore grimly fitting that Tony Blair’s most resonant words as Prime Minister which brought him to the height of his popularity came on the morning, in August 1997, when Princess Diana was killed in a car accident in Paris with Dodi Fayed. Their car was speeding away from paparazzi photographers when it crashed into the pillars of an underpass. Tony Blair was woken at his Sedgefield constituency home, first to be told about the accident, and then to be told that Diana had died. Deeply shocked and worried about what his proper role should be, Blair spoke first to Alistair Campbell and then to the Queen, who told him that neither she nor any other senior member of the Royal Family would be making a statement. He decided, therefore, that he had to say something. Later that Sunday morning, standing in front of his local parish church in Trimdon, he spoke words which were transmitted live around the world:

“I feel, like everyone else in this country today, utterly devastated. Our thoughts and prayers are with Princess Diana’s family, in particular her two sons, her two boys – our hearts go out to them. We are today a nation in a state of shock…

“Her own life was often sadly touched the lives of so many others in Britain and throughout the world with joy and with comfort. How many times shall we remember her in how many different ways, with the sick, the dying, with children, with the needy? With just a look or a gesture that spoke so much more than words, she would reveal to all of us the depth of her compassion and her humanity.

“People everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Princess Diana. They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was – the People’s Princess and that is how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and our memories for ever.”

Although these words seem, more than twenty-five years on, to be reminiscent of past tributes paid to religious leaders, at the time they were much welcomed and assented to. They were the sentiments of one natural charismatic public figure for another. Compared with other politicians, Tony Blair seemed very young and in tune with youth culture. Blair regarded himself as the People’s Prime Minister, leading the people’s party, beyond left and right, beyond faction or ideology, with a direct line to the people’s instincts. After his impromptu eulogy, his approval rating rose to over ninety per cent, a figure not normally witnessed in democracies.

Blair and Campbell then paid their greatest service to the ancient institution of the monarchy itself. The Queen, still angry and upset about Diana’s conduct and concerned for the welfare of her grandchildren, wanted a quiet funeral and to remain at Balmoral, away from the scenes of spontaneous public mourning in London. However, this was potentially disastrous for her public image. There was a strange mood in the country deriving from Diana’s charisma, which Blair had referenced in his words at Trimdon. If those words had seemed to suggest that Diana was a saint, a sub-religious hysteria responded to the thought. People queued to sign a book of condolence at St James’ Palace, rather than signing it online on the website of the Prince of Wales. Those queuing even reported supernatural appearances of the dead Princess’ image. By contrast, the lack of any act of public mourning by the Windsors and the suggestion of a quiet funeral seemed to confirm Diana’s television criticisms of the Royal Family as being cold if not cruel towards her.

030 (2)
A sea of flowers laid in tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales, outside Kensington Palace, London, August 1997

Also, with Prince Charles’ full agreement, Blair and his aides put pressure on the Palace first into accepting that there would have to be a huge public funeral so that the public could express their grief, and second into accepting that the Queen should return to London. She did, just in time to quieten the genuine and growing anger about her perceived attitude towards Diana. This was a generational problem as well as a class one. The Queen had been brought up in a land of buttoned lips, stoicism and private grieving. She now reigned over a country which expected and almost required exhibitionism. For some years, the deaths of children, or the scenes of fatal accidents had been marked by little shrines of cellophane-wrapped flowers, soft toys and cards. In the run-up to Diana’s funeral parts of central London seemed almost Mediterranean in their public grieving. There were vast mounds of flowers, people sleeping out, holding up placards and weeping in the streets, and strangers hugging each other.

The funeral itself was like no other before, bringing the capital to a standstill. In Westminster Abbey, campaigners stood alongside aristocrats, entertainers with politicians and rock musicians with charity workers. Elton John performed a hastily rewritten version of ‘Candle in the Wind’, originally his lament for Marilyn Monroe, now dedicated to ‘England’s Rose’, and Princess Diana’s brother Earl Spencer made a half-coded attack from the pulpit on the Windsors’ treatment of his sister. This was applauded when it was relayed outside and clapping was heard in the Abbey itself. Diana’s body was driven to her last resting place at the Spencers’ ancestral home of Althorp in Northamptonshire. Nearly a decade later, and following many wild theories circulated through cyberspace which reappeared regularly in the press, an inquiry headed by a former Metropolitan Police commissioner concluded that she had died because the driver of her car was drunk and was speeding in order to throw off pursuing ‘paparazzi’ photographers. The immense outpouring of public emotion in the weeks that followed seemed both to overwhelm and distinguish itself from the more traditional devotion to the Queen herself and to her immediate family. As Simon Schama has put it,

The tidal wave of feeling that swept over the country testified to the sustained need of the public to come together in a recognizable community of sentiment, and to do so as the people of a democratic monarchy.

Diana’s funeral was probably watched by as many people as had watched her wedding. For a short time, the Queen became very unpopular, as she did not immediately return from Balmoral to Buckingham Palace when Diana died, or even fly a flag at half-mast. But those who complained about this in the popular media did not seem to understand that Royal protocol dictates that the Royal Standard should only be flown above Buckingham Palace when the Monarch is in residence. Added to this, the Union Flag is only flown above the royal palaces and other government and public buildings on certain special days, such as the Princess Royal’s birthday, 15 August. Since it was holiday time for the Royal family, and they were away from London, there were no flags flying. Nor would the general public have known that flags are only flown at half-mast on the announcement of the death of a monarch until after the funeral, and on the day of the funeral only for the deaths of other members of the royal family.

The Queen, as the only person who could authorise an exception to these age-old customs, received criticism for not flying the union flag at half-mast in order to fulfil the deep need of her grief-stricken subjects. Although Her Majesty meant no disrespect to her estranged and now deceased daughter-in-law, the Crown lives and dies in such symbolic moments, and she duly relented. The crisis was rescued by a live, televised speech she made from the Palace which was striking in its informality and obviously sincere expression of personal sorrow. Her people now understood that their way of grieving was very different from the more conventional but no less heartfelt mourning of the Queen and her immediate family. Her Majesty quickly rose again in public esteem and came to be seen to be one of the most successful monarchs for centuries and the longest-serving ever. A popular film about her, including a sympathetic portrayal of these events, sealed this verdict.

Above: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in 2001, aged 75. She reigned for another twenty-one years,
and celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and her Platinum (70th) Jubilee in 2022.

Tony Blair never again quite captured the mood of the country as he did in those sad late summer days. It may be that his advice and assistance to the Queen in 1997, vital to her as they were, in the view of Palace officials, were also thoroughly impertinent. His instinct for popular culture when he arrived in power was certainly uncanny. The New Age spiritualism which came out into the open when Diana died was echoed among Blair’s Downing Street circle. What other politicians failed to grasp and what he did grasp, was the power of optimism expressed in the glossy world of celebrity, and the willingness of people to forgive their favourites not just once, but again and again. One of the negative longer-term consequences of all this was that charismatic celebrities discovered that, if they apologised and bared a little of their souls in public, they could get away with most things short of murder. For politicians, even charismatic ones like Tony Blair, life would prove a little tougher, and the electorate would be less forgiving of oft-repeated mistakes. Nevertheless, like Magaret Thatcher, he won three elections and was in office for more than ten years.

The monarchy was fully restored to popularity by the Millennium festivities, at which the Queen watched dancers from the Notting Hill Carnival under the famous Dome, and especially by the Golden Jubilee celebrations of 2002, which continued the newly struck royal mood of greater informality.

013

One of the highlights of the ‘Party in the Mall’ came when Brian May, the lead guitarist of the rock band Queen began the pop concert at Buckingham Palace by playing his instrumental version of God Save the Queen from the Palace rooftop. Modern Britannia seemed, at last, to be at ease with its identity within a multi-national, multi-ethnic, United Kingdom, in all its mongrel glory.

Also in 2002, George VI’s widow, Queen Elizabeth, known as the Queen Mother after her husband’s death and her daughter’s accession in 1952, died at the age of 102. After George VI’s death, she continued to carry out many public duties at home and abroad. Many thought that Charles would not marry the divorced Camilla while his grandmother was still alive. She had become Queen Consort in 1937 because her brother-in-law, Edward VIII had not been allowed to marry a divorcée as king, choosing to abdicate the throne instead.

Prince Charles & the Duchess of Cornwall leaving their civil marriage ceremony at the Windsor Registry Office in 2005.

Charles and Camilla were able to marry in 2005, in a civil wedding at Windsor, but it was decided that Camilla should be known as Duchess of Cornwall, out of respect for Diana, Princess of Wales.

She is now (2022) also known as the Queen Consort.

Sources:

Simon Schama (2002), A History of Britain; The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000. London: BBC Worldwide.

Robert McCrum, William Cran & Robert MacNeil (1987), The Story of English. London: Penguin Books.

John Haywood & Simon Hall, et.al. (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Gwyn A. Williams (1985), When Was Wales? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Bill Lancaster & Tony Mason (eds.)(n.d.), Life and Labour in a Twentieth Century City: The Experience of Coventry. Coventry: University of Warwick Cryfield Press.

Appendix: A Breakdown of Census Statistics, 1901-1991, in Graphs:

Right:

Population: By the end of the twentieth century, there were twenty million more Britons than there were at its beginning, In the first part of the century, the population grew fast due to high birth rates. Since the 1970s, this growth slowed down. Fewer babies were being born. But people born since 1991 can expect to live much longer than those born in 1901. Women, as always, can expect to live longer than men. At the beginning of the century, only about four per cent of the population was over sixty-five: By its end, this had risen to thirteen per cent. At the same time, fewer babies were being born, so whereas in 1901 the average household included 4.6 people, in 1991, it was only 2.5. It was not just that there were fewer children, but also because there were many more single-parent families.

There was also a dramatic fall in the number of servants. Over the first half of the century, the number of households with live-in servants fell from over ten per cent to only about one per cent.

Work: The number of working women doubled over the course of the century. The number of unemployed people rose even faster, especially in the period between the two world wars, and again in the 1970s and ’80s. Those employed in manual labour or ‘manufacturing’ decreased significantly, by more than a quarter, from three-quarters of the workforce to less than half, so that in 1991 most people in work were in non-manual occupations based in shops and offices. On average, working hours were reduced by nine hours per week, more than one whole working day on average, leaving more family and leisure time.

Spending (left, below): Over the twentieth century, people were gradually able to spend an increasing proportion of their income on ‘consumer goods’ and a smaller proportion on food.

Featured

Majesty & Grace X: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor – Winter of Discontent to Golden Jubilee, 1979-2002; Part 1 – Wars & Paupers.

Britain at the End of the Cold War World:
Britain, Ireland and the World, 1970-2000.

Britain had retreated from most of its empire by 1970. The only remaining colony was Rhodesia, which had been ruled by a white minority government, illegally, since 1967 and through the seventies. Britain resumed control in 1980 and the country became independent as Zimbabwe later that year. Various smaller island colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific were granted independence in the seventies and eighties. The European Union, the Cold war and the NATO Alliance were Britain’s main concerns until 1990, while Ireland pursued a policy of neutrality. With the end of the Cold War, Britain took a more active role in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Hong Kong and its adjacent New Territories became an autonomous region of China in 1997 upon the expiry of the hundred-year lease. The removal of that colony, with its large population, enabled the British government to offer citizenship to the remaining small colonies that formed the British Overseas Territories.

A European solution, through membership of the EEC, twice vetoed by de Gaulle in the sixties, had finally been found in the early seventies under Heath and Wilson. Simultaneously, the third way, initiated in 1970 by free-enterprise, anti-collectivist Tories like Anthony Barber, Edward du Cann and Keith Joseph at the Selsdon Park conference, prepared the way for Margaret Thatcher’s attempt in the 1980s to liquidate what was left of the welfare state. Billed as a return to Victorian values, Thatcher’s Revolution was not, in fact, a return to Gladstonian liberalism, but a reversion to the hard-faced reactionary conservatism of the 1920s, leaving industries alone to survive and thrive or to go to the wall. As in the twenties, resistance to brutal rationalisation through closures and sell-offs of uneconomic nationalised enterprises, or through wage or job cuts, was met with determined opposition, which came to a head in the long-running coal dispute of 1984-85.

Britain continued to operate as a dominant centre of world finance, but even this advantage turned into a liability when the defence of the sterling forced successive governments, especially the second Wilson government, into accepting humiliating conditions, either from the United States or from the International Monetary Fund, involving deep spending cuts. The shrinkage of sovereignty accelerated, with increasing battles over the slice sizes of the ever-diminishing economic pie, fought out between unions and government. But successive governments seemed determined to keep Britain as a substantial military power with a fully funded welfare state. All the alternative models of post-imperial power applied between the sixties and the eighties ran into trouble. Relying exclusively on the United States for its nuclear defence was ruled out as anathema by both Labour and Conservatives. This was seen as an abdication, not just of great power but any power status, seeming to be a recolonisation in reverse.

The Assassination of Lord Mountbatten by the IRA, August 1979:

Of all the areas of the United Kingdom, it was Northern Ireland that continued to suffer the highest levels of unemployment in the eighties. This was mainly because the continuing sectarian violence discouraged inward investment in the six counties of the Province.

Lord Mountbatten of Burma

On August 27, 1979, in Mullaghmore, County Sligo, on the western coast of the Republic of Ireland (see the map above), a massive 50lb remote-controlled bomb exploded on board the fishing boat Shadow V, killing Lord Louis Mountbatten, his grandson and two others while they were boating on holiday off the coast. Lord Mountbatten was HM Queen Elizabeth’s second cousin and Prince Philip’s uncle. He was also, at that time, HRH Prince Charles’ great uncle, godfather and mentor. This was the height of the Provisional IRA’s bombing campaign across the British Isles.

Charles later described Lord Louis Mountbatten as the grandfather I never had. Mountbatten was a strong influence in the upbringing of his grand-nephew, and from time to time strongly upbraided the Prince for showing tendencies towards the idle pleasure-seeking dilettantism of his predecessor as Prince of Wales, King Edward VIII, whom Mountbatten had known well in their youth. Yet he also encouraged the Prince to enjoy the bachelor life while he could, and then to marry a young and inexperienced girl so as to ensure a stable married life.

Prince Charles in the late 1970s: the eligible Bachelor.

Mountbatten’s qualification for offering advice to this particular heir to the throne was unique; it was he who had arranged the visit of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth to Dartmouth Royal Naval College on 22 July 1939, taking care to include the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret in the invitation, but assigning his nephew, Cadet Prince Philip of Greece, to keep them amused while their parents toured the facility. This was the first recorded meeting of Charles’s future parents. But a few months later, Mountbatten’s efforts nearly came to nought when he received a letter from his sister Alice in Athens informing him that Philip was visiting her and had agreed to repatriate permanently to Greece. Within days, Philip received a command from his cousin and sovereign, King George II of Greece, to resume his naval career in Britain which, though given without explanation, the young prince obeyed.

In 1974, Mountbatten began corresponding with Charles about a potential marriage to his granddaughter, Amanda Knatchbull. It was about this time he also recommended that the 25-year-old prince get on with “sowing some wild oats”. Charles dutifully wrote to Amanda’s mother (who was also his godmother), Lady Brabourne, about his interest. Her answer was supportive but advised him that she thought her daughter was still rather young to be courted. Four years later, Mountbatten secured an invitation for himself and Amanda to accompany Charles on his planned 1980 tour of India. Their fathers promptly objected. Prince Philip also thought that the Indian public’s reception would more likely reflect a response to the uncle, the last Viceroy, than to the nephew. Lord Brabourne counselled that the intense scrutiny of the press would be more likely to drive Mountbatten’s godson and granddaughter apart than together. Charles was rescheduled to tour India alone, but Mountbatten did not live to the planned date of departure.

Mountbatten usually holidayed at his summer home, Classiebawn Castle, on the Mullaghmore Peninsula in County Sligo, in the northwest of Ireland. The village was only twelve miles from the border with County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland and near an area known to be used as a cross-border refuge by IRA members. In 1978, the IRA had allegedly attempted to shoot Mountbatten as he was aboard his boat, but poor weather had prevented the sniper from taking his shot. On 27th August 1979, Mountbatten went lobster potting and tuna fishing in his thirty-foot wooden boat, Shadow V, which had been moored in the harbour at Mullaghmore. IRA member Thomas McMahon had slipped onto the unguarded boat the previous night and attached a radio-controlled bomb weighing fifty pounds. When Mountbatten and his party had taken the boat just a few hundred yards from the shore, the bomb was detonated. The boat was destroyed by the force of the blast and Mountbatten’s legs were almost blown off. Mountbatten, then aged seventy-nine, was pulled alive from the water by nearby fishermen but died from his injuries before being brought to shore.

Also aboard the boat were Amanda Knatchbull’s elder sister Patricia, Lady Brabourne; her husband Lord Brabourne; their twin sons Nicholas and Timothy Knatchbull; Lord Brabourne’s mother Doreen, Dowager Lady Brabourne; and Paul Maxwell, a young crew member from Enniskillen in County Fermanagh. Nicholas (aged fourteen) and Paul (fifteen) were killed by the blast and the others were seriously injured. Doreen, Dowager Lady Brabourne (eighty-three), died from her injuries the following day. The attack triggered outrage and condemnation around the world. The Queen received messages of condolence from leaders including US President Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said:

His death leaves a gap that can never be filled. The British people give thanks for his life and grieve at his passing.

Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable
The Earl Mountbatten of Burma
Portrait by Allan Warren, 1976

On the day of the bombing, the IRA also ambushed and killed eighteen British soldiers at the gates of Narrow Water Castle, just outside Warrenpoint, in County Down in Northern Ireland, sixteen of them from the Parachute Regiment, in what became known as the Warrenpoint ambush. It was the deadliest attack on the British Army during the Troubles. Six weeks later, Sinn Féin vice-president Gerry Adams said of Mountbatten’s death:

“The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furor created by Mountbatten’s death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people; and with his war record I don’t think he could have objected to dying in what was clearly a war situation. He knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.”

When Charles finally proposed marriage to Amanda later in 1979, the circumstances had changed and she refused him.

The Winter of Discontent:

The winter of our discontent, a phrase from Shakespeare’s play Richard III, was used by James Callaghan, Labour Prime Minister from 1976, to describe the industrial and social chaos of 1978-79. It has stuck in people’s memories, as few economic or political events had done before or have done since. In the two years, 1977 and ’78 there was an explosion of resentment, largely by poorly paid public employees, against a minority Labour government incomes policy they felt was discriminatory. It began earlier in 1978 but got far worse with a series of strikes going into winter, resulting in rubbish being left piled up and rotting in the streets throughout the country. Added to this, the schools closed, the ports were blockaded and the dead went unburied. Left-wing union leaders and activists whipped up the disputes; individual union branches and shop stewards were reckless and heartless. Right-wing newspapers, desperate to see the end of Labour, exaggerated the effects and rammed home the picture of a nation no longer governable. The scenes on Britain’s streets provided convincing propaganda for the conservatives in the subsequent election in May 1979.

Callaghan had opposed the legal restrictions on union power pleaded for by Wilson and Castle and then fought for vainly by Heath. Healey, acting in good faith, had imposed a more drastic squeeze on public spending and thus on the poorest families than had been economically necessary. They had also tried to impose an unreasonably tough new income policy on the country. Finally, by dithering about the date of the general election, he destroyed whatever fragile calm he had managed to establish and enjoy since he had taken over from Wilson. Most observers and members of the cabinet assumed that Callaghan would call an autumn election in 1978. The economic news was still good and Labour was ahead in the polls. Two dates in October had already been pencilled in, but musing on his Sussex farm during the summer, Callaghan decided that he did not trust the polls. He decided to wait until the following spring. But when he invited a dozen trade union leaders to his farm to discuss the decision, they left still thinking he was going in the autumn. But then, at the beginning of autumn, at the TUC conference, he confused the issue even more with a bizarre rendition of an old music hall concert, leaving his audience to interpret its meaning. When he finally came clean with the cabinet, they were shocked.

This might not have mattered so much had Callaghan also not promised a new five per cent pay limit to bring down inflation further. As a result of the 1974-75 cash limit on pay rises at a time of high inflation, take-home pay for most people had been falling ever since. Public sector workers, in particular, had been having a hard time, and there were stories of fat cat directors and bosses awarding themselves high settlements. The union leaders and many ministers thought that a further period of pay limits would be impossible for them to sell to their members, while a five per cent limit, was widely considered to be ludicrously tough. Had Callaghan gone to the country in October, Labour’s popularity among the general electorate might have been boosted by the pay restraint policy. But by postponing the election until the spring, Callaghan ensured that the five per cent limit would be tested in Britain’s increasingly impatient and dangerous industrial relations environment. The first challenge came from the fifty-seven thousand car workers employed by the US giant Ford. The TGWU called for a thirty per cent pay rise, on the back of high profits and an eighty per cent rise for its chairman and directors. Callaghan was severely embarrassed and when, after five weeks of lost production, Ford eventually settled for seventeen per cent, he became convinced that he would lose the coming election.

Oil tanker drivers, also TGWU members, came out for forty per cent, followed by haulage drivers, British Leyland workers, and then sewerage workers. BBC electricians threatened a blackout of Christmas TV. The docks were picketed and closed down with Hull, virtually cut off, becoming known as the second Stalingrad. The effects of this were being felt by government ministers as well as the rest of the country. Bill Rodgers, the transport minister, whose mother was dying of cancer, found that vital chemotherapy chemicals were not being allowed out of Hull. In the middle of all this, Callaghan went to an international summit in the Caribbean, from where the pictures of him swimming and sunning himself did not improve the mood back home. When he returned to Heathrow, confronted by news reporters asking about the industrial crisis, he replied blandly, “I don’t think other people in the world will share the view that there is mounting chaos.” This was famously translated into the Daily Mail’s headline, ‘Crisis? What Crisis?’

025

Above: Rubbish is left piled up in London’s Leicester Square in February 1979

In the centre of London and other major cities, huge piles of rotting rubbish piled up, overrun with rats and becoming a serious health hazard. Most of those striking among the public sector workers were badly paid and living in relative poverty, also having no history of industrial militancy. Nor was the crisis quite as bad as the media portrayed it. There were no deaths in hospitals as a result of union action, there was no shortage of food in the shops and there was no violence. Troops were never used. This was chaos and a direct threat to the authority of the government, but it was not a revolutionary situation, or even an attempt to overthrow a particular government. Yet that was the effect it had, and it led to what was to become Thatcherism, not socialism. A ‘St Valentine’s Day Concordat’ was eventually reached between the government and the TUC, which agreed on annual assessments and guidance, targeting long-term inflation and virtually admitting that the five per cent pay limit had been a mistake. By March most of the action had ended and various large settlements and inquiries had been set up. But by then irreparable damage had already been done to the Labour Government’s reputation as a manager of industrial disputes.

The St David’s Day Devolution Debácle & General Election of 1979:

When the matter of devolution was put to the Welsh electorate in a referendum on St. David’s Day, 1979, it voted overwhelmingly against the planned assembly, by 956,000 votes to 243,000. Every one of the relatively new Welsh counties voted ‘No’. The supporters were strongest in the north-west (Gwynedd), at twenty-two per cent of those voting and weakest in Glamorgan and Gwent at seven to eight per cent, but everywhere there was a crushing rejection of the Labour government’s proposal; only some twelve per cent voted in favour overall. The narrow failure of the Scottish referendum due to the forty per cent clause meant that under previously agreed rules, the Devolution Act setting up a Scottish Assembly had to be repealed. In the Commons, the government was running out of allies. There was therefore no longer any reason for the SNP to continue supporting the Labour government. Plaid Cymru, unlike the SNP, did not call on its MPs to vote to bring about the end of the government. As dying MPs were carried through the lobbies to keep the sinking Labour ship afloat. Michael Foot and the Labour whips continued to try to find any kind of majority, appealing to renegade Scots, Ulster Unionists and Irish nationalists simultaneously but Callaghan, by now, was in a calmly fatalistic mood. He did not want to struggle on through another summer and autumn in the hope that something would turn up.

Finally, on 28th March, the government was defeated by a single vote, and Callaghan became the first Prime Minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 to have to go to Buckingham Palace and ask for a dissolution of parliament because he had lost a vote in the Commons. The election campaign began after the IRA’s assassination of Mrs Thatcher’s leadership campaign manager, Airey Neave, murdered by a Provisional IRA car bomb on his way to the Commons. Thatcher took on Callaghan, who was still more popular than his party and who now emphasised stable prices and his new deal with the unions. Thatcher showed a fresh, authentic face in the media, working with television news teams and taking the advice of advertising gurus, like the Saatchi brothers. Using the slogan Labour isn’t working, which appeared on huge hoardings showing long dole queues, the Tories came back to power with a clear and substantial majority with 339 seats. In the General Election, the Conservatives took sixty-one seats directly from Labour and gained nearly forty-three per cent of the vote.

At a time of heavy swings to the Tories everywhere, the heaviest swings of all, outside London, was in Wales, and in every part of Wales. More Tory MPs were returned in Wales than at any previous twentieth-century election, eleven in all. Nevertheless, Labour remained a massive presence, with twenty-one seats out of thirty-six and forty-seven per cent of the vote compared with thirty-two per cent for the Conservatives. In June, in the heartland of Labourism, there was also a heavy vote against the European Common Market. In the General Election of May, Wales located itself firmly in the political South of Britain, rather than its traditional role as a Northern Labour stronghold. What had happened was that a third challenger had bypassed the old debates and left Labour and Plaid Cymru gasping. The latter’s President, Gwynfor Evans, came third behind the Tory in Carmarthen, and a Sussex solicitor ‘parachuted’ onto Anglesey, Mother of Wales, to win the seat ahead of both Labour and Nationalist parties with a swing of twelve per cent. The Tories also ended generations of Liberal predominance in Montgomeryshire. Even in Labour’s industrial heartlands of the southern valleys, the swing to the Conservatives was the second strongest in Britain.

One effect of this abrupt reversal of a hundred years of history was to equally abruptly cut off an intelligentsia from its people. The ‘professional’ Welsh, blinded by their own desires, had misread Wales very badly in the 1970s. In the 1980s, historians Gwyn Williams (right) and Dai Smith (below) argued that the reasons for this were as much sociological as ideological. The decline of the Welsh coalfields entailed a withering of major political and cultural energies. History had been wilfully redefined so that it stood only as a commentary on what might, or should, have been.

Both Smith and Williams recognised that a more pragmatic, economic nationalism was on offer from the ‘National Left’ of Plaid Cymru, which took a libertarian socialist stance and tried to establish links with ecological, peace and feminist groups. Nevertheless, the broad understanding behind the resurgence of political, cultural and linguistic nationalism remained the same, implicitly, as it had been, explicitly in the 1920s and 30s: The prevailing theory endured from that original period that the anglicisation of Wales was an avoidable disaster because the industrialisation of Wales had replaced the pure ‘old Welsh collier’ population with a conglomeration of ‘half-people,’ the Cymry di-Gymraeg (‘the Welsh without Welsh’).

Of course, by the mid-1970s, Plaid Cymru was no longer advocating, with the cold logic of Saunders Lewis, the deindustrialisation of Wales. In any case, this was something that was to be largely accomplished by the Thatcher government after 1979, though for very different reasons. In the twenty years previous to 1979, what had been stressed by cultural and political nationalists was the extent to which the modern experience of Wales had been a ‘fall from grace.’ Even in the eighties, many traditional nationalists did still believe that Wales could only be saved through the restoration of the old ‘Welsh’ values, delivered by the vehicle of the ancient Welsh language, albeit in ‘living’ form. But by then, the votes of 1979 had already dramatically registered the end of an epoch in Wales in which intellectuals – liberal, nationalist and labourist – had articulated the consciousness of various social groups and classes in Welsh society.

After the Spring of 1979, managerial and administrative groups in Wales became increasingly integrated into broader, technocratic European contexts, without any specifically Welsh content. The most visible and creative formers of educated opinion among the Welsh were rejected by their people and viewed as irrelevant. Old Labourism in Wales, along with Gwynfor Evans’s Nationalism and Lloyd George’s Liberalism were all effectively dead. Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock (above) tried hard to resurrect the Bevanite tradition across Wales and England, supported by the Tribune Left in the early eighties, but they ultimately failed to provide an Alternative Economic Strategy to that of Thatcherism in the three successive general elections. Mrs Thatcher herself had an acronym for her monetarist policies, TINA (There is no alternative). Dai Smith summed up the extent to which the cultural battlefield had already shifted, writing in 1984:

Wales in the 1980s has become its own industry. … The production of history in Wales is now a battleground on which rival armies contend to dispel the confusion. … What we are witnessing is the invoking of the Welsh past in the disputed name of the Welsh future. … Social history that dips a toe in national waters is invariably accused of polluting intent. The purity of emotion is defiled. … for the Wales that is projected to the outside world is not a Wales most of the Welsh know or recognise as anything of their own. Perhaps our ambivalent condition is exemplary after all. We are already a long way down the road which England… has just begun to contemplate. After all, England, too, is a country of the mind.

Dai Smith (1984), Wales! Wales? Hemel Hempstead: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 165-68.

The Breaking of Consensus, Blitz on Jobs & Wales in the Wilderness:

Meanwhile, the players in the last act of Old British Labour and the broken post-war Consensus stumbled on. Callaghan continued as Labour leader until retiring in October 1980. Michael Foot took over as Labour leader after a contest with Denis Healey, who then fought a desperate struggle against Tony Benn and the Left to become Deputy leader, as his party did its best to commit suicide in public. Numerous moderates formed the breakaway SDP. The Scottish Nationalists, derided by Callaghan for voting him down as “turkeys voting for Christmas” lost eleven of their thirteen MPs. The unions lost almost half their members and any real political influence they briefly held.

More important than all that, mass unemployment would return to Britain. It was the one economic medicine so bitter that no minister in the seventies, Labour or Tory, had dared to uncork it, until those of the Thatcher government. In the election campaign, Margaret Thatcher promised a return to the values which had made Victorian Britain great. However, what the British people got was more of a return to the hard-nosed Toryism of the interwar years as the Thatcher government set about the task of deliberately lengthening those dole queues. As wage rises were believed to be the main source of inflation and heavy unemployment, it was often openly argued, would weaken trade union bargaining power, and was a price worth paying. At the same time, an economic squeeze was introduced, involving heavy tax increases and a reduction in public borrowing to deflate the economy, thus reducing both demand and employment. In the 1980s, two million manufacturing jobs disappeared, most of them by 1982.

When Thatcher took on the moderate ‘wets’ in her cabinet, including Jim Prior (bottom of the cartoon), she could rely on the support of much of the press.

Almost immediately after the general election, Wales was fully exposed to the Conservative crusade and the radical restructuring of increasingly multinational capitalism in Britain. The Welsh working population reached a peak in 1979 when just over a million people were at work, fifty-five per cent of them in the service sector and forty-two per cent of them women in the core industries. The run-down of the coal industry continued and was followed by a sharp reduction in steel. A Guardian columnist wrote that, in economic terms, every time England catches a cold, Wales gets influenza. Between June 1980 and June 1982, the official working population fell by no fewer than 106,000. The most catastrophic losses were in steel which lost half its workers and plummeted to 38,000. In addition, there were heavy losses in chemicals, textiles, engineering, construction and general manufacturing. The distributive trades, transport and communications also shed thousands of jobs. Public administration lost proportionately fewer, while a whole range of services in insurance, banking, entertainment, leisure, education and medical services gained four thousand workers.

By June 1983 the official working population of Wales was at 882,000, its lowest level in modern times. There was a high level of unemployment, particularly among a whole generation of young people. In the Thatcher years Wales, like Scotland, was dominated by the politics of resistance to Conservatism, but the Wales TUC was weakened by losing numbers and funds, seemingly incapable of adequate adjustment and response. Overall, the organised trade union movement seemed encased in a perception of a Welsh working class which had become a myth. There was a People’s March for Jobs, but it was a pale imitation not just of previous mass demonstrations in the valleys, but even of the contemporary ones in England. The exceptions were, again, the successful strikes and campaigns against closures by the South Wales Miners (South Wales Area, NUM) in 1981-82, but even there, the question was being asked at public meetings, Have the Miners Really Won? The answer came in 1984, by which time they were gaining support, and preparing to fight a struggle as hard and as dedicated as any in their history.

Meanwhile, much radical energy went into CND mass meetings and protests, which acquired much more weight across south Wales and the valleys, from Monmouthshire to Carmarthenshire. The protest camp at the Greenham Common missile base was started by a march of women from Cardiff. Around the language issue, the clamour and turmoil revived and continued in the campaign for the Welsh-medium television channel, S4C. Among Welsh nationalist students, support for constitutional nationalism plummeted after the Referendum result and calls for more radical direct action multiplied for the first time since the Investiture Crisis of 1969 and the botched bombing of Caernarfon Castle. This action was largely limited to student members of Cymdeithas yr Iaith (Welsh Language Society) climbing transmitter masts and smashing old television sets at the National Eisteddfod. The friction between Welsh-speaking and English-speaking students led to a division in the student unions in both Bangor and Aberystwyth, allowing right-wing English conservatives to take control. Using Gandhian tactics, Gwynfor Evans, having stood down as President of the Plaid Cymru, began a lengthy hunger strike to secure the Fourth Channel in Welsh, which was eventually launched, by Superted, the cartoon character, in the late summer of 1982.

In 1981, after a successful campaign to establish a fourth television channel in Welsh, Gwynfor Evans (left) stood down as Plaid Cymru President after thirty-six years, to be replaced by Dafydd Wigley, MP for Caernarfon (right).

There was also a no far more sinister campaign led by the shadowy organisations, Meibion Glyndwr (Sons of Glyndwr) and The Workers’ Army of the Welsh Republic (the Welsh initials spelling ‘Dawn’), which apparently acquired weapons from the former Official IRA. A major campaign of arson began in 1980, against holiday homes throughout western Wales, where passive support from local people went under the humourous slogan Strike a Light for Wales above a picture of an ‘England’s Glory’ matchbox. A major police action was launched by Gwynedd and Dyfed-Powys police forces, Operation Tán (Fire), producing a chorus of complaints over violations of civil rights, telephone tapping and the use of agents provocateurs. Several police officers were accused of fabricating evidence and confessions and of trying to falsely implicate the Meirionydd MP Dafydd Elis Thomas in a bombing campaign against military, government and Conservative Party offices.

The Iron Lady on manoeuvres with a tank, union flag and Prince of Wales’s feathers. By 1983, she had well and truly parked her tank on the green, green grass of Wales, and was at the peak of her powers throughout the United Kingdom.
Sacrificing the Young – the Case of Coventry in the Recession:

In Coventry, nearly sixty thousand jobs were lost in this period of recession from 1979 to 1983. The Conservative policy of high-interest rates tended to overvalue the pound, particularly in the USA, the major market for Coventry’s specialist cars, leading to a rapid decline in demand. Also, the Leyland management embarked on a new rationalisation plan. The company’s production was to be concentrated at its Cowley and Longbridge plants. Triumph production was transferred to Cowley, and Rover models were to be produced at the new Solihull plant. The Coventry engine plant at Courthouse Green was closed and Alvis, Climax and Jaguar were sold off to private buyers. In the first three years of the Thatcher government, the number of Leyland employees in the city fell from twenty-seven thousand to eight thousand. One writer summarised the effects of Conservative policy on Coventry in these years as turning a process of gentle decline into a quickening collapse. Overall the city’s top manufacturing firms shed thirty-one thousand workers between 1979 and 1982. Well-known pillars of Coventry’s economic base such as Herbert’s, Triumph Motors and Renold’s all disappeared. Unemployment had stood at just five per cent in 1979, the same level as in 1971. By 1982 it had risen to sixteen per cent.

 001

None of this had been expected locally when the Thatcher government came to power. After all, Coventry had prospered reasonably well during the previous Tory administrations. The last real boom in the local economy had been stimulated by the policies of Ted Heath’s Chancellor, Anthony Barber. However, the brakes were applied rather than released by the new government. Monetarist policies were quick to bite into the local industry. Redundancy lists and closure notices in the local press became as depressingly regular as the obituary column. The biggest surprise was the lack of resistance from the local Labour movement, given Coventry’s still formidable trade union movement. There was an atmosphere of bewilderment and an element of resignation characterised in the responses of many trades-union officials. It was as if the decades of anti-union editorials in the Coventry Evening Telegraph were finally being realised.

There were signs of resistance at Longbridge, but the British Leyland boss, Michael Edwardes, had introduced a tough new industrial relations programme which had seen the removal from the plant of the union convenor, Red Robbo (Derek Robinson)Britain’s strongest motor factory trade union leader. Edwardes had also closed the Speke factory on Merseyside, demonstrating that he could and would close plants in the face of trade union opposition. Coventry’s car workers and their union leaders had plenty of experience in local wage bargaining in boom times but lacked strategies to resist factory closures during the recession. Factory occupation, imitating its successful use on the continent, had been tried at the Meriden Triumph Motorcycle factory, but with disastrous results. The opposition from workers was undoubtedly diminished by redundancy payments which in many cases promised to cushion families for a year or two from the still unrealised effects of the recession.

002
Above: Employment levels in Coventry to 1981, showing a sharp decline after 1979.

As experienced in Wales, young people were the real victims of these redundancies, as there were now no places or apprenticeships for them to fill. The most depressing feature of Coventry’s unemployment was that the most severely affected were the teenagers leaving the city’s newly-completed network of Community Comprehensives. As the recession hit the city, many of them joined the job market only to find that expected opportunities in the numerous factories had evaporated. By June 1980, forty-six per cent of the city’s sixteen to eighteen-year-olds were seeking employment and over half of the fourteen thousand who had left school the previous year were still unemployed. Much prized craft apprenticeships all but vanished and only ninety-five apprentices commenced training in 1981. In 1981-2, the Local Authority found posts for some 5,270 youths on training courses, work experience and community projects, but with limited long-term effects.

The early 1980s were barren years for Coventry youngsters, despite the emergence of their own sca group, The Specials, and their own theme song, Ghost Town, which also gave vent to what was becoming a national phenomenon. The lyric’s sombre comparison of boom time and bust was felt much more sharply in Coventry than elsewhere. Coventry paid a very heavy price in the 1980s for its over-commitment to the car industry, suffering more than nearby Midland towns such as Leicester and Nottingham, both of which had broader-based economies. Its peculiar dependence on manufacturing and its historically weak tertiary sector meant that it was a poor location for the so-called sunrise industries. These were high-tech enterprises, based largely along the axial belt running from London to Slough, Reading and Swindon, so they had an insignificant initial impact on unemployment in Coventry and other Midland and Northern industrial centres. The growth in service industries was also, initially at least, mainly to the benefit of the traditional administrative centres, such as Birmingham, rather than to its West Midland neighbours.

While little development work took place in local factories, Nissan recruited hundreds of foremen from Coventry for its new plant in Sunderland, announced before the Thatcher government, and Talbot removed its Whitley research and development facility to Paris in 1983, along with its French-speaking Coventrians. Only at Leyland’s Canley site did research provide a service for plants outside the city. For the first time in a hundred years, Coventry had become a net exporter of labour. By the time of the 1981 Census, the city had already lost 7.5 per cent of its 1971 population. The main losses were among the young skilled and technical management sectors, people who any town or city can ill afford to lose. Summing up the city’s position at this time, Lancaster and Mason (see source list) emphasised the dramatic transition in its fortunes from boomtown, a magnet for labour from the depressed areas, to a depressed district itself:

Coventry in the mid 1980s displays more of the confidence in the future that was so apparent in the immediate post-war years. The city, which for four decades was the natural habitat of the affluent industrial worker is finding it difficult to adjust to a situation where the local authority and university rank amongst the largest employers. Coventry’s self-image of progressiveness and modernity has all but vanished. The citizens now largely identify themselves and their environment as part of depressed Britain.  

The Falklands Factor – War in the South Atlantic:

One of the many ironies of the Thatcher story is that she was rescued from the political consequences of her monetarism by the blunders of her hated Foreign Policy. In the great economic storms of 1979-81, and on the European budget battle, she had simply charged ahead, ignoring all the flapping around her in pursuit of a single goal. In the South Atlantic, she would do exactly the same and with her good luck, she was vindicated. Militarily, it could so easily have all gone wrong, and the Falklands War could have been a terrible disaster, confirming the Argentinian dictatorship in power in the South Atlantic and ending Margaret Thatcher’s career after just one term as Prime Minister. Of all the gambles in modern British politics, the sending of a task force of ships from the shrunken and underfunded Royal Navy eight thousand miles away to take a group of islands by force was one of the most extreme.

On both sides, the conflict derived from colonial quarrels, dating back to 1833, before the reign of Queen Victoria began, when the scattering of islands had been declared a British colony. In Buenos Aires, a newly installed ‘junta’ under General Leopoldo Galtieri was heavily dependent on the Argentine navy, itself passionately keen on taking over the islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas. The following year would see the 150th anniversary of ‘British ownership’ which the Argentines feared would be used to reassert the Falklands’ British future. The junta misread Whitehall’s lack of policy for lack of interest and concluded that an invasion would be easy, popular and impossible to reverse. In March an Argentine ship tested the waters by landing on South Georgia, a small dependency south of the Falklands, disembarking scrap-metal dealers. Then on 1 April, the main invasion began, a landing by Argentine troops which had been carefully prepared for by local representatives of the national airline. In three hours it was all over, and the eighty British marines surrendered, having killed five Argentine troops and injured seventeen with no losses of their own.

In London, there was mayhem. Thatcher had had a few hours’ warning of what was happening from the Defence Secretary, John Nott. Calling a hurried meeting in her Commons office, Sir John Leach gave her clarity and hope, when her ministers were as confused as she was. He told her he could assemble a task force of destroyers, frigates and landing craft, led by Britain’s two remaining aircraft carriers. It could be ready to sail within forty-eight hours and the islands could be retaken by force. She told him to go ahead. Soon after, the Foreign Secretary, Peter Carrington, tended his resignation, accepting responsibility for the Foreign Office’s failings. But Margaret Thatcher was confronted by a moral question which she could not duck, which was that many healthy young men were likely to die or be horribly injured in order to defend the ‘sovereignty’ of the Falkland Islanders. In the end, almost a thousand died, one for every two islanders and many others were maimed and psychologically wrecked.

In the cabinet and the Commons, Thatcher argued that the whole structure of national identity and international law was at stake. Michael Foot, who had been bellicose in parliament at first, harking back to the appeasement of fascism in the thirties, urged her to find a diplomatic answer. Later she insisted that she was vividly aware of the blood price that was waiting and not all consumed by lust for conflict. Thatcher had believed from the start that caving in would finish her. The press, like the Conservative Party itself, was seething about the original diplomatic blunders. As it happened, the Argentine junta, even more belligerent, ensured that a serious deal was never properly put. They simply insisted that the British Task Force be withdrawn from the entire area and that Argentine representatives should take part in any interim administration and that if talks failed Britain would simply lose sovereignty. The reality, though, was that their political position was even weaker than hers. She established a small war cabinet and the Task Force, now up to twenty vessels strong was steadily reinforced. Eventually, it comprised more than a hundred ships and twenty-five thousand men. The world was both transfixed and bemused.

The Empire struck back, and by the end of the month South Georgia was recaptured and a large number of Argentine prisoners taken: Thatcher urged questioning journalists outside Number Ten simply to ‘rejoice, rejoice!’ Then came one of the most controversial episodes in the short war. A British submarine, The Conqueror, was following the ageing but heavily armed cruiser, the Belgrano. The British task force was exposed and feared a pincer movement, although the Belgrano was later found to have been outside an exclusion zone announced in London, and streaming away from the fleet. With her military commanders at Chequers, Thatcher authorised the submarine attack. The Belgrano was sunk, with the loss of 321 sailors. The Sun newspaper carried the headline ‘Gotcha!’ Soon afterwards, a British destroyer was hit by an Argentine Exocet missile and later sunk. Forty died.

On 18 May 1982, the war cabinet agreed that landings on the Falklands should go ahead, despite the lack of full air cover and worsening weather. By landing at the unexpected bay of San Carlos in low clouds, British troops got ashore in large numbers. Heavy Argentine air attacks, however, took a serious toll. Two frigates were badly damaged, another was sunk, then another, then a destroyer, then a container ship with vital supplies. Nevertheless, three thousand British troops secured a beachhead and began to fight their way inland. Over the next few weeks, they captured the settlements of Goose Green and Darwin, killing 250 Argentine soldiers and capturing 1,400 for the loss of twenty British lives. Colonel ‘H’ Jones became the first celebrated hero of the conflict when he died leading ‘2 Para’ against heavy Argentine fire.

030
The Royal Marines ‘yomp’ towards Port Stanley during the Falklands War, June 1982

The battle then moved to the tiny capital, Port Stanley, or rather to the circle of hills around it where the Argentine army was dug in. Before the final assault on 8 June, two British landing ships, Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad were hit by missiles and the Welsh Guards suffered dreadful losses, many of the survivors being badly burned. Simon Weston was one of them. Out of his platoon of thirty men, twenty-two were killed. The Welsh Guards lost a total of forty-eight men killed and ninety-seven wounded aboard the Sir Galahad. Weston survived with forty-six per cent burns, following which his face was barely recognisable. He recalled:

Simon Weston in 2008

“My first encounter with a really low point was when they wheeled me into the transit hospital at RAF Lyneham and I passed my mother in the corridor and she said to my gran, “Oh mam, look at that poor boy” and I cried out “Mam, it’s me!” As she recognised my voice her face turned to stone.”

Simon Weston later became a well-known spokesman and charity worker for his fellow injured and disabled veterans. The Queen’s second son, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, also saw active service in the Falklands War, as a helicopter pilot. For millions around the world, however, the War seemed a complete anachronism, a Victorian gunboat war in a nuclear age. But for millions in Britain, it served as a wholly unexpected and almost mythic symbol of rebirth. Margaret Thatcher herself lost no time in telling the whole country what she thought the war meant. It was more than simply a triumph of freedom and democracy over the Argentinian dictatorship. Speaking at Cheltenham racecourse in early July, she said:

We have ceased to be a nation in retreat. We have instead a newfound confidence, born in the economic battles at home and found true eight thousand miles away … Printing money is no more. Rightly this government has abjured it. Increasingly the nation won’t have it … That too is part of the ‘Falklands factor.’ … Britain found herself again in the South Atlantic and will not look back from the victory she has won. 

002
A 1982 cartoon: Britain was at war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. The inhabitants of the islands, a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, wanted to remain under British rule, but Argentina invaded.

Of course, the Falklands War fitted into Margaret Thatcher’s personal narrative and merged into a wider sense that confrontation was required in public life and the country’s politics. Thatcher was victorious, but it was a costly war for the British. Across Wales, for example, where the atmosphere was already becoming unpleasant in many respects, the impact was direct, especially relating to the disaster which befell the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove, but also in anxieties over the Welsh communities in Patagonia in Argentina, who, like the Falklanders, had formed their colonies there in the nineteenth century. Despite opposition to the War from Plaid Cymru, a traditional pacifist party, there is little doubt that the War gave the same impetus to British patriotism, and chauvinism, and to the Conservatives, as it did in other parts of Britain. The Tories had looked destined for defeat in the 1983 General Election, but following the Falklands War, the Iron Lady, also variously characterised as Boadicea (Boudicca) and Britannia, swept back to power on a tidal wave of revived jingoistic imperialism. Even in Labour heartlands, such as south Wales, the Tories made more major gains.

The Demise of the Heartlands & Death of ‘Old King Coal’, 1983-87:

As the general election loomed, with Labour in visible disarray, and with the appreciably calamitous effects of the Tory policies on the Welsh economy, it was on the left wing of the national movement that awareness of the bankruptcy of traditional political attitudes seem to have registered. However, in the Wales of 1983, these could only be marginal movements. The great majority of the Welsh electorate remained locked within what was now essentially an unholy trinity of parties. The General Election of 1983 exposed the myth that the South Welsh valleys were still some kind of ‘heartland’ of Labour; it registered even more visibly than 1979 had done, Wales’s presence within the South of Britain in terms of political geography. In Wales as a whole, the Labour vote fell by nearly ten per cent, a fall exceeded only in East Anglia and the South East; it ran level with London again. The Conservative vote fell by only twenty-four thousand (1.7 per cent), whereas the Labour vote fell by over 178,000. The great beneficiaries were the Liberal-SDP alliance, whose vote rocketed by over two hundred thousand.

The Conservatives took the Cardiff West seat of George Thomas, the former Speaker, and the marginal seat of Bridgend, swept most of Cardiff and again pressed very hard throughout the rural west, ending up with thirteen seats out of thirty-eight. Plaid Cymru held its two seats in the northwest and moved into second place on Anglesey. It also registered significant votes in Carmarthen, Caerphilly, Ceredigion, Llanelli and the Rhondda. The success of the Liberal-SDP Alliance was spectacular. It more than doubled the former Liberal poll, reaching twenty-three per cent of the Welsh electorate, won two seats and came second in nineteen out of thirty-eight. Labour’s defeat came close to becoming a rout, but the party managed to retain a score of seats despite dropping nearly ten per cent in the poll. It was now a minority party again, at its lowest level since 1918. It held on by the skin of its teeth in Carmarthen and to Wrexham, a former stronghold. Even in the coalfield valleys, where it held all but one of its seats, six became three-way marginals without an overall majority. The Alliance came second in ten, and in the Rhondda won eight thousand votes without even campaigning. Only seven seats remained with overall Labour majorities, and only three of the old twenty-thousand majorities were left: Rhondda, Merthyr Tydfil and Ebbw Vale (Blaenau Gwent). Looking ahead (from c 1984), Gwyn A. Williams wrote that Wales was becoming…

… a country which largely lives by the British State, whose input into it is ten per cent of its gross product, faces a major reconstruction of the public sector; … faces the prospect of a new depression or a recovery, either of which will intensify the process… faces the prospect of a large and growing population which will be considered redundant in a state which is already considering a major reduction in the financial burden of welfare.

Small wonder that some, looking ahead, see nothing but a nightmare vision of a depersonalised Wales which has shrivelled up into a Costa Bureaucratic in the south and a Costa Geriatrica in the north; in between, sheep, holiday homes burning merrily away and fifty folk museums where there used to be communities … the majority of the inhabitants are choosing a British identity which seems to require the elimination of a Welsh one.

026

Striking Yorkshire miners barrack moderate union leaders in Sheffield.

The government then took a more confrontational approach at home. As in the 1920s, resistance to brutal rationalisation through the closure or selling off of uneconomic enterprises, or by wage or job reductions, was met by determined opposition, never tougher than in the confrontation of 1984-85 with the National Union of Mineworkers, led by Arthur Scargill. The National Coal Board, supported by the government, put forward a massive programme of pit closures. The bitter, year-long miners’ strike which followed was roundly defeated, amid scenes of mass picketing and some violence from both miners and the police. The miners’ strike was long and bitter, a fight for the survival of coalfield communities. For example, during the late nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century, Armthorpe in South Yorkshire became known for its coal mining and a deep seam colliery was sunk; the pit was named Markham Main. In 1984, an Armthorpe dress shop sales assistant was quoted as saying:

“If this pit closed down, the whole village would close down because of the number of men working there. This shop and a lot of other shops would have to close down.”

Markham Main Colliery: After the closure of the mine in 1996 the area went through a deep depression. The old colliery site is now a large housing estate, with a thriving community and parks and tracks for walking and cycling to the local wood. Today, Armthorpe remains one of the more affluent areas of Doncaster, with an IKEA warehouse providing local employment. Photo (circa 1980?) by Chris Allen, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org.

But ultimately the government proved equally determined and had, crucially, built up the resources to resist their anticipated demands for it to back down. In 1983, a team of researchers in south Wales published a pamphlet, Who Profits from Coal? revealing that not only had the NCB been importing stocks of South African coal for some years, but that it was also investing in its production, even raiding the miners’ pension fund to do so. There were also major divisions within the NUM itself, with the Nottinghamshire area breaking away to form the UDM (Union of Democratic Mineworkers) and the South Wales area calling for an orderly return to work when it became apparent that the NUM could not win. However, the national executive, led by its president, Arthur Scargill, refused to call a country-wide ballot on this proposal, prolonging the struggle and suffering unnecessarily.

 001 (3)

Miners’ leader, Arthur Scargill.

The strike and the colliery closures left a legacy of bitterness and division in British which was only too apparent at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s recent state funeral and is the subject or background for many recent films, some of which have distorted or trivialised our recollection of the reality. Among the better representations of it is Billy Elliott. Under the thirty years rule, the government documents from 1984 have only just become available, so we can now look forward to the more rounded perspectives of historians on these events. Already, politicians have called for government apologies to be given to the miners and their families.

Picketing miners were caught and hand-cuffed to lamp posts by police in 1986.

In the Durham Coalfield, pits were often the only real source of employment in local communities, so the economic and social impact of closures could be devastating. The 1984-5 Strike was an attempt to force a reversal of the decline. The pit closures went ahead and the severe contraction of the mining industry continued: it vanished altogether in Kent, while in Durham two-thirds of the pits were closed. The government had little interest in ensuring the survival of the industry, determined to break its militant and well-organised union. There was further resistance, as pictured above, but by 1987, the initial programme of closures was complete. The social cost of the closures, especially in places in which mining was the single major employer, as in many of the pit villages of South Yorkshire, Durham and the valleys of south Wales, was devastating. The entire local economy was crippled. On Tyneside and Merseyside, more general deindustrialisation occurred. Whole sections of industry, including coal, steel and shipbuilding, simply vanished from their traditional areas.

 006

(to be continued)

Featured

Majesty & Grace IX: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor, 1963-78: Part 2 – Multicultural Britons.

Present into Past – The Problem of Retrospection:

The closer that social historians get to their own times, the harder it is for them to be sure they have hold of what is essential about the period in question: the more difficult it is to separate the rich tapestry of social life which appears on the surface of the woven fabric from its underlying patterns. This is the problem of perspective that historians have to try to overcome in their craft. The period from 1963 to 1978 was one of rapid social change and one in which the pace and direction of social change itself became a matter of concern in social discourse. The discussion in the sixties was about whether the surface evidence of change really added up to a social revolution for ordinary people. What happened to the standards of living of ordinary Britons in the seventies threw into question the depth of the changes. That argument is still unresolved: more than sixty years later we are still living out its contradictory legacy. Many witnesses to the period are still alive, and each with their own differing memories, impressions and interpretations of the period.

The Caernarfon Investiture of 1969 & the botched bombings:

The ‘Investiture Crisis’ as it was known to contemporaries in Wales referred to an undercurrent of violence in Welsh nationalism and republicanism that had been getting stronger since the drowning of the village of Tryweryn to supply Liverpool with water earlier in 1957. This was done by an Act of Parliament, despite almost all Welsh MPs voting against it. As the Welsh historian John Davies wrote in his 1990 History of Wales:

Liverpool’s ability to ignore the virtually unanimous opinion of the representatives of the Welsh people, confirmed one of the central tenets of Plaid Cymru – that the national Welsh community, under the existing order, was wholly powerless.

J. Davies (1990): Allen Lane.

Attacks on the Tryweryn reservoir followed and the Free Wales Army was founded in 1963. Violent (against property) Welsh Nationalism was, thankfully, almost as unpopular and badly organised as violent Scottish nationalism. But the sabotage of reservoirs yielded to a bombing campaign during the run-up to the Investiture in which two bombers blew themselves up in trying to blow up the Royal train, and a little child was mutilated in an accident with explosives near the walls of Caernarfon Castle, where the ceremony was due to take place. Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru (Welsh Defence Movement) was behind the bombings, in league with the Free Wales Army.

In preparation for his Investiture in 1969, Charles spent some time at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, learning Welsh and studying the history and culture(s) of Wales under the tutelage of Professor Teddy Millward. The initial purpose of this was so that he would know enough of the ancient language to be able to make the oath at the Investiture Ceremony and, subsequently, to read speeches out loud with intelligible pronunciation. When a delegation of student leaders met him at Lampeter in 1980, he admitted to them that his conversation was limited and that although he had retained much of the vocabulary Millward had taught him, he had not had many opportunities to use it. Part of his problem was that the formal, classical register in written form was very different to the Cymraeg Byw (Living Welsh) needed for everyday communication and simple conversation. Nevertheless, on his first visit to Cardiff as Charles III, following his mother’s death, he delivered a speech in Welsh with considerable accuracy and fluency. As Nelson Mandela once said, if you talk to people in a common language they know, you will speak to their minds. You will speak to their hearts if you talk to them in their native language. Charles seems to have understood and to have sought to apply the ‘Mandela principle.’

Tynged yr Iaith – the Fate of the Language:

By 1961, Welsh speakers made up only twenty-five per cent of the population, and by 1971 they were barely twenty per cent. The crisis appeared terminal, so in 1962 the writer and founder member of the Welsh Nationalist Party, Saunders Lewis (pictured below) returned to public affairs determined to prevent the death of the ancient language. In the BBC Wales Annual Radio Lecture that year, Tynged yr Iaith (The Fate of the Language), he called upon the Welsh people to make the salvation of the language their central priority and to be prepared to use revolutionary means to achieve it. The response was remarkable. After the formation of Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, its young activists stormed all over Wales, opening twenty years of direct action campaigning against offices, roadsigns, staging sit-ins, wrecking TV masts, generally making life hell for any kind of official and the police. While Plaid Cymru remained somewhat aloof, there was much human overlap, and the heavy colonisation of Welsh institutions, particularly in the media, by Welsh-speaking professional people (‘sons of ministers‘) proved to be of powerful assistance.

Around this campaign, which assumed the character of a crusade, all sorts of movements developed: a major drive to establish Welsh-medium nurseries, primary and secondary schools, Welsh-speaking University College hostels, special posts for the teaching of Welsh, demands for an all Welsh-medium College, or Coleg Cymraeg, and for positive discrimination in favour of the use of Welsh. There were crash immersive programmes, or ‘wlpan’ for learners, dysgwyr, based on the invention of a modern form of the language, Cymraeg Byw, (Living Welsh), and the grouping of learners into an organisation at local and national levels. The new Welsh Arts Council directed subsidies towards an ailing Welsh Language publishing world. Step by step a Labour government, followed by a Conservative one, was forced to yield; a Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, a major Language Act in 1967, and a whole series of autonomy measures. Within, around and distinct from this drive a whole world of Welsh language publishing, film production, radio and television broadcasting and infinite varieties of pop, rock, folk and urban music mushroomed.

Many of these initiatives, like the Welsh-medium Channel 4, S4C, did not come to full fruition until the early 1980s, but most originated in the mid to late sixties. These were the most visibly Welsh signals of the onset of outright revolt in the late sixties. The major factor in this uprising was disillusionment with the Welsh Labour establishment. The abrupt reversal of Labour government policy in 1966, after the high hopes of 1964, seemed a culminating disappointment after long years of diminishing relevance in the Party’s policies, internal debate and inner life. The Labour hegemony in Wales had hardened into an oligarchy. On the other hand, the long and dismal history of elitist and contemptuous attitudes towards Anglo-Welsh people had been a disturbing feature of Welsh nationalism and much language-focused Welsh national feeling since the days of its founders.

Young people in Wales and Scotland generated a tide of nationalist protest, the scale of which had until then only been experienced in the Basque regions of Spain or in French Quebec. Neither Wales nor Scotland had enjoyed the economic growth of the south and midlands of England in the fifties, despite the ‘Development Areas’ legislation and programmes introduced by Labour governments before 1951. Their national aspirations were hardly fulfilled by the formal institutions as the offices of Westminster-appointed Secretaries of State. In the case of Wales, this appointment was only made for the first time in centuries by the Wilson government in 1964. Scottish nationalists complained, with some justification, that the very title Elizabeth II was a misnomer in their country since Elizabeth I had not been Queen of Scots.

Caernarfon Castle was set up for the Investiture of Prince Charles on
30th June 1969

As far as many of the Welsh were concerned, the title of ‘Prince of Wales’ (Tywysog Cymry), as bestowed by the monarch by ‘right of conquest’ on the eldest son and heir to the English throne since the reign of Edward I, was also a misnomer. In Wales, there was the added theme of an ancient language and culture threatened with extinction in an unequal battle against anglicising mass culture and media. A narrow victory for a Welsh Nationalist, Gwynfor Evans, in a parliamentary by-election in Carmarthen in 1966, was followed by a renewed civil disobedience campaign in support of the defence and propagation of the Welsh language. Under Evans’ leadership, a new Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) began to emerge. In 1969, elaborate ceremonies greeted the formal Investiture of Prince Charles as Prince of Wales, to paraphrase Gwyn Williams, in a tumult of public acclaim, largely in English, and a tumult of public mockery, largely in Welsh.

The Anglo-Welsh historian Dai Smith, more than a decade later drew a comparison between the Investiture of Edward Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) in 1911 and the more recent ceremony at Caernarfon:

Here was stage-managed the investiture of Edward, Prince of Wales, in a rich ceremony of dedication and loyalty. This patriotic event could be seen, like that of Charles in 1969, as a plot to dupe the ‘masses’. In this scenario, the chief Welsh politicians of ‘deliver up’ the nation to English/ British domination and, in due course, are suitably rewarded with titular baubles – Lloyd George becomes the Earl of Dwyfor and George Thomas becomes Viscount Tonypandy. … Neither event defused radical politics in Wales – after 1969 Plaid Cymru grew in influence and the miners’ unions began their five-year campaign…

Dai Smith (1984), Wales! Wales? Hemel Hempstead: George Allen & Unwin.

The Investiture Ceremony
Celtic Languages & Dialects in the British Isles:

After many decades of decline, most notably (and dangerously) in the number of ‘monoglot’ native speakers, by 1981 there was currently a stable proportion of between one-fifth and one-quarter of Welsh residents, over half a million, describing themselves as Welsh speakers. The Celtic nations of the British Isles also protected their own Celtic-influenced or Scots-influenced dialects or varieties of ‘English’, each of which can be subdivided further into localised varieties. For example, Welsh English, or Anglo-Welsh, has differing northern and southern varieties, with parts of the south, specifically south Pembrokeshire and the Gower Peninsula, having had English and Flemish colonies since the twelfth century. A uniform spoken English across the British Isles is an unlikely prospect. In Wales, the same is true of spoken Welsh, with varieties in accent and vocabulary, if not in grammar.

As far as constitutional Welsh nationalism was concerned, Gwynfor Evans lost his Carmarthen seat in the 1970 general election but two more striking Plaid Cymru by-election performances Rhondda West and Caerffili (Caerphilly) in 1967 and 1968 suggested that the Carmarthen victory had been was no flash in the pan. At last, the complacent Welsh Labour Party was being challenged, and in the 1974 election, Plaid Cymru won two northern Welsh seats, Caernarfon and Meirionydd, taking a third in the second general election that year. Welsh Labour was divided in its response. Michael Foot, MP for Aneurin Bevan’s old seat of Ebbw Vale, thought the nationalists should be ‘bought off’ through reform measures, including devolution, but Neil Kinnock, who declared that road-sign bilingualism (like that shown below) was a waste of funds, believed they should be fought. Either way, they held their seats, continuing to pose an electoral threat in Labour’s traditional heartlands in the southern valleys and refusing to ‘go away.’ Neither did the bilingual road signs.

A road sign in Powys.

The equality accorded to English and Welsh on road signs symbolised a victory for Welsh language activists. They had campaigned long and hard to gain official recognition of their native language and to ensure its survival. By 1974, both Cornish and Manx no longer had any native speakers and attempts to revive them led to only a very small number of learners of both Celtic languages. Although the official figure for users of Irish Gaelic was subsequently recorded as 1.4 million in the Republic, equivalent to forty per cent of the population. But this reflected the status of the language in Irish schools, whereas the habitual use of Irish in daily life in the Gaeltacht, the Irish-speaking communities, was estimated at 0.25 per cent of the population. In Scotland, the Scottish Gaelic community accounted for about one per cent of the population there. According to the 1981 Census, only 473 children spoke Gaelic according to the 1981 Census.

Broadford Primary School, Isle of Skye, where children are taught in Gaelic.

Skye was once thought of as the centre of the Gaeltachd, the land of the Gaels. The only large concentration of Gaelic speakers still left on the island is on the northeast tip, the Staffin peninsula. The parish is one of the last redoubts of the northern Gaels. All the children in Staffin in the 1980s knew Gaelic but seldom used it after transfer to secondary school in Portree, where the other children teased them, calling them teuchtars or bumpkins (uneducated people of the land). They also thought that the language wouldn’t get them anywhere. As Gaelic speakers, they would just stay on their croft and stay poor. It would be better for them to develop their English and head south.

A Gaelic-speaking child at Broadford Primary School.
Wales, the Cymry & the Anglo-Welsh in the late seventies:

Meanwhile, around the Welsh language, the clamour and turmoil continued into the eighties, as did the many initiatives to arrest its decline in the previous decades. According to the 1981 Census returns, these seemed to have worked. Although the overall proportion of Welsh speakers had slipped further since 1971, to 18.9 per cent, there had been a dramatic slowing in the rate of decline over the decade, and it seemed almost to be coming to a halt. However, while there were marginal increases in Anglo-Welsh areas such as Gwent and Glamorgan, there was still a serious decline in the heartlands of the language, most notably in the southwest, where the fall was six per cent. There had been some ‘retrenchment’ in Ceredigion and parts of Gwynedd, and there were unmistakable signs that all the campaigning had begun to take effect among the younger age groups. Overall, out of a population of almost 2.8 million, over 550,000 identified as Welsh speakers. Nonetheless, the continuing threat to the bro or Welsh-speaking heartland had led to the growth of a new movement in the seventies, Adfer (‘restore’), with a swathe of intellectual zealots, dedicated to building a monoglot Welsh gaeltachd in the west and to the construction of an ethnically pure and self-sufficient economy and society there. This organisation viewed the true Cymry as the Welsh speakers and adopted a chauvinistic attitude towards the remainder of the people of Wales.

Yet Welsh-speaking figures from the industrial south, like Dai Francis, the leader of the South Wales NUM (see part one), who became a Bard in the Order of the Gorsedd of the National Eisteddfod, became leading Welsh-speaking figures. Francis was nominated by Undeb Cenedlaethol Myfyrwyr Cymru (NUS Wales) as an alternative candidate to Prince Charles for the role of Chancellor of the University of Wales in 1977/78. He lost the contest (the exact result of the vote was never declared), but only after the campaign had caused considerable embarrassment to the Welsh establishment in the University Court, one of the few all-Wales bodies at this time. Most importantly, it enabled UCMC to raise support among Welsh academics for the official recognition of the language in education on a nationwide basis in subsequent years.

A cogent and effective proposal for an elected Welsh assembly had been formulated and presented by the MP and cabinet minister Cledwyn Hughes in the 1960s, but it got nowhere. The proposal which emerged in the mid-seventies was partly an afterthought to the response to the growing strength of the nationalist challenge in Scotland. It was, though, an ineffective compromise for Wales, which won no real enthusiasm, even among its supporters among the constitutionalist nationalists in Wales. After endless parliamentary agonies, it was to be submitted to a referendum on St David’s Day, 1st March 1979. However, it was already dead in the water by the end of 1978, due to an amendment at Westminster requiring forty per cent of both the Scottish and Welsh electorates to vote ‘yes.’

It was resisted by a huge bloc of opinion ranging from the representatives of multinational corporations and their British subsidiaries to the populist press and on to the Adferites in the north. It was also fiercely opposed by a bloc of South Wales Labour MPs led by Neil Kinnock and Leo Abse, who played on fears of their Anglo-Welsh constituents of being taken over and dominated by a Welsh-speaking, mainly northern, ‘crach’ (élite). There were also those on the left who were suspicious of what they had increasingly viewed as a corrupt Welsh-British establishment. Nationalist supporters also found themselves in a difficult situation, especially in Caernarfon and Meirionydd, where their voters, not just the supporters of Adfer, were not keen on being ruled from Cardiff. Not surprisingly, faced with all these obstacles, the campaign lacked conviction. As Gwyn Williams commented:

… it was an unreal war over an unreal proposal. One major reality, however, was a wholesale political revolt against the kind of Wales being presented and created through the medium of the Welsh language campaigns. It was a revulsion wholly negative in content and style.

Gwyn A. Williams (1985), When Was Wales? Pelican (Penguin) Books.

Professor Gwyn Williams, Photograph by HTV Wales.

However, Williams also pointed out that far more than a Welsh-language Wales was being rejected. Opinion polls showed the Conservatives running at a level of support they hadn’t enjoyed for a century. After the economic crisis of 1976 and its unnecessary surrender to the IMF (see below), the Labour government adopted the policies which the radical new leadership of the Conservatives had been developing. In the seventies, Labour ceased to be either socialist or social-democratic. Wales was plagued by economic difficulties, and its working population was being transformed at a pace too swift for its traditional institutions to handle. It is, in retrospect, that it was not interested in public discourse mainly among its intellectuals that focused largely and widely on language and culture.

The reality was that, by 1978, the client economy of Wales was in very deep trouble. Yet despite the success of Plaid Cymru in local elections during the final years of ‘old Labour’ rule, they did not seem to pose quite the same threat as the SNP. Of course, Welsh water was far less valuable and cheaper to extract than Scottish oil, which was fundamentally why the proposed Welsh assembly was to have fewer powers than the Scottish one. It was to oversee a large chunk of public expenditure, but it would not have law-making powers. The proposal was therefore unlikely to make anyone’s blood pound.

‘Black Gold’ – North Sea Gas & Oil Fields:

Certainly, living standards continued to rise, aided by the discovery in the North Sea of natural gas in 1965 and oil in 1969. The complex mosaic of yellow blocks in the 2016 map of the North Sea (below) illustrates the development of the UK oil industry which provided an economic boon to seventies Britain. The Forties field, shown on the map, was the biggest of the North Sea oil fields whose royalties made the country an unexpected hydrocarbon superpower for a limited period. In 1959, following a single find of natural gas in Gröningen in the Netherlands, it became apparent the geological structure of the North Sea meant that further discoveries were likely, although the prohibitive cost of drilling in offshore waters impeded initial exploration.

Section of the map below which gives a close-up of the Forties field & pipelines in Sea 2.

The first large find was also of gas, struck in the West Sole field, off the Yorkshire coast, by British Petroleum’s Sea Gem platform in September 1965, though celebrations were soon dampened when the rig sank three months later, with the loss of thirteen lives, in the North Sea’s first major disaster. By 1969 oil had been struck in the Montrose field east of Aberdeen, followed soon after by the giant Forties field in 1970 and the Brent field a year later. The system of licensing fees for exploration and royalties payable on gas and oil production provided an economic shot in the arm for a country which was struggling to restructure its traditional industries and facing increased competition from emerging industrial giants such as Japan. Production became even more profitable after the 1973 oil shock when the principal Middle Eastern oil-producing countries imposed oil embargoes in response to Western countries’ policies which they said favoured Israel in its struggle with the Palestinian Arabs. As oil importers sought alternative sources of supply, global prices rose and North Sea oil found new customers.

Large-scale map, showing the full extent of the North Sea oil fields.

By the time of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee, in 1977, North Sea Oil was coming ashore to the tune of more than half a million barrels a day, meeting a third of the country’s needs. Britain would be self-sufficient in oil by 1980 and already was in gas. Oil and gas were not the only new sources of power to be exploited in the sixties. A lonely stretch of coast near Leiston in Suffolk became the site of Britain’s second nuclear power station, built in the early 1960s. In 1966 power began surging out from the grey, cuboid plant into the national grid. By the mid-seventies, Sizewell’s five hundred and eighty thousand kilowatts were going a long way towards meeting the electricity needs of eastern England.

Sizewell Nuclear Power Station (2014)

Devaluation & Deindustrialisation:

But there were also disquieting signs that Britain was approaching an as yet undefined cultural and financial crisis. British economic growth rates did not match those of competitor states, and it was partly for this reason that Britain applied to join the European Economic Community, in 1961 and 1967, entry both times being vetoed by France.

New kinds of industry, based largely on the revolution in electronics, came into being alongside the old, without displacing them. There was a shift in the patterns of skills, and of work, and the composition of the labour force, with more workers involved in clerical, highly skilled or service occupations. At the same time, more workers were pushed down into the unskilled ranks of mass production. They became more mobile again, pulled to where the jobs were. The pattern of regional decline in the older industrial areas and rapid, unorganised growth in the new areas began to re-emerge. In some areas and industries, the long-term pattern of continuity from one generation to the next persisted, while in other, newer areas, this continuity was broken.

Long-term changes patterns of employment, 1921-76.

Hitherto the social fabric across Britain had been kept intact, at least in part, because of high and advancing living standards for the population as a whole. But clear evidence mounted up in the late 1960s that increasing economic pressures were adding to new social tensions. Britain lurched from one financial expedient to another, with the frequent balance of payments crises and many runs on the pound sterling. Devaluation in 1967 did not produce any lasting remedy. Economically, the real problems of the decade arose from both the devaluation of the currency in November 1967 and the deterioration in industrial relations. Employment in manufacturing nationally declined, until it accounted for less than a third of the workforce by 1973. The income policy declared by the Wilson Government was hard to swallow for engineering workers who had long enjoyed the benefits of free collective bargaining and wage differentials. By way of contrast, employment in the service sector rose, so that by 1973, over half of all workers in the UK were employed in providing services. The map below shows both the long-term and regional character of the decline of the British manufacturing industries. The resulting mass unemployment hurt the old industries of the Northwest badly, but the job losses were proportionately as high in the Southeast and Midlands, where there were newer manufacturers.

The Second Wilson Labour administration that followed faced a huge balance-of-payments crisis and the tumbling value of the pound and they soon found themselves under the control of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which insisted on severe spending cuts. The contraction of manufacturing began to accelerate and inflation was also increasing alarmingly, reaching twenty-four per cent by 1975. It came to be seen as a more urgent problem than unemployment and there was a national and international move to the right and against high-taxing and high-spending governments. Demands were made that they should stop propping up lame-duck industries with public money or taking them, however temporarily, into public ownership.

By the mid-seventies, the dock area at Felixstowe covered hundreds of acres, many reclaimed, made up of spacious wharves, warehouses and storage areas equipped with the latest cargo handling machinery. The transformation had begun in 1956 as the direct result of foresight and careful planning. The Company launched a three-million pound project to create a new deep-water berth geared to the latest bulk transportation technique – containerisation. It calculated that changing trading patterns and Felixstowe’s proximity to Rotterdam and Antwerp provided exciting prospects for an efficient, well-equipped port. Having accomplished that, it set aside another eight million for an oil jetty and bulk liquid storage facilities. In addition, a passenger terminal was opened in 1975. The dock soon acquired a reputation for fast, efficient handling of all types of cargo, and consignments could easily reach the major industrial centres through faster road and rail networks.

There were many reasons for this unprecedented growth. which brought Suffolk a prosperity unknown since the expansion of the cloth trade in the mid-fourteenth century. As back then, Suffolk’s depression gave a boost to new development. Most of the county was within eighty miles of London and served by improving road and rail connections. Ports like Felixstowe were no further from the capital than those of Kent and they were a great deal closer to the industrial Midlands and the North.

An old milestone in the centre of Woodbridge, Suffolk

Some of Suffolk’s most beautiful countryside was no further from the metropolis than the stockbroker belt of the Home Counties, and yet land and property prices in Suffolk were less than half of what they were there. People were becoming more mobile and light industries were less tied to traditional centres. Companies escaping from high overheads found that they could find both the facilities and labour they needed in Ipswich, Bury, Sudbury and Haverhill. Executives also discovered that they could live in areas of great natural beauty and yet be within commuting distance of their City desks. Moreover, the shift in international trade focused attention once more on the east coast ports. As the Empire was being disbanded and Britain was drawn increasingly towards trade with the European Common Market, producers were looking for the shortest routes to the continent. More and more lorries took to the roads through Suffolk.

Meanwhile, the rate of migration into Coventry had undoubtedly slowed down by the mid-sixties. Between 1961 and 1971 the population rose by nearly six per cent compared with a rise of nineteen per cent between 1951 and 1961. The failure of Coventry’s manufacturing industry to maintain immediate post-war growth rates was providing fewer opportunities for migrant manual workers, while the completion of the city centre redevelopment programme and the large housing schemes reduced the number of itinerant building workers. Between 1951 and 1966 the local population increased by approximately four thousand every year, but in the following five years the net annual increase fell to about a thousand per annum. Moreover, the proportion of this increase attributable to migration had dramatically declined. Between 1951 and 1961, a Department of the Environment survey estimated that whereas migration accounted for about forty-five per cent of population growth in the Coventry belt, in the following five years it made up only eighteen per cent. In the following three years to 1969, the survey noted that the same belt had begun, marginally, to lose population through out-migration.

Between the census of 1961 and the mini-census of 1966, some major shifts in the pattern of migration into Coventry took place. There was a substantial increase in immigration from Commonwealth countries, colonies and protectorates during these five years. The total number of those born in these territories stood at 11,340. The expansion needs to be kept in perspective, however. Nearly two-thirds of the local population was born in the West Midlands, and there were still nearly twice as many migrants from Ireland as from the Commonwealth and Colonies. Indeed, in 1966 only 3.5 per cent of Coventry’s population had been born outside the British Isles, compared with the national figure of five per cent. The Welsh stream had slowed down, increasing by only eight per cent in the previous fifteen years, and similar small increases were registered among migrants from Northern England. There were significant increases from Scotland, London and the South East, but only a very small increase from continental Europe.

By the mid-seventies, Coventry was faced with a new challenge posed by changes in the age structure of its population. The city was having to care for its increasing numbers of elderly citizens, a cost which soon became difficult to bear, given its declining economy. By 1974, it was estimated that the local population was rising by two thousand per year, twice the rate of the late 1960s. By 1976, however, the youthfulness of the city’s population was being lost as the proportion of over sixty-five-year-olds rose above the national average. With its large migrant element, it began to lose population rapidly during this decline, from 335,238 to 310,216 between 1971 and 1981, a fall of 7.5 per cent. Nearly sixty thousand jobs were lost during the recession, and given the shallowness of the family structure of many Coventrians, this resulted in a sizeable proportion of its citizens being all too willing to seek their fortunes elsewhere. For many others, given the widespread nature of the decline in manufacturing in the rest of the UK, there was simply nowhere to go.

Migration, Immigration and Racialism – Rivers of Blood:

Elsewhere, however, the number of ‘New Commonwealth’ immigrants was proving a cause for concern, mainly, as it seems in retrospect, to the skin colour of these immigrants, and partly, in the case of south Asians, due to religious and cultural differences with the host country. These ‘concerns’ were not new, and nor were the active forms of prejudice and discrimination which had accompanied them since the mid-fifties in the general population. In addition to dilapidated housing and racial discrimination in employment, and sometimes at the hands of the police, there was the added hazard of racial bigotry in older urban areas. What was new was the way in which this was articulated and amplified from the early sixties onwards by Conservative MPs and parliamentary candidates, leading to the emergence of the National Front as a political force in the early seventies.

Harold Wilson was always a sincere anti-racist, but he did not try to repeal the Conservatives’ 1962 Act with its controversial quota system. One of the new migrations that arrived to beat the 1963 quota system just before Wilson came to power came from a rural area of Pakistan threatened with flooding by a huge dam project. The poor farming villages from the Muslim north, particularly around Kashmir, were not an entrepreneurial environment. They began sending their men to earn money in the labour-starved textile mills of Bradford and the surrounding towns. Unlike the West Indians, the Pakistanis and Indians were more likely to send for their families soon after arrival in Britain. Soon there would be large, distinct Muslim communities clustered in areas of Bradford, Leicester and other older manufacturing towns.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-26.png

Unlike the West Indians, the Pakistanis and Indians were more likely to send for their families soon after arrival in Britain. Soon there would be large, distinct Muslim communities clustered in areas of Bradford, Leicester and other older manufacturing towns. The photo above shows a south Asian immigrant in a Bradford textile factory. But the decline of the textile industries in the 1970s led to high long-term unemployment in south Asian communities.

Unlike the Caribbean immigrants, who were largely Christian by background, these new streams of migration were bringing people who were religiously separated from the white ‘Christians’ around them and cut off from the main forms of working-class entertainment, many of which involved the consumption of alcohol, from which they abstained. Muslim women were expected to remain in the domestic environment and ancient traditions of arranged marriages carried over from the subcontinent meant that there was almost no intermarriage with the native population. To many of the ‘natives’, the ‘Pakis’, as they were then casually called, even to their faces, were less threatening than young Caribbean men, but they were also more culturally alien.

Wilson had felt strongly enough about the ‘racialist’ behaviour in the Tory campaign at Smethwick, to the west of Birmingham, in 1964, to publicly denounce its victor Peter Griffiths as a ‘parliamentary leper’. Smethwick had attracted a significant number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries, the largest ethnic group being Sikhs from Punjab in India, and there were also many Windrush Caribbeans settled in the area. There was also a background of factory closures and a growing waiting list for local council housing. Griffiths ran a campaign critical of both the opposition’s and the government’s immigration policies. The Conservatives were widely reported as using the slogan “if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour” but the neo-Nazi British Movement later claimed that its members had produced the initial slogan as well as led the poster and sticker campaign. However, Griffiths did not condemn the phrase and was quoted as saying:

“I should think that is a manifestation of popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that.”

The 1964 general election involved a nationwide swing from the Conservatives to the Labour Party which resulted in the party gaining a narrow five-seat majority. However, in Smethwick, as Conservative candidate, Peter Griffiths gained the seat and unseated the sitting Labour MP, Patrick Gordon-Walker, who had served as Shadow Foreign Secretary for the eighteen months prior to the election. In these circumstances, the Smethwick campaign, already attracting national media coverage, and the result itself stood out as clearly the result of racialism.

Griffiths, in his maiden speech to the Commons, pointed out what he believed were the real problems his constituency faced, including factory closures and over four thousand families awaiting council accommodation. But in 1965, Wilson’s new Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, tightened the quota system, cutting down on the number of dependents allowed in, and giving the Government the power to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, it offered the first Race Relations Act as a ‘sweetener’. This outlawed the use of the ‘colour bar’ in public places and by potential landlords, and discrimination in public services, also banning incitement to racial hatred like that seen in the Smethwick campaign. At the time, it was largely seen as toothless, yet the combination of restrictions on immigration and the measures to better integrate the migrants already in Britain did form the basis for all subsequent policies.

Birmingham’s booming postwar economy had not only attracted its ‘West Indian’ settlers from 1948 onwards, but had also ‘welcomed’ south Asians from Gujarat and Punjab in India, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) both after the war and the partition of India and in increasing numbers from the early 1960s. The South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards of the city and in west Birmingham, particularly Sparkbrook and Handsworth, as well as in Sandwell (see map above; then known as Smethwick and Warley). Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in less attractive, poorly paid, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and healthcare sectors of the public services. These jobs were filled by newcomers from the Commonwealth.

Whatever the eventual problems thrown up by the mutual sense of alienation between natives and immigrants, Britain’s fragile new consensus and ‘truce’ on race relations of 1964-65 were about to be broken by another form of racial discrimination, this time executed by Africans, mainly the Kikuyu people of Kenya. After the decisive terror and counter-terror of the Mau Mau campaign, Kenya won its independence under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta in 1963 and initially thrived as a relatively tolerant market economy. Alongside the majority of Africans, however, and the forty thousand whites who stayed after independence, there were some 185,000 Asians in Kenya.

They had mostly arrived during British rule, were mostly better off than the local Kikuyu, and were well-established as doctors, civil servants, traders, business people and police. They also had full British passports and therefore an absolute right of entry to Britain, which had been confirmed by meetings of Tory ministers before independence. When Kenyatta gave them the choice of surrendering their British passports and gaining full Kenyan nationality or becoming foreigners, dependent on work permits, most of them chose to keep their British nationality. In the generally unfriendly and sometimes menacing atmosphere of Kenya in the mid-sixties, this seemed the sensible option. Certainly, there was no indication from London that their rights to entry would be taken away.

The 1968 Immigration Act was specifically targeted at restricting Kenyan Asians with British passports. As conditions grew worse for them in Kenya, many of them decided to seek refuge in the mother country of the Empire which had settled them in the first place. Throughout 1967 they were coming in by plane at the rate of about a thousand per month. The newspapers began to depict the influx on their front pages and the television news, by now watched in most homes, showed great queues waiting for British passports and flights. It was at this point that Enoch Powell, Conservative MP for Wolverhampton and shadow minister, in an early warning shot, said that half a million East African Asians could eventually enter which was ‘quite monstrous’. He called for an end to work permits and a complete ban on dependants coming to Britain. Other prominent Tories, like Ian Macleod, argued that the Kenyan Asians could not be left stateless and that the British Government had to keep its promise to them. The Labour government was also split on the issue, with the liberals, led by Roy Jenkins, believing that only Kenyatta could halt the migration by being persuaded to offer better treatment. The new Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, on the other hand, was determined to respond to the concerns of Labour voters about the unchecked migration.

By the end of 1967, the numbers arriving per month had doubled to two thousand. In February 1968, Callaghan decided to act. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act effectively slammed the door while leaving a ‘cat flap’ open for a very small annual quota, leaving some twenty thousand people ‘stranded’ and stateless in a country which no longer wanted them. The bill was rushed through in the spring of 1968 and has been described as among the most divisive and controversial decisions ever taken by any British government. Some MPs viewed it as the most shameful piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament, the ultimate appeasement of racist hysteria. The government responded with a tougher anti-discrimination bill in the same year. For many others, however, the passing of the act was the moment when the political élite, in the shape of Jim Callaghan, finally woke up and listened to their working-class workers. Polls of the public showed that 72% supported the act. Never again would the idea of free access to Britain be seriously entertained by mainstream politicians.

This was the backcloth to the notorious Rivers of Blood speech made in Birmingham by Enoch Powell, in which he prophesied violent racial war if immigration continued. Powell had argued that the passport guarantee was never valid in the first place. Despite his unorthodox views, Powell was still a member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet which had just agreed to back Labour’s Race Relations Bill. But Powell had gone uncharacteristically quiet, apparently telling a local friend,

I’m going to make a speech at the weekend and it’s going to go up “fizz” like a rocket, but whereas all rockets fall to earth, this one is going to stay up. 

The ‘friend’, Clem Jones, the editor of Powell’s local newspaper, The Wolverhampton Express and Star, had advised him to time the speech for the early evening television bulletins, and not to distribute it generally beforehand. He came to regret the advice. In a small room at the Midland Hotel in Birmingham on 20th April 1968, three weeks after the act had been passed and the planes carrying would-be Kenyan Asian immigrants had been turned around, Powell quoted a Wolverhampton constituent, a middle-aged working man, who told him that if he had the money, he would leave the country because, in fifteen or twenty years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. Powell continued by asking rhetorically how he dared say such a horrible thing, stirring up trouble and inflaming feelings. He answered himself:

“The answer is I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking… ‘Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.’ We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual flow of some fifty thousand dependants, who are for the most part the material growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping its own its own funeral pyre.” 

He then used a classical illusion to make a controversial prophecy:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the river Tiber foaming with much blood.’

Enoch Powell, the influential opponent of immigration.

In the context of his speech to this point and his earlier pronouncements as a maverick right-winger, most people considered this a prophecy of a violent inter-racial war if black immigration continued. His inflammatory rhetoric was taken as a prediction that rivers of blood would flow similar to those seen in the recent race riots in the United States. The speech therefore quickly became known as The Rivers of Blood Speech and formed the backdrop of the legislation. He also made various accusations, made by other constituents, that they had been persecuted by ‘Negroes’, having excrement posted through their letterboxes and being followed to the shops by children, charming wide-grinning pickaninnies chanting “Racialist.” If Britain did not begin a policy of voluntary repatriation, it would soon face the kind of race riots that were disfiguring America. Powell claimed that he was merely restating Tory policy. But the language used and his own careful preparation suggests it was both a call to arms by a politician who believed he was fighting for white English nationhood and a deliberate provocation aimed at Powell’s enemy, Heath.

After horrified consultations when he and other leading Tories had seen extracts of the speech on the television news, Heath promptly ordered Powell to phone him, and summarily sacked him. Heath announced that he found the speech racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions. As Parliament returned three days after the speech, a thousand London dockers marched to Westminster in Powell’s support, carrying ‘Enoch is right’ placards; by the following day, he had received twenty thousand letters, almost all in support of his speech, with tens of thousands still to come. Smithfield meat porters and Heathrow airport workers also demonstrated in support of him. Powell received death threats and needed full-time police protection for a while; numerous marches were held against him and he found it difficult to make speeches at or near university campuses. Asked whether he was a racialist by the Daily Mail, he replied:

‘We are all racialists. Do I object to one coloured person in this country? No. To a hundred? No. To a million? (A query). To five million? Definitely.’

Did most people in 1968 agree with him, as Andrew Marr has suggested? It’s important to point out that, until he made this speech, Powell had been a Tory ‘insider’, though also seen as a maverick and a trusted member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet. He had rejected the consumer society growing around him in favour of what he saw as a ‘higher vision’. This was a romantic dream of an older, tougher, swashbuckling Britain, freed of continental and imperial (now ‘commonwealth’) entanglements, populated by ingenious, hard-working white people rather like himself. For this to become a reality, Britain would need to become a self-sufficient island, which ran entirely against the great forces of the time. His view was fundamentally nostalgic, harking back to the energetic Victorians and Edwardians. He drew sustenance from the people around him, who seemed to be excluded from mainstream politics. He argued that his Wolverhampton constituents had had immigration imposed on them without being asked and against their will.

But viewed from Fleet Street or the pulpits of broadcasting, he was seen as an irrelevance, marching off into the wilderness. In reality, although immigration was changing small patches of the country, mostly in west London, west Birmingham and the Black Country, it had, by 1968, barely impinged as an issue in people’s lives. That was why, at that time, it was relatively easy for the press and media to marginalize Powell and his acolytes in the Tory Party. He was expelled from the shadow cabinet for his anti-immigration speech, not so much for its racialist content, which was mainly given in reported speech, but for suggesting that the race relations legislation was merely throwing a match on gunpowder. This statement was a clear breach of shadow cabinet collective responsibility. Besides, the legislation controlling immigration and regulating race relations had already been passed, so it is difficult to see what Powell had hoped to gain from the speech, apart from embarrassing his nemesis, Ted Heath.

Edward Heath, leader of the Conservatives from 1965 & Prime Minister, 1970-74.
Ted’s Grandfather Clause & the Ugandan Refugees:

Despite the dramatic increase in wealth, coupled with the emergence of distinctive subcultures, technological advances and dramatic shifts in popular culture, there was a general feeling of disillusionment with Labour’s policies nationally. In the 1970 General Election, the Conservative Party, under its new leader Edward Heath, was returned to power. Although Enoch Powell had been sacked from the shadow cabinet by Heath, more legislative action followed with the 1971 Immigration Act, which effectively restricted citizenship on racial grounds by enacting the Grandfather Clause, by which a Commonwealth citizen who could prove that one of his or her grandparents was born in the UK was entitled to immediate entry clearance. This operated to the disadvantage of Black and Asian applicants while favouring citizens of the old Commonwealth, descendants of white settlers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Thus immigration control had moved away from primary immigration to restricting the entry of dependants, or secondary immigration.

Enoch Powell himself, from the back-benches, likened the distinction between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Commonwealth immigrants to a Nazi race purity law; he wanted a new definition of British citizenship instead. The grandparent rule was defeated by the right and left combining for opposite reasons but was restored two years later. In the meantime, the Kenyan crisis was replayed in another former East African colony, Uganda. Here, the swaggering, Sandhurst-educated Idi Amin had come to power in a coup. He announced that he had been told in a dream he must expel the country’s Asians, just as the Kenyans had theirs. Though Powell argued angrily that Britain had no obligation to allow the trapped Ugandan Asians into its cities, Heath acted decisively to bring them in. Airlifts were arranged, with a resettlement board to help them, and twenty-eight thousand arrived within a few weeks in 1971, eventually settling in the same areas as other East Africans, even though Leicester had published adverts in Ugandan newspapers pleading with them not to come there.

Those who knew Powell best claimed that he was not a racialist. The local newspaper editor, Clem Jones, thought that Enoch’s anti-immigration stance was not ideologically-motivated, but had simply been influenced by the anger of white Wolverhampton people who felt they were being crowded out; even in Powell’s own street of good, solid, Victorian houses, next door went sort of coloured and then another and then another house, and he saw the value of his own house go down. But, Jones added, Powell always worked hard as an MP for all his constituents, mixing with them regardless of colour:

We quite often used to go out for a meal, as a family, to a couple of Indian restaurants, and he was on extremely amiable terms with everybody there, ‘cos having been in India and his wife brought up in India, they liked that kind of food.

On the numbers migrating to Britain, however, Powell’s predicted figures were not totally inaccurate. Just before his 1968 speech, he had suggested that by the end of the century, the number of black and Asian immigrants and their descendants would number between five and seven million, about a tenth of the population. According to the 2001 census, 4.7 million people identified as black or Asian, equivalent to 7.9 per cent of the total population. Immigrants were, of course, far more strongly represented in percentage terms in English cities. Powell may have helped British society by speaking out on an issue that, until then, had remained taboo. However, the language of his discourse still seems quite inflammatory and provocative, even fifty years later, so much so that even historians hesitate to quote them. His words also helped to make the extreme-right Nazis of the National Front more acceptable. Furthermore, his core prediction of major civil unrest was not fulfilled, despite riots and street crime linked to disaffected youths from Caribbean immigrant communities in the 1980s. So, in the end, Enoch was not right, though he may have had a point.

Immigrants to Birmingham also tended to congregate in the western suburbs along the boundary with Smethwick, Warley, West Bromwich (now Sandwell), and Dudley, where many of them also settled. By 1971, the South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards and in north-west Birmingham, especially in Handsworth, Sandwell and Sparkbrook. Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards more skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in the poorly paid, less attractive, poorly paid, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and health care sectors of the public services. These jobs were filled by newcomers from the new Commonwealth. In the 1970s, poor pay and working conditions forced some of these workers to resort to strike action. Hostility to Commonwealth immigrants was pronounced in some sections of the local white population and what became known as white flight, migration from the inner city areas to the expanding suburbs to the southwest and east of the city, though it is still unclear to what extent this migration was really due to concerns about immigrants.

In nearby Coventry, despite these emerging signs of a stall in population growth by the end of the sixties, the authorities continued to view the city and its surroundings as a major area of demographic expansion. In October 1970 a Ministry of Housing representative predicted that the city’s population would rise by a third over the next twenty years. Immigration had changed Britain more than almost any other single social factor in post-war Britain, more significant than the increase in life expectancy, birth control, the death of deference or the spread of suburban housing. The only change that eclipses it is the triumph of the car. It was not a change that was asked for by the indigenous British cultures, though the terms and circumstances of fifty million people choosing suddenly to ask and answer such a question, possibly in a referendum, are impossible to imagine.

The majority of British people did not want the arrival of large numbers of Irish, West Indians and south Asians, but neither did they want an end to capital punishment or membership in a federal European Union, or many other things that their political élite decided upon. Yet, at no stage was there a measured, rational and frank debate about immigration between party leaders in front of the electorate. And while allowing this change to take effect piecemeal and by default, the main parties did very little to ensure the successful integration of immigrants from the Caribbean or the Indian subcontinent. When help was given, in the case of the East African Asian refugees, integration was more successful. But even with these sudden influxes, there was no real attempt to nurture mixed communities, avoiding mini-ghettoes such as those that developed in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. Race relations legislation did come, but only as a counter-balance to further restrictions.

Primary children celebrate Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, wearing their traditional dress.

As New Commonwealth immigrants began to become established in postwar Birmingham, community infrastructures, including places of worship, ethnic groceries, halal butchers and, most significantly, restaurants, began to develop. Birmingham became synonymous with the phenomenal rise of the ubiquitous curry house, and Sparkbrook in particular developed unrivalled Balti restaurants. These materially changed the city’s social life patterns among the native population. In addition to these obvious cultural contributions, the multilingual setting in which English exists today became more diverse in the sixties and seventies, especially due to immigration from the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean. The largest of the community languages was Punjabi, with over half a million speakers by the late seventies. Still, there were also substantial communities of Gujarati speakers, as many as a third of a million, and up to a hundred thousand Bengali speakers. In some areas, such as East London, public notices recognised this.

A Bengali road sign in East London.

A new level of linguistic and cultural diversity was introduced by Commonwealth immigration. This manifested itself not just in the various ‘new’ languages that entered Britain, but also in the development of new dialects of English originating in different parts of the old Empire, especially in the West Indies.

Inter-cultural Diversity, Music & Integration:

Within the British West Indian community, Jamaican English, or the patois – as it is known – has had a special place as a token of identity. While there were complicated social pressures that frowned on Jamaican English in Jamaica, with parents complaining when their children ‘talk local’ too much, in England, it became almost obligatory to do so in London. One Jamaican schoolgirl who made the final passage to the Empire’s capital city with her parents in the seventies put it like this:

It’s rather weird ’cos when I was in Jamaica I wasn’t really allowed to speak it (Jamaican creole) in front of my parents. I found it difficult in Britain at first. When I went to school I wanted to be like the others in order not to stand out. So I tried speaking the patois as well… You get sort of a mixed reception. Some people say, ’You sound really nice, quite different.’ Other people say, ’You’re a foreigner, speak English. Don’t try to be like us, ’cos you’re not like us.’

Despite the mixed reception from her British West Indian friends, she persevered with the patois, and, as she put it after a year I lost my British accent, and was accepted. However, for many Caribbean visitors to Britain, the patois of Brixton and Notting Hill was a stylised form that was not, as they saw it, truly Jamaican, not least because British West Indians came from all parts of the Caribbean. Another West Indian schoolgirl, born in London and visiting Jamaica for the first time, was teased for her patois. She was told that she didn’t sound right and that. The experience convinced her that…

… in London the Jamaicans have developed their own language in patois, sort of. ’Cos they make up their own words in London, in, like, Brixton. And then it just develops into patois as well.

Researchers found that there were already white children in predominantly black schools who had begun using the British West Indian patois in order to be accepted by the majority of their friends, who were black:

I was born in Brixton and I’ve been living here for seventeen years, and so I just picked it up from hanging around with my friends who are mainly Black people. And so I can relate to them by using it, because otherwise I’d feel an outcast… But when I’m with someone else who I don’t know I try to speak as fluent English as possible. It’s like I feel embarrassed about it (the patois), I feel like I’m degrading myself by using it.

The unconscious racism of such comments pointed to the predicament of Black Britons. Not fully accepted, for all their rhetoric, by the established native population, they felt neither fully Caribbean nor fully British. This was the poignant outcome of what the British Black writer Caryl Phillips called The Final Passage. Phillips, who came to Britain as a baby in the late 1950s, was one of the first of his generation to grapple with the problem of finding a means of literary self-expression that was true to his experience:

The paradox of my situation is that where most immigrants have to learn a new language, Caribbean immigrants have to learn a new form of the same language. It induces linguistic schizophrenia – you have an identity crisis that mirrors the larger cultural confusion.

In his novel, The Final Passage, the narrative is in Standard English. But the speech of the characters is a rendering of nation language:

I don’t care what anyone tell you, going to England be good for it going to raise your mind. For a West Indian boy you just being there is an education, for you going see what England do for sheself… It’s a college for the West Indian.

The lesson of this college is, as Phillips puts it, that symptomatic of the colonial situation, the language has been divided as well. English – creole or standard – was the only available language in the British Black community and in the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean.

By the end of the seventies, Caribbean and Rastafarian Reggae music were beginning to have a broad impact on British pop culture. In Birmingham, a group of out-of-work young white men formed the band UB40, named after their benefit claim forms. The multicultural band Steel Pulse also became popular. On the other side of rock ‘politics’, there was an eruption of racist, skinhead rock, and a ‘casual’ but influential interest in the far right from among more established artists. At a concert at the Birmingham Odeon, in 1976, Eric Clapton, arriving on stage an hour late either drunk or stoned (or both), enquired as to whether there were any immigrants in the audience. He then said, to the shock and disgust of almost everyone there, Powell is the only bloke whose telling the truth, for the good of the country. David Bowie was also heard to flirt with far-right ideas and Sid Vicious of the punk band, The Sex Pistols, contributed the following dubious lyrics to contemporary political thought:

‘Belsen was a gas/ I read the other day/ About the open graves/ Where the Jews all lay …’

Punk gets cheeky: Vivienne Westwood (centre), Chrissie Hynde (left) and Jordan advertise Westwood’s King’s Road punk shop, Sex, in 1976.

Reacting to the surrounding mood, as well as to concerns about these deliberately outrageous statements and actions (McLaren and Westwood produced clothing with swastikas and other Nazi emblems), Rock Against Racism was formed in August 1976, organising a series of charity concerts throughout Britain and helping to create the wider Anti-Nazi League a year later. Punk bands were at the forefront of the RAR movement, above all The Clash whose lead singer Joe Strummer became more influential than Johnny Rotten and the rest of the Sex Pistols. Ska and Soul music also had a real influence in turning street culture decisively against racism. Coventry’s Ska revival band, The Specials captured and expressed this new mood. The seventies produced, in the middle of visions of social breakdown, a musical revival which reflected the reality of a lost generation, whilst in turn reviving their sense of enjoyment of life. As one contemporary cultural critic put it:

‘A lifestyle – urban, mixed, music-loving, modern and creative – had survived, despite being under threat from the NF.’

Dave Haslam (2005), Not Abba, Fourth Estate.

Punk rock was in part a reaction against growing youth unemployment and also came to symbolise a rejection of commercialism. Ironically, as with earlier youth sub-cultures, it soon became highly commercialised.

Punk rockers

The streets might be dirty and living standards falling, but by the end of the seventies, the streets were also getting safer from racist thugs and, contrary to some stereotypes, the quality of life was improving. The integration of diverse cultures and sub-cultures was working at a ‘local’ street level and in parish schools, not directed from the top down.

The arrival of Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism transformed the celebration of religious faith, including Christianity, in many schools. In 1970 there were about 300,000 Muslims in Britain. By 1990 this number had grown to one million. There were more than three hundred mosques, the largest of which was in Central London. There were also Sikh and Hindu communities, each numbering around 300,000 members. For many Christians at Advent, the school Nativity play and carol service remained the main traditions, but many schools were developing new customs and practices to ensure that pupils from a range of backgrounds and faiths were included. It was increasingly recognised that a lack of thought or sensitivity on the part of schools at this time of year could negate much of the rest of the year to improve community relations. Parents seemed to be satisfied with the diverse menu on offer. They turned up in their thousands to see their children perform in celebrations which were primarily a source of fun for all.

Above: Christmas celebrations in the Scottish Highlands and inner-city comprehensive in London. Top: at Islington Green Secondary School, pupils of all ethnicities give traditional performances and learn each other’s national dances. Bottom: Christmas decorations at Kirkton Primary School.

Economic Decline & Deindustrialisation:

A great variety of explanations for the decline in British industrial competitiveness were put forward, and have continued to be debated since. None of these explanations has proved wholly satisfactory, however. One explanation suggests that there is a cultural obstacle, that the British have been conditioned to despise industry. This might be a relevant argument to apply to a new England, with an industrial heritage going back only two or three generations, and to the old England, the traditional rural areas, although even in these areas it would be something of a stereotype, it would be difficult to apply to industrial Britain, with its generations of coal miners, shipbuilders, foundry and factory workers.

During the depression years of the 1930s many of these workers, finding themselves unemployed, had, like the father of Norman Tebbitt (Margaret Thatcher’s Party Chairman in the late seventies) got on their bikes, or walked long distances, in their hundreds of thousands to find work in the new manufacturing areas. With no jobs to find anywhere in the seventies, these were pretty pointless words of advice. Pointless or not, Tebbitt’s speech was picked up by the popular Tory press and appeared in the banner On Your Bike headlines which have since become so emblematic of the Thatcher era. Unfortunately, the same press used them to put forward a related argument that the British were not sufficiently materialistic to work hard for the rewards associated with improved productivity. Complacency from generations of national success has also been blamed, as has the Welfare State’s cosseting of both the workforce and those out of work.

Keynes’ argument had been that keeping workers in employment multiplied the effect through the economy as they spent part of their incomes on goods and services was shown to operate in the opposite direction through the effects of rising unemployment. However, the majority of people of working and voting age had no adult memory of their own of the 1930s, and radical politicians were able to exploit these demographics to their advantage to argue the case for monetarism with tight controls on public spending. In these circumstances, voters felt that spending public money on ailing industries was wasteful and inappropriate, especially as it raised their tax burden.

The story of 1970s Britain, whether viewed from an economic, social or cultural perspective can be summed up by one word, albeit a long one – deindustrialisation. As with the processes of industrialisation two centuries before, Britain led the way in what was to become a common experience of all the mature industrial nations. The so-called maturity thesis suggested that, as industries developed and became more technologically sophisticated, they required less labour. At the same time, rising living standards meant that more wealth was available, beyond what would normally be spent on basic necessities and consumer goods, giving rise to a growing demand for services such as travel, tourism and entertainment. By 1976, services had become the largest area of employment in all the regions of Britain.

Another problem faced by the manufacturing sector was the long-standing British taste for imported goods. Many observers noted that not only was the country failing to compete internationally, but British industry was also losing its cutting edge when competing with foreign imports in the domestic market. The problem of deindustrialisation, therefore, became entwined with the debate over Britain’s long decline as a trading nation, going back over a century. It was seen not only as an economic decline but as a national failure, ownership of which in speeches and election propaganda, even in education, struck deep within the collective British cultural psyche. By 1977, if not before, its role as the world’s first and leading industrial nation was finally over, just as its time as an imperial power had effectively ended fifteen years earlier, as Dean Acheson had commented. It was another question as to whether the British people and politicians were prepared to accept these salient facts and move on.

British industry’s share of world trade fell dramatically during these years, and by 1975 it was only half what it had been in the 1950s, falling to just ten per cent. Nor could it maintain its hold on the domestic market. A particularly extreme example of this was the car industry: in 1965, with Austin minis selling like hotcakes, only one car in twenty was imported, but by 1978 nearly half were. In addition, many of the staple industries of the nineteenth century, such as coal and shipbuilding, continued to decline as employers, surviving only, if at all, through nationalisation. In addition, many of the new industries of the 1930s, including the car industry, were seemingly in terminal decline by the 1970s, as we have seen in the case of Coventry. Therefore, deindustrialisation was no longer simply a problem for an old Britain, it was also one for a new England. It was even a problem for East Anglia because although it was not so dependent on manufacturing, and services were growing, agriculture had also declined considerably.

Alternatively, the government’s failure adequately to support research and development has been blamed for Britain’s manufacturing decline, together with the exclusive cultural and educational backgrounds of Westminster politicians and government ministers, and Whitehall civil servants. This exclusivity, it is argued, left them ignorant of, and indifferent to, the needs of industry. Employment in manufacturing reached a peak of nine million in 1966. After that, it fell rapidly, to four million by 1994. Much of this loss was sustained in the older industries of Northwest England, but the bulk of it was spread across the newer industrial areas of the Midlands and Southeast.

Between 1973 and 1975 there was the first of three severe recessions. When Wilson returned to number ten in February 1974, he faced a huge balance-of-payments crisis and the tumbling value of the pound. He was trying to govern without an overall majority at a time when the economy was still recovering from the effect of the oil price shock, with inflation raging and unemployment rising. Inflation reached twenty-four per cent by 1975, and it came to be seen as a far more urgent problem than unemployment. Furthermore, the fragile and implausible Social Contract now had to be tested. Almost the first thing Labour did was to settle with the miners for double what Heath had thought possible. The new Chancellor, Denis Healey, introduced an emergency Budget soon after the election, followed by another in the autumn, raising income tax to eighty-three per cent at the top rate, and ninety-eight per cent for unearned income, a level so eyewateringly high it has been used against Labour ever since. Healey also increased help for the poorest, with higher pensions and subsidies on housing and food. He was trying to deliver for the unions by upholding his side of the social contract, as was Wilson when he abolished the Tories’ employment legislation.

In October 1974, a second general election gave Labour eighteen more seats and a workable overall majority of three. Much of Healey’s energy, continuing as Chancellor, was thrown into dealing with the unstable world economy, with floating currencies and inflation-shocked governments. He continued to devalue the pound against the dollar and to tax and cut as much as he dared, but his only real hope of controlling inflation was to control wages. Wilson insisted that his income policy must be voluntary, with no return or recourse to the legal restraints of the Heath government. The unions became increasingly worried that rampant inflation might bring back the Tories. So, for a while, the Social Contract did deliver fewer strikes, which halved and halved again the following year. Contrary to popular myth, the seventies were not all about mass meetings and walk-outs. The real trouble did not begin again until the winter of 1978-79.

But the other side of the social contract was not delivered. By the early months of 1975, the going rate for increases was already thirty per cent, a third higher than inflation. By June inflation was up to twenty-three per cent, and wage settlements were even further ahead. The government then introduced an element of compulsion, but this applied to employers who offered too much, rather than to trade unions. Nevertheless, Healey reckoned that two-thirds of his time was taken up in managing the inflationary effects of free collective bargaining. In his memoirs, he reflected:

‘Adopting a pay policy is rather like jumping out of a second-floor window: no one in his senses would do it unless the stairs were on fire. But in postwar Britain the stairs have always been on fire.’

Denis Healey (1989), The Time of My Life. Michael Joseph.

Healey did, however, manage to squeeze inflation downwards. He also reflected that, had the unions kept their promises, it would have been down to single figures by the autumn of 1975. At the same time, Healey continued to tax higher earners more, concentrating tax cuts on the worse off. Though notorious (somewhat unfairly) for promising that he would make the rich howl with anguish and that he would squeeze them until the pips squeak, Healey argued that it was the only way of making the country fairer. He never accepted the Tory tenet that higher taxes stopped people from working harder and instead blamed Britain’s poor industrial performance on low investment, and poor training and management, as others have done since.

What we now know is that Wilson wasn’t planning to stay long in his second premiership. There are many separate records of his private comments about retiring at sixty, after two more years in power. If he had not privately decided that he would go in 1976, he certainly acted as if he had. The question of who would succeed him, Jenkins or Callaghan, Healey or even Benn, had become one about the direction of the Labour government, rather than a personal threat to Wilson himself, so there was less rancour around the cabinet table. He seems likely to have known about his early stages of Alzheimer’s, which would wreak a devastating time on him in retirement. He had already begun to forget facts, confuse issues and repeat himself. For a man whose memory and sharp wit had been so important, this must have taken a huge toll. It was Jim Callaghan who finally replaced Wilson at number ten after a series of votes by Labour MPs. But for three turbulent years, he ran a government with no overall majority in Parliament, kept going by a series of deals and pacts, and in an atmosphere of constant crisis.

Callaghan was the third and last of the consensus-seeking centrist PMs after Wilson and Heath, and the first postwar occupant of the office not to have gone to ‘Oxbridge.’ In fact, he had not been to university at all. The son of a Royal Navy chief petty officer who had died young and a devout Baptist mother from Portsmouth, he had known real poverty and had clawed his way up as a young clerk working for the Inland Revenue, and then as a union official, before wartime naval service. Like Healey, he was one of the 1945 generation of MPs, a young rebel who had drifted rightwards while always keeping his strong trade union instincts. He was a social conservative, uneasy about divorce, homosexuality and vehemently pro-police, pro-monarchy and pro-military. He was also anti-hanging and strongly anti-racialist. As Home Secretary, he had announced that the permissive society had gone too far. On the economy, he became steadily more impressed by monetarists like the Tory MP Keith Joseph. He told the 1976 Labour Conference, used to Keynesian doctrines about governments spending their way out of recession, …

‘… that option no longer exists and that insofar as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy … Higher inflation, followed by higher unemployment. That is the history of the last twenty years.’

Yet Callaghan is forever associated with failure in the national memory. This was due to the Labour government’s cap-in-hand begging for help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Healey had negotiated a six-pound pay limit with the unions that would eventually feed through into lower wage increases and thereby lower inflation. Cash limits brought in under Wilson would also radically cut public expenditure. But in the spring of 1976 inflation was still rampant and unemployment was rising fast. Healey told Callaghan that because of the billions spent by the Bank of England supporting sterling in the first months of the year, a loan from the IMF looked essential. In June, standby credits were arranged with the IMF and countries including the United States, Germany, Japan and Switzerland.

Healey had imposed tough cuts in the summer but by its end, the pound was under intense pressure again. On 27th September, he was meant to fly out to a Commonwealth finance ministers’ conference in Hong Kong with the Governor of the Bank of England, but so great was the crisis and so panicked were the markets that he decided he could not afford to be in the air and out of contact for so long. In full view of the television cameras, he turned around at Heathrow and headed for Treasury, where he decided to apply to the IMF for a conditional loan, one which gave authority to the international banking officials above Britain’s elected leaders. Almost simultaneously, the Ford workers went on strike. Close to a nervous breakdown, and against Callaghan’s advice, Healey decided to dash to the Labour conference in Blackpool and make his case to an angry and anguished party. Many on the left were making a strong case for a siege economy; telling the IMF to ‘get lost,’ cutting imports and nationalising swathes of industry. Given just five minutes to speak from the floor, the Chancellor warned his party that this would risk a trade war, mass unemployment and the return of a Tory government. He shouted against a rising hubbub that he would negotiate with the IMF, which would mean…

“… things we do not like as well as things we do like … it means sticking to the very painful cuts in public expenditure … it means sticking to the pay policy.

Denis Healey, Chancellor of the Exchequer during the economic storm, made a characteristic point (or two) to his opponents at the Labour conference.

So, with the cabinet watching on nervously, the negotiations started with the IMF, which insisted on severe funding cuts. Callaghan and Healey naturally wanted to limit these as far as they could, but the IMF, with the US Treasury standing behind them, was under pressure to squeeze even harder. The British were in a horribly weak position, not least because the government was riven by arguments and threats of resignation, including from Healey. The cabinet was split over what levels of cuts were acceptable and whether there was any real alternative in the form of a leftist siege economy. Callaghan and the lead IMF negotiator held private talks in which the PM warned that British democracy itself would be imperilled by mass unemployment. But the IMF was still calling for an extra billion pounds worth of cuts and it was only when Healey, without telling Callaghan, threatened the international bankers with yet another Who runs Britain? election, that they gave way. The final package of cuts was announced in Healey’s budget, severe but not as grim as some had feared, but still greeted with headlines about Britain’s shame.

As it turned out, however, the whole package was unnecessary from the start. The cash limits Healey had already imposed on Whitehall would cut spending far more effectively than anyone realised. More startling still, the public spending statistics, on which the cuts were based, and especially the estimates for borrowing, were wildly wrong. The public finances were stronger than they appeared. The IMF-directed cuts were therefore more savage than they needed to be. Britain’s balance of payment came back into balance long before the cuts could take effect and Healey reflected later that had he been given accurate forecasts in 1976, he would never have needed to go to the IMF at all. In the end, only half the loan was used, all of which was repaid before Labour left office.

Factory workers strike and picket over low pay and closures in 1977.

Following the IMF affair, the pound recovered strongly, the markets recovered, inflation fell, eventually to single figures, and unemployment fell too. But the contraction of manufacturing began to accelerate and there was a national and international swing to the right as a reaction against perceived high-taxing and high-spending governments. Demands were being made that governments cease propping up ‘lame duck’ industries with public money. Attacks on trade union power continued, coming to a head in the ‘Winter of Discontent’ of 1978-79, when there was an explosion of resentment, largely by poorly paid public employees, against a government income policy they felt was discriminatory.

Rubbish piled up in London during the ‘Winter of Discontent’ of 1978/79.

Appendix II: HRHs Prince Charles & Princess Anne – Vision & Work:

Following his Investiture as Prince of Wales, Charles was sent around the world as the heir to the throne and the House of Windsor-Mountbatten’s new star. Returning to Cambridge the following year, he finished his studies and took his bachelor’s degree.

He then went to the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, where his mother and father had first met and where Prince Philip had trained as an officer in the Royal Navy before the Second World War. Charles also trained at the Royal Air Force College, becoming a helicopter pilot. From 1971 to 1976 he took a tour of duty in the Royal Navy. As Prince of Wales, Charles wanted to make a difference. He possessed a personal vision of harmony between human society and the natural world. He was outspoken in talking about the environment which was then viewed as being a niche interest and a marginal issue, and he was therefore seen by many as being quite eccentric. But he continued to develop his interests in gardening, sustainability and conservation, in addition to architecture, spirituality and social reform. He shared many of these interests with his father. On leaving the Navy in 1976, he founded The Prince of Wales’s Institute for Architecture and was involved with urban regeneration and development projects. He also set up The Prince’s Trust to help young people get into work and the Business in the Community scheme. In addition, he oversaw the management of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Throughout the 1970s, pressure grew on Charles to marry. He loved sports, especially playing polo, and was seen as one of the world’s most eligible bachelors, appearing on covers of magazines and tabloid newspapers, and with beautiful society women, including Camilla Shand, who later married and then divorced Andrew Parker-Bowles.

The Royal Family Tree, 1894-1990:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 001-15.jpg

Princess Anne, also known as Princess Royal, is the Queen’s only daughter. She was given this title by the Queen in 1987. She is a keen and capable horsewoman and won the European Championships in 1971. For this, she was also voted BBC Sports Personality of the Year by millions of television viewers. She represented Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. In 1970 she became President of the Save the Children Fund, gaining great admiration for her tireless work for her charity around the world, as seen in the photo below (the princess is in the centre, wearing a saffron top).

Sources:

Andrew Marr (2007, ’08, ’09), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Philip Parker (2017), History of Britain in Maps. Glasgow: HarperCollins.

John Hayward & Simon Hall (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Gwyn A. Williams (1985), When Was Wales? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Featured

Majesty & Grace IX: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor, 1963-78: Part 1 – Rebellious Britons.

Protest & Planning, 1963-68 – Youth, Vietnam & Grosvenor Square:

The 1960s were dramatic years in Britain. Demographic trends, especially the increase in the proportion of teenagers in the population, coincided with economic affluence and ideological experimentation to reconfigure social mores to a revolutionary extent. In 1964, under Harold Wilson, the Labour Party came into power, promising economic and social modernisation. Economically, the main problems of the decade arose from the devaluation of the currency in 1967 and the increase in industrial action. This was the result of deeper issues in the economy, such as the decline of the manufacturing industry to less than one-third of the workforce. By contrast, employment in the service sector rose to over half of all workers.

Young people were most affected by the changes of the 1960s. Overall, the period from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s was a long period of economic expansion and demographic growth which helped to fuel educational development in England. Education gained new prominence in government circles and student numbers soared. By 1966, seven new universities had opened: Sussex (pictured below), East Anglia, Warwick, Essex, York, Lancaster and Kent.

From a pamphlet on the History of Architecture.

By 1972 there were forty-five universities, compared with just seventeen in 1945. By 1966, seven new universities had opened, including the University of East Anglia and the University of Warwick at Canley near Coventry. More importantly, perhaps, students throughout the country were becoming increasingly radicalised as a response to growing hostility towards what they perceived as the political and social complacency of the older generation. They staged protests on a range of issues, from dictatorial university decision-making to apartheid in South Africa, and the continuance of the Vietnam War. But not all members of the ‘older generation’ were ‘complacent’ and many joined in the protests.

Above: A Quaker ‘advertisement’ in the Times, February 1968.

The Vietnam War not only angered the young of Britain but also placed immense strain on relations between the US and British governments. Although the protests against the Vietnam War were less violent than those in the United States, partly because of more moderate policing in Britain, there were major demonstrations all over the country; the one which took place in London’s Grosvenor Square, home to the US Embassy, in 1968, involved a hundred thousand protesters. Like the world of pop, ‘protest’ was essentially an American import. When counter-cultural poets put on an evening of readings at the Albert Hall in 1965, alongside a British contingent which included Adrian Mitchell and Christopher Logue, the ‘show’ was dominated by the Greenwich Village guru, Allen Ginsberg.

It was perhaps not surprising that the American influence was strongest in the anti-war movement. When the Vietnam Solidarity Committee organised three demonstrations outside the US embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square, the second of them particularly violent, they were copying the cause and the tactics used to much greater effect in the United States. The student sit-ins and occupations at Hornsey and Guildford Art Colleges and Warwick University were pale imitations of the serious unrest on US and French campuses. Hundreds of British students went over to Paris to join what they hoped would be a revolution in 1968, until de Gaulle, with the backing of an election victory, crushed it. This was on a scale like nothing seen in Britain, with nearly six hundred students arrested in fights with the police on a single day and ten million workers on strike across France.

Modernising Britain, 1963-68:

Andrew Marr has commented that the term ‘Modern Britain’ does not simply refer to the look and shape of the country – the motorways and mass car economy, the concrete, sometimes ‘brutalist’ architecture, the rock music and the high street chains. It also refers to the widespread belief in planning and management. It was a time of practical men, educated in grammar schools, sure of their intelligence. They rolled up their sleeves and took no-nonsense. They were determined to scrap the old and the fusty, whether that meant the huge Victorian railway network, the Edwardian, old Etonian establishment in Whitehall, terraced housing, censorship, prohibitions on homosexual behaviour and abortion.

The map (below) unveiled by British Transport Commission Chairman Sir Richard Beeching in March 1963 marked the symbolic end of the great railway age. Taking an axe, as he had, to great swathes of rural lines, Beeching tried to fend off the challenge posed by the growth of road transportation and left large areas of the countryside with no train services at all. The spider’s web of the track as shown in his report, The Reshaping of the British Railways, with black indicating those routes which were to be closed and red the lines that had been selected for survival (though not all with stopping services), was Beeching’s way of solving a problem which had been apparent for some time: the railways were simply not profitable. Ticket revenues and freight charges were hopelessly inadequate to defray the expenses of running a comprehensive network, particularly as successive governments had taken the way of political least resistance by acceding to demands for higher wages in the rail industry, while at the same time keeping a ceiling on fare increases.

There had been some rationalisation already. Around 1,300 miles had been closed by 1939 and after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948, the new British Transport Commission had pared down another 3,300 miles by 1962. But the salami-slicing of selected lines could not stem the losses, which had reached just over a hundred million in the same year. Many feared that the unspoken policy of combining unstoppable costs with an unmovably large network would lead to the death of the railways. Beeching, on secondment from ICI, at the time Britain’s largest manufacturer, stepped in with a solution that was as unpalatable as it was logical. His report provided a stark analysis that fifty per cent of Britain’s rail routes provided only two per cent of its revenues and that half of the 4,300 stations had annual receipts of less than ten thousand pounds. Some lines covered barely ten per cent of their running costs. To save the arterial rail routes, Beeching proposed ripping out the veins, ruthlessly shutting down railway tracks where there was no prospect of a profitable service, or where routes were duplicated. He earmarked for closure half of those stations still operating in 1962 and five thousand miles of track, about a third of the total remaining.

There were howls of protest and a few lines in Scotland, Wales and the southwest of England were reprieved. Some stretches were saved and turned into heritage railways, but most remained neglected and grassed over. The losses that Beeching had hoped to stem continued. It was estimated that the savings were only thirty million per year, compared with continuing costs of a hundred million p.a. by 1968. In the same year, a new Transport Act accepted that the railways would need to receive a subsidy for a further three years. But the British government, subsequently, never did rid itself of the need to subsidise the country’s rail system. Yet the rail system avoided complete collapse, and in terms of passenger numbers, prospered, so that journeys, which had declined from 965 million a year in 1962 to 835 million in 1965. The railways were also made more efficient with the closure of almost six thousand miles of track and two thousand stations after the Beeching report of 1963. Thereafter, they concentrated on fast intercity services and bulk-freight transportation. Beeching’s axe may have wounded the railways, but the blood-letting ultimately allowed them to survive, and even, in many areas, to thrive.

The Troubles in Ireland & Terrorism in Britain, 1964-1974:

In 1963 Terence O’Neill had become Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. His government’s policies of economic modernisation coincided with and encouraged a growing self-confidence among the Catholic middle classes, who were willing to accept the continuing participation of Ireland provided that they were given equal status within Northern Ireland. This confidence found expression in the civil rights of the mid-sixties, which campaigned in particular on issues of discrimination against the Catholic minority in housing and electoral gerrymandering. O’Neill’s Catholic-friendly rhetoric began to alienate the more conservative fringes of unionism, but it was the emergence of the radical People’s Democracy movement and its socialist anti-state wing that made the prime minister’s standing within his own party increasingly difficult.

The stump of Nelson’s Pillar, on Sackville Street (Now O’Connell Street).

When Nelson’s Pillar in the centre of Dublin was blown up by the Official IRA on 8th March 1966, the biggest controversy about it was why it had taken 157 years for the demolition to happen. Constructed circa 1808, the Protestant Ascendency class who had erected it had then celebrated. For many, the resentment had run deep. Almost fifty years after the Easter 1916 Rising in Dublin had blazed the trail towards Irish Independence and the establishment of the Republic, an English colonialist still towered over every other notable in Ireland’s capital city, they groused. The reason it had taken fifty years to remove the pillar was to be found within the capital itself, but the reason for it happening in 1966 had much to do with what had been taking place in Ireland’s partitioned northern city, Belfast. There, and in other towns in the North, Nationalist politics had moved onto the streets, where demonstrations and counter-demonstrations frequently led to riots.

For Nationalists in Ireland, both North and South, Northern Ireland was an artificial state kept in being by the control of the Protestant majority from 1922 onwards. By 1962 it was in disarray. A powerful civil rights movement arose on behalf of the nationalist (and usually Roman Catholic) minority. But, in practice, attempts to maintain inter-religious and intercultural harmony broke down.

The radicals may only have wanted a fully democratic society, but the majority of the province’s population increasingly saw this as a return to the age-old struggle for power between unionists and nationalists. While the last unionist government at Stormont from 1969 to 1972 were trying to create a consensus by granting most of the civil rights demands, the revival of the latent violent sectarianism made the province ungovernable.

The Westminster government deployed troops in the province in 1969 and moved into Belfast and Londonderry to preserve order. An alarming spate of bombing attacks on English cities signified that the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein were taking the almost century-long struggle into a new and sinister phase. Then, in 1972, the most violent year of the Troubles, Westminster and Whitehall took over the government of Northern Ireland through Direct Rule. In that year, over four hundred people in the province lost their lives as a result of political violence.

A rioter throws a petrol bomb at British soldiers and police in Belfast in 1972.

The British government had only reluctantly become involved. Its subsequent policies were aimed at finding a political solution by creating a middle ground where the liberal wings of nationalism and unionism could find a consensus that would eventually make the militants of both sides redundant. This strategy proved unsuccessful, not least because of the nature and internal logic of direct rule. Because they were denied direct access to power, both sides could attack British policies as inappropriate and for failing to deliver their respective demands. At the same time, paramilitaries of both sides could drive the point home by violence that was, at least in part, justifiable in the eyes of their respective communities.

On the afternoon of May Day in 1971 John Evans, manager of the hugely popular Kensington boutique Biba, walked nervously downstairs into the store’s basement. There had been a series of outlandish phone calls warning about some kind of bomb, which to start with had simply been ignored by the assistant on the till. However, five hundred women and children had been evacuated by the time Evans pushed open the door of the stock room. There was an almighty bang, a flash and a flame and a billow of smoke. The Angry Brigade, mainland Britain’s own terror group, had struck again. They had chosen Biba, they said in their statement, because they saw boutiques as modern slave houses, for both their staff and customers. What they did not seem to realise was that Biba’s customers found it liberating, not oppressive. In some ways, the Biba bombing was the event that marked the end of the sixties dream. Two of the main forces behind the youth culture were at war with each other, the fantasy of the Angry Young People and that of the benign hippies as part of the consumer culture of cool clothes. The two subcultures, Biba and the Angries were two sides of the same coin of sixties youth culture.

The small group of university dropouts who made up the Angry Brigade would go to prison for ten years after a hundred and twenty-three attacks, but they are little remembered now. But they were the nearest Britain came to an anarchist threat, both anti-Communist and anti-Capitalist. That also made them anti-liberal. Western democracy, Stalinism, the media, the drug-taking hippy culture, modern architecture and even tourism were all targets for attack. More broadly and seriously, in the later sixties and early seventies, with significant minorities on the march from Brixton to Belfast, the liberal consensus in the United Kingdom seemed to be breaking down just as it had almost done in 1910-14. Beneath the veneer of public contentment, there were, in reality, divisive forces deeply entrenched in British society in the sixties. In the period of Harold Wilson’s first premiership (1964-70), a wide range of radical groups were exploding into revolt. The Angries were an extreme, violent manifestation of this revolt, but many young Britons were finding the values of consumerism and conformity unappealing in a world whose ecology was being disturbed and whose very existence was threatened by weapons of unimaginable horror.

Clearly, then, in the early seventies violence, even in the form of anti-State terrorism, had become a common theme on both sides of the Irish Sea. If there was one moment when the ‘troubles’ became unstoppable it was 30th January 1972, ‘Bloody Sunday’, when troops from the Parachute Regiment killed thirteen unarmed civilians in Londonderry. Albeit reluctantly, Edward Heath introduced internment without trial for suspected terrorists. He authorised the arrest and imprisonment in Long Kesh prison of 337 IRA suspects. In dawn raids, three thousand troops had found three-quarters of the people they were looking for, though even among these were many old or inactive former ‘official’ IRA members. Many of the active ‘Provo’ (Provisional IRA) leaders escaped south of the border. Protests came in from around the world. There was an immediate upsurge of violence, with twenty-one people killed in three days. Bombings and shooting simply increased in intensity. In the first eight weeks of 1972, forty-nine people were killed and more than 250 were seriously injured. Amid this already awful background, Bloody Sunday was an appalling day when Britain’s reputation around the world was damaged almost irrevocably. In Dublin, ministers reacted with fury and the British embassy was burned to the ground.

The tragic event in Londonderry made it easier for the ‘Provos’ to raise funds abroad, especially in the United States. This support emboldened the ‘Provos’, who hit back with a bomb attack on the Parachute Regiment’s Aldershot headquarters, killing seven people, none of them soldiers. The initial escalation of violence in ‘the province’ led to the imposition, by degrees, of direct rule by Whitehall. But all British political and administrative initiatives encountered perennial problems: one side or the other, and sometimes both, was unwilling to accept what was proposed. Ted Heath believed that he needed to persuade Dublin to drop its longstanding constitutional claim to the North, and, simultaneously, to persuade mainstream Unionists to work with moderate Nationalist politicians. His first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a new post made necessary by direct rule, William Whitelaw, met the Provisional IRA leaders, including Gerry Adams, for face-to-face talks, a desperate and risky gamble which, however, led nowhere. There was no compromise yet available that would bring about a ceasefire.

So, ignoring the Provos, the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 proposed a power-sharing executive of six Unionists, four Nationalists (SDLP) and one non-sectarian Alliance Party member. It failed because the majority of Unionists would not accept an Irish dimension in the form of the proposed Council of Ireland, bringing together politicians from both sides of the border with powers over a limited range of issues. This was what nationalists demanded in return for Dublin renouncing its authority over Northern Ireland. Too many Unionists were implacably opposed to the deal, and the moderates were routed at the first 1974 election. While the British government’s approach became subtler with regard to unionist concerns, a formula that was acceptable to both sides remained elusive and was to do so for another quarter of a century. At the time, Heath concluded:

‘Ultimately it was the people of Northern Ireland who threw away the best chance of peace in the blood-stained history of the six counties’.

Nonetheless, the level of political violence subsided after 1972 within Northern Ireland itself. With hindsight, ‘Bloody Sunday’ had been an exceptional, tragic event that no one had anticipated, despite the presence of British troops on the streets of Belfast and Londonderry. In most subsequent years considerably more people died in road accidents. In July 1973, however, without warning, twenty bombs went off in Belfast, killing eleven people. Mainland Britain then became the key Provo target. In October 1974, five people were killed and sixty injured in attacks on Guildford pubs and in December, twenty-one (mostly young) people were killed in Birmingham by bombs placed in two pubs in the city centre.

The South Wales Coalfield Tragedy of Aberfan, October 1966:

Aberfan in the days immediately after the disaster, showing the extent of the spoil slip.

Later in the same year as the blowing up of Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin, on 21st October, the people of the British Isles were devastated by the tragedy that befell the Welsh mining village of Aberfan in the valley below the town of Merthyr Tydfil. Twenty adults and a hundred and sixty-six children were lost when a colliery slag tip, soaked by heavy rain, slipped down the hillside above the village junior school, Pantglas, smothering classes of eight and nine-year-olds and their teachers who were just beginning their lessons for the day. Funds were raised in churches and schools across Britain and Ireland for the relief effort being led by local miners. Still, though government ministers rushed to the scene, the Queen and Royal Family were advised to stay away. At the same time, bodies were still being recovered, and it was thought that her entourage might get in the way of the search and recovery operation.

The rescue of a young girl from the school; no survivors were found after 11:00 am

She delayed her visit until nine days after the disaster, a delay that was misinterpreted by some as being callous. However, when she did visit, she was visibly moved to tears and overcome with grief, so much so that she was welcomed into a miner’s house to recover her composure. Many still remember their emotions at this time, as children and parents, especially those who were the same age as the lost children of Aberfan – almost a whole year group had been wiped out. Those visiting the Welsh coalfield today can catch sight of the 194 crosses in the memorial garden from across the Taff valley.

As Prince of Wales, Charles revisited Aberfan on the fiftieth anniversary of the disaster in 2016.

In May 1997, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh planted a tree at the Aberfan Memorial Garden. In February 2007, the Welsh Government announced a donation of £1.5 million to the Aberfan Memorial Charity and £500,000 to the Aberfan Education Charity, which represented an inflation-adjusted amount of the money taken to pay to secure the tip. The money for the memorial charity was used for the upkeep of the memorials to the disaster. In October 2016, on the fiftieth anniversary of the disaster, commemorative events took place in the garden and at the cemetery; the Prince of Wales represented the Queen, and government ministers were present to pay tribute. At the time of the anniversary Huw Edwards, the BBC News journalist and presenter, described the need to continue learning lessons from Aberfan:

“What we can do, however—in this week of the fiftieth anniversary—is try to focus the attention of many in Britain and beyond on the lessons of Aberfan, lessons which are still of profound relevance today. They touch on issues of public accountability, responsibility, competence and transparency.”

The dedication plaque at the Aberfan Memorial Garden

In January 2022, there was a call to find a permanent home for the artefacts salvaged from the disaster. These include a clock that had stopped when the tragedy occurred.

Harold’s Bright Young Things & The Technological Revolution:

According to Marr (2007-09), the country seemed to be suddenly full of bright men and women from lower-middle-class or upper-working-class families who were rising fast through business, universities and the professions. They were inspired by Harold Wilson’s talk of a scientific and technological revolution that would transform Britain. In October 1963 Wilson, then Labour leader of the opposition, predicted that Britain would be forged in the white heat of the technological revolution. In his speech at Labour’s 1963 conference, the most famous he ever made, Wilson pointed out that such a revolution would require wholesale social change:

‘The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods … those charged with the control of our affairs must be ready to think and speak in the language of our scientific age. … the formidable Soviet challenge in the education of scientists and technologists in Soviet industry (necessitates that) … we must use all the resources of democratic planning, all the latent and underdeveloped energies and skills of our people to ensure Britain’s standing in the world.’

Above: Grammar School Boy, Harold Wilson, Labour leader and PM

Dedicated Followers of Fashion:

In some ways, however, the new, swinging Wilsonian Britain was already out of date by the mid-sixties. In any case, his vision, though sounding ‘modern’ was essentially that of an old-fashioned civil servant. By 1965, Britain was already becoming a more feminised, sexualised, rebellious and consumer-based society. The political classes were cut off from much of this cultural undercurrent by their age and consequent social conservatism. They looked and sounded exactly what they were, people from a more formal, former time.

Barbara Hulanicki’s Kensington shop.

By 1971, sixty-four per cent of households had acquired a washing machine. This, in addition to the rapid and real growth in earnings of young manual workers, sustained over the past decade, had, by the mid-sixties, created a generation who had money to spend on leisure and luxury. The average British teenager was spending eight pounds a week on clothes, cosmetics, records and cigarettes. In London, their attitude was summed up by the fashion designer Mary Quant, whose shop, Bazaar, on King’s Road, provided clothes that allowed people to run, to jump, to leap, to retain their precious freedom.

Beatlemania had swept the British Isles in the early sixties, and by the middle of the decade the group had become a global phenomenon, playing all over Europe, as well as Australia, Japan and, of course, the USA. By 1967, returning from a trip to India, they recorded their influential album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, with its famous art cover. Before breaking up in the early 1970s, they gave up touring and concentrated on recording a string of albums at their Abbey Road studio in London, including Abbey Road, The Double White Album and Let it Be.

Meanwhile, a more working-class sub-culture emerged, particularly in London and the South-East, as rival gangs, successors to the Teddy Boys of the late fifties, of Mods and Rockers followed hard rock bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones. In the summer of 1964, they rode their mopeds and motorbikes from the London suburbs down to Brighton, where they met up on the beach and staged fights with each other. Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry documented the social history of the earlier period in their early seventies rock album and film, Quadrophenia.

‘The Who’ began life as a ‘Mod’ band in the mid-sixties.
By the early 1970s, their hairstyles, clothes and music had changed dramatically.
Over 250,000 went to the Rolling Stones’ open-air concert in the early seventies.
Education – The Binary Divide & Comprehensivisation:

By 1965, the post-war division of children, effectively, into potential intellectuals, technical workers and ‘drones’ – gold, silver and lead – was thoroughly discredited. The fee-paying independent and ‘public’ schools still thrived, with around five per cent of the country’s children ‘creamed off’ through their exclusive portals. For the other ninety-five per cent, ever since 1944, state schooling was meant to be divided into three types of schools. In practice, however, this became a binary divide between grammar schools, taking roughly a quarter, offering traditional academic teaching, and the secondary modern schools, taking the remaining three-quarters of state-educated children, offering a technical and/or vocational curriculum. The grandest of the grammar schools were the 179 ‘direct grant’ schools, such as those in the King Edward’s Foundation in Birmingham, which J.R.R. Tolkien had attended, and the Manchester Grammar School. They were controlled independently of both central and local government, and their brighter children would be expected to go to the ‘better’ universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, from where they would enter the professions.

Alongside the direct grant schools, also traditionalist in ethos but ‘maintained’ by the local authorities, were some 1,500 ordinary grammar schools. The division was made on the basis of the selective state examination known as the ‘eleven plus’ after the age of the children who sat it. The children who ‘failed’ this examination were effectively condemned as ‘failures’ to attend what were effectively second-rate schools, often in buildings which reflected their lower status. As one writer observed in 1965, ‘modern’ had become a curious euphemism for ‘less clever.’ Some of these schools were truly dreadful, sparsely staffed, crowded into unsuitable buildings and submitting no pupils for outside examinations before most were released for work at fifteen. At A Level, in 1964, the secondary moderns, with around seventy-two per cent of Britain’s children, had 318 candidates. The public schools, with five per cent, had 9,838. Many of those who were rejected at the eleven plus and sent to secondary moderns never got over the sense of rejection. The IQ tests were shown not to be nearly as reliable as first thought. Substantial minorities, up to sixty thousand children a year, were at the ‘wrong’ school and many were being transferred later, up or down.

In addition, the selective system was divisive of friendships, families and communities. Different education authorities had widely different proportions of grammar school and secondary modern places; division by geography, not even by examination. A big expansion of teachers and buildings was needed to deal with the post-war baby boom children who were now reaching secondary school. Desperately looking for money, education authorities snatched at the savings a simpler comprehensive system, such as that pioneered and developed in Coventry in the fifties, might produce. Socialists who had wanted greater equality, among whom Education Secretary Tony Crosland had long been prominent, were against the eleven-plus on ideological grounds. But many articulate middle-class parents who would never have called themselves socialists were equally against it because their children had failed to get grammar school places.

With all these pressures, education authorities had begun to move towards a one-school-for-all or comprehensive system during the Conservative years, Tory Councils as well as Labour ones. In 1964 the head of Whitley Abbey School in Coventry concluded that the city council now needed to choose between returning to the grammar and secondary modern school system or going fully comprehensive. Therefore, in the early 1960s at least, grammar schools and selection were still at the heart of Coventry’s so-called comprehensive revolution. There were also comprehensives elsewhere on the Swedish model, and they were much admired for their huge scale, airy architecture and apparent modernity. Crosland hastened the demise of the grammar schools by requesting local authorities to go comprehensive. He did not say how many comprehensives must be opened nor how many grammar schools should be closed, but by making government money for new school buildings conditional on going comprehensive, the change was greatly accelerated.

An early comprehensive school for 11-18-year-olds of differing abilities, taught together.
High-rise homes, Class & Communities:

New housing schemes, including estates and high-rise blocks of flats, plus the new town experiments, undermined the traditional urban working-class environments, robbing them of their intrinsic collective identities. The extended kinship network of the traditional prewar working-class neighbourhoods and communities was replaced by the nuclear family life on the new estates. Rehousing, property speculation, the rise of the consumer society, market forces, urban planning and legislation, all play their role in the further regeneration of working-class culture. In 1972, Phil Cohen, a University of Birmingham sociologist, described these processes in a Working Paper:

The first effect of the high density, high-rise schemes was to destroy the function of the street, the local pub, the corner shop… Instead there was only the privatised space of the family unit, stacked one on top of another, in total isolation, juxtaposed with the totally public space which surrounded it, and which lacked any of the informal social controls generated by the neighbourhood.

The streets which serviced the new estates became thoroughfares, their users ’pedestrians’, and by analogy so many bits of human traffic… The people who had to live in them weren’t fooled. As one put it – they might have hot running water and central heating, but to him they were still prisons in the sky… The isolated family unit could no longer call on the resources of wider kinship networks, or the neighbourhood, and the family itself became the sole focus of solidarity…

The working class family was… not only isolated from the outside but undermined from within. There is no better example of what we are talking about than the so-called ’household mother’. The street or turning was no longer available as a safe play space, under neighbourly supervision. Mum, or Auntie, was no longer just round the corner to look after the kids for the odd morning. Instead, the task of keeping an eye on the kids fell exclusively to the young wife, and the only safe play space was the ’safety of the home’.

However, away from the high-rise blocks, the stubborn continuities of working-class life and culture survived. Nevertheless, the theme of the community became a matter of widespread and fundamental concern in the period. The question emerged as to whether, as the conditions and patterns of social life for working people changed, and as what surplus money there about began to pour into the new consumer goods on offer, people might not only be uprooted from a life they knew, and had made themselves, to another made partly for them by others. This might also involve a shift from the working-class values of solidarity, neighbourliness and collectivism, to those of individualism, competition and privatisation. 

Adding Colour to Real Life – From the World Cup on TV to Roads:

The BBC archive material from the period records how television played a role in this transition to more middle-class attitudes:

Nowadays, there’s a tremendous change, an amazing change, in fact, in just a few years. People have got television. They stay at home to watch it – husbands and wives. If they do come in at the weekend they’re playing bingo. They’ve now got a big queue for the one-armed bandit as well. They do have a lot more money, but what they’re losing is togetherness.

But TV did at least bring families together to watch major events and light entertainment. Many still remember the World Cup of 1966 as the most colourful event of the era, but although a colour cine film recording of the match was made and released later, people watched it live on TV in black and white. Only the hundred thousand at Wembley that day saw the red shirts of the England team raise the Jules Rimet trophy after the match.

For many in Britain, not just England, the event which marked the high point in popular culture was Alf Ramsey’s team’s victory over West Germany. The tournament was held in England for the first time, and the team, built around Bobby Charlton, the key Manchester United midfielder who, along with Nobby Stiles, had survived the Munich air crash earlier in the decade, and Bobby Moore, the captain, from West Ham United, who also had two skilful forwards in the team in Martin Peters and striker Geoff Hurst. Most people remember (in colour, of course) Geoff Hurst’s two extra-time goals and Kenneth Wolstenholme’s commentary because they have watched them replayed so many times since. After the match, however, people dressed up in a bizarre, impromptu mixture of colourful sixties fashion and patriotic bunting and came out to celebrate with family, friends and neighbours just as if it were the end of the war again. The 1970 World Cup, from Mexico, was in colour on TV.

By the mid-sixties, there were also far more brightly coloured cars on the roads, most notably the Austin Mini, but much of the traffic was still the boxy black, cream or toffee-coloured traffic of the fifties. By 1967 motorways totalled 525 miles in length, at a cost of considerable damage to the environment. Bridges were built over the Forth and Severn between 1964 and 1966. The development of new industries and the growth of the east coast ports necessitated a considerable programme of trunk road improvement. This continued into the mid-seventies at a time when economic stringency was forcing the curtailment of other road-building schemes. East Anglia’s new roads were being given priority treatment for the first time. Most of the A12, the London-Ipswich road, was made into a dual carriageway. The A45, the artery linking Ipswich and Felixstowe with the Midlands and the major motorways, had been considerably improved. Stowmarket, Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket had been bypassed. By the end of the decade, the A11/M11 London-Norwich road was completed, bringing to an end the isolation of northern and central Suffolk. Plans to triple the 660 miles of motorway in use by 1970 were also frustrated by a combination of the resulting economic recession, leading to cutbacks in public expenditure, and environmental protest.

The continuing working-class prosperity of the Midlands was based on the last fat years of the manufacture of cars, as well as other goods. But until the mid-fifties, Coventry’s industrial over-specialisation had gone relatively unnoticed, except by a few economists writing in The Times and The Financial Times. This in turn was compounded by the fact that within the British motor industry as a whole Coventry was steadily becoming of less importance as a source of output and coupled with relatively low profits and investment levels, the economy’s stock was slowly ossifying and becoming increasingly inflexible. Yet other car centres, notably Birmingham, Cowley, Dagenham and Luton were subjected to similar pressures but retained the bulk of their manufacturing capacity to the end of the seventies. It is no coincidence that most of what remained of the British motor industry was centred in towns which were dominated by one single large manufacturing plant.

The problem peculiar to Coventry was not only that the local economy became overdependent on the motor industry but that virtually all the automotive firms were, by the 1960s, ill-suited because of their size to survive the increasing competitiveness of the international market. A major reason for Coventry’s long boom was the multiplicity of firms in the motor industry, but in the seventies, this became the major cause of its decline. The only viable motor car establishment to survive this deep recession was Jaguar. The incentives to embark on a vast restructuring of industry, whether national or local, were simply not there, especially since the policy of successive governments was to divert industry away from the new industrial areas of the interwar period in favour of Britain’s depressed areas, or development areas, as they had been redesignated in the immediate postwar period.

Britain as the Sick Man of Europe – The Economy and EEC Membership:

Edward Heath campaigning, unsuccessfully, in 1966.

In the early 1970s, inflation began to rise significantly, especially after Edward Heath’s Conservative government recklessly expanded the money supply, a misguided version of Keynesianism. All the predictions of Keynesian economists were overturned as rising inflation was accompanied by rising unemployment. At first, this was once again confined to the older industrial areas of the northeast, Scotland and South Wales. The rise of more militant nationalisms in the two Celtic nations was now as much concerned with the closure of collieries and factories, and the laying off of labour, as with cultural issues. By 1973, it was clear that the economic problems of Britain were having far more general consequences. The nation’s capacity to generate wealth, along with its share of world trade and productivity, were all in serious, if not terminal, decline. Britain was seen as ‘the sick man of Europe.’

By 1970, after a decade during which Britain had grown much more slowly than the six original members of the Common Market, Heath was in some ways in a weaker position than Macmillan had been. On the other hand, he also had some advantages. He was trusted as a serious negotiator. Britain’s very weakness persuaded Paris that this time, les rosbifs were genuinely determined to join. Pompidou also thought the time was right and he wanted to get out of De Gaulle’s shadow. But France, like the rest of the Community, had for years been struggling to understand what Britain really wanted. This had been particularly difficult in the first seven Wilson years when the British left had been riven by the issue. Heath had only promised to negotiate, however, not to join. But his enthusiasm was in stark contrast to Wilson’s blowing hot and cold. Yet opinion polls suggested that Heath’s grand vision was alien to most British people.

With Heath in power, after over eighteen months of haggling in London, Paris and Brussels, a deal was thrashed out. It infuriated Britain’s fishermen, who would lose control over most of their traditional grounds to open European competition, particularly from French and Spanish trawlers. It was the second-best deal on the budget, later reopened by Margaret Thatcher. Above all, it left intact the original Common Market designed for the convenience of French farmers and Brussels-based bureaucrats, not for Britain. Vast slews of European law had to be swallowed whole, much of it objectionable to the British negotiators. There were some marginal concessions for Commonwealth farmers and producers, but these were granted in return for the bad deal on the budget. The reality was that the negotiators were directed to get a deal at almost any price. At a press conference at the Élysée Palace in 1971, Heath and Pompidou, after a long private session of talks between the two of them, revealed to general surprise that so far as France was concerned, Britain could now join the Community. Heath was particularly delighted to have triumphed over the press, who had expected another ‘Non.’

A national debate and vote in Parliament followed about the terms of entry, but although he had publicly supported British entry before negotiations began, Wilson now began sniping at Heath’s deal. Jim Callaghan, his potential successor, was already openly campaigning against the deal, partly on the grounds that the EEC threatened the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens. The Labour left, too, was in full cry: a special Labour Conference in July 1971 voted by a majority of five to one against membership, and Labour MPs were also hostile by a majority of two to one. Wilson announced that he was now opposed to membership on the Heath terms. After the long and tortuous journey to reach this point, the pro-Europeans were disgusted: they defied the party whip in the Commons and voted with the Conservatives. They were led by Roy Jenkins. The left, led by Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and Tony Benn were livid with the sixty-nine rebels. For both sides, this was a matter of principle that would continue to divide the party until the present day. On the night of the vote in the Commons, there were screaming matches in the lobbies between the pro- and anti-marketeers among Labour MPs. After winning his Commons vote on British membership of the Community, Heath returned to Downing Street to play Bach on the piano in a mood of restrained triumphalism.

Tony Benn began to argue that on a decision of such importance the people should vote in a referendum, since a democratic country that denied its people the right to choose its future would lose all respect. To begin with, Benn had little support for this radical thought, since most on the Left despised referenda as fascist devices, subject to manipulation in a parliamentary democracy. Pro-Europeans also feared that this was a ploy to commit Labour to pull out. Harold Wilson had committed himself publicly against a referendum, but he came to realise that opposing Heath’s deal but promising to renegotiate, offering a referendum, could be the way out. The promise would also give him some political high ground. He would trust the people even if the people were, according to the polls, already fairly bored and hostile. When Pompidou suddenly announced that France would hold its own referendum on British entry, Wilson snatched at the Benn plan. It was an important moment because a referendum would make the attitude of the whole country clear, at least for a generation. Referenda also became devices used again by politicians faced with difficult constitutional choices.

Wilson’s Renegotiation & Referendum, 1974-75:

After winning the two elections of 1974, Wilson carried out his promised renegotiation of Britain’s terms of entry to the EEC and then put the result to in the Benn-inspired referendum of 1975. The renegotiation was largely a sham, but the referendum was a rare political triumph for Wilson after the elections and before his retirement in 1976. On the continent, the renegotiation was understood to be more for Wilson’s benefit than anything else. Helmut Schmidt, the new German Chancellor, who travelled to London to help charm and calm the Labour conference, regarded it as a successful cosmetic operation. Wilson needed to persuade people he was putting a different deal to the country than the one Heath had negotiated. He was able to do this, but when the referendum campaign actually began, Wilson’s old evasiveness returned and he mumbled vaguely his support, rather than actively or enthusiastically making the European case. To preserve longer-term party unity, he allowed anti-Brussels cabinet ministers to speak from the ‘No’ platform and Barbara Castle, Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Michael Foot were among those who took up this offer.

The ‘No’ campaign was all about prices, not about ‘sovereignty’. Top: Barbara Castle leading one of many cunning ‘stunts’.

They were joined on the platform by Enoch Powell, Rev. Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Scottish Nationalists and others. But the ‘Yes’ campaign included most of the Labour cabinet, with Roy Jenkins leading the way, plus most of the Heath team and the popular Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe. It seemed to many people a fight between wild-eyed ranters on the one hand and sound chaps on the other. More important, perhaps, was the bias of business and the press. A Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey of company chairmen found that out of 419 interviewed, just four were in favour of leaving the Community. Almost all the newspapers were in favour of staying in, including the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and Daily Express. So was every Anglican bishop. The Yes campaign, led by Britain in Europe outspent the No camp by more than ten to one. In this grossly unequal struggle, both sides used scare stories. Yes warned of huge job losses if the country left the Community. The No camp warned of huge rises in food prices.

There were meetings with several thousand participants, night after night around the country, and the spectacle of politicians who usually attacked each other sitting down together and agreeing on something was a tonic to audiences. Television arguments were good, especially those between Jenkins and Benn. On the Labour side, there were awkward moments when the rhetoric got too fierce, and Wilson had to intervene to rebuke warring ministers. In the end, in answer to the simple question, Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Economic Community (The Common Market)? Just over sixty-eight per cent, around seventeen million people voted Yes and nearly thirty-three per cent (8.5 million) voted No. Only Shetland and the Western Isles of Scotland voted No.

Decimalisation was seen as a huge change to daily life, unwelcome to many older people. Though the original decision had been taken by the first Wilson government in 1965, the disappearance in 1971 of a coinage going back to ‘Anglo-Saxon’ times was widely blamed on Heath as part of the move into Europe. Away flew the beloved florins and half-crowns, ha’pennies, farthings, threepenny and sixpenny bits and out went, to the relief of many schoolchildren, the intricate triple-column maths of pounds, shillings and pence. In came the more rational decimal currency. But ‘imperial’ measures remained for milk and beer, and miles were retained in preference to kilometres. By the 1970s, the behaviour of the cliques who ran the country had been replaced as the chief motivation for political cynicism by a more general sense of alienation from ‘the State’ and ‘the Establishment.’ For many older Britons, these were years when change spun out of control. Much of the loathing of Heath on the right of politics came from British membership of the Common Market after 1973, which seemed to many to be the emblem of the ‘rage’ for new, bigger systems to replace the traditional ones. Writing in his diary in 1975, Tony Benn recorded his reaction to the possibility of a Europe-wide passport, revealing how much the left’s instincts could chime with those of the right-wing opponents of European change:

‘That really hit me in the guts … Like metrication and decimalisation, this really strikes at our national identity.’

Reading it in retrospect, the comment seems almost ironic, but at the time these symbols were emblematic of their ‘sovereignty’ for many Britons, whether they were on the left or right wing. More than forty years later, when Britain was considering leaving what by then had become the European Union, the biggest question both about Heath’s triumph in engineering Britain’s entry and then about Labour’s referendum is whether the British were told the full story about what this would mean and whether they truly understood the supranational organisation they were signing up to. Ever since that first referendum, many of those among the 8.5 million who voted against, and younger people who share their views, have suggested that Heath and Jenkins and the rest lied to the country, at least by omission. Had it been properly explained that Europe’s law and institutions would sit above the Westminster Parliament, it was argued, they would never have agreed. The Britain in Europe campaigners can point to speeches and leaflets which directly mention the loss of sovereignty. One of the latter read:

‘Forty million people died in two European wars this century. Better lose a little national sovereignty than a son or daughter.’

Expanding the membership of the EC, 1952-93.

Yet both in Parliament and in the referendum campaign, the full consequences for national independence were mumbled, and not spoken clearly enough. Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, who drafted Heath’s European Communities Bill, later admitted that it could have been more explicit about lost sovereignty. Heath talked directly about the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe but was never precise about the effect on British law, as compared to Lord Denning who said the European treaty could be compared to…

‘… an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and and rivers. It cannot be held back.’

Hugo Young, the journalist and historian who studied the campaign in great detail wrote:

I traced no major document or speech that said in plain terms that national sovereignty would be lost, still less one that categorically promoted the European Community for its single most striking characteristic: that it was an institution positively designed to curb the full independence of the nation-state.

There were, of course, explicit warnings given by the No campaigners among the more populist arguments about food prices. They came, above all, from Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and Toy Benn. Foot wrote in The Times that the British parliamentary system had been made farcical and unworkable. Future historians, he said, would be amazed…

that the British people were urged at such a time to tamper irreparably with their most most precious institution; to see it circumscribed and contorted and elbowed off the centre of the stage.

So it was not true that people were not told. The truth revealed by opinion polls is that sovereignty as an issue did not concern the public nearly as much as jobs and food prices. By later standards, the position of Parliament was not taken terribly seriously in public debates. As Andrew Marr put it in his 2009 book, A History of Modern Britain:

It may be that sovereignty is always of absorbing interest to a minority – the more history-minded, politically-aware – and of less interest to the rest, except when a loss of sovereignty directly affects daily life and produces resented laws. In the seventies, Britain’s political class was not highly respected, and Europe seemed to offer a glossier, richer future. Though the pro-Community majority in business and politics did not strive to ram home the huge implications of membership, they did not deceitfully hide the political nature of what was happening, either. It was just that, when the referendum was held, people cared less. The argument would return, screaming … to be heard.

Andrew Marr (2007-9), op.cit., p.351.

‘The Booze Cruise’: A popular home-grown cartoon view of the British attitude to Europe in the late seventies & eighties.

The ‘Barber Boom,’ Inflation & Industrial Relations, 1971-73:

If Heath is associated with a single action, it is British entry into ‘Europe,’ but throughout his time in office, it was the economy which remained the biggest issue facing his government. The country was spending too much on new consumer goods and not nearly enough on modernised and more efficient factories and businesses. British productivity was still pathetically low compared with the United States or Europe, never mind Japan. Prices were rising by seven per cent and wage earnings by double that. The short-lived economic boom under the Conservative Heath government and Anthony Barber’s Chancellorship, greatly benefited the local motor industry, temporarily reversing the stall in population growth in manufacturing areas. But Britain’s falling competitiveness was making it difficult, in the early seventies, for governments to maintain high employment by intervening in the economy.

This was still the old, post-1945 world of fixed exchange rates which meant that the Heath government, just like those of Attlee and Wilson, faced a sterling crisis and perhaps another devaluation. Since 1945 successive governments had followed the tenets of Keynesian economics, borrowing in order to create jobs if unemployment approached a figure deemed as unacceptable (in the 1970s this was about six hundred thousand). During the decade, this became increasingly difficult to do as Edward Heath’s government (1970-74) struggled to follow such policies in the face of a global recession associated with the tripling of oil prices in 1973, by OPEC (the international cartel of oil producers). This caused an immediate recession and fuelled international inflation. Faced with declining living standards, the unions replied with collective industrial power. Strikes mounted up, most acutely in the coalfields.

The unions, identified by Heath as his first challenge, had just seen off Wilson and Barbara Castle. Heath had decided he would need to face down at least one major public sector strike, as well as remove some of the benefits that he thought encouraged strikes. Britain not only had heavy levels of unionisation through all the key industries but also, by modern standards, an incredible number of different unions, more than six hundred altogether. Added to this, leaders of large unions had only a wobbly hold on what actually happened on the ‘shop floor’ in factories. It was a time of politicised militancy there, well caught by the folk-rock band the Strawbs, who reached number two in the singles chart with their mock-anthem Part of the Union. Its lyrics included:

“Oh, you don’t get me I’m part of the union, till the day I die…

“As a union man I’m wise to the lies of the company spies…

“With a hell of a shout, it’s ‘out brothers, out!’ …

” And I always get my way, if I strike for higher pay…

“So, though I’m a working man, I can ruin the government’s plan … ”

Almost immediately after becoming PM, Heath faced a dock strike, followed by a big pay settlement for local authority dustmen, then a power workers’ go-slow which led to power cuts. Then the postal workers struck. Douglas Hurd, then Heath’s political secretary, recorded in his diary his increasing frustration:

‘A bad day. It is clear that all the weeks of planning in the civil service have totally failed to cope with what is happening in the electricity dispute: and all the pressures are to surrender’.

Later, Hurd confronted Heath in his dressing gown to warn him that the government response was moving too slowly, far behind events. At that stage, things in the car industry were so bad that Henry Ford III warned Heath that his company was thinking of pulling out of Britain altogether. Yet Heath’s Industrial Relations Bill of 1971 was meant to be balanced, giving new rights to trade unionists while at the same time trying to make deals with employers legally binding and enforceable through a new system of industrial courts. This was similar to the package offered by the Wilson government. There were also tax reforms, meant to increase investment, a deal with ‘business’ on keeping price increases to five per cent and even some limited privatisation, with the travel agents Thomas Cook, then state-owned, being sold off along with some breweries.

But the Tory messages and measures were confusing. Cuts in some personal taxes encouraged spending and therefore inflation. With European membership looming, Anthony Barber, Heath’s Chancellor, was dashing for growth, which meant further tax cuts and higher government spending and borrowing. Lending limits were removed for high street banks, resulting in a growth in lending from twelve per cent per year in 1971 to forty-three per cent per year in 1973. This obviously further fuelled inflation, particularly in the housing market. This led to a huge expansion of credit and capital sunk into bricks and mortar that became a feature of modern Britain.

At the same time, one of the historic constraints on successive post-war British governments was removed by President Nixon in the summer of 1971 when he suspended the convertibility of the dollar for gold and allowed exchange rates to ‘float.’ He was faced with the continuing high costs of the war in Vietnam, combined with rising commodity prices. The effect on Britain was that the government and the Bank of England no longer had to be quite so careful about maintaining sterling reserves. But it opened up fresh questions, such as how far down sterling could go and how industrialists could expect to plan ahead. Heath’s instincts on state control were also tested when the most valuable parts of Rolls-Royce faced bankruptcy over the cost of developing new aircraft engines. He quickly nationalised the company, saving eighty thousand jobs and allowing it to regroup and survive, to the relief of the defence industry. Rolls-Royce did revive, returning to the private sector, providing one example of how nationalisation could work in future.

A campaign poster during the 1972 miners’ dispute.

In 1972, in their first strike for a generation, the miners fought a dramatic battle, putting the country on a three-day week and unhinging the Heath government. This time we’ll win, they said. No one in South Wales needed to ask what last time they had in mind, especially those who still remembered the dark days of the twenties. The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) submitted a demand for a forty-five per cent wage increase to the National Coal Board (NCB). When it was rejected, a national miners’ strike was called in February 1972. The Heath government experienced the full extent of the miners’ ability to disrupt national production and energy supplies, despite the contraction of the industry since the 1950s. The government was wholly unprepared, with modest coal stocks, and was surprised by the striking miners’ discipline and aggression.

Arthur Scargill, then a young, unknown militant and former Communist, organised fifteen thousand of his comrades from across South Yorkshire in a mass picket of the Saltley coke depot, on which Birmingham depended for much of its fuel. Scargill (below centre), a rousing speaker and highly ambitious union activist, later described the confrontation with West Midlands police as “the greatest day of my life.” However, the events of his greatest day represented, for the PM:

‘… the most vivid, direct and terrifying challenge to the rule of law that I could ever recall emerging from within our own country. … We were facing civil disorder on a massive scale.’

The Welsh miners picketed outside the Houses of Parliament during the 1972 Strike, led by their General Secretary Dai Francis (with spectacles).

Heath blamed the police for being too soft. It was clear to him that the intention was to bring down the elected government but he decided that he could not counter-attack immediately. Confronted with the prospect of the country becoming ungovernable or having to use the armed forces to restore order which public opinion would never have tolerated, Heath turned to a judge Lord Wilberforce, for an independent inquiry into miners’ wages. Wilberforce reported that they should get at least twenty per cent, which was fifty per cent more than the average increase. The NUM settled for that, plus extra benefits, in one of the most clear-cut and overwhelming victories over a government of any British trade union to date. Their strategy and tactics were wholly successful. Scargill was quickly promoted to agent, then president of the Yorkshire miners.

A boy stands outside his school, which closed because of a lack of fuel during the miners’ strike of 1972.
The Oil Price Bust, the Coal Dispute & the Three-Day Week, 1973-74:

Obstructionist trade unions were a favourite target of many, particularly after the coal dispute, which had led to a series of power cuts throughout the country and a three-day working week. Attacks on trade union power were becoming more popular owing to a growing perception that the miners in particular had become too powerful and disruptive, holding the country for ransom. Heath and his ministers knew that they would have to go directly to the country with an appeal about who was running it, but before that, they tried a final round of negotiation to reach a compromise. Triggered by the prospect of unemployment reaching a million, there now followed the famous U-turn which so marred Heath’s reputation. It went by the name of ‘tripartism’, a three-way national agreement on wages and prices, investments and benefits, between the government, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The Industry Act of 1972 gave the government unprecedented powers of intervention, which Tony Benn called ‘spadework for socialism’. Heath had leaned so far to try to win the unions over that he was behaving like a Wilsonian socialist.

The unions, having defeated Wilson and Castle, were more self-confident than ever before or since. Many industrial workers, living in still-bleak towns far away from the fashionable big cities, did seem underpaid and left behind. The miners, certainly, were badly paid in these areas in particular. Heath argued that he was forced to accept and apply consensual policies because in the seventies any alternative set of policies, the squeeze of mass unemployment which arrived in the Thatcher era, would simply not have been accepted by the country as a whole. Besides, the economic problems the government and the country at large faced were not primarily the result of high wage claims. Management incompetence or short-termism, leading to an abdication of responsibility and the failure to restructure factories and industries, was seen as a primary cause of economic stagnation. This, as seen in the case of manufacturing in Coventry, was an argument which had some local evidence to support it, although unions at a local, shop-floor level were sometimes equally short-sighted in some instances.

What finally finished off the Heath government was the short war between Israel and Egypt in October 1973, the Yom Kippur War. Israel’s swift and decisive victory was a humiliation for the Arab world and it struck back, using oil as its weapon. OPEC, the organisation of oil-producing countries dominated by the Saudis, had seen the price of oil rising on world markets for some time. They decided to cut oil supplies to the West each month until Israel handed back its territorial gains and allowed the Palestinians their own state. There would be a total embargo on Israel’s most passionate supporters, the United States and the Netherlands. And those countries that were allowed oil would be made to pay more for it. In fact, prices rose fourfold. It was a global economic shock, pumping further inflation into the industrialised world, but in Britain, it arrived with added force. The miners put in yet another huge pay claim, which would have added twice as much again to many pay packets. Despite an appeal from the moderate NUM President, Joe Gormley, the NUM Executive rejected a thirteen per cent pay increase and voted to ballot for another national strike.

The country could survive high oil prices, even shortages, for a time, but these were the days before Brent Crude from the North Sea was being produced commercially. The same was true of natural gas. But Britain could not manage both the oil shock and a national coal strike at the same time. Barber, the Chancellor, called this the greatest economic crisis since the war. It certainly compared to that of 1947. Again, coal stocks had not been built up in preparation, so a whole series of panic measures had to be introduced. Plans were made for petrol rationing and coupons were printed and distributed. The national speed limit was cut by twenty miles per hour to fifty mph. Then in January 1974 came the announcement of a three-day working week. Ministers solemnly urged citizens to share baths and brush their teeth in the dark. Television broadcasting ended at 10.30 p.m. each evening. It was an embarrassing time in many ways, with people having to find other things to do in the dark or by candlelight, yet it also gave millions an enjoyable frisson, the feeling of taking a holiday from everyday routines. The writer Robert Elms recalled:

…this proud nation had been reduced to a shabby shambles, somewhere between a strife-torn South American dictatorship and a gloomy Soviet satellite… a banana republic with a banana shortage … The reality of course is that almost everybody loved it. They took to the three-day week with glee. They took terrific liberties.

This time Heath and his ministers struggled to find a solution to the miners’ demands, though the climate was hardly helped when Mick McGahey, the legendary Communist NUM leader, asked by Heath what he really wanted, answered ‘to bring down the government.’ When the miners voted, eighty-one per cent were for striking, including those in some of the traditionally most moderate coalfield areas. In February 1974, Heath asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament and went to the country on the election platform he had prepared two years earlier: ‘Who governs?’ The country’s answer, perhaps taking the question more literally than Heath had hoped was ‘Not you, mate!’ Meanwhile, Harold Wilson had expected the Tories to win again. A year earlier he had prepared the Opposition’s answer to the questions of union power and inflation which became known as the Social Contract. Observers saw it as a recipe for inflation which also offered the TUC a privileged place at the table in return for very little.

However, Wilson was somehow able to emerge as the calm bringer of reason and order in the election campaign, whereas Heath was hit by a slew of bad economic figures. Then Enoch Powell, Heath’s old nemesis, stepped back into the limelight to announce that he was leaving the Conservatives over their failure to offer the electorate a referendum on Europe. He, therefore, called on voters to vote Labour. This helped to produce a late surge for Wilson, as well as for the Liberals, led by the popular Jeremy Thorpe. Though Labour won the most seats by the slenderest of margins, 301 to the Tories’ 297 (the Liberals had fourteen MPs), no party had an overall majority, so Heath hung on, hoping to do a deal with Thorpe. But he eventually had to concede defeat, and Harold returned to the Palace to kiss hands with Queen Elizabeth for the third time. As Andrew Marr put it:

So Mick McGahey and friends had brought down the Heath government, with a little help from the oil-toting Saudi Royal Family, the Liberals and Enoch Powell. A more bizarre coalition of interests is difficult to imagine.

Andrew Marr (2007), A History of Modern Britain, p. 342.

Other significant changes happened on Ted Heath’s watch. The school leaving age was raised to sixteen. To cope with international currency mayhem caused by the Nixon decision to suspend convertibility, the old imperial sterling area finally went in 1972. The Pill was made freely available on the NHS. Local government was radically reorganised, with no fewer than eight hundred English councils disappearing and huge new authorities, much disliked, being created in their place. Heath defended this on the basis that the old Victorian system could cope with ‘the growth of car ownership and of suburbia, which was undermining the distinction between town and country.’ Many saw it as bigger-is-better dogma. There was more of that when responsibility for NHS hospitals was taken away from hundreds of local boards and passed to new regional and area health authorities, at the suggestion of a new cult that was then just emerging – management consultancy. In the seventies, the familiar and the local seemed everywhere in retreat.

(to be continued; for sources, see part two)

Appendix One – The Queen & Tolkien:

In 1972 – Queen Elizabeth II appointed JRR Tolkien Commander of the Order of the British Empire “for services to English Literature.” Outside Buckingham Palace with his daughter Priscilla.

After the death of his wife, Edith, in 1971, Tolkien’s happiness was added to by the honours that were conferred on him. He received several invitations to visit American universities and receive doctorates, but he couldn’t face the long journey. There were also many tributes within his homeland. He was profoundly moved when, in the spring of 1972, he was invited to Buckingham Palace to be presented with a C.B.E. by the Queen. She had been eleven when The Hobbit was published, and The Lord of the Rings had hit bookstores two years into her reign. Tolkien wrote to his publisher Rayner Unwin about the day,

“… I was very deeply moved by my brief meeting with the Queen, & our few words together. Quite unlike anything that I had expected.”

Humphrey Carpenter (ed.) (1981), Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. London: George Allen & Unwin, Letter 334.

After everything he had lived through and all the fairy stories he had written, meeting the Queen was a special moment for him. But perhaps the most gratifying of all was the award in June 1972 of an honorary Doctorate of Letters from his own University of Oxford; not, as was made clear, for The Lord of the Rings, but for his contribution to philology.

The following year, on 2nd September, J.R.R. Tolkien died, aged eighty-one. His requiem mass was held in Oxford four days after his death, in the plain modern church in Headington, which he had attended so often since his retirement. Born in South Africa during the reign of Queen Victoria and growing up in Birmingham during the reign of Edward VII, Tolkien researched, taught and wrote in England during the reigns of all four Windsor monarchs (before Charles III), over six decades, from George V to Elizabeth.

(Appendix Two is in Part Two)

Featured

Majesty & Grace VIII: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor – New Age, New Commonwealth & Popular Culture 1958-63.

From 1962 to 1966, HRH Prince Charles attended Gordonstoun School in Scotland, where his father was a pupil.
The long and broad view of the British Economy:

The economic historian, P. Calvocoressi, writing in 1978, provided a long view of the British economy from 1945 to 1975. He saw the failure of successive governments to manage it successfully as the result of their unwillingness to dismantle the ‘mixed’ economy model of private and public sectors. The role of government in the direction and management of the economy had become paramount by the 1950s, even though many Conservatives deplored or sought to evade this development. He pointed out that every government acted within the established system. None tried radically to change it. All governments accepted an obligation to contribute positively to the prosperity of both sectors. Both parties, Calvocoressi concluded, failed to restore the British economy by expanding industry and exports. As a result, the long-term economic decline of Britain they inherited accelerated. Whatever their causes, failures led to political divisions and criticism not only of the policies of the governments but also of the role of government in the mixed economy. He concluded:

Still less had they questioned the existence of the mixed economy. But the failures of this economy … led to questions about the viability of such an economy.

P. Calvocoressi (1978), The British Experience, 1945-1975. Penguin, pp. 105-12.

Because Calvocoressi takes a longer perspective of Britain than other economists and economic historians, his view may not be as valuable in examining the thirteen years of Conservative rule. In particular, he seems to imply that it was not the Conservative governments, nor even the role of government that failed the economy, but capitalism itself. His critique of western social-democratic capitalism seems rather dated, even for the late 1970s. However, his criticism of the failure of successive governments to challenge orthodox economic views certainly accords with the position adopted by Vernon Bognador and Robert Skidelsky, who saw ‘consensus’ as the basis of government policy between 1951 and 1964. The uncritical acceptance by both major political parties of this concept meant that new perspectives for examining old problems could not be forthcoming. The result of this was the creation of an illusion of continuing affluence, as Bogdanor and Skidelsky wrote in 1970:

Ten years ago it was possible, and indeed usual, to look back to the 1950s as an age of prosperity and achievement. This was certainly the the verdict of the electorate which in 1959 returned a Conservative government to power with a handsome majority, for the third time running.Today we are more likely to remember the whole period as an age of illusion, of missed opportunities, with Macmillan as the magician whose wonderful act kept us too long distracted from reality. … what has altered the verdict on the 1950s has been the experience of the troubles of the 1960s, which stem at least in part from the neglect of the earlier decade.

Already by 1964, the appeal of the slogan ‘Thirteen Wasted Years’ was strong enough to give Labour a tiny majority; in the years following it has been confirmed almost as the conventional wisdom. … Perhaps the period of Conservative rule will be looked upon as the last period of quiet before the storm, rather like the Edwardian age which in many respects it resembles. In that case its tranquility will come to be valued more highly than its omissions.

V. Bogdanor and R. Skidelsky, The Age of Affluence, 1951-64. pp 7-11.

But, in reality, from 1955, the British economy was entangled in a series of sterling crises which gradually forced the Conservative Government to pay attention to problems it wished to avoid. Both the Eden and Macmillan governments were distracted by a second illusion, that of their party’s obsession with Britain’s abiding role in the world. In 1962, Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State made his famous statement Britain has lost an empire; she has not yet found a role. Bogdanor and Skidelsky pointed out that the failure to rethink Britain’s world role was as evident in its economic policies as in its diplomacy. Macmillan foresaw and expedited the final liquidation of the Empire, but he had few ideas about what to put in its place.

Finally, A. Sked and C. Cook looked at the question from a broader viewpoint. Politics may have remained the same but, they argued, society did not. New values, new beliefs and new attitudes began to show themselves in this period. In this way, the idea of consensus came into question, and the illusion of affluence was made apparent. As far as the fiscal and economic policies were concerned, they argued:

… the Tories did very little in their years in power. Cushioned by the turn in the terms of trade they abolished rationing, reduced taxes and manipulated budgets but they gave little impression of knowing how the economy really worked. Little attention was paid to Britain’s sluggish economic growth or the long-term challenge posed by Germany and Japan.

Industrial relations were treated with a ‘we/they’ attitude and no thought was given, until late in the day, to the problems created by Britain’s prosperity. Instead, the Government sat back and did nothing in their belief that there was nothing to do, and for most of the time their energy was devoted to maintaining Britain as a world power whatever the cost to the economy. …

Moreover, Tory economic complacency ensured that the necessary economic growth would never be generated. Not enough money was channelled into key industries; stop-go policies undermined the confidence of industry to invest in the long term; too much money was spent on defence. …

With the economic crises of the early 1960s … it began to be apparent that Tory affluence would soon come to an end. The scandals of the Macmillan era merely served to reinforce the impression that a watershed had been reached in the country’s history, and foreign affairs seemed to teach a similar lesson. …

After 1963-64 then, things were never the same again. But in another sense they were never really different.

A. Sked & C. Cook (1979), Post-War Britain – a Political History. Penguin, pp. 221-5.

Macmillan the Magician to the Rescue of the Empire:

According to the Earl of Kilmuir, in his 1964 Memoirs, Eden’s successor as Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, led his country and his party out of the bitter-black aftermath of Suez. In particular, he began the scramble to dismantle what was left of the post-imperial presence as Britain came to terms with its loss of status, assets and, in an intangible way, national swagger. The country became ever more dependent on the United States not just financially but also for its defence and security. After the Korean War, the US Air Force was allowed eight airfields in Britain. In 1957, after the Suez fiasco, there were sixty US Thor missiles in East Anglia. Indeed, in 1960 the US was allowed to build a Polaris nuclear submarine base at Holy Loch in Scotland.

Cyprus fell soon after Suez. It had been intended as an important base from which Britain could guard the Canal. But during the Suez war itself, it had proved less than useful, because it had no deep-water harbour; after Suez, there was little left in that part of the Mediterranean for it to guard anyway. In 1957 the British government started negotiating with the Cypriot nationalists, and the search continued for other handholds. Kilmuir wrote of the case of Cyprus as a case in point of Macmillan’s command of the House of Commons:

Cyprus was a classic example of this tactical genius. The final settlement of this tactical genius. The final settlement of this distressing episode early in 1959 was a diplomatic triumph for Macmillan, but it must be admitted that it followed the broad lines which had been urged on the Government by Gaitskell and Bevan for a long time. Nevertheless, after both (Macmillan and Gaitskell) had snapped at each other across the Dispatch Box in a crammed House of Commons, it was Gaitskell who gave the appearance of little-mindedness…

The Earl of Kilmuir, Memoirs (1964) pp. 290-91.

In respect of other territories and colonies, they planned the same kind of progress, but in a slow and ‘orderly’ manner. Where their residual imperialism showed through, the evidence that their change of heart was less than complete, was in their continued belief that Britain still had a world role to maintain, and the right to keep hold of certain foreign territories in order to retain it; and in their conception of self-government, which frequently fell short of those of the nationalists. In East and Central Africa, for instance, it stopped far short of majority rule while there were still settlers there, and elsewhere where it stopped short of economic self-government while there were still British firms and shares to safeguard. From the wreck of the old empire, they tried to salvage what was essential: a role in the world, their new white dominions in central Africa and their means to continue exploiting countries they no longer ruled.

Imperialist ambitions for east-central Africa remained lively right through the 1950s, and long after Suez had undermined them elsewhere. When Cyprus began to crumble the first place they thought of replacing it with as their main military base for the Middle East was Kenya. In east-central Africa their allies, the nucleus around which they intended to consolidate their hold, and maintain a British presence in the continent, where the settlers, a small minority everywhere, but one in which many of the colonies already had taken many of the functions and responsibilities of government. None of the colonies except Southern Rhodesia had enough of them to make a transfer of power to them possible, and in Britain as well as elsewhere in Africa liberal opinion made this option impolitic anyway. On the other hand, there was widespread concern in Britain, which the government shared and could work on, that established settler interests should not be entirely abandoned to unpractised African politicians without safeguards.

The British government’s support for the settler cause in Kenya had to contend with what turned out to be the most ferocious of all the nationalist movements that confronted her in Africa, mainly amongst dispossessed and desperate Kikuyu, whose violent methods, involving atrocities and pagan rituals, were used to justify repressive counter-measures. During the ‘Mau Mau’ crisis, ten thousand were killed altogether: 9,600 Africans (mostly by other Africans) and seventy Europeans. In the Kenyan context, ‘multi-racialism’ meant communal elections against a background of very restricted African political activity, and a constitution carefully designed to ensure ‘parity,’ by permitting fifty thousand Europeans the same number of elected representatives as five million Africans.

Empire into New Commonwealth:

The Conservative imperialists’ inability to take in the full extent of their loss was reflected in the conception they had of the new ‘multi-racial’ Commonwealth just beginning to form from the pieces of the old empire. Some of them, like Leo Amery, saw it as a way of preserving Britain’s interests in her former colonies, and her status in the new world of the Cold War. In a way what they hankered after was the older, more ‘informal’ imperialism of the mid-nineteenth century, with all of the rights and none of the responsibilities. But a return to that form of purely economic imperialism was impossible because it required an even stronger base of power in global relations, one that now only the USA possessed. But the effort was made, nonetheless. In the 1950s, on the fronts it had decided to fight on, the Conservative government fought hard to keep some colonies and to give others to ‘the right people,’ most notably in Malaya and British Guiana.

In the late 1950s, despite all the reverses, there was still a sizeable empire left for Britain to save, if it wanted to. As well as a great slice of Africa, there was a score of smaller colonies all over the world which it was thought could never be viable on their own, and therefore would always be content to let Britain rule them, rather than have Russia or China grab them, as was the most likely outcome for a small, isolated state. There were also larger colonies, especially in west Africa, Malaya and the West Indies, whose progress towards independence could not be prevented now, but which might be ‘guided’ towards continuing membership of the Commonwealth and the strength that might still be drawn from imperial preferences and defence co-operation. And, even after Cyprus, there were still strategic British colonies in the world – Malta, Aden, Singapore – to keep a secure framework for British world influence to be maintained, especially with the nuclear deterrent to back it up.

Nevertheless, it was in this global context, that the second phase of Britain’s withdrawal from its empire took place across Africa in the late 1950s and early ’60s, under the direction of the Conservative governments. On the other side of the imperial account, there were ever-increasing costs to meet, not just in money, but in lives too, as well as in moral credit. The current did seem to be running against Britain in all these regards. In east-central Africa, the effort to hang on had recently resulted in a series of overtly oppressive measures, and several atrocities (or incidents which could be presented as such) that were widely felt to have been uncharacteristic and shaming: the Hola camp incident in Kenya in 1959, in which eleven Mau Mau detainees were beaten to death by camp guards; a state of emergency throughout the Central African Federation that was likened to a ‘police state’ and fifty African rioters shot in Nyasaland. Of the ‘collaboration’ which had helped sustain British colonial rule in the past, there was very little now left in Africa: Britain was having to impose its will by an open display of force, which by this time it was not able to do as easily as in the past.

Realists as well as radicals were now turning away from the empire. The men of industry and finance, who by necessity were the hardest realists of all, had for some time been aware of the trend and had begun to make their own arrangements with the trendsetters, the empire’s successor states, to protect and further their interests in the best ways they could. They might have regretted the loss of their imperial padding but they came to terms with it. They made treaties with whoever was in command: in South Africa, while they still had control it was the white supremacists, but in tropical Africa, it was the new black nationalists.

Britain’s trading position as a whole was altering, backing away from the empire and ex-empire, and towards Europe. For more and more people in Britain, their real economic destiny now appeared to lie in closer association with the European continent, which was already organising itself into a great ‘Common Market,’ which could make its own terms with the politically independent ‘third world’ outside. The empire, which meant the old type of colonial control over satellite economies, was not necessary anymore, or worth fighting for.

What was left when those with an ‘interest’ began leaving the sinking ship was a residue of mainly emotional commitments to the glory of the empire, which were just not strong enough to persuade a realistic government, which was what Harold Macmillan’s was, to resist all the material pressures pushing the other way. Iain Macleod, who became Colonial Secretary in October 1959, always excused his surrender to colonial nationalism by pleading necessity, though he probably also had a genuinely liberal commitment to independence, as the following quote demonstrates:

‘We could not possibly have held by force to our territories in Africa. We could not, with an enormous force engaged, even continue to hold the small island of Cyprus. General de Gaulle could not contain Algeria. The march of men towards their freedom can be guided, but not halted. Of course there were risks in moving quickly. But the risks in moving slowly were far greater.’

Quoted in David Goldsworthy (1971), Colonial Issues in British Politics, 1945-1961. p. 363.
The Wind of Change:

Macmillan was of the same mind. In his famous speech in Cape Town in February 1960 he told of the ‘shrinking impression’ a tour of tropical Africa had given him of the strength of this national consciousness. It was against this background that Macmillan made his historic comments:

“The wind of change is blowing through this continent and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.”

Harold Macmillan’s speech in Cape Town, South Africa, 1960.

A decade after the decolonisation process was initiated in Asia, the wind of change began to sweep through Africa, hastened by the Suez Crisis. The Gold Coast was the first African colony to gain independence, under the new name, Ghana. This set in motion British disengagement from other colonies in West Africa. In contrast to the rich and relatively well-developed colonies in the west, the transfer of power in the eastern and central African colonies was complicated by the competing claims of impoverished black populations and privileged, entrenched European minority settler communities. Yet, despite these difficulties, a combination of African nationalism and the British desire to relinquish costly imperial commitments in the region resulted in independence and black majority rule in most African colonies, with the notable exception of Southern Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe).

Britain in the early 1960s was hustled and harried out of most of her old colonies, and without too much bloodshed. The roll call was an impressive one. In the 1950s the Sudan, the Gold Coast (Ghana) and Malaya had been the only ones to ‘escape.’ In the 1960s, it quite suddenly became a stampede, as the following list shows:

None of the shadows cast by the legacy of the empire was long enough to substitute fully for what had been lost. At first, it was thought that the Commonwealth might. In the 1950s the fact that so many ex-colonies had elected to stay within the Commonwealth led some imperialists to assume a substantive continuity between it and the old empire. The ‘black’ and ‘brown’ nations joined Australia, New Zealand and Canada in an extended family cemented by common bonds of tradition, friendship and mutual interest. Leopold Amery in 1953 speculated that:

‘… other nations now outside it may well decide to join it in course of time. … Who knows but that it may yet become the nucleus round which in the near future a future world order will crystalize?’

Leopold Amery, My Political Life, i, 16.

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip visited the Gambia in 1961. Despite the apparent loyalty to the Crown, the country became independent in 1965.

This vision compensated a little for the loss of empire, and while it seemed to do this, old imperialists retained their affection for it and sought (as in the past) to cement its parts more tightly together; for example by trade preferences for Commonwealth countries, and by preserving a definition of ‘British nationality’ (laid down in 1948) which allowed all Commonwealth citizens the right to enter Britain freely, without restriction. But by the sixties, it was becoming clear that the Commonwealth was turning out to be something less than had been hoped. Its members did not have common interests, not even among the ‘white’ dominions, which were too far apart both geographically and in respective perspectives. For the black and brown nations, membership was not an expression of filial gratitude and loyalty. Rather it provided merely a convenient platform on the world stage, from which they could air their grievances and entitlement to a share of what British aid there was going.

There were some ideological differences between the two main political parties on colonial policy, but both Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson entered number ten determined to retain Britain’s remaining imperial and military possessions. However, both leaders succumbed to economic, political and international pressures, resulting first in Macmillan’s retreat from Africa and then in Wilson’s withdrawal from ‘East of Suez’. The spread, speed and character of decolonisation were not determined by them, but by a mixture of international cold war politics, British imperial interests and local nationalist movements, which varied from region to region. In Egypt, Kenya and Malaya, for example, nationalism took on radical, populist and violent forms, culminating in state-of-emergency declarations by the British governments. Withdrawals were also impaired by communal and ethnic tensions. In contrast, the power transfer was comparatively peaceful in the Gold Coast and the Caribbean.

In fact, the Commonwealth was never united at all. Its new members fought each other, and broke off diplomatic relations with each other and with the ‘mother country.’ In 1961, they banished South Africa, one of its oldest members, from the family, causing considerable indignation among the ‘white’ dominions. As a substitute for the empire, it was a disappointment; the emperor’s new clothes were a sham. But there were some in British public life who continued to value the new Commonwealth but as something rather different from the old empire. It was a means of scaling the barriers of racism and chauvinism going up all over the world, a corrective to the contemporary consolidation of the world into continental blocs and perhaps a kind of moral pressure group within world affairs and a debating society for widely divergent cultures.

The Sad End of Empire:

There were some Britons, from idealistic old liberal imperialists to Fabian anti-imperialists who were generally interested in questions of international cooperation and overseas aid. But the political leaders from both main parliamentary parties soon lost interest in imperial free trade, always a euphemism for imperial protectionism. Instead, they turned to European free trade from 1962 when the first serious overtures to the EEC were made. In the same year, the UK parliament abandoned its noble commitment to ‘common citizenship’ by restricting coloured immigration from the Commonwealth. These two moves revealed a sudden loss of interest in the Commonwealth the minute it ceased to be useful to Britain. For idealistic imperialists, this was a sad end for the empire.

Despite the speed with which the British Empire was brought to an end in the period 1945-65, Britain had no intention of severing all links with its former colonies. On the contrary, the ‘Commonwealth’ was seen as a natural successor to the Empire. Despite the hopes of some Conservatives to the contrary, the formation of the enlarged Commonwealth never allowed Britain to retain any real influence. Although some politicians trumpeted the ideal of a closer association of states as a means of reasserting British spheres of influence in Asia and Africa, Britain’s political leaders soon discovered they were unable to exercise the level of economic and political control that they had hoped to retain.

The Return of British Cultural Self-Confidence & Political Satire:

Britain was a country open to foreign influences, but they were as strong from Italy or Scandinavia as from America – coffee bars, Danish design, scooters and something promoted as ‘Italian Welsh rarebit’ (later known as pizza) were all in evidence. The awesome power of American culture was growing all the time over the horizon. But for a few years, at least, the idea of a powerful, self-confident Britain independent of American culture seemed not only possible but likely. Per capita, after all, Britain was still the second-richest country in the world.

Political satire, which had been exuberantly popular in Georgian times, now returned in full force, from savage cartoons in the newspapers, staged lampoons and the fortnightly mockery of the magazine Private Eye. Among the two million listeners to The Goon Show in the mid-fifties were key members of the next generation of comics, who would sting more, men such as Jonathan Miller and Peter Cook. The latter is considered Spike Milligan’s only rival as the outstanding comic genius of the age. As a schoolboy at Radley in Oxfordshire, he sent a script to the BBC good enough for Milligan to invite him to London for lunch. The bullying that Cook endured at his private ‘public’ school led him to develop mimicry and mockery to deflect bullies. Cook would make them laugh in order that they would not hit him. He was not politically radical, being from a privileged élite in which his father had been a colonial civil servant in Nigeria and Gibraltar. From Radley, he went on to Cambridge, from where there was a direct line from student reviews to the West End. Peter Cook’s generation at Cambridge in 1957 included a number of future cabinet ministers, as well as numerous actors. He once said:

‘One reason that Oxbridge has traditionally produced so many political satirists is that its undergraduates come face to face with their future political leaders at an early age, and realise then quite how many of them are social retards who join debating societies in order to find friends.’

Cook found his voice as a schoolboy and essentially never lost it; the same deadpan philosophical drone spread to Edinburgh’s Beyond the Fringe review, to London and New York. The day when the traditional establishment had to acknowledge the comedy establishment was 28th February 1962, when the Queen visited Beyond the Fringe in London’s Fortune Theatre to see the vicious caricature of her prime minister by Peter Cook. Cook had done his Macmillan at Cambridge and at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe already. In London, he had been playing to packed houses since the previous May. There had been protests and walkouts by people outraged at seeing the Queen’s first minister lampooned in public, but the Queen herself roared with laughter. After this, Macmillan was determined to show what a good sport he was, and that he could take a joke, so he decided to go along too. But when the prime minister arrived, Cook spotted him in the audience and deviated from his script. In an Edwardian drawl, he imitated Macmillan:

“When I’ve a spare evening, there’s nothing I like better than to wander over to a theatre and sit there listening to a group of sappy, urgent, vibrant young satirists, with a stupid great grin all over my silly old face.”

The New Commonwealth & Immigration to Britain:

In Britain, postwar reconstruction, declining birthrates and labour shortages resulted in the introduction of government schemes to encourage the migration of Commonwealth workers, particularly from the West Indies, to seek employment in Britain. Jamaicans and Trinidadians were recruited directly by agents to fill vacancies in the British transport network and the newly created National Health Service. Private companies also recruited labour in India and Pakistan for textile factories and steel foundries in Britain.

Just as Britain was retreating from its formal imperial commitments, Commonwealth immigration into Britain, principally from the West Indies and South Asia, was becoming an increasingly salient issue in British domestic politics. During the 1950s, the number of West Indians entering Britain reached annual rates of thirty thousand. Immigration from the Indian subcontinent began to escalate in the 1960s. The Census of 1951 recorded seventy-four thousand New Commonwealth immigrants; a decade later the figure had increased to 336,000. This immigration was driven by a combination of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. Partition of the Indian subcontinent and the construction of the Mangla Dam in Pakistan continued to displace large numbers of people, many of whom had close links with Britain through colonial connections and later through familial ones.

West Indians in London in 1956.

The 1948 Nationality Act reaffirmed the right of British nationality and free entry to the United Kingdom to all Commonwealth subjects of the Crown, without restrictions. About 125,000 people from the Caribbean came to live in Britain between 1948 and 1958. They were looking to escape the poverty of their own countries. Immigrants also came from other parts of the Commonwealth, including India, Pakistan and East Africa, some arriving as refugees fleeing wars and discrimination. But as growing numbers of Caribbeans and South Asians took up this right of abode, the British authorities became increasingly alarmed.

As more Caribbeans and South Asians settled in Britain, patterns of chain migration developed in which pioneer migrants, usually single men, aided family and friends to settle. The picture below shows female family members and young boys arriving to join their menfolk. Despite the influx of workers from Ireland and the Commonwealth, emigration continued to outstrip immigration.

Birmingham’s booming postwar economy attracted West Indian settlers from Jamaica, Barbados and St Kitts in the 1950s, followed by South Asians from Gujurat and the Punjab in India, as well as from both West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) from the 1960s. Hostility to Commonwealth immigrants was pronounced in some sections of the local white population. One manifestation of this was the establishment of the Birmingham Immigration Control Association, founded in the early 1960s by a group of Tory MPs.

A Jamaican immigrant seeking work and lodgings in Birmingham in 1955.

Many West Indian immigrants encountered considerable obstacles, including racial prejudice when seeking accommodation, as the photo from 1958 below shows.

The importance assigned to the Commonwealth in the fifties prevented the imposition of the tighter immigration controls that many began to call for. However, by the sixties, Britain’s retreat from the Commonwealth in favour of pursuing links with Europe and events such as the Notting Hill race riots of 1958 heralded a policy of restriction, which gradually whittled away the right of New Commonwealth citizens to automatic British citizenship. Although the Immigration Act of 1962 that followed was intended to reduce the inflow of blacks and Asians into Britain, it had the opposite effect at first: fearful of losing the right to free entry, immigrants came to Britain in larger numbers.

In the eighteen months of 1961-62 before the restrictions were introduced, the volume of newcomers equalled the total for the previous five years, peaking at almost 120,000 in 1962. They remained comparatively high in 1963-64, declining only slowly thereafter.

A South Asian immigrant employed in a Bradford textile industry.

South Asian immigrants first settled in Bradford in the 1950s and ’60s, taking up employment in the textile factories. It was often unskilled work and poorly paid.

Working-class Britain – A North-South Divide?

Working-class Britain may have been getting wealthier but it was still housed in dreadful old homes, excluded from the expansion of higher education and deprived of jobs except for manual, monotonous ones. On 15 August 1962, the Guardian published a long article on its leader page by the chief education officer for Leeds, George Taylor. It was called ‘The Gulf Between North and South,’ the first ‘ranging shot in an engagement that still continues,’ according to Geoffrey Moorhouse in his 1964 book, Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Moorhouse pointed out that in the two years that had passed since the article was published, many others followed it, both in the Guardian and in other national newspapers, that many hours had been spent on it by television and radio, and that many speeches had been made on it by politicians. Moorhouse remarked:

The idea that over the past few years two Englands have taken shape, one in the North and the other in the South, unequal socially and economically, has become our major domestic preoccupation. The consciousness of a socio-geographic division in this country is, of course, by no means a new thing. … At least one side of the present debate, the problem of the population drift to the South-east, was foreseen in 1937 in the Barlow Report. But it is doubtful whether there has ever before been such a national fixation with the supposed division of England into North and South on almost every count.

Geoffrey Moorhouse (1964), Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. p. 13.

The basic argument of Moorhouse’s book was that such demarcation in the sixties was ‘vague and misleading,’ and that while two Englands did undoubtedly exist in 1964, they could be more precisely defined. George Taylor’s argument started from the observed facts that the nine county boroughs with the highest mortality rates in England were in the industrial North and the ten county boroughs with the lowest mortality rates were South of a line drawn from the Severn to the Thames. As a chief education officer, he suggested that frequent absences from school and lack of vitality in the classroom were caused by overcrowding, poor living conditions and a polluted atmosphere. In addition, the high death rate itself left a number a number of families with only one parent, a well-known reason for children finishing their education as soon as it was legally possible to do so. He went on:

… it is fairly safe to assert that the Northern child will receive his education in and old, insanitary building planned on lines wholly inappropriate for contemporary teaching. His teachers will be too few in number, probably inexperienced, possibly unqualified and, and constantly changing. His modern school will not develop courses to attract him to remain at school until sixteen… because it cannot be sure of of teachers to staff them and lacks amenities to attract them. If he attends a grammar school, its children will be, like him, drawn entirely from the local working-class community… which sees little point in encouraging its children to remain at school until the age of eighteen.

George Taylor, The Guardian, 15 August 1962, quoted by Moorhouse, p.13

Taylor briefly indicated the wider problems of the industrial North, pointing out that one of its more intractable difficulties was a lack of money at reasonable rates of interest, and concluded that without such financial aid, ‘it will not take a generation to complete the establishment of two nations or, in contemporary language, two cultures, divided by a line from the Humber to the Wirral.’ Moorhouse agreed that no one who lived in the North-east, Yorkshire or Lancashire during the late fifties and early sixties could fail to be aware of how much their locations were falling behind the national averages in tolerable housing conditions, mortality, investment and employment. But in the late summer of 1962, there was little sign that the whole country recognised this situation. As far as the Government was concerned it seemed that it was being allowed to drift along on the assumption that something would turn up. The debate stimulated by Taylor’s Guardian article represented a significant turning point. It was followed up by other newspapers, television and radio, and it was not long after all this sudden publicity that the Government took action. Moorhouse thought that Taylor’s comments on the educational frustrations of the Northern child were invaluable, but at the same time, they contained two stereotypes of the North.

Moorhouse’s Map shows his preferred geographical division of England into North and South, and the places mentioned in his book.

Firstly, there was the implication that those attending grammar schools were invariably located in mining areas. Anyone looking at a map of the North of England, wrote Moorhouse, would see that there were a lot of coalfields in the North, but that they were dispersed and certainly not found in areas with the densest population, like Leeds. Secondly, the map reader would have difficulty in deciding where to draw the line between ‘North’ and ‘South’. Was it a line from the Severn to the Thames, or from the Wirral to the Humber? Or sometimes, it would be defined as the seventh-century boundary between the Severn and the Wash. But because commentators, and the nation as a whole, have got into the habit of thinking of a generally poor North and a generally rich South, based on inadequate geographical definitions, two damaging stereotypes followed, painting the North blacker than it was and the South whiter. Scarcely less unfortunate in its side effects was the assumption that all was well in the latter, a land flowing with milk and honey from end to end. This image would not be recognisable, Moorhouse suggested, by the 5,640 homeless people in the care of London County Council in May 1964. He concluded:

Clearly the North-South division depends upon such enormous generalisations shot through with so many qualifications that it is thoroughly unrealistic to use it as a basis for national thinking. … I would suggest that one of our Englands today is a circle whose perimeter is approximately one hour’s travel by fast peak-hour travel the main London termini; the other is the whole of the country outside that circle.

Moorhouse, pp. 18-19.
Popular Culture – Angry Young Men, Sex & Rock ‘n’ Roll:
‘Teddy Boys’, in North Kensington in 1956, with their extravagant dress and aggressive manner.

English society, both Northern and Southern, was beginning to become more violent with an increase in violent crime and riots by ‘Teddy Boys’ in the mid-1950s, so-called because of their return to Edwardian styles of dress, especially long jackets. They also wore tight trousers and pointed shoes. They brought together rock ‘n’ roll dance music, and a reputation for extravagance, insolence and violence that shocked a nation still wedded to prewar values. They were the first representatives of modern youth culture and were followed by the ‘Mods’ and ‘Rockers’ in the early 1960s, their alienation perhaps being fuelled by a new vogue for high-rise blocks of flats. The 1950s also saw the Angry Young Men (and, of course, young women) associated, together with an older generation of pacifists and dissenters, with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the beginning of protests against the Vietnam War in Britain, as in the USA and elsewhere in Europe.

Meanwhile, the poet Philip Larkin and other writers were more interested in sex. He wrote that ‘Sexual intercourse began in 1963.’ In the 1950s, teenage girls were not supposed to know what it was. While they were supposed to be watching ‘telly’ with their brothers, their ‘mam’ was, according to Alan Sillitoe, in his 1959 autobiographical novel, The Loneliness of the Long-distance Runner, having a good time ‘with some fancy-man upstairs on the new bed she’d ordered.’ Like Moorhouse, Sillitoe was from Nottingham. His book won the coveted Hawthornden Prize for the best work of imagination in prose of 1960.

The 1960s were dramatic years in Britain: demographic trends, especially the increase in the proportion of teenagers in the population, coincided with economic affluence and ideological experimentation to reconfigure social mores to a revolutionary extent. Anti-establishment values spread much wider than the student population. The cultural revolution had a profound effect on sexual behaviour in general, and on women in particular. Sex before marriage became slightly less taboo, and there was a general feeling of ‘sexual freedom’ in some circles. An unexpurgated edition of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, by D H Lawrence, banned as pornography since it was first published in the 1920s, was not released in the United Kingdom until 1960 when it was the subject of a watershed obscenity trial against the publisher, Penguin Books. Penguin won the controversial case and the book quickly sold three million copies.

Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley

Shelagh Delaney’s 1958 play, A Taste of Honey, was a breakthrough play for working-class drama, set in Salford and written when she was just nineteen.

The family also underwent important changes. From the 1950s, the household had begun to be transformed, affected by smaller family sizes, helped by the wider availability of abortion and effective contraception, and increased domestic technology. In 1956, only seven per cent of households had refrigerators and sixty-four per cent of households also possessed a washing machine. In addition, the real earnings of young manual workers had grown rapidly, creating a generation that had money to spend on leisure and luxury. By 1960, the average British teenager was spending eight pounds a week on clothes, cosmetics, records and cigarettes. In London, King’s Road, and then Carnaby Street, became the haunt of this generation. Their attitude is summed up by the designer Mary Quant, whose shop, Bazaar, on the King’s Road, provided clothes that allowed people to run, jump, and leap, to retain their precious freedom. Clothes became the symbol of the ‘Chelsea set.’

Stephen Ward (left) was the man at the centre of the greatest scandal of the early sixties, together with Christine Keeler (to his left).

As the sixties progressed, prophets of doom believed that Britain had passed from austerity to affluence and straight on to decadence. The ‘Profumo affair’ was, perhaps, a fitting epitaph to the ‘back-end’ of the affluent era. It was, as Wayland Young remarked, ‘scandal and crisis together.’ It ‘exercised some of the purgative and disruptive functions of a revolution.’ (Wayland Young (1963), The Profumo Affair). The opening sentence of an article about the Profumo affair contained an anecdote that Geoffrey Moorhouse didn’t doubt was being repeated up and down the country, ‘rather more concisely’:

‘ Just upstream from the terrace of the House of Commons is the outlet of a main sewer, and at certain hours of the day, Members leaning on the balustrade can find amusement and occupation in counting the contraceptives floating down to the sea. …’

Geoffrey Moorhouse, op.cit., p. 23.

Moorhouse commented that this had…

the genuine metropolitan brand of faintly bored, very knowing authorship by one who has spent some time pondering the sewer and its effluent and is something of an expert on Parliamentary topography.

Ibid.

He suggested that this may have been the effect of metropolitan assumptions and attitudes on those with commercial and political power in the capital. As The Times suggested in a leading article in February 1964, …

…The World of Westminster, Whitehall, the West End clubs and even Fleet Street seems curiously remote from what goes on in the rest of the country.

Quoted in Moorhouse, op. cit, p. 26.

Another symbol of the society of the sixties was music. Nowhere was further away from the world of Westminster, Whitehall and the West End clubs than Liverpool and its Cavern Club from where the ‘Merseybeat’ emerged. In 1964, Geoffrey Moorhouse wrote:

there have been few social phenomena more intriguing or more extensively plotted than the development of pop-music groups in Liverpool in the last couple of years.

Moorhouse, p. 137.
The ‘Fab Four’ as they became known, (left to right) George Harrison, Paul McCartney, John Lennon and Ringo Starr.

No band was more important in this development than The Beatles. They expressed both youth deviance and commercialism and provided British teenagers with an identity that cut across the barriers of class, accent and region. The Beatles (or the Quarrymen as they were first known) were formed in July 1957 and in October 1962 Love Me Do only got to number seventeen in the charts, but in April 1963 From Me to You became their first number-one hit single. By 1964, they had become so established that the music critic of The Times devoted a whole column to analysing their work. He was much taken with its chains of pandiatonic clusters and its submediant switches from C major into A flat major. He even detected in it an affinity with Mahler. Not that this comparison immediately came to Moorhouse’s mind as he penetrated the Cavern Club, the origin of all this euphony. It was a converted subterranean warehouse on Matthew Street, a couple of blocks from Lime Street:

Every night it is open you pick up its spoor by following the line of lounging adolescents in the alleyways around. They are the ones who can’t get in. The bouncer on the door disapproves of unexpected visitors. “This place,” he observes, is becoming a bloody shrine.” And so it is. There are CND symbols and other daubs of paint crudely applied around the entrance. Half-way down the steep wooden staircase you find yourself stumbling into an atmosphere which is thick, sweet, almost tasty.

In the Cavern something like a couple of hundred youngsters are compressed together under three barrel-vaulted ceilings separated by stubby, arched walls. The light is dim and orange except at the far end where three lads are thumping out a number and a girl is singing rustily under glaring arc lamps. The walls are running with condensation. No one seems to notice the extreme discomfort of being there. A handful are drinking Cokes and Pepsis at an improvised bar.

But most of the people in the cellar are just moving spasmodically to the beat of the music, either in couples or individually. Only one couple were snogging quietly in a dimmer corner than the rest. At the end of the number there is a great amount of cheering and clapping but nothing that you’d call hysteria. After a couple of these the visitor, if he is wise, makes for the stairway again because it requires a special Merseyside constitution to withstand more than a short spell in that foetid ill-ventilated hole without passing out.

Moorhouse, op. cit., pp 137-138.

Why, then, did Liverpool become the original centre of popular music in Britain, not Birmingham or Bristol or Cardiff or even London? Most of the groups that first established themselves in Liverpool had some connexion with the seamen on the New York and Hamburg runs. If a member of a group had not himself been to sea, a brother or mate would have been and they would have brought back records from these places, which were both in the front of the jazz evolution.

Bill Haley & his Comets.

In the late fifties, following the rock ‘n’ roll craze that started in Britain with the 1957 tour of Bill Haley and his Comets, all over England, the guitar became the instrument of pop music. In Liverpool, musicians were stimulated by this inflow of recorded material, experimenting with their variations on it, and superimposing their own distinctive styles and sounds on it. Many of them, The Beatles included, went to Hamburg to play there, where there was a market for young musicians who could knock up a good rock tune; the trip to Germany was little more than a pierhead jump for any young Scouse with a few pounds in his pocket. By the time the Beatles came back, their German records had found their way onto English turntables. And, after that, they never looked back.

The cover sleeve for an ‘extended play’ record that was released in 1958.

All this had deep social implications on Merseyside which were first documented by a Liverpool undergraduate, Colin Fletcher, in New Society (20 February 1964). According to Fletcher, the pop groups sprang from and gradually took over the function of the street gangs:

The gang, between the period 1954 and 1958, was not only a microcosm of society; it was relatively speaking, the only society the adolescent knew and felt sure of. This was the situation when rock and roll arrived on Merseyside.

Quoted in Moorhouse, op.cit., p. 139.

There were riots in the cinema showing the Haley film, Rock Around the Clock. Soon, boys who had bought guitars began to try the music for themselves. As they were invariably members of groups their music became the main means of gang expression. As such, it usurped the roles of older habits, such as gang violence, though there was no apparent decrease in levels of violence overall. An additional attraction, especially as they got older, was the effect of their music on girls. They seemed to be “solid gone”… not only over the sound but also those who made it. The pattern of leisure for these adolescents changed from one of group warfare and outbursts of vandalism or worse to one in which the gangs spent most of their time acting as helpmates (‘groupies’) and cheerers-on of those members who could make music. The toughest of them who had always been disposed to crime more than the rest tended also to be the ones with the least taste or aptitude for music.

Beatlemania & the BBC:
Live at the BBC

But Moorhouse claimed that the Mersey Sound had certainly tapped the belligerent instincts of many adolescents. From 1960 to 1964, more than three hundred beat groups had been formed in Liverpool. In 1963, although the overall crime figures rose by nearly ten per cent, juvenile crime was down by two per cent. Moorhouse made an interesting final comment on the futures of the Mersey Beat boys:

The remarkable thing about the young men who have made so much from the Mersey Sound – The Beatles and a dozen other combinations – is that although by now they can probably afford to choose pretty well where they want to spend the rest of their days, none of them, it is said by those close to them, has much desire to leave Liverpool for good.

Moorhouse, op.cit., p.140

But many people in the recording and broadcasting establishment regarded popular music with disdain. The BBC held a monopoly over the radio waves, and, in a deal with the Musicians’ Union and record manufacturers, ensured that popular music was not given airtime. Anyone wanting to listen to popular musicians had to tune into Radio Luxembourg, from which reception was often very poor. At Easter 1964, however, the first illegal ‘pirate’ radio station, Radio Caroline, began broadcasting from a ship just off the Sussex coast. Within months, millions of young people were listening to the station. Radio London and other pirate stations sprang up. Not only did they broadcast popular music, but they also reminded their listeners that any attempt to silence them would constitute a direct attack on youth.

Pop music could be heard everywhere on portable transistor radios and stereo record players.

Brian Epstein’s application for an audition of The Beatles by the Variety Department of the BBC.

However, the BBC was not wholly negative in its response to ‘pop’ music, or at least the Mersey Beat. Between March 1962 and June 1965, no fewer than 275 unique musical performances by The Beatles were broadcast by the BBC in the UK. The group played eighty-eight songs on national radio. Some were recorded many times; others were played just once. Many of them were covers of early rock ‘n’ roll classics by Chuck Berry and others. In his introduction to the 2013 release of these, On Air-Live at the BBC, Paul McCartney wrote:

‘Raised on the BBC radio programmes, one of the big things in our week was ‘Saturday Club.’ We would wake up to this great show playing the kind of music we loved. That was something we really aspired to. Eventually we got to go to that show and be a part of it… out of came ‘Pop go the Beatles.’ We knew we would have to compromise to som extent, but when it came to playing the numbers, we could do them the way we wanted. Then there would be the talk with the rather plummy BBC announcer, who was not from our world at all. We couldn’t imagine what world he was from. …

‘With our manager Brian Epstein having a record shop – NEMS – we did have the opportunity to look around a bit more than the casual buyer. … We discovered ‘Twist and Shout’ by the Isley Brothers, which was a little bit hip to know about. I remember coming down to London and somebody saying, “Wow, you’ve heard of the Isleys!” It gave us this little edge over other bands, who perhaps weren’t scouring the racks quite as avidly as we were.

‘Ringo would get stuff from sailors. … he happened to have a few mates who’d been abroad to New Orleans or New York and had picked up some nice blues or country and western. … We made it our full-time job to research all these things; to go for the road less travelled. …’

Paul McCartney (2013), Introduction to ‘On Air – Live at the BBC’, Vol. 2. Apple/ BBC.

A Social Revolution?

The mid-1950s to the mid-1960s was a period of rapid social change in Britain. It was also a period in which the pace and direction of social change itself became a topic of concern and public debate. The argument then was about whether the many indications of change really added up to a social revolution for ordinary Britons. Its conclusions still remain provisional, and tentative, sixty years later. In that period almost everything changed, at least a little. No segment of society, no corner of the nation, no aspect of life remained untouched. One part of the story is the story of change, emergent patterns, new relationships and conditions for ordinary men and women, and a sense of discontinuity with the past.

In the ‘society of affluence,’ which threw up such paradoxical symbols, it was easy to project the problems that life presented into simple and stereotyped remedies. This was an economic change, certainly, but was it a social revolution? We need another term for a period of massive social upheaval which, nevertheless, left so much exactly where it was; it was a revolution which preserved its fundamental elements even as it seemed to transform them. Ordinary men and women in the fifties and early sixties were caught somewhere inside that double process, trying to make sense of it. They were in a revolving wheel which kept coming full circle.

The Mini & the Great Car Economy:

Perhaps the best symbol of this paradoxical period of the late fifties and early sixties was the Mini. Ten years or so after designing the Morris Minor, in the year of Macmillan’s election success, 1959, Alec Issigonis produced his sketched design, pictured below, for an even more radical car for the developing motoring market. It fitted well with the chic Macmillan era, though the aristocratic prime minister himself would never have bought anything so small and vulgar. Issigonis himself can lay claim to being one of the more influential figures in the history of the car in Britain as well as being about the only industrial designer most people have heard of. The son of a Greek engineer living in Turkey who had taken British citizenship, and a German brewer’s daughter, he had lived his early years on the site of his father’s marine engineering business, watching him transform his drawings into engines.

Issigonis’s original, sketched design for the 1959 Mini.

Issigonis is as good an early example as any of the benefits that immigration brought to Britain. He was a wartime refugee from Smyrna, the port area which had been taken back by Turkey from Greece after the First World War. Issigonis’s father died on the road to exile, but he arrived with his mother in Britain in 1922, virtually penniless. He studied engineering and technical drawing in London before getting work, first for Humber and then for Morris Motors. His Mini-Minor was commissioned in the immediate aftermath of the Suez Crisis when petrol shortages had focussed attention on the case for cheap, economical cars. The country was already latching onto the bubble cars being imported from the continent and soon being made at a factory in Brighton. Issigonis’s brief was to produce something for the British Motor Corporation that could compete with these products, but that was also a proper car, not a motorbike sidecar with its own motor. He not only made it look good, but by turning round the engine and placing it over the wheels, he found a way of making more space for passengers than in any other small car. Issigonis’s design was so radical it needed a complete set of new machine tools to produce; he designed them, too.

The Mini would become an icon of British ‘cool,’ a chirpy, cheeky little car that represented the national character at its classless best. But some of the earliest minis were shoddily built, with a series of mechanical problems and poor trim; more importantly they leaked so badly that people joked that every car should be sold with a free pair of Wellington boots. In fact, for a while, the car looked as if it would be a disaster for Issigonis and BMC. The costings behind it were also questionable. The basic model sold at Ł350, much cheaper than rival British-made small cars like the Triumph Herald (Ł495), the Ford Anglia (Ł380) and even the Morris Minor (Ł416). But the average retail price of the car was Ł500, which probably better reflected the production costs of the Austin and Morris factories that manufactured it en masse.

Yet the Mini had been very expensive to develop and make. Ford, one of its main competitors, tore one apart and concluded that it would cost them more to build than BMC was selling it for. It seems unlikely that to begin with at least, they made any profit, but they eventually sold more than five million. But its success and longevity only really came about due to celebrity endorsement, and even ‘spin.’ Issigonis gave one to Princess Margaret and Lord Snowden as a wedding present, so that they could be photographed whizzing around London in it. The Queen tried one out, and soon Steve McQueen, Twiggy, The Beatles, Marianne Faithfull, and Mick Jagger’s girlfriend, were seen in them too. In this way, became and remained a fashion icon, taking part with the Spice Girls in the opening ceremony of the Olympics in 2012.

BMW’s New Mini (Matchbox version), built to Issigonis’s initial design, but without the faults.

This was completely the opposite image of the original BMC idea of a cheap, no-frills car for the working-classes. The mechanical problems, lack of good teamwork and risky pricing strategy show that there was a shaky side to the Mini story from the start. Issigonis’s biographer concluded that ‘far from being a business triumph for the shaky British Motor Corporation, the Mini was the first nail in their coffin.’ Still, as yet, with fast economic growth and an insatiable appetite for affordable cars, the domestic industry continued to do well. Despite competition from continental and American companies, other British producers were marketing long-lived and successful models, from sleek Jaguars to solid and stately Rover Eights and Fifties. Industrial action was growing, and there was a particularly bad strike at BMC in 1958. Ministers, still largely drawn from public school and aristocratic backgrounds rather than manufacturing or business ones were trying to bring employment to run-down parts of Scotland and the North of England. They were finally responding to the concerns about the growing North-South divide. They persuaded BMC to create a cumbersome and expensive empire of new factories which it did not have the experience to manage properly.

The white heat of the technological revolution.

Little of this was obvious to the ordinary observer back then, in the early stages of popular motoring mania. It was hardly surprising that few bright British engineering students went to work in the British motor industry compared with the best of the Germans and Americans going into their equivalents. Instead, there was ominous talk of the ‘stagnant society.’ But in October 1963, Harold Wilson, then leader of the Labour Opposition and Prime Minister from 1964 and throughout the remainder of the sixties, predicted that Britain would be re-forged in the white heat of the technological revolution.

Successive Conservative governments had failed to understand the structural changes that had occurred in both domestic and international economies. They adopted a policy of complacency. Affluence and consensus were key concepts of the fifties and sixties, but both were based on illusion. In 1964 the Labour Party, under Harold Wilson, came into power, promising economic and social modernisation. In an attempt to tackle the problem of poverty, public expenditure on social services was expanded considerably, resulting in a small degree of redistribution of income. Living standards continued to rise and consumer goods became more available to all.

In the late 1950s new kinds of computers were built, using small transistors instead of electric valves. These still took up huge amounts of space, used up a lot of electricity and often became overheated, causing them to break down. It wasn’t until the 1960s that computers became cheaper and faster. The silicon chip was invented so that computers used less electricity and were able to hold thousands of transistors in a small space. This enabled the development of the micro-computer, changing almost every aspect of British life since.

As the 1960s progressed, alternative sources of energy were discovered, including large reserves of oil and gas. North Sea natural gas and oil came to the aid of the British economy. The EEC did not, however, not until the early 1970s.

Above: An oil rig in the North Sea.

Many ‘foreigners’ in politics and business began increasingly to talk of the ‘British disease’, economic stagnation. So, too, did the British themselves, seeing joining the ‘Common Market’ as a means to boost British exports following the loss of empire.

Sources for the Epilogue:

Geoffrey Moorhouse (1964), Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Michael Clark & Peter Teed (eds.) (1972), Portraits & Documents: The Twentieth Century. London: Hutchinson Educational.

Theo Baker (ed.) (1978), The Long March of Everyman, 1750-1960. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (in association with André Deutsch & the BBC).

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents & Debates: Twentieth Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Simon Hall & John Haywood (eds.) (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Norman Rose (2005), Harold Nicolson. London: Pimlico.

Andrew Marr (2008), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan.

Philip Parker (2017), History of Britain in Maps. Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Featured

Majesty & Grace VII: The Reign of Elizabeth Windsor – The Coronation; Dawn of a New Era & Dusk of Empire, 1953-58.

Map of the Coronation Procession, 2nd June 1953:

The Map below commemorates a day which brought a sense of relief to the people of the United Kingdom after the trials and tribulations of the Second World War and the years of austerity which had followed it. The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II on 2nd June 1953 was a moment for the nation to celebrate with lavish ceremony and age-hallowed pageantry. The procession through London’s streets, which followed the coronation ceremony itself, snaked through the city’s historic heart, beginning at Westminster Abbey, before arriving back at Buckingham Palace nearly two hours later.

The Second World War had swept away much that was familiar; not just the buildings brought down by the Blitz, but the sense that the old world had passed. In housing, there were grave shortages, partly caused by the bombing, but in large part by the lamentable state of the pre-war housing stock, while the reintegration of millions of service personnel into the economy had caused severe disruption. There was a yearning for something new, for an escape, a need partly met by the arrival of the ‘New look,’ a fashion trend that tried to make the most of limited means with long, swirling skirts. Conversely, there was a political flight to safety when the Labour government was defeated in the 1951 general election and the ageing, yet the familiar face of Winston Churchill returned to Downing Street.

George VI, who had been the nation’s figurehead throughout the war, died on 6th February 1952, leaving his twenty-five-year-old daughter Elizabeth to succeed him. The planning for the new Queen’s Coronation began almost immediately, but the actual ceremony only took place fourteen months later. British coronations were always occasions for pomp and display, but Elizabeth II’s took place under the glare of unprecedented publicity. After a bitter behind-the-scenes argument, television cameras were allowed to film the ceremony, leading to the event being watched by over twenty million viewers, at a time when there were only 2.7 million television sets in Britain, many of them bought specifically to watch the Coronation.

The three million who lined London’s streets did not see the Queen enter the Abbey preceded by St Edward’s Crown, based on the medieval original, and used since the Coronation of Charles II, nor her gown designed by Norman Hartnell embroidered with emblems from the main Commonwealth countries (a Tudor rose for Great Britain, a maple leaf for Canada, a wattle for Australia and a lotus flower for India), but they did catch a glimpse of the fairy-tale carriage in which she was carried down Whitehall, Piccadilly, Oxford Street and Regent Street along the circuitous five-mile route back from the Abbey to the Palace. The line of the ten thousand servicemen who marched as part of the parade stretched for almost two miles.

People began to speak of a new Elizabethan age following the death of George VI and the accession of his daughter in 1952 and in anticipation of the great national event of the Coronation. The Establishment took up their usual positions at Westminster Abbey. Sir Henry Chips Channon occupied almost the same seat as the one he had at the previous Coronation. He wrote the following account in his diary:

… All was comfortably, smoothly arranged … as a covered bridge had been built from St Stephen’s entrance to the East Door. But there was a slight drizzle and an overcast sky. … Below, empty in the golden light, stood the throne. Opposite, the peeresses benches were gradually filling up; the front row of thirteen Duchesses was a splendid sight. … The long wait was enthralling as every few minutes a procession of distinguished guests, relations, minor royalties entered and were escorted to their seats. Finally, the Royal Family. …The Duchess of Kent was fairy-like, as she walked in with her children…

… Finally came the magic of the Queen’s arrival: she was calm and confident and even charming, and looked touching and quite perfect, while Prince Philip was like a medieval knight – the Service, Anointing, Crowning, Communion were endless, yet the scene was so splendid, so breath-taking in the solemn splendour that it passed in a flash. The homage was impressive… The Great Officers of State swished their robes with dignity… Privy Councillors in their uniforms, men in levee dress, the little Queen at one moment simply dressed in a sort of shift, and then later resplendent: the pretty pages; the supreme movements… the nodding, chatting, gossiping Duchesses; the swan-like movements when they simultaneously placed their coronets on their heads… it was all finer, and better organised than the last time, although the Archbishop’s voice was not as sonorous as that of the wicked old Lang..

What a day for England, and the traditional forces of the world. Shall we ever see the like again? I have been present at two Coronations and now shall never see another. Will my Paul be an old man at that of King Charles III?

Sir Henry Channon (1967), Diaries, edited by Robert James, pp 475-477.

Paul Channon was Sir Henry’s only son (b. 1935), and succeeded his father as MP for Southend West, serving from 1959 to 1997. He became Minister of State at the Civil Service Department when the Conservatives returned to power in 1979 led by Margaret Thatcher. He joined the Privy Council in 1980. After the Civil Service Department was abolished in 1981, he became Minister for the Arts, then Minister of State for Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry following the 1983 general election, finally serving as Secretary of State for Transport from 1987 until 1989. He died in 2007, aged 71, fifteen years before Her Majesty, so will not be present at the forthcoming Coronation of King Charles III. Clearly, like so many others present that day, ‘Chips’ Channon could not envisage the young Queen reigning for another sixty-nine years.

It seemed truly the beginning of a new Elizabethan age, filled with hope. That news of Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary’s first ascent of Mount Everest reached London on Coronation Day only added to the excitement. Later, Hillary gave his account of the final ascent to the summit which had taken place earlier that morning:

The ridge curved away to the right and we had no idea where the top was. As I cut around the back of one hump, another higher one would spring into view. Time was passing and the ridge seemed never-ending. … I went on step-cutting. I was beginning to tire a little now. I had been cutting steps for two hours, and Tenzing, too, was moving very slowly. As I chipped steps around anothe corner, I wondered rather dully just how long we could keep it up. Our original zest had now gone and it was turning more into a grim struggle. I then realised that the ridge ahead, instead of still monotonously rising, now dropped sharply away, … I looked upwards to see a narrow snow ridge running up to a snowy summit. A few more whacks of the ice-axe and we stood on top.

‘My initial feelings were of relief – relief that there were no more steps to cut – no more ridges to traverse and no more humps to tantalise us with high hopes of success. I looked at Tenzing and in spite of the balaclava, goggles and oxygen mask all encrusted with long icycles that concealed his face, there was no disguising his infectious grin of pure delight as he looked all around him. We shook hands and then Tenzing threw his arm around my shoulder and we thumped each other on the back until we were almost breathless. It was 11.30 a.m.’

But the country still had ‘Everests’ to climb. The real future challenges it faced were its continuing near-bankruptcy after the war, the growing demands for independence among the colonies, and its economic retardation behind both the United States and the resurgent nations of Europe and the Far East.

An Era of Lost Content:

Between the fall of Clement Attlee’s Labour government and the return of Labour under Harold Wilson in 1964, Britain went through a time that some contemporary commentators and historians described as a gold-tinted era of lost content. For others, however, the period was grey and conformist, thirteen wasted years of Tory misrule. Andrew Marr (2009) argues that either way, in this part of Britain’s past, the country was truly a different country from that of the 1930s and ’40s as well as from that of the later 1960s onwards. The British imagination was still gripped by the Second World War. National Service had been introduced in 1947 to replace wartime conscription and began properly two years later, lasting until 1963. More than two million young British men entered the forces, most of them in the Army. It brought all classes together at a young and vulnerable age, subjecting them to strict discipline, a certain amount of practical education, often to privation and sometimes to real danger.

Teenagers were introduced to drill, cropped haircuts, heavy boots and endless polishing, creasing and blanching of their kit. In due course, some would fight for Britain in the Far East, Palestine, Egypt and East Africa. Most would spend a year or two in huge military camps in Germany and Britain, going quietly mad with boredom. An estimated 395 conscripts were killed in action in the fifty-plus engagements overseas during National Service. A generation of British manhood was disciplined, helping to set the tone of the times. The civilian habits of polishing, dressing smartly and conforming to authority in millions of homes originated in National Service, keeping the atmosphere of the forties alive for a decade longer than might have been expected. There was also an urge for domestic tranquillity with women at home while men worked well-ordered and limited hours, a response to the suffering and uncertainty of 1940-45 and the continuing fears of nuclear war. To be at home was a kind of quiet liberation. The return of Winston Churchill in 1951 added to the middle-class impressions that Britain was returning to social order and political hierarchy after the post-war period of radical change.

Nevertheless, successive Conservative governments in the 1950s and 1960s, including Churchill’s from 1951 to 1955, and from 1957 to 1963 that of his old disciple Harold Macmillan, decided against reversing most of the essential institutions of Labour’s new Britain: the NHS created by Bevan; the public ownership of railways, steelworks and mines; and especially the commitment to building publicly owned council housing for renting. Macmillan, a radical critic of the Conservative-led National Government in the thirties, had spoken of British miners as ‘the salt of the earth,’ and in 1938, he had published a little book, The Middle Way, advocating, among other things, the abolition of the Stock Exchange.

Developing Britain’s Transport System & Infrastructure, 1952 – 1963:
1.) Roads & Airports:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Britain’s inland transport was dominated by the railways. But increasingly cheap and flexible motor transport took an ever-greater share of passengers and freight. As the car replaced the railway as Britain’s preferred form of transport in the second half of the twentieth century, it became progressively difficult for the road system to cope with the increase in traffic. A motorway system became imperative. But between 1939 and 1952 there had been practically no major road improvement or new road construction. Road transport recovered slowly from vehicle and fuel shortages during and after World War II. Road haulage was assisted by a succession of regulations, including, in Britain, the lifting of the twenty-five limit on road freight consignments. By the 1960s, British road transport had eclipsed railways as the dominant carrier of freight.

Motorways were meant to ease congestion on the roads; the planners never envisaged that car ownership would reach twenty million by 1990.

In December 1958 Macmillan opened the Preston bypass, the first eight miles of dedicated, high-speed, limited-access motorway in Britain, and the following month the M1 was opened. Motorways were meant to ease congestion on the main roads. By the early 1960s, traffic flow had been eased by a total of a hundred miles of motorway. Between 1953 and 1963, vehicle numbers more than doubled: motorways allowed fast, convenient commercial and social travel, household incomes were rising, and the real cost of personal motoring was falling. Workplace, retail and residential decentralisation encouraged the desertion of trains and car dependency.

The M1 at Luton Spur opened in November 1959.

The first jet aeroplane to carry passengers was called the Comet, which began regular passenger services in 1952. But it was very small compared with modern ‘jumbo jets’ and could not carry many people, only a small fraction of the five hundred that can be carried by a jumbo seventy years later. In the late fifties and early sixties, people began to spend more of their growing income on foreign holidays. They no longer wanted to spend holidays in Britain, due to the unpredictable weather. Package holidays became popular and airports like Gatwick (below), opened as an aerodrome in the late 1920s; it has been in use for commercial flights since 1933 but was used by the RAF during the war. It was redeveloped and re-opened in May 1958 for commercial fights from two terminals. This gradually made package holidays cheaper and easier for families.

2.) Railways & Ports:

Reinvesting in exhausted railways was not a priority after World War Two. Railway nationalisation was followed by railway rationalisation (closures) as the railways were made more efficient. In 1952, the railways’ share of total passenger miles was still at a level of twenty per cent, and rail passenger mileage was stable for most of the second half of the century. Yet by 1953, nearly twelve hundred miles of railway had been closed to passenger traffic in Britain. This was largely the result of the industrial changes that brought the loss of staple coal and textile traffic. Britain’s compact industrial geography also diminished any long-haul advantages that railways had over modern road transport. Comparatively low-cost rural bus services damaged the railways still further.

The start of Britain’s largest-ever road-building programme in the 1960s coincided with an increase in the tempo of the railway closures. Roughly half of Britain’s branch-line railways and stations had become uneconomic. The closure of almost six thousand miles of track and two thousand stations resulted from the notorious Beeching Report in 1963. However, the least utilised third of the track had previously carried little more than one per cent of passengers and freight; henceforth, the railways were to concentrate on fast inter-city services. In 1966, the first electrified Intercity train was used, which could travel much faster than steam or diesel engines.

The docks also began to be modernised, with the development of container ports like Tilbury and Felixstowe hastening the decline of ports like London, which could not handle containerised freight. Airports also increased in number to meet an ever-growing demand.

3.) From Coal to Nuclear Power:
A coal mine in South Wales in the 1950s.

Until the early 1960s, most of Britain’s energy came from coal. It heated homes, offices and schools, and was also used in power stations and to power steam trains. The coal mines were finally nationalised by the Labour government in 1947, and the Conservatives kept them under public control by the National Coal Board. In 1955, there were still nine hundred coal mines throughout Britain. Gradually, cutting machines were introduced, putting many colliers out of work. But when new sources of energy were introduced and developed, especially oil and gas, many collieries were closed. By 1965, the number left was about half that of ten years earlier. The unemployment and hardship of the 1930s returned to the coalfield communities, especially those in South Wales, once one of the largest coal-mining areas in Britain, where the coal industry was still the major employer. In October 1956 Calder Hall became Britain’s first nuclear power station. Despite a major fire in 1957 at the nuclear waste processing plant, Windscale (renamed Sellafield), which produced widespread contamination, a series of Magnox power stations were built throughout the country.

The Affluent Society – Reality or Illusion?:

Real wages grew, on average, by fifty per cent between 1951 and 1964, and the Financial Times index of industrial shares rose from 103 in 1952 to 366 in 1961. By 1963, three out of every four households had a vacuum cleaner, one in three had a fridge and one in five had a washing machine. Perhaps most significant of all, four out of five had a television set. BBC TV, begun in 1936 and appealing to the small minority who could afford sets, went from strength to strength. Commercial television began in 1955, and by 1959 new transmitters allowed ninety per cent of the population to receive pictures, by which time three-quarters of the population already had a set. In 1964, BBC2 started to provide more ‘high-brow’ programming.

Watching television quickly became the most popular leisure activity in the country, while cinema attendance fell from 26.8 million in 1950 to 37 million by 1970. For the mass of viewers, programmes like ‘Cathy Come Home’ made the public aware of the poverty that remained in the midst of Britain’s affluence. But in his famous speech in July 1957, Harold Macmillan claimed that most people were better off after six years of Tory rule:

“Let’s be frank about it: most of our people have never had it so good. Go around the country, go to the industrial areas, go to the farms, and you will see a state of prosperity such as we have never had in my lifetime.”

Harold Macmillan’s Speech, 20 July 1957.

But six years after Macmillan’s speech, British economic growth rates did not match those of competitor states, and it was partly for this reason that in 1961 Britain applied to join the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. However, its entry was vetoed by France under President De Gaulle, who was concerned about the implications of Britain’s economic dependence on the USA.

J. K. Galbraith’s book on the affluent society, published in 1958, was seen by many as symbolising attitudes in the late fifties. Though primarily concerned with the United States, his work was hailed in Britain as a masterpiece which truly reflected the nature of British society. His work fitted the mood of Britons at the time. Austerity, with its characteristic lack of consumer goods, was replaced by affluence with the plethora of consumer products which still characterised the country in the 1980s. But how did Galbraith define an affluent society? He seems to suggest that it is one where…

… the ordinary individual has access to amenities – foods, entertainment, personal transportation and plumbing – in which not even the rich rejoiced a century ago. So great has been the change that many of the desires of the individual are no longer evident to him. They become so only as they are synthesised, elaborated, and nurtured by advertising and salesmanship, and these, in turn, have become among our most important and talented professions. Few people at the beginning of the nineteenth century needed an ad-man to tell them what they wanted. … The affluent country which conducts its affairs in accordance with rules of another and poorer age also forgoes opportunities. And in misunderstanding itself it will, in any time of difficulty, implacably prescribe for itself the wrong remedies.

However, not everyone fell under the Galbraith spell. M. Shanks’ work on the stagnant society, published in 1961, showed another side to the economy and government policy. He saw Conservative policy as leading to inflation based on consumer demand and thought that there was a failure to deal with the problems facing the economy. He argued that since the 1940s there had been no lack of new ideas, techniques or machines, and in the same way there was no lack of knowledge as to how the economic system worked. He pointed out:

We are no longer powerless to avert depressions or to prevent massive unemployment. We are no longer compelled to look on powerless at the catastrophic fluctuations of the trade cycle, unpredictable as a force of nature. If we cannot tame this monster now, it is due to incompetence and not ignorance. …

And yet it works much less smoothly. Why is this? Three main reasons stand out, all interconnected. The first is that the measures required to contain inflation, unlike those required to stimulate demand, are unpleasant and painful. It is much easier psychologically and to encourage people to do things they would like to do but are afraid to … than to stop them doing what they would normally want to do. …

The second reason is rather more complicated. Inflation manifests itself in a tendency for production costs and prices to rise sharply and progressively. … a country like Britain which depends on international trade cannot let its costs and prices get out of line with the rest of the world because of the danger to its balance of payments. …

The third reason for the difficulty of imposing an effective anti-inflationary policy is that one is making a real choice between evils. … In 1955, when, as a result of a government-assisted boom in industrial investment, demand began to run ahead of capacity and the economy became overstrained. … The cost of living was deliberately pushed up by raising purchase tax on a wide range of goods, and at the same time a number of measures were taken to discourage capital investment. Mr Butler’s policy was followed by his two successors at the Treasury. … It was only reversed at the onset of the recession in 1958. …

It did eventually succeed in slowing down the pace of wage increases, which was one of the main factors behind the 1955 inflation. But it took three years to do so, at the cost of a virtually complete industrial standstill and a number of financial crises and major industrial disputes. … One particularly unfortunate aspect of this period was the government’s attempts to restrict investment in the public sector – an attempt which was largely unsuccessful because of the long-term nature of most of the projects involved, which made it quite impossible to turn them on and off like a tap to meet the short-term fluctuations in the economy.

M. Shanks (1961), The Stagnant Society, pp. 30, 33-9, 40-42.
From Cost of Living to Quality of Life:

Outside work, leisure and home, the public was ordered and monitored by self-confident officialdom, hospital consultants and terrifying matrons, bishops and park-keepers, bus conductors and police officers. Ten National Parks had been designated between 1951 and 1957, protecting these areas from many forms of industrial and commercial development. There was also a continuing expansion of education. Higher education saw particular expansion. In 1938, there had been just twenty thousand students, a figure that rose nearly six-fold to 118,000 in 1962. But the real explosion in numbers came thereafter, as new ‘plateglass’ universities were formed and former colleges were given university status. Hanging, corporal punishment of young offenders, and strong laws against abortion and homosexual behaviour among men, all framed a system of control that was muttered against and often subverted but never directly or significantly challenged throughout the early fifties. The country was mostly orderly, and the people were more or less obedient subjects. Patriotism was publicly proclaimed, loudly and unselfconsciously, in a way that was later difficult to imagine.

In keeping up a public front of self-confidence after the Coronation in 1953, there was much continuing talk of the New Elizabethan Age, a reborn nation served by great composers, artists and scientists. In retrospect, not all of this was false or exaggerated. In Ralph Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten and Michael Tippett, Britain did have some world-class musical talents. W. H. Auden and T. S. Eliot were among the greatest poets of the age. Many contemporaries also saw the sculptor Henry Moore and the painter Graham Sutherland as world-class figures. In popular culture, the steady rise of television brought, at first, a traditionalist upper-class view of the world to millions of homes. This was the age of ‘Watch with Mother’, of Joyce Grenfell and Noel Coward. It was also the time of Roger Bannister’s four-minute mile. In 1955, Bannister wrote his own account of his record-breaking run. Here he describes the final two hundred yards:

I felt at that moment that it was my chance to do one thing supremely well. I drove on, impelled by a combination of fear and pride. The air I breathed filled me with the spirit of the track where I had run my first race. The noise in my ears was that of the faithful Oxford crowd. … I had now turned the bend and there were only fifty yards more. The faint line of the finishing tape stood ahead as a haven of peace, after the struggle … I leapt at the tape like a man taking his last spring to save himself from the cavern that threatens to engulf him. … The announcent came – ‘Result of one mile … time, three minutes…’ — the rest lost in the roar of excitement*

Roger Bannister (1955), The First Four Minutes. pp. 163-5. *The time was 3 min. 59.4 secs.

It was also a time of great British achievements in yachting and football. Billy Wright, England’s captain in their 6-3 defeat by Ferenc Puskás’s Hungary in 1953, led his club side Wolverhampton Wanderers out onto their Molineux turf to face Puskás’s Honved Budapest (Army) team in December 1954.

Billy Wright (left) & Ferenc Puskás (right) lead out their teams at Molineux on 13 December 1954.

Wolverhampton Wanderers were unofficially crowned as champions of the world after their 3-2 victory over the ‘Mighty Magyars’ in the season after the Hungarian national team, containing many of the same players, had been the first continental team to beat England on home soil, at Wembley Stadium, in what was the centenary season of the English Football Association. ‘Wolves’ therefore gave English football a much-needed boost. The morale of National Servicemen throughout the country also received a boost, as the following recollection from the Wolves’ archivist Graham Hughes shows:

‘In 1954, I was serving with the Royal Corps of Signals, stationed at Sherford Camp near Taunton. On the day of the Wolves game with Honved our orders were to more chairs into the NAAFI so the servicemen could watch the BBC broadcast of the game. Myself and my two friends, Taffy Townsend and Les Cockin, being from Wolverhampton, were guests of honour and given front-row seats; it was great! When Wolves scored the winner everybody jumped up, shouting and cheering: Scousers, Cockneys, Geordies, the lot; even the officers. In fact, the officers were so pleased they ordered the NAAFI to stay open so we could celebrate Wolves win properly. Fantastic!’

John Shipley (2003), Wolves Against The World: European Nights 1953-1980. Stroud: Tempus Publishing. pp. 44-46.

These scenes were repeated in many NAAFIs (Servicemen’s clubs) throughout the country. The Hungarian Uprising of 1956 proved to be the end of this great ‘golden team’ led by Ferenc Puskás, which was touring at the time of the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Many of the players, including Puskás, decided against returning to their homeland, preferring instead to ply their skills in the free world.

But there is also a lesser-recalled sequel to this story. On Tuesday 11th December 1956, Wolves welcomed another Hungarian team to their Molineux ground, ‘Red Banner’ (MTK), another team from Budapest who, like Honved, was packed with internationals, including Palotás and Hidegkúti, who had played in the humiliating victories over England three years earlier. Wolves had agreed to host the benefit match against MTK, as they preferred to be known, with the proceeds donated to the Hungarian Relief Fund. The attendance at the match was 43,540 and it finished in a 1-1 draw with both goalkeepers making a string of acrobatic saves. The solemnity of the occasion, set against the backdrop of the Soviet occupation and crushing of the uprising, perhaps produced a match which didn’t live up to the encounter with Honved two years earlier.

At the pre-match banquet, the Hungarian team had pledged to play the very best football they could in honour of their gracious hosts and they certainly tried hard on the pitch. Responding, the Wolves Chairman James Baker told his guests that the motto of both the town and its famous football club was Out of darkness cometh light and that he hoped that very soon that would be the way in their native land. The day after the match, the Hungarians were on their way to Vienna, from where their future movements would be dictated by the course of events in their stricken country. The match had raised two thousand three hundred pounds for their compatriots who were fleeing in the opposite direction in hundreds of thousands, many of them eventually finding refuge in Britain.

Beginning of the End of Empire – The Suez Crisis, War & its Aftermath:

Britain’s disengagement from its empire was not entirely voluntary. The dissolution of the British Empire was accomplished in two main waves. The first, presided over the Labour governments of the 1940s, centred in Asia, which incorporated India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma and Palestine. Britain’s comparative international weakness in the two decades after the end of World War II required that it grant independence to territories in Asia that were rapidly becoming ungovernable. By October 1951, when Labour left office, nationalist demands in the empire were already beginning to run on far ahead of Britain’s willingness to concede them, and colonial policy was taking on the appearance of a power struggle between government and nationalists. Further retreats were forced on the Conservative governments by Britain’s inability to sustain a world role.

The next eight or nine years, from October 1951, were the most difficult of all for the post-war empire, as nationalist demands became bolder and their methods more drastic, and as the new government came to terms only very slowly and painfully with the full reality of the situation and all its implications. Conflict sometimes erupted violently. There were colonial wars in Malaya (1948-58), Kenya (1952-56) and Cyprus (1954-59), and lesser ‘skirmishes’ elsewhere. In the mid-fifties, however, Britain was still a worldwide player, connected and modern. Her major companies were global leaders in the production of oil, tobacco, shipping and finance. The Empire was not yet quite gone, even if both name and organisation it had been, for some decades, transforming itself into ‘the Commonwealth’. Royal visits overseas featured heavily in news broadcasts and weekly magazines. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were promoted as places for holiday cruises or emigration; sunlit, rich and empty.

Then, in 1956, in a late flourish of imperial self-assertion, Britain sent troops to the Suez Canal to safeguard its strategic and economic interests in the old proprietorial way, with humiliating results. The Conservatives reacted every time Britain was faced with an inconvenient nationalist who threatened to repatriate imperial assets like the Suez Canal. The Suez Crisis was described soon after as the last dying convulsion of British Imperialism (Nutting, 1967). All this was in a desperate scramble to find some sort of handhold, a defensible position, to halt the fall from imperial pre-eminence which had started with Indian independence in 1947. The attempt failed, yet it may still have been necessary for the Conservatives’ peace of mind to make it.

‘Suez’ is often portrayed as a very short era of bad judgement. However, it was a crisis which resulted from Britain’s colonial heritage. It may have begun as something intensely personal, a duel between an English politician of the old school and an Arab nationalist leader of the new post-war world. If Eden was the model of an aristocratic kind of Englishness, Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser was the original anti-colonialist autocrat who would become familiar over the decades to come – charismatic, patriotic, ruthless and opportunistic. Driving the British from Egypt was the cause that had burned in him from his teenage years and, not surprisingly, although nominally independent under its own king, Egypt had been regarded as virtually British until the end of the Second World War. Before the war, Egypt had been forced to sign a treaty making it clear that the country was under Britain’s thumb. The Suez Canal was the conduit through which a quarter of British imports and two-thirds of Europe’s oil arrived.

In the early fifties, Nasser was soon at the centre of a group of radical army officers, Egypt’s Free Officers Movement, discussing how to get the British out and how to build a new Arab state, socialist rather than essentially Islamic. A quietly determined man who naturally attracted followers, when King Farouk was eventually ousted by the Free Officers, it took Nasser just two years to seize control of the country. After the war Arab nationalism made things much tougher for Britain in the Middle East. Its oil interests were challenged and visiting British ministers suddenly found themselves being stoned by Arab crowds. Almost as suddenly, The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was nationalised in 1951. In Iraq, a British-sponsored king and prime minister were holding on to power by their fingertips and were later murdered by mobs. In Jordan, the young King Hussein decided to replace the British soldier, John Glubb, the commander of the Arab League since 1939, with an Arab. But it was Egypt where the decisive confrontation between the colonial power and Arab nationalism was bound to take place.

Britain’s military base at Suez, guarding its interest in the canal, was more like a small country than a barracks, with a vast border that was expensive and difficult to defend. It depended for its survival on supplies from the surrounding towns and villages. But as tensions rose, it was boycotted by the nationalists. Off-duty British servicemen were shot, and after one act of bloody retaliation, involving the killing of a poorly armed Arab policeman holed up in a building by British soldiers, the Cairo crowds turned on foreign-owned clubs, hotels, shops and bars and set them alight. Britain was facing a guerilla war. London began to negotiate a British withdrawal in favour of using bases in Cyprus and Jordan. Eden, then Foreign Secretary, came to think that withdrawal was inevitable. He reached an agreement with Nasser in which Britain would keep its rights over the canal, a deal soon to be broken by Nasser. Yet he would have remained a local irritant had it not been for a catastrophic blunder by Washington.

Nasser’s great ambition was the creation of the so-called High Dam at Aswan. Three miles wide, it would be used to create a three-hundred-mile-long lake which would increase the electricity supply eightfold and give the Egyptians a third more fertile land. Nasser talked of it being seventeen times taller than the greatest pyramid. With Aswan, there was a new Pharoah bringing a new age to Egypt after centuries of humiliation by the imperial powers. The problem was that such a dam was also far beyond the resources of Nasser’s Egypt. Loans had been discussed for years and in 1956 Nasser had every reason to think that the Americans, followed by the British, were about to sign the cheques. Nasser’s ambassador then claimed that they could get help from the Russians and Chinese if the US terms were not favourable enough. In July, the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles abruptly cancelled their cheque, followed within a few days by the British government doing likewise. For Nasser, the Aswan Dam was a symbol of the rebuilding of Egypt and Arab nationalism, and the withdrawal of Western aid in this peremptory manner was a stinging personnel rebuff. According to Kilmuir, …

‘The British decision was reached almost entirely for economic reasons; the immense political implications of the step do not seem to have been apparent to the Americans or to the Foreign Office. I, certainly have recollection of this crucial aspect of the situation being brought home to Ministers. And thus the decision was taken which was to plunge the world into a desperate crisis.’

Earl of Kilmuir (1964), Memoirs, p. 267.

Nasser was livid and abruptly retaliated by seizing control of the Suez Canal, triggering the coup with the code words given to a mass public rally.

The man who split Britain over Suez, Anthony Eden.

On 25th July 1956, Harold Nicolson was a guest at a party given by Bob Boothby, then a leading Conservative backbencher. Political gossip dominated the conversation, particularly about the new Conservative PM, Anthony Eden, who had succeeded Churchill in April 1955. Eden, the gossipers had decided, was a ‘dud,’ with no leadership qualities. Aneurin Bevan, the former Labour minister, was also present and said that “the decay of the present government is due entirely to Eden who is incompetent and tricky.” Boothby joined in the discussion with the remark, “Eden is loathed by his colleagues and bullies them.” Writing retrospectively, in 1965, Reginald Bevins gave this more considered and sympathetic, but equally candid critique of the former premier and Foreign Secretary:

Eden showed a curious mixture of strength and weakness. In my view, and I say this with sorrow, he ought never have been Prime Minister. His performance prior to Suez had been feeble. He forever temporised and chopped and changed his mind. He busied himself absurdly with detail. He was no judge of men; no favourite of Eden’s ever did any good. While he had a natural charm he was also nervy, jumpy and bad-tempered.

Reginald Bevins (1965), The Greasy Pole. p. 37

Eden’s handling of the ensuing crisis, highlighted by his incompetence and trickery, would lead eventually to his downfall. He had already convinced himself that Europe was reliving the 1930s and saw in Egypt’s president a Levantine Mussolini, whose violation of treaty agreements and ‘grab’ of the Canal must at all costs be resisted if the torch of freedom were not to go out in the Middle East. Hugh Thomas thought that Eden saw Egypt through a forest of Flanders poppies and gleaming jackboots. Nasser’s sudden nationalisation of the Canal in July provoked a petulant and enraged reaction from the British government. The débacle which followed led to an agonised and bitter conflict in British public opinion, which was as divided as it had been in 1938, the disapproval of nearly every other nation in the world, including much of the Commonwealth, the active opposition of the United States, the nadir of Anglo-American relations and the downfall of Eden himself.

A day after Boothby’s party, Egypt’s President, Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal. He spoke quite clearly about what he was doing and why he was doing it:

‘This is… a battle against imperialism, and a battle against Israel, the vanguard of imperialism, which was created… in an effort to annhilate our nationalism in the same way as it annihilated Palestine. … Britain left Egypt, believing… that she could have no place there. This was because the people of Egypt were awakaned; because <they> had pledged themselves to achieve for Egypt freedom of life.

‘… As I told you, Arab Nationalism feels its existence, its structure and strength. It also believes in its right to life. These are the battles which we are entering. … The Suez Canal was dug by the efforts of the sons of Egypt – 120,000 Egyptians died in the process. The Suez Canal Company, sitting in Paris, is a usurping company. It usurped our concessions. … The Suez Canal was one of the facades of oppression, extortion, and humiliation. … Today … we declare that our property has been returned to us.’

Speech by Colonel Nasser, 26 July 1956, in D. C. Watt (ed.) (1957), Documents on the Suez Crisis, 26 July to 6 November 1956. pp. 85-6.

At first, public opinion was unanimous in condemning Nasser’s move. Harold’s first reaction – that is a pretty resounding slap in our face – was entirely predictable, and wholly representative of contemporary political opinion. He was kept fully conversant with events in parliament and government through his son Nigel, MP for Bournemouth East, and Hugh Thomas, then a young Foreign Office civil servant, who became a distinguished historian and wrote a dispassionate account of The Suez Affair. Nicolson feared a fearful loss of prestige for Britain and increased tension in Anglo-American relations. Apart from Eden’s bumbling, his Foreign Secretary, Selwyn Lloyd, inspired little confidence; his pretentious sabre-rattling at the Foreign Affairs Committee was anathema to Harold’s diplomatic style. Should Britain use force or even threaten it? He was not ‘absolutely sure.’ One thing was self-evident: ‘The Government have shown their accustomed irresolution and confusion of purpose,’ he wrote in his diary.

Initially, though, Eden’s tough line with Nasser was hugely popular. The Conservative Party was roaring its support. The Labour Opposition followed suit, under Hugh Gaitskell, who sounded more bellicose than any opposition leader before or since. With a couple of exceptions – the Manchester Guardian and the Observer – the press, commentators and cartoonists were all on-side and demanding swift punishment. The new science of opinion polling, and individual messages of support pouring into Downing Street, showed that public opinion agreed.

Under American pressure, there followed weeks of diplomatic manoeuvring during which Eden and his passionately anti-Nasser Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, began to lose the initiative. There were international conferences, promised compromise deals and intensive negotiations at United Nations. Britain kept hinting that it might yet come to war, but Eisenhower and Dulles insisted that a peaceful solution should be found. Nonetheless, by openly declaring that the USA would have no part in trying to shoot our way through to the Canal and by referring to the general problem of colonialism, they encouraged Nasser to resist all outside initiatives.

President Dwight Eisenhower, however, was running for re-election to the White House on a platform of peace and prosperity, was not willing to back the use of force, and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, was similarly cautious. Initial efforts to get Nasser to ‘disgorge’ what he had seized, via diplomacy backed by coded threats, were unsuccessful. Both men might have been willing to turn a blind eye to a spot of old-fashioned colonial atavism if the British and French had simply got on with it and launched an attack. Yet British Prime Minister Anthony Eden had a reputation to protect as an internationalist and a man of peace. To the frustration of his French allies, there was delay after delay as he looked for a pretext for action that would allow him to destroy Nasser and satisfy world opinion.

The answer was a covert plan which, to the increasingly desperate occupant of Downing Street, looked ingenious, but which was in reality deeply flawed. The notorious Sèvres Protocol, signed by Britain, France and Israel, committed the three powers to collusion with one another. Israel would attack the Sinai Peninsula, creating the excuse for Anglo-French intervention, to be undertaken ostensibly because the UN would not be able to act quickly enough to restore peace. Few people outside Britain were fooled – certainly not the Americans, who were deeply angered by the attempt to deceive them.

As the crisis moved through its well-documented stages, from the London Conference of the eighteen most-interested nations to the Suez Canal Users Association, which Hugh Thomas claimed was provocative and likely to lead to war, to the final Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt, Harold Nicolson’s position hardened against government policy, and in particular against Eden. All efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement petered out in deadlock. Harold knew why: France ‘clearly wants a showdown with Nasser because of Algeria,’ and was dragging Britain along. On 29th October, Israel, in a three-pronged strike, swept into the Gaza strip and Sinai, driving swiftly towards the Canal and Sharm el-Sheikh. Harold’s first, instinctive reaction was to see this as part of a ‘preventative war’ to protect Israel from Fadayun attacks on its territory. The following day Britain and France quickly issued an ultimatum to both sides to stop fighting. On the 31st, Halloween, Harold Nicolson wrote to his wife, Vita Sackville-West:

‘… The news broke only at 4 p.m. How they can have done such a thing with the whole of world opinion against us passes my comprehension. We shall now be accused of exploiting the crime of the Jews in invading Sinai in order to resume control of the Canal. To do this we have sacrificed our principles and practically destroyed UNO and the Charter. We are in danger of being denounced as aggressors. Of course, if the occupation of Port Said, Ismaila and Suez proceeds without a hitch or much loss of life, and if we can maintain ourselves on the Canal against the united armies of Arabia, then the Tories will acclaim it as an act of great resolution and courage. But to risk a war with more than half the country against you, with America and UNO opposed, and even the Dominions voting against us, is an act of insane recklessness and an example of lack of all principle.’

Harold Nicolson (1968), Diaries and Letters 1945-62, p. 312.

Thus the two powers would be able to claim that, as stated in their ultimatum, they were upholding the freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal on which the economic life of many nations depends. They would then be able to justify their lack of consultation with both the United States and the United Nations on the basis that they were acting on behalf of the international community. They were separating the combatants and extinguishing a dangerous fire, while actually seizing control of the entire waterway and its terminal ports. This would not only restore the running of the Canal to Anglo-French management but also enable these two powers to supervise all shipping movements through the Canal and thereby break the Egyptian blockade of Israel. On 30th October, an Anglo-French ultimatum was issued to Cairo and Jerusalem to stop the fighting between them, withdraw their troops behind a ten-mile strip along the Canal, and for the Egyptians to allow allied forces to occupy, temporarily, key points along the waterway. Non-compliance, they threatened, would lead to intervention. “Eden is mad! Eden is mad!” Hugh Thomas exclaimed, representing informed opinion in the Foreign Office.

Nicolson, among others, now suspected ‘a conspiracy … a very nasty plot,’ with the French masterminding it: ‘It is truly one of the most disgraceful transactions in the whole of our history.’ Eden had acted dishonestly and put Britain in breach of international law. Controversy continued long afterwards about the extent to which Britain and France were in collusion with Israel in their war with Egypt. According to Anthony Nutting (1967), who was working in the Foreign Ofice at the time as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs since 1954, there was a French-Israeli plan that Israel should first attack across the Sinai Peninsula and that France and Britain should then order both sides to withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal, in order to permit an Anglo-French force to intervene and occupy the canal on the pretext of saving it from being damaged by the fighting. Nutting’s resignation, Nicolson wrote, was…

‘… extremely important, since it deprives back-bench Members of the excuse, “The Government must know best”. Nutting knew everything, and has decided that it is evil. The central fact remains that Eden has deliberately ignored a recommendation passed by the overwhelming majority of the United Nations Assembly . This is a breach of law. I am not surprised that the House, at their special meeting yesterday, should have burst into disorder.’

Harold Nicolson (1968), Diaries and Letters 1945-62, p. 315.

It later became clear that the French had made at least preliminary soundings with the Israeli government, which they then shared with the British Foreign Office. Doing his best to conceal his excitement at the French plans, Eden replied to their approach by saying that he would give them very careful consideration. In fact, the PM had already made up his mind to go along with the French plans, however strongly his Foreign Office advisers might have warned against the venture. In the Commons, on 31st October, the Foreign Secretary, Selwyn Lloyd, was asked about collusion with the Israelis, since the previous day’s demands were made at a time when the Egyptian army was still engaging the Israelis at distances of more than seventy-five miles to the east of the Canal. Lloyd replied:

“… Every time any incident has happened on the frontiers of Israel and the Arab States, we have been accused of being in collusion with the Israelis about it. That allegation has been broadcast from Radio Cairo every time. It is quite wrong to state that Israel was incited… by Her Majesty’s Government. There was no prior agreement between us about it. It is, of course, true that the Israeli mobilisation gave some advance warning and we urged restraint upon the Israeli Government and in particular drew attention to to the serious consequences of any attack upon Jordan.”

A. Nutting (1967), No End of a Lesson. Constable, pp. 93-95, 116, 126.

According to Kilmuir (1964), the scenes in the Commons were the worst since the bitter clashes between Liberals and Unionists in 1911. A storm of booing would break out as soon as Eden entered the House and…

‘… would rise to a crescendo of hysteria when he actually rose to speak. At one point the chances of fighting actually breaking out between Members was very real, so intense was were the passions on each side. On November 1st, ‘Shakes’ Morrison, with consummate timing, adjourned the House for half an hour to let tempers cool, and things were never quite so bad afterwards.

I was told that Anthony made the speech of his life after the House reassembled, and when he sat down the Opposition could hardly raise a single boo, which was little short of astonishing. The courage with which Anthony faced this daily tumult won the admiration of his colleagues, supporters, and even of some members of the Opposition.

If the proceedings of the Commons had been televised, the effect on public opinion of the screaming mass of Labour Members would have been traumatic. As it was, the Press reports of the calculated howling down of the Prime Minister resulted in a great revulsion of public opinion.’

The Earl of Kilmuir (1964), Memoirs, pp. 273-4.

There was no compliance with the terms of the ultimatum by the Egyptians and, on 5 November, Anglo-French forces invaded Egypt in order to ‘separate the combatants’. The operation was a military success – and a catastrophic political failure. For Nicolson, the destruction of the Egyptian airforce left him unimpressed: ‘success does not render a dirty trick any less dirty.’ Britain and France’s actions had been based on a lie and a pretty see-through one at that. The real motivation was to overthrow Egypt’s President Nasser who, in Paris and London, was seen as a threat to Western Europe’s oil supply and to international order more generally.

Nikolai Bulganin, the Soviet Prime Minister, certainly took a hard line against the ‘triumvirate’. Notes of the most menacing nature had been issued to the ‘aggressor’ nations – Britain, France and Israel – threatening the use of ‘every kind of destructive weapon’ unless they withdrew. This was, in part at least, a cover-up for the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary and its crushing of the people’s rebellion there. Throughout the autumn, there had been an intense worry in Washington about the menacing noises from Moscow about Imre Nagy’s reform communist government emerging in Hungary and its liberalisation of society there following the Uprising of 23rd October. At the beginning of November, a substantial Soviet Army occupied Budapest and other major towns and cities. Allied action in Egypt deprived the British and French governments of any moral right to indict the Soviet Union for its aggression. Nicolson commented:

‘The Russians have sent seven divisions into Hungary and are closing in on Budapest. But we have no right to speak a word of criticism.’

Harold Nicolson’s Diaries, 4 Nov 1956, 315.

It wasn’t just Nicolson who thought that, at this moment, the world seemed to be going mad. The Israeli-British-French triumvirate’s dead-of-night intervention in Egypt to prevent Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal made the outcome of the Hungarian Revolution dependent on superpower bargaining. Neither the USSR nor the USA was interested in military confrontation, but both were concerned to defend their strategic interests; the Soviets were willing to remain passive in the Middle East if they received assurances that there would be no Western intervention in Hungary. This was also agreed upon by the end of Tuesday 30 October.

This tacit agreement meant that the promise which had been expressly given by Radio Free Europe on Eisenhower’s behalf, which played no small role in the resolve of the Hungarian insurgents, was thus broken, while the Soviet leaders sought and obtained the agreement of Tito to their planned alternative of intervention. Alex von Tunzelmann believes that, in return, the situation in Hungary helped to push an already volatile situation between the superpowers closer to the brink. Khrushchev had to think very carefully about Suez when he was dealing with Hungary, just as Eisenhower had to think carefully about Hungary when he was dealing with Suez:

Both crises were referred to the UN, which was awkward because normally Britain would have stood by the US and condemned Soviet aggression – but since it was doing exactly the same thing, the UN was hamstrung. The US went against Britain and France at the UN for the first time, so this was the real danger to that alliance.

The turning point for the Soviets came on 31st October with the news that the British and French governments had issued their ultimatum threatening to attack Egypt. The Israelis, in a secret agreement with the British and French, had launched an invasion of Egypt across the Sinai desert. The Suez Crisis proved a disastrous venture for the prestige of Britain and France more broadly across the Middle East. The military intervention was universally denounced and seen as the dying act of the imperialist powers. The US government was furious; it had not been consulted on the military operation and was opposed to it. With the presidential elections only a week away, Washington was now presented with two international crises simultaneously. This was, potentially, an even more disastrous situation for Hungary. Tom Leimdorfer, then a fourteen-year-old in Budapest, who soon after became a refugee in Britain, remembers the flurry of worried phone conversations at the end of October:

‘Everyone agreed that this was the worst possible news. The UN and the West would be preoccupied with Suez and leave Hungary to its fate. Still it seemed that the streets which were not the scenes of the worst battles were returning to some semblance of normality. Some trams and buses started to run, the railways were running, many people walked or cycled to their places of work, but still no school of course. … At the same time there were daily political bulletins with mixed news. The most sinister of these were reports of increasing Soviet troop movements.’

Tom Leimdorfer’s personal family memoir, unpublished.

The Suez affair did indeed distract attention from events in Hungary, just as they entered their most critical phase, with PM Imre Nagy having restored order and set to consolidate the revolutionary gains of the previous eight days. It split the western camp and offered Moscow, with all eyes temporarily on Suez, a perfect cover for moving back into Budapest at the beginning of November. At first, however, it had the opposite effect, delaying Moscow’s intervention in Hungary, for Khrushchev himself did not want to be compared to the “imperialist aggressors” in Egypt. After all, he had withdrawn Soviet troops from Poland when confronted by Gomulka; perhaps now he would rely on the Hungarian Prime Minister to keep Hungary in line.

The US attitude also encouraged Moscow, which led the diplomatic charge against Britain and France. Throughout the episode, and despite the concurrent crisis caused by the USSR’s crushing of the Hungarians, Washington and Moscow stood shoulder-to-shoulder against London and Paris. Suez had become the most decisive issue in British politics since Munich. With Hugh Gaitskell now appealing to the Tory dissidents to vote against the government, and unprecedented mass demonstrations in Trafalgar Square calling for its resignation, Eden’s administration was tottering on a political precipice. Suez split Britain down the middle, dividing families and friends. It brought the Prime Minister into angry conflict with establishment grandees. Lord Mountbatten is said to have warned the young Queen that her government were “behaving like lunatics” and a former Royal aide believed that Her Majesty thought her premier had gone mad. Even the military was affected. The call-up for Suez provoked widescale desertions and minor mutinies across Britain. Some twenty thousand reservists were called back and many declined to come, some scrawling ‘bollocks’ across their papers. In Southampton, Royal Engineers pelted a general with stones. In Kent, there were similar scenes among reservists:

More or less to a man they refused to polish boots or press uniforms or even do guard duty. They spent most of their time abusing the career soldiers for being idiots. The army could do nothing…

Tom Hickman (2004), The Call-Up: A History of National Service. Headline.

In the House of Commons, Eden and Selwyn Lloyd made ‘revoltingly unctuous statements’ about Hungary. For Harold Nicolson, this was rank hypocrisy. He indulged in a telling comparison between these statements and British imperial policy in Cyprus. In Hungary ‘when people rise against foreign repression, they are hailed as patriots and heroes’ but in Cyprus ‘the Greeks whom we are shooting and hanging are dismissed as terrorists. What cant!’ Whether or not the Soviets were bluffing, more cogent considerations persuaded the British government to back down. The public mood in Britain was also changing. Anti-Colonialism, the rule of law and the rights of young countries were all issues which enthused Labour and the left more generally. The United Nations, NATO and the European Convention on Human Rights were all established as part of the architecture of the post-war world. As US hostility to military action became clearer, some MPs and commentators began to have second thoughts. Eden claimed that left-wing intellectuals were stirring up opposition to him, while…

“the BBC is exasperating me by leaning over backwards to be what they call neutral and to present both sides of the case.”

Eden made threatening noises about taking the BBC under direct government control. The reality was that the government was becoming increasingly isolated in the international arena and that Eden had misinterpreted the signals coming out of Washington and was on the verge of virtually destroying Anglo-American relations. Eisenhower, up for re-election on 6th November, would not countenance lending any support to what would be seen by the US voters as a foreign, imperial adventure.

In Malta, Grenadier Guards marched through their camp, angry about conditions as much as by politics, earning a stiff lecture from their commanding officer about the dire consequences of mutiny. Shortly afterwards, the Reservists of the 37th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment of the Royal Artillery marched through the Maltese camp to protest, shouting down their regimental sergeant-major. These incidents were minor, but the headlines in the press about army mutinies and protest marches sent shockwaves through the forces.

From Eden’s point of view, the US was preventing any real pressure against Nasser while talking grandly about international law. He thought he had given enough broad hints for the White House to realise that he and the French prime minister were ready to use force. At different times Eisenhower’s administration gave the impression that they accepted force might be necessary. So while Britain could not tip off the Americans about their dangerous and illegal agreement with Israel, or give military details once the operation was underway, there was a general belief that the Americans would understand. This was an error.

On 5th-6th November, Anglo-French paratroop forces landed at Port Said and Port Faud. A huge British convoy which had been steaming for nine days from Malta arrived with tanks and artillery and the drive south to secure the Suez Canal began. So far, only thirty-two British and French commandos had been killed, against two thousand Egyptian dead. In a military sense, things had gone smoothly, but the politics were a different matter. When the invasion happened, Eisenhower and Dulles exploded with anger. According to the White House correspondents, the air at the Oval Office turned blue in a way that had not happened for a century. The US found itself in an extraordinarily difficult  position, as Alex von Tunzelmann has recently reiterated in her book, Blood and Sand: Suez, Hungary and the Crisis that Shook the World:

… they were trapped between a lot of competing alliances. Britain and France had lied to them, and were continuing to lie, when it was perfectly obvious what was going on. It was also complicated because, although the US and Israel didn’t have quite as solid a relationship as they do now, it was still a pretty solid relationship.

It had therefore been widely expected in Britain, France and Israel that the US would not go against Israel in public, but in fact they did – extremely strongly. This was all happening in the week leading up to Dwight D Eisenhower’s second presidential election, too, and it was assumed that he wouldn’t stamp down on Israel because he would lose the election if he lost Jewish votes in the US. But actually Eisenhower was very clear that he didn’t mind about losing the election, he just wanted to do the right thing.

Above: British paratroopers in the Suez Canal Zone, November 1956.

Dulles appeared seriously to compare the Anglo-French action to that of the Soviets in Budapest. Meanwhile, Nasser had done the very thing Eden’s plan had been designed to prevent; he had blockaded the Canal by filling forty-seven ships with concrete. For the first and last time, the USA made a common cause with the USSR at the UN to demand a stop to the invasion. The motion for a ceasefire was passed by a crushing sixty-four votes to five. The Soviet Union threatened to send fifty thousand ‘volunteers’ to the Middle East. A day later, as the British troops were moving south towards Cairo, having taken Port Said, they were suddenly ordered to stop. The operation was halted and an immediate ceasefire was declared by London, to be followed by a swift pull-out. Harold recorded:

‘It is about the worst fiasco in history. Nasser regarded as a hero and a martyr … our reputation is tarnished … at the first serious threat from Bulganin, we have had to climb down.’

Harold Nicolson’s letter to Vita Sackville-West, 7 Nov., 1956.

On the ground, the French were prepared to keep going, clear-sighted about their national interest and uninterested in American anger. By then, the Egyptian air force had been destroyed and 13,500 British troops, with 8,500 French troops had landed at Port Said and were making their way south towards the Canal. Rather embarrassingly, the Israelis, led by Ariel Sharon, future PM, had long ago reached their destination and stopped, so there was no need for the Anglo-French forces to ‘separate’ anyone. From Eisenhower’s perspective, his old allies had dropped him in the dirt at the worst time possible, during a presidential election and when the Soviets were brutally crushing the Hungarian revolution with four thousand tanks. News of the Suez invasion, coinciding with American elections, helped bring home the hopelessness of Hungary’s situation to the citizens of Budapest. The West continued to be preoccupied; Hungary did not matter so much. Moreover, Britain and France had given the Soviets the perfect excuse for re-occupying the country in order to ensure that it stayed within the Soviet sphere of influence.

The US administration had failed to pick up on worrying reports from CIA agents in Paris and London about the Suez Crisis, just as they had failed to understand the consequences of cancelling their financing of the Aswan dam. The USA in the mid-fifties was a young superpower, and this time it had been fooled by both sides. In any event, President Eisenhower was so aghast at this independently planned Anglo-French campaign that the US led the call for a UN resolution issuing an ultimatum for the British and French to withdraw from Suez. To many, it seemed as if NATO itself was on the verge of breaking apart. In the end, American financial pressure was enough to force a humiliating British withdrawal and climb down. The crunch appears to have come when the US refused help for the critically ailing pound unless a truce was signed. Harold Macmillan had turned to the USA and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help. The US Treasury Secretary told the UK’s ambassador to Washington:

“You’ll not get a dime from the US government if I can stop it, until you’ve gotten out of Suez. You are like burglars who have broken into somebody else’s house. So get out! When you do, and not until then, you’ll get help!”

With the country divided from Buckingham Palace to the barrack room, Eden’s health and nerves gave way. After a brutally direct phone call from Eisenhower, ordering him to announce a ceasefire, Eden called his French opposite number, Guy Mollet, who begged him to hang on. According to French sources, Eden told him:

“I am cornered. I can’t hang on. I’m being deserted by everybody. My loyal associate Nutting has resigned as minister of state. I can’t even rely on unanimity among the Conservatives. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church, the businessmen, everybody is against me! The Commonwealth threatens to break up … I cannot be the gravedigger of the Crown. And then I want you to understand, really understand, Eisenhower phoned me. I can’t go it alone without the United States. It would be the first time in the history of England … No, it is not possible.”

Jean-Raymond Tourneaux (1960), Secrets d’Étát: Paris. Quoted in Herman Finer (1964), Dulles over Suez: Heinemann.

Macmillan, the only strong man left in the cabinet, once hot for military action, now blew cold, informing his colleagues that he could no longer be responsible for ‘Her Majesty’s Exchequer’ unless there was a ceasefire. The cabinet duly agreed to sign a truce, in what was a vivid lesson for every British politician in the general relationship between power and freedom, and in the realities of where global power lay at that time. The ceasefire and the withdrawal that followed were a disaster for Britain, which left Nasser stronger than ever. It finished Eden, though not before he lied to the Commons about the Anglo-French-Israeli plot at Sévres, outside Paris. In December, Eden also claimed in the House that there was no foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt. This can be compared with the French copy of the Sévres protocol agreed upon six weeks earlier which begins by stating quite bluntly:

‘Les forces Israeliennes lancent le 23 Oct 1956 dans la soirée une operation d’envergure contre les Forces Egyptiennes… ‘

In the face of global condemnation, and more importantly a severe run on the pound, the British had quickly called a ceasefire and U-turn. Eden hung on for a few more weeks in office but was not in power. He eventually resigned on 9th January 1957 on grounds of ill health. Suez was a humiliation not just for him but for the British nation as a whole. At the time, MPs and commentators remained suspicious of what took place between Britain, France and Israel at their meeting at Sévres, especially in the context of earlier secret agreements in the twentieth century, most notably the Treaty of London (1915), the Sykes-Picot agreement (1916) and the Hoare-Laval Pact (1935). In 1957, D. C. Watt also concluded that the Anglo-French actions were prevented from winning any degree of international support by…

‘ … the immediate acceptance by considerable sections of opinion of allegations that the British and French governments either had definite foreknowledge of the Israeli attack on Egypt, or that their ultimatum and intervention were concerted with the Israeli government.’

D. C. Watt (ed.) (1957), Documents on the Suez Crisis, 26 July to 6 November 1956.

In her recent interview for the BBC History Magazine, historian Alex von Tunzelmann was asked why she thought the Tripartite Aggression against Egypt was so badly bungled. She pointed out that the military plans from the time show that they were full of gaps and that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were clearly opposed to the whole operation. Indeed, they themselves had advised the British Prime Minister that the consequences of the action could be terrible, but he had chosen to ignore their advice. They were proved right, but partly because the weight of world opinion was so heavily against them, by the time the British and French forces got a third of the way down the canal, they had to stop. Israel achieved its objective of taking Sinai but soon lost it again. Neither Britain nor France achieved their objectives, and all that they succeeded in doing was strengthening Nasser’s control in the Middle East while his ally, the Soviet Union, reasserted its control over its satellite states. In addition, people no longer talked about Britain as a significant world power. From this point on, there were just two ‘superpowers’, the United States and the Soviet Union. In the following years and decades, Britain was reduced to playing the junior partner in its ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

It has long been argued that the 1st November declaration of neutrality by the Nagy government was the trigger which set off the Soviet invasion of Hungary three days later. From the Soviet perspective, this may well have been the case but, as we now know from the Kremlin Archives, the decision to invade had already been taken in there the day before, 31st October, the same day that the ‘liberal’ Soviet declaration of the 30th was published by Pravda. Also on the 30th, the Anglo-French Ultimatum to the Governments of Egypt and Israel had been laid in the Library of the House of Commons. Notes taken at the Soviet Party Presidium on 31st October indicate that the about-turn was initiated by Khrushchev himself, on the grounds of international prestige and against the backdrop of the Suez Crisis. No doubt under pressure from hard-liners in the politburo, he had exchanged his early view of occupying higher moral ground for a conviction that, as he is quoted as saying:

‘If we depart from Hungary, it will give a great boost to the Americans, English and French – the imperialists. They will perceive it as weakness on our part…’  

Eisenhower was not, in fact, in favour of an immediate withdrawal of British, French and Israeli troops until the US ambassador to the United Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge Jnr., pushed for it. Eden’s predecessor Sir Winston Churchill commented on 22 November, “I cannot understand why our troops were halted. To go so far and not go on was madness.” Churchill further added that while he might not have dared to begin the military operation, nevertheless once having ordered it he would certainly not have dared to stop it before it had achieved its objective.

UNEF soldiers from the Yugoslav People’s Army in Sinai, January 1957

Without a further guarantee, the Anglo-French Task Force had to finish withdrawing by 22 December 1956, to be replaced by Danish and Colombian units of the UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force). Britain and France agreed to withdraw from Egypt within a week; Israel did not. A rare example of support for the Anglo-French actions against Egypt came from West Germany; though the Cabinet was divided, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was furious with the United States for its “chumminess with the Russians” as Adenauer called the U.S. refusal to intervene in Hungary and voting with the Soviet Union at the UN Security Council, and the traditionally Francophile Adenauer drew closer to Paris as a result.

F/L Lynn Garrison crew with UNEF DHC-3 Otter, Sinai, 1962

Reading the newspaper accounts of the Autumn of 1956, von Tunzelmann was struck by the speed of the events both in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and the way in which both sets seemed simultaneously to be upsetting the existing order of the world. In the climate of world opinion against Britain and France, the Soviet Union was able to avoid large-scale diplomatic repercussions from its violent suppression of the rebellion in Hungary, and even to present an image at the United Nations as a defender of small nations against imperialism. In addition, the Soviet Union made major gains with regard to influence in the Middle East. The American historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote about the aftermath of the crisis:

When the British-French-Israeli invasion forced them to choose, Eisenhower and Dulles came down, with instant decisiveness, on the side of the Egyptians. They preferred alignment with Arab nationalism, even if it meant alienating pro-Israeli constituencies on the eve of a presidential election in the United States, even if it meant throwing the NATO alliance into its most divisive crisis yet, even if it meant risking whatever was left of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, even if it meant voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council at a time when the Russians, themselves, were invading Hungary and crushing—far more brutally than anything that happened in Egypt—a rebellion against their own authority there.

The fact that the Eisenhower administration itself applied crushing economic pressure to the British and French to disengage from Suez, and that it subsequently forced an Israeli pull-back from the Sinai as well—all of this, one might have thought, would win the United States the lasting gratitude of Nasser, the Egyptians and the Arab world. Instead, the Americans lost influence in the Middle East as a result of Suez, while the Russians gained it.

By 22nd December, the evacuation of Anglo-French troops from Egyptian territory was complete. Hugh Thomas commented that it was tragic to see great imperial countries ending their pretensions in comic style. Harold Nicolson placed the blame for this fiasco squarely on Eden’s shoulders. The utterly disgraceful tale of collusion between France of Israel, to which Britain was a party, flew in the face of everything he had held dear as a diplomat and politician. He coldly listed Eden’s failings:

‘breaking election pledges; lying; bringing about international isolation; endangering relations with US; blocking the Canal and disrupting oil supplies; and robbing Israel of fruits of its victory’.

Harold Nicolson’s Diaries, 9 November 1956.

Eden, he concluded, had done more ‘to dishonour his country than anyone since Lord North.’ Suez soon became a four-letter word for the moment when Britain realised its new place in the world. It was left stripped of moral authority and rebuked by Washington. The Canal was eventually reopened and reparations were agreed upon, though the issue of oil security then assumed fresh importance. Other consequences were less predictable. It provoked the arrival of the mini car in Britain, designed in the wake of the petrol price shock caused by the seizure of the Canal. It even accelerated the decline of the shipyards of Clydeside and Tyneside, whose small oil tankers were soon replaced by supertankers built at larger yards overseas. These, it was discovered, could sail around the Cape and deliver their cargo just as cheaply as smaller ships using the Canal.

From the perspective of more recent Arab-Israeli wars, conflicts and crises, the Suez War has long receded in significance, but it does show how difficult it was for politicians to learn definite lessons from their countries’ pasts. The perspectives of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries enable us to see the impossibility of Britain and France withstanding the forces of nationalism and expansionism when their own nationalism and imperialism had been so readily deployed in Europe, Africa and the Middle East in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Although Suez has often been a defining moment at the End of Empire, historians now tend to emphasize the continuities rather than seeing 1956 as a sharp break. At the time, however, the Conservatives did not offer a blind, intransigent resistance to the nationalist onslaught. Eden’s government was not reactionary, though it had some reactionary supporters. They did not mean to reverse the trend, or even to halt it entirely. They had professed, at the beginning of their term, an intention to continue the process towards self-government within the Commonwealth, and they put no great obstacles in the way of this process in the colonies – like the West African colonies, the Sudan and the West Indies where it was already too far advanced. It has to be remembered that Egypt was no longer a colony at the time of the Suez Crisis, though control of the Canal was a Nationalist-Imperialist issue for both Britain and France.

Within Whitehall, politicians and officials continued to seek an ongoing global British leadership role. It took fifteen years for the subsequent ‘turn to Europe’ to take shape and bear fruit, due to resistance from France. Moreover, the Conservative Party – although not Eden himself – quickly bounced back. This was partly possible because it took over ten years for the full facts about the collusion to become known – even though it had been immediately suspected at the time. As late as 1960, a Central Office of Information film claimed that the Anglo-French action had been beneficial for the UN and the world.

(to be continued…)

Sources:

Twin Crises – The Autumn of 1956: Suez & Hungary (part one)

Sixty Years after Suez

Featured

Majesty & Grace I – The Lives & Times of the Windsors, 1901-1921: The Reigns of Edward VII & George V.

York Cottage:

Prince George and his wife Mary (‘May’ to the family), pictured below at the Coronation in 1911, had six children when George was ‘elevated’ from Duke of York to King in 1910. Edward (or David) was born in 1894, and Albert George (Bertie) on 14th December 1895, at York Cottage, on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. George, the second son of Edward VII, owed his position as monarch to the sudden death in 1892 of his dissolute elder brother Eddy from influenza that turned into pneumonia less than a week after his twenty-eighth birthday. So, many considered the birth of a second son born to George and Mary as providing a ‘spare to the heir’, a good insurance policy.

York Cottage, where the future George VI was born, was given to George and Mary upon their marriage by the future Edward VII in 1893. It was a far more modest affair than the main house at Sandringham, situated a few hundred yards away on a grassy knoll. It had been built by Edward, when Duke of York, as overflow accommodation for shooting parties. ‘The first thing that strikes a visitor about the house is its smallness and ugliness,’ wrote Sarah Bradford, the royal biographer. It was also highly cramped, given that it was home not just to the couple and eventually six children but also to equerries and ladies-in-waiting, private secretaries, four adult pages, a chef, a valet, ten footmen, three wine butlers, nurses, nursemaids, housemaids and various handymen.

The two boys and Princess Mary arrived in 1897, followed by Prince Henry, born in 1900, Prince George in 1902 and Prince John in 1905. They spent most of their time in one or two rooms upstairs: the day nursery and the slightly larger night nursery, which looked out over a pond to a park beyond where deer roamed.

John Buchan’s ‘Non-Biography’:

Thirty years later, in April 1935, ahead of King George V’s Silver Jubilee ceremonies and celebrations, the writer John Buchan (1875-1940) published what he described as:

… not a biography of the King, … but an attempt to provide a picture … of his reign, with the Throne as the continuing thing through an epoch of unprecedented change… as the abiding background.

John Buchan (1935), The King’s Grace, 1910-35 (Preface & Prologue). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

John Buchan

Buchan was a Scottish historian and writer, born in Perth, who studied at Glasgow and Oxford and then followed a long career in politics, diplomacy and publishing. He wrote more than sixty books, including history, biography, essays, stories and novels. His best-known works are a series of secret-service thrillers published between 1915 and 1936, with the character Richard Hannay as the hero of the stories. Between 1901 and 1903, he worked for the British Government in South Africa as a member of the group known as Milner’s Kindergarten. A British Government official and later minister, Viscount Milner, gathered together a group of gifted young Oxford men who were organising reconstruction work after the South African War of 1899-1901. It was probably during this time in South Africa that Buchan began to shape the character of his fictional character, Richard Hannay.

Buchan later became director of information for the British Government and then assistant director of the Reuters news agency. He was elected Unionist MP for the Scottish Universities in June 1927. The following month, he made a brilliant maiden speech in Parliament, acclaimed by his fellow politician as the best heard since 1906. In 1935, he was created 1st Baron (Lord) Tweedsmuir and appointed Governor-General of Canada, a post he held until his death. He is best known today for his spy thriller, The Thirty-Nine Steps, published in 1915 and first filmed in 1935 by Alfred Hitchcock. The story begins on the eve of war in Europe in 1914. Hannay is back in London from South Africa after making money in the gold mines. One evening, he returns to his flat to find a man on the floor with a knife through his chest. Alone in the world with the knowledge that German spies are gaining vital information on British warships, Hannay flees to the hills of Galloway until he finds a way of telling the British Government what he knows.

A scene from the Hitchcock film The Thirty-Nine Steps.

Meanwhile, the spies divide their time between chasing Hannay and planning their escape from Britain via the Thirty-Nine Steps. Hannay’s task is to reach the steps in time, but first, he has to find out where they are while avoiding both the spies and the police, who are also chasing him. The truth may be stranger than fiction, and Buchan’s tale was undoubtedly a reflection of the mood of Britain at the time with the crisis on the Continent that was threatening to engulf it in war.

The Succession of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha:

On 6th May 1910, King Edward VII, the late Queen Elizabeth’s great-grandfather, died. He was the first and last monarch to die as a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His body, at first, lay in State in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, from where it was conveyed in solemn procession to Westminster Hall. There, for three days, in a similar fashion to that we have witnessed following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, it rested on a great bier, guarded day and night by his soldiers, while all classes of his people filed silently past. On Friday 20th May came the State Funeral, when the deceased king was carried through the thronged London streets on his way to Windsor Castle, where he was laid to rest in the vaults of St George’s Chapel with the stately rites which attend a monarch’s burial. On the day of their grandfather’s funeral, David and Bertie marched behind his coffin in Windsor, from the station to St George’s Chapel.

At Windsor, at the end of the funerary rites of Edward VII, the Garter King-at-Arms announced that it had pleased God to call a great prince out of this transitory world unto His Mercy and that his son King George V now reigned in his stead. To the spectators who watched the cortége pass along the Mall in the bright May weather, it seemed that all the splendour of all the earth had come to pay its tribute. For the grandsons, the elevation of their father meant that David was now first in line to the throne and Bertie second.

It seemed, too, that the British monarchy was entrenched in the world beyond fear of attack or decay. Besides the new King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, eight other kings followed the coffin – the German Emperor, the King of the Belgians, the sovereigns of Norway, Greece, Spain, Bulgaria, Portugal and Denmark. The outgoing President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, was also present, and there were thirty other foreign royal princes. At that moment, it was not possible to even guess that many of these figures would, in four short years, be protagonists in a cataclysmic drama which would bring havoc to their thrones. In the procession was the Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, his future allies King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, and the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the latter’s death in Sarajevo proving to be the catalyst that set the conflagration of the First World War alight.

King Edward had reigned only nine years, but he had long been familiar to his people at home and in the Empire as Prince of Wales and heir apparent to the British throne for almost sixty years. His influence had been spread over many decades, and it is significant that the entire period up to the war became known as Edwardian to historians. As Buchan put it, the long reign of his mother, Queen Victoria, had prevented him from assuming responsibility in the plenitude of his powers. Still, his difficult apprenticeship had enabled him to acquire a wide experience in public affairs. It had also helped him to develop his social gifts of laying his mind alongside others of every rank and race, in addition to a quick sympathy and warm humanity.

Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Winston Churchill, Home Secretary, on their way to the House of Commons to present the Budget in 1910.

Edward VII had few personal or national prejudices and could therefore see into the hearts of people of diverse classes and nations. As a constitutional monarch, he was beyond reproach, for he showed no favouritism towards his ministers and never interfered in matters of policy. However, he exercised his right to counsel moderation over the question of Home Rule for Ireland, the Budget crisis and the constitutional struggle between the Lords and Commons when he created new peers in order to end the struggle. He died in 1910 in the midst of the crisis that was resolved the following year by the Parliament Act of 1911, restricting the power of the unelected House of Lords. He had dignity but continued to enjoy life and was keen for his subjects to be able to do the same. He was widely popular, making the Crown a modern, democratic institution.

Most significantly for the future, Edward VII presided over the diplomatic realignments of 1904-07, having strong foreign policy views, and he prided himself on being well informed on these matters. Therefore, he exercised considerable influence over the formulation of policy. His attitudes were imperialistic and jingoistic, however. As Prince of Wales, he had been infuriated by Liberal opposition to the Afghan War of 1878-9 and overjoyed at the news of the Jameson Raid on Transvaal in 1895, supporting Cecil Rhodes’ involvement in it and irritated by the Kaiser’s telegram to President Kruger offering support. Throughout his adult life, as well as after becoming king in 1901, Edward maintained a determined hostility towards Germany. The roots of this antipathy appear partly to have lain partly in his opposition to his mother, Queen Victoria, whom he regarded as being excessively friendly to Prussia, and his antipathy to the strict Prussian pedagogue appointed by his parents to instruct him. Edward’s sympathies in the Prussian-Danish War of 1864 rested firmly with the Danish relatives of his wife, Alexandra. After his accession to the throne, he became an important sponsor of the anti-German group of policy-makers around Sir Francis Bertie.

At the same time, Edward VII was credited with helping bring about a rapprochement with France, inspiring a personal liking among the French people and breaking down old suspicions. He did not attempt to start alliances, however, but only made them possible, his purpose always being one of conciliation and peace. The king’s influence reached its height in 1903 when an official visit to Paris was called the most important visit in royal history. It paved the way for the Entente between the two rivals. Relations between the two empires were still soured by their scramble for territories in Africa, the Fashoda Incident and the Boer War. The visit, which had been organised on Edward’s own initiative, was a public relations triumph. After the Entente had been signed, Edward continued to work towards an agreement with Russia, even though, like many of his countrymen, he detested the tsarist political system and remained suspicious of Russian designs on Persia, Afghanistan and northern India.

In 1906, when he heard that the Russian foreign minister Izvolsky was in Paris, he rushed south from Balmoral, hoping to set up a meeting with him. Izvolsky responded positively, making the journey to London to meet the king. According to Charles Hardinge, a contemporary Conservative politician and diplomat, these talks helped materially to smooth the path of negotiations then in progress for an agreement with Russia. In both these instances, in Paris and in London, however, the king was not deploying executive powers as such but acting as a kind of supernumerary ambassador. Nevertheless, he could do this because his priorities accorded closely with those of the Liberal Imperialist faction in Whitehall, whose foreign policy dominance he had helped reinforce.

The Kaiser and the King, nephew and uncle.

His nephew, Wilhelm, was one of the few people he was not altogether tolerant of, but he did not allow this to prejudice him against the German people. He was also credited with the aim of encircling Germany, but this has no basis in contemporary, primary-source evidence. His last visit to Vienna, which in Berlin was believed to be an attempt to win Austria away from the Triple Alliance, was, in fact, devoted to seeking Austria’s help to bring about a closer relationship between Germany and Britain. Lord Vantissart, writing in 1958, told of how he had once been appointed as a temporary extra private secretary to accompany King Edward to Biarritz and conduct his correspondence in French. He also noted the personal nature of the King’s francophile attitude:

he was a francophil who liked talking about France or people in France, and he knew a lot about them. They liked talking about him too, respected him as a hedonist without overrating his performances. I heard too that he was witty, but much is attributed to those who stand high. I had never seen anyone so flattered and, like most people who have everything their own way, he was not a good advertisement of his kind. … One could easily understand how he popularised the Monarchy which before him had been only revered.

In 1910, the new King, her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s grandfather, George V, was about to become forty-five. Though not yet a familiar figure, wherever he went, he attracted the affection of his people, for he radiated friendliness and courtesy. George V’s Coronation in June 1911 was the first seen in Britain for sixty-five years. Though it was not novel, unlike his father’s, it did not take place under the shadow of war; in that case, the South African war. It was a year of peace and prosperity, and crowds gathered such as London had never known. The Coronation was, in the King’s words, a gathering up of the treasures of the past and a preparation for the future’s path. For many monarchs, that future path was to be pre-ordained. Certainly, there were great expectations placed upon kings, princes and even princesses from an early age, especially on heirs to the throne, but also on their siblings.

Like their father before them, the two boys – David and Bertie, were ‘destined’ for the Royal Navy. For David, this would be a brief spell before he assumed his duties of Prince Of Wales, but for Bertie, it was intended as a career. On 15th September 1911, at the age of seventeen, Prince Albert George was commissioned as a junior midshipman on the battleship HMS Collingwood, in the first stage of a naval career, which, like that of his father, he expected to be his life for the next few years at least. There was a major difference between father and son, however. While the future George V loved both the navy and the sea, his son worshipped the navy as an institution but did not much like the sea itself, suffering very badly with seasickness. He also continued to be plagued with shyness and stuttering, as recorded by many of his fellow officers. Proposing a toast to ‘the King’ in a Royal Navy wardroom became a torment because of his fear of making the ‘k’ sound.

The European Monarchies & The July Crisis of 1914:

At the core of the monarchical club that reigned over Europe was the trio of imperial cousins: Tsar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm II and King George V. The latter two were both grandsons of Queen Victoria. Tsar Nicholas’s wife, Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt, was Victoria’s granddaughter. The mother of George V and Nicholas II were sisters of the House of Denmark. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas II were both great-grandsons of Tsar Paul I. The Kaiser’s great-aunt, Charlotte of Prussia, was the Tsar’s grandmother. Viewed from this perspective, the outbreak of war in 1914 looks rather like the culmination of a family feud.

But it is difficult assessing how much influence these monarchs wielded over or within their respective executives. Britain, Germany and Russia represented three very different forms of monarchy. Russia was an autocracy in which the parliamentary and constitutional restraints on the monarch’s authority were weak. Nicholas II could order the mobilisation of the Imperial Armed Forces without reference to his ministers or the Duma, the National Assembly. This, of course, he did, one of the key decisions leading to the outbreak of war in 1914. Like Edward VII before him, George V was a constitutional monarch, ruling through and with Parliament, with no direct access to the levers of power. He was, however, the ceremonial Head of the Armed Forces and therefore had to assent to any declaration of war or military action by his Prime Minister.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was somewhere in between these two ‘models’. In the united Germany of 1870 and after, a constitutional and parliamentary system was grafted onto elements of the old Prussian military monarchy that had survived unification. But the formal instruments of governance were not necessarily the most significant determinants of monarchical influence. Other important factors were the determination, competence and intellectual grasp of the monarch himself in conjunction with his ministers.

A portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II and his ‘paternal friend’ and closest ally of Emperor Franz Jozef of Austria.

George V was very different from his father in matters of State, especially regarding foreign affairs. Until his accession in 1910, he had acquired only the sketchiest sense of Britain’s relations with other powers. The Austrian ambassador Count Mensdorff was delighted with the new king, who seemed, by contrast with his father, to be innocent of strong biases for or against any foreign state. If Mensdorff hoped the changing of the guard would attenuate the anti-German theme he detected in British policy, he would soon be disappointed. In foreign policy, the new monarch’s seeming neutrality merely meant that policy remained firmly in the hands of the liberal imperialists around Grey.

George never acquired a political network to rival his father’s, refrained from backstairs intrigue and avoided expounding policy without the explicit permission of his ministers. He was in more or less constant communication with Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, granting him frequent audiences whenever he was in London. He was scrupulous about seeking Grey’s approval for the content of political conversations with foreign representatives, especially his German relatives. George’s accession, therefore, resulted in the Crown’s influence on the general orientation of foreign policy, even though the two monarchs wielded identical constitutional powers.

Therefore, unlike the Russian foreign ministers, Stolypin and Kokovtsov, and the German ministers, Bülow and Bethmann-Hollweg, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, had no reason to fear unwarranted interventions by his Sovereign. Both George V and his Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, were perfectly happy to be led by their foreign secretary in international matters. Hence, Grey was undoubtedly the most powerful foreign minister of pre-war Europe.

In his War Memoirs (1933-38), David Lloyd George wrote of how the reticence and secrecy in the Liberal governments of 1906-15, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, practically ruled out three-quarters of the cabinet from…

“… the chance of making any genuine contribution to the momentous questions then fermenting on the continent of Europe, which ultimately ended in an explosion that almost shattered the civilisation of the world.

“… nothing was said about our military commitments. There was an atmosphere of “hush-hush” about every allusion to our relations with France, Russia and Germany. Direct questions were not encouraged. Discussions, if they could be called discussions, on foreign affairs were confined to the elder statesmen… Apart from the Prime Minister and the foreign secretary only two or three men were expected to make any contribution on the infrequent occasions when the continental situation was brought to our awed attention. …

“… we were hardly qualified to express any opinion on so important a matter, for we were not privileged to know any more of the essential facts than those which the ordinary newspaper reader could gather. … the editor of a great London journal was better informed about what was happening in the capitals of the world than any cabinet minister. … all the information we got was carefully filtered … much of the information essential for forming a sound opinion was deliberately withheld.”

From The War Memoirs of David Lloyd George (Nicholson & Watson, 1933-38)

A photograph by Thomas Mayer showing Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia’s car going to the Manoeuvres in France, 1912.

In the spring of 1913, there was irritation in Paris at the current ‘flirtation’ between the courts of St James and Berlin, King George being suspected of seeking warmer relations with Germany. For Sir George Buchanan, the British ambassador in St Petersburg, the slightest evidence of a thaw in relations between Vienna and St Petersburg was enough to conjure up the horrifying prospect that Russia might abandon the Entente and join forces with Germany and Austria, as it had done during the Three Emperors’ Leagues of the 1870s and 1880s.

As early as 1911, Grey had warned Count Beckendorff, the Russian ambassador in London, that he might soon be forced to issue public ‘disavowals’ of Russian activity in Persia and that Russia was placing the future of the Convention at risk. This was an issue that attracted interest not just in the Foreign Office but in the cabinet, Parliament and the press. When Sazanov and Grey met at Balmoral in September 1912 for talks focused mainly on the Persian question, there were public demonstrations against the Russian minister. Fear for Britain’s imperial future combined with the traditional Russophobia of the liberal imperialists and the British press, as demonstrated in the cartoon and articles from 1912-1913 below.

These concerns remained throughout 1913 and into early 1914. During the last days of July 1914, the German Kaiser’s attention was focused on Britain. This was partly because, like many Germans, he saw the avoidance of a general war as dependent on Britain as the power at the fulcrum of the continental system. In so doing, Wilhelm shared in a broader tendency to overestimate Britain’s weight in continental diplomacy and to underestimate the degree to which its key policy-makers (Grey in particular) had already committed themselves to a specific course.

There was also a psychological element: Great Britain was the country in which Wilhelm had desperately sought but rarely found affection, recognition and approval. It represented much that he admired – a well-equipped modern navy, wealth, sophistication and worldliness. Besides, the members of the aristocratic circles in which he mixed had poised comportments that he admired but found difficult to emulate. Moreover, it was the home of his late grandmother, whom he later remarked would never have allowed Nicky and George to gang up on him. It was, latterly, the realm of his envied and detested uncle, Edward VII, who had succeeded – where he had failed with his empire – in improving its international standing. A tangle of emotions and associations was always in play when Wilhelm attempted to interpret the vicissitudes of British policy.

The last steps to war began on 28th July, when, a month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Against this background, the Kaiser was hugely encouraged by a message from his brother, Prince Henry of Prussia, received on the same day, suggesting that George V intended to keep Britain out of the war. Early on the morning of the 26th, Henry, who had been yachting at Cowes, rushed to Buckingham Palace to take his leave of the British king before returning to Germany. A conversation had taken place between the two men, in which Henry claimed that George had said:

“We shall try all we can to keep out of this and shall remain neutral. “

These words were cabled to the Kaiser as soon as the prince reached Kiel harbour on 28th July. Wilhelm viewed this statement as a tacit assurance of British neutrality, and when Tirpitz challenged him on his reading of it, he replied, with a characteristic blend of pomposity and nativity, “I have the word of a king, and that is enough for me!” Whether the British king had, in fact, uttered the words Prince Henry attributed to him is unclear. His diary is predictably uninformative on the subject. It simply states: Henry of Prussia came to see me early; he returns at once to Germany. But another account of the meeting, probably composed by the monarch at the request of Sir Edward Grey, provides more detail. According to this source, when Henry of Prussia asked George V what England would do in the event of a European war, he replied:

“I don’t know what we shall do, we have no quarrel with anyone, and I hope we shall remain neutral. But if Germany declared war on Russia, then I am afraid we shall be dragged into it. But you can be sure that I and my Government will do all we can to prevent a European War!

There was, therefore, more than a measure of wishful thinking in Prince Henry’s report of his exchange with the king, but we cannot rule out the possibility that George V adjusted his own account of the meeting to the expectations of the foreign secretary, in which the truth may lie somewhere between the two accounts. In any case, Henry’s telegram was enough to replenish the Kaiser’s confidence that Britain would stay out, and his optimism seemed to be borne out by the reluctance of the British Government, and specifically of Grey, to make known their intentions. Wilhelm was therefore shocked to learn, on the 30th, of a conversation between Grey and Lichnowsky, the German ambassador in London, in which the former had warned that whereas Britain would stand aside if the conflict remained confined to Austria, Serbia and Russia, it would intervene on the side of the Entente if Germany and France became directly involved. Wilhelm scribbled furiously that the British were ‘scoundrels … mean shopkeepers’ who wanted to force Germany to leave Austria ‘in the lurch’ and who dared to threaten it with dire consequences while refusing to pull their continental allies back from the brink of war.

Last Days – The Countdown to War:
A Russian officer inspection.

On 31st July, after further wavering over military measures, news arrived in Berlin from Moscow that the Russians had ordered the total mobilisation from midnight on the previous night. The Kaiser then ordered that the State of Imminent Danger of War (SIDW) be declared immediately, and the order was issued to the armed forces by Falkenhayn at 1.00 p.m. the same day.

The responsibility for being first to mobilise lay squarely with the Russians, at least as far as the German leadership was concerned, a point which enabled them to claim that there could be no doubt about the defensive character of Germany’s entry into the war. The leadership of the Social Democrats (SPD) did not oppose a government obliged to defend itself against a Russian attack since Russophobia was just as strong within the SPD as it was in the ruling British Liberal Party. Late in the night of the 31st, the German embassy in London informed the Foreign Office that in response to the Tsar’s mobilisation order, Berlin had declared the SIDW and announced an ultimatum that unless Russia rescinded the order immediately, Germany would be obliged to mobilise its own forces, which would ‘mean war.’ This sounded alarm bells in London, and at 1.30 a.m., PM Herbert Asquith went with Edward Grey and Grey’s private secretary to wake the king so that he could send a telegram to the Tsar, appealing for the mobilisation to be halted. Asquith later described the scene:

The poor king was hauled from his bed and one of my strangest experiences (& as you know I have had a good lot) was sitting with him – he in a brown dressing gown over his night shirt & with copious signs of having been wakened from his ‘beauty sleep’ – while I read the message & the proposed answer. All he did was suggest that it should be made more personal and direct – by the insertion of the words ‘My dear Nicky’ – and the addition at the end of the signature ‘Georgie’!

Asquith to Venetia Stanley, London, 1 August 1914, in Brock and Brock, (eds.), Letters to Venetia Stanley p. 140.

When the Russian Government refused to rescind its mobilisation order, Germany declared war on Russia on 1st August 1914. Wilhelm’s thinking then turned once more to Britain. Seen in combination with Grey’s warnings, the Russian mobilisation had ‘proved’ to him that Britain now planned to exploit the situation for its own ends, turning all the European nations, including Austria, against Germany. Then, shortly after 5 p. m. on 1st August, came sensational news that Grey was offering not just that Britain would stay out of the war if Germany refrained from attacking France but was also willing to vouch for French neutrality as well. The Kaiser’s return telegram to George V warmly accepting his Government’s proposal of French neutrality and guaranteeing that his troops would continue to be held on the French border had caused consternation in London. It became apparent that no one at the Foreign Office but Grey himself had been privy to these telegraphic negotiations, let alone the King, and the foreign secretary was summoned urgently to Buckingham Palace to provide an explanation and a draft reply. Later that evening, Grey pencilled the text that became George V’s answer to the Kaiser’s telegram:

‘There must be some misunderstanding as to a suggestion that passed in friendly conversation between Prince Lichnowsky and Sir Edward Grey this afternoon when they were discussing how actual fighting between German and French armies might be avoided while there is still a chance of some agreement between Austria and Russia. Sir Edward Grey will arrange to see Prince Lichnowsky early tomorrow to ascertain whether there is a misunderstanding on his part.’

Any remaining ambiguity was dispelled by a further telegram from Lichnowsky, who had received Berlin’s acceptance of the British ‘proposal’ at the same time as King George had received his cousin’s exuberant telegram. The German ambassador wrote home: Since there is no British proposal at all, your telegram (is) inoperative. Therefore (I) have taken no further steps. Moltke, the chief of staff, who had been told to suspend the Schlieffen Plan while these dispatches between London and Berlin were being exchanged, was summoned to the palace by the Kaiser. Wilhelm showed Moltke the telegram he had received outlining the corrected British position and told him: “Now you can do what you want.” With those words, diplomacy was duly ended, and Europe stood on the brink of a cataclysm that every major power supposedly wanted to avoid. On the 3rd, Germany duly declared war on France.

Grey, meanwhile, ultimately remained true to the Ententiste line he had pursued since 1912, but his moments of circumspection remind us of a complicating feature of the July Crisis, namely that the bitter choices between opposed options divided not only parties and cabinets but also the minds of kings, ministers and decision-makers. Writing in his war memoirs, Lloyd George described the outbreak of war as a tragic accident. No power had wanted conflict, wrote the man who had been Prime Minister from 1916 to 1918, but governments had ended up ‘backing… over the precipice’ into war.

This apparently authoritative view contradicted the so-called war guilt clause of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which stated that the aggression of Germany and her allies was responsible for the war.

London Newspaper Sellers on the Eve of War.
The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Family goes to war with Germany:

On 4th August, German forces invaded neutral Belgium as part of Moltke’s military strategy, based on the Schlieffen Plan. Citing its long-held commitments to Belgian neutrality, Britain declared war on Germany, beginning the pan-European war.

Bill-sticking was an early form of women’s war work, which Queen Mary was keen to promote, as evidenced by the poster on the left.

Britain entered the war because it, too, could not afford to see Germany triumphant. For centuries, British foreign policy had been underpinned by the desire to uphold the balance of power, to prevent one State from becoming too powerful, and by the need to keep the coast of Flanders out of hostile hands that might use it to mount a threat to British naval security. Recently, the historian Gary Sheffield has argued that although some historians have maintained that it was in Britain’s interests to stay aloof from the conflict, Britain entered the war for the same reasons it had fought Napoleon. Sheffield has also asserted that, at best, Germany and Austria-Hungary launched a reckless gamble that went badly wrong and, at worst, a war of aggression and conquest that proved to be far removed from the swift and decisive venture that they had thought it would be.

On 29th July, Prince Albert George’s ship, the Collingwood, together with other members of the Battle Squadrons, had left Portland for Scapa Flow in the Orkneys, off the extreme northern tip of Scotland, with the task of guarding the northern entrance to the North Sea from the Germans. On the 6th, the First British casualties occurred as HMS Amphion was sunk in the North Sea. On the 28th, the Battle of Heligoland Bight took place, the first naval engagement of the war. But after just three weeks, Bertie went down with the first of several medical conditions that were to cast a shadow over his naval career. Suffering violent pains in his stomach with difficulty breathing, he was diagnosed with appendicitis, and on 9th September, his appendix was removed in an Aberdeen hospital. Yet he remained semi-invalid at eighteen, and just a year after receiving his commission, while his contemporaries were fighting and dying for their country, ruled over by his father, Bertie joined the War Staff at the Admiralty.

In his 1941 book, Great Contemporaries, Winston Churchill wrote of how the King and Queen threw themselves into every kind of war work and set an example to all. The King inspected and reviewed the growing armies, which for many months were without weapons. On a daily basis, he encouraged and assisted his ministers in their various tasks. As soon as the Prince of Wales reached the minimum age, he was allowed to go to the Front, where he was repeatedly under shell and rifle fire in the trenches as a junior officer of the Guards. “My father has four sons,” he said, “so why should I be fettered?”

The battles to halt the German advance all but destroyed Britain’s small professional army, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). A huge recruiting campaign was needed to replace them.

‘Retreat from Mons’
The shock of defeat and a gruelling retreat show on the faces of British and Belgian troops in August 1914.

Meanwhile, the first major battles took place on the Western Front at the Marne and Aisne, and British aircraft carried out the first air raid on Germany. In October, the Battle of Ypres saw the Germans attempt to break through to Channel ports.

The Home Front in Britain & Ireland, 1914-18.

In mid-December, 137 civilians were killed when Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby were shelled by German ships, as shown on the map above. The New Year of 1915 saw the first Zeppelin raid on Britain at the Norfolk ports of Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn on 19-20 January. Meanwhile, at Christmas, Princess Mary tried to raise the spirits of the British troops at the Front:

Source: Norman Ferguson (2014), see below.

As yet, however, as can be seen in the statistics above, British losses were far lower than those of the French and Russians on the Entente side, not to mention those among the Triple Alliance. Then, on 19th February, the Gallipoli Campaign began with French and the Royal Navy’s ships bombarding Turkish positions.

By contrast, Bertie was finding the work at the Admiralty dull and pressed his superior officers to be allowed to return to the Collingwood. He did so in February 1915 but was on board for only a few months before he began to suffer stomach pains again. He was suffering, as it turned out, from an ulcer, but doctors had failed to diagnose it. Bertie spent the rest of the year ashore, initially at Abergeldie but then at Sandringham, along with his father, where the two of them became close. During this time, Bertie learnt a lot about what it was like to be a king during wartime, an experience that he was able to draw on when he found himself in the same position two decades later.

The Liberal Government, which had been in power since 1905, was replaced by the Asquith coalition ministry under the Liberal Prime Minister H. H. Asquith from May 1915 to December 1916. It was formed as a multi-party wartime coalition nine months after the beginning of the First World War but collapsed when the Conservative Party withdrew. Asquith and most of the Liberals then moved into opposition, while the Conservatives formed a new coalition with a minority of Liberals under the leadership of Liberal David Lloyd George as PM.

‘The Coalition Cabinet for the Great War,’ as painted for the Illustrated War News, was formed in May 1915 under H H Asquith.

The King had, since his accession, enjoyed remarkably good health; since an attack of typhoid fever in 1898, he had never had a serious illness. He frequently visited the war zone, and the photographs of him in his steel helmet attest to the numerous occasions when he came under or within the enemy’s fire. But on his visit to the front in October 1915, he met with a serious accident. These visits were strenuous affairs for, apart from the long journeys, the King worked assiduously every morning at the papers forwarded from London. At Aire, he reviewed the troops with Sir Douglas Haig and met President Poincaré at Doullens. At Amiens, he was met by General Joffre on parade; at Cassel, he reviewed the British Second Army and at Bailleul, the Canadian Corps.

Source: Buchan (see below).

At Labuissiére, Haig again received the King, reviewing the troops of Rawlinson and Gough. He was proceeding to inspect a squadron of the Royal Flying Corps when an unexpected outbreak of cheering made his horse rear and fall back on him, slipping on the muddy ground, crushing and mangling the King in a most grievous manner. The King lay very still for a moment, and the onlookers feared the worst. The Queen was warned, and for two days, the King rested before returning home, carried on a stretcher aboard a train and a hospital ship, and reaching Buckingham Palace in a motor ambulance in the evening. Within two days, he had fully recovered, but it had been a narrow escape for both him and his country in what had turned out to be a melancholy first full year of the war. Some months later, Churchill went to see him at the Palace when he resigned from the Cabinet, and he later wrote that he was…

shocked at his shattered and evident physical weakness, which had of course been hidden from the world.

Despite his serious accident, the King visited the trenches on several more occasions, right up to the end of the war and even afterwards. In his retrospective book, written in the early thirties, Frank Richards recalled one such visit and its effect on the ordinary soldiers at the Front:

A really good rumour next morning – that the Battalion was to be inspected by the King – which showed the length the rumour-mongers could go. But it was true. Two companies were in trenches, the rest were smartened up, given new glengarries and at midday were marched to a village about three miles back. Some of us were still sceptical, but something considerable was certainly on foot. … Two planes were circling overhead. The stage was set. Two closed cars appeared and came slowly along a rough track into the field where we were assembled. Brass hats stiffened to attention. Presentations. It was the King all right, khakhi-clad and wearing a British warm. Amazing experience – the King inspecting a Glasgow territorial battalion in a muddy Flanders field. Each of the officers was presented by name and shook hands. … So he passed on, followed by the Prince of Wales. A thrilling experience.

Frank Richards (1933), Old Soldiers Never Die pp. 58-60, 269.

Source: John Swift, in The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. Penguin Books, 2001.

In early January 1916, Allied troops completed their evacuation from Gallipoli. The Navy obviously played a major part in this, but Bertie could not be involved. It was not until mid-May that he made it back to his ship, just in time to take part in the Battle of Jutland on the 31st. This was the only large-scale naval engagement of the war. Although again in the sick bay on the evening the ship set bay, Bertie was well enough to take his place in the ‘A turret’ the following day. The Collingwood‘s part in the action was not significant, but Bertie was glad to have been tested by the ordeal of coming under fire.

An artist’s impression of the Battle of Jutland, in the North Sea, in 1916.
Although a stalemate, the German fleet was forced to shelter in harbour until the end of the war.

The Battle of the Somme began at the beginning of July. Expecting to overwhelm an enemy already defeated by a huge artillery barrage, British troops were slaughtered in their thousands on the first day of the Somme Offensive. The ‘New Armies’, including many conscripts, were tragically unprepared for the attritional war they faced. Fighting continued until the end of the Battle of Verdun on 18th December. As 1916 wore to its close, with significant British losses on land and at sea, the temper of the country was becoming almost tangibly different both from the excitement of the first few months of the year and the exasperation and confusion of 1915. Britain was beginning to learn the meaning of a war of attrition. However, the nature of that war began to change after tanks were used for the first time at Flers-Courcelette in mid-September, allowing a measure of mobility to be restored to warfare on the Western Front.

‘Over the top’, 1st July 1916.

Bread & Peace! – The Home Front in Britain & Revolution in Russia, 1917:

On the Home Front, the old civilian sense of fury against the enemy had gone; the mood of the people had become more like that of the men in the fields of war, in its ironical resignation and the sense that the business was too grave to permit of any “vileinye of hate.” The war was no longer something that was reported, with a delay of a day or more, in the newspapers; enemy aircraft had struck down men and women on their own streets and life in the trenches could be envisaged by the dullest, for even staged photographs and newsreels, like the still shown above, from the contemporary documentary film The Battle of the Somme, could not help but portray the realism, if not the horrors of the trenches. Death, which, in 1914-15, had left most families unbereaved (see table above), was by now uniting them in mourning. Meanwhile, much to his relief, Bertie’s stomach problems appeared to be receding. But then, that August, they struck again, this time with a vengeance. Transferred ashore, he was examined by a relay of doctors who finally diagnosed his ulcer.

At the end of January 1917, Germany restarted unrestricted U-boat warfare. On the land, however, by 9th February, German troops had begun withdrawing to the Hindenburg Line. Two other specific events served to unnerve the British monarchy in the first half of 1917. On 15th March, Russian Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his throne in the face of civil unrest. The Tsar was a cousin of George V and was also related to him through his mother, Queen Alexandra. For a time, it looked as though the Romanovs would seek refuge with their royal cousins, with whom they had enjoyed holidays before the war.

But this became unlikely after the Bolsheviks seized power in October, especially since their daughters could not travel after they caught measles. Moreover, many in the Labour movement were reluctant for a deposed ‘autocratic’ emperor to find a home in Britain. More widely, the effect of the February Revolution on the Eastern Front alarmed Britain and France, but then the German U-boat threat to US merchant ships united Congress behind President Wilson, and on 6th April, the USA declared war on Germany. Nevertheless, it took a year for the American troops to be deployed on the Western Front. In May 1917, Prince Albert was back at Scapa Flow, this time as an acting lieutenant on the Malaya, a larger, faster and more modern battleship than the Collingwood.

The second disturbing event came on the 13th of June. The Germans had sustained mounting Zeppelin losses in 1916, as proper British anti-aircraft defences appeared and British fighter pilots developed strategies to shoot down the airships. This forced the German High Command to look for alternatives. The answer came in the form of the Gotha G.IV aircraft, which was more reliable, more manoeuvrable and could carry a greater bomb load than the Zeppelins. The Gothas were heavy bombers able to fly in the daytime or at night and were a bigger threat to the civilian population of Britain than the much-feared Zeppelins, which were susceptible to bad weather and presented a larger and less well-defended target to British fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery.

The German Gotha Raid Map. The web of lines converging on London shows the routes taken by German ‘Gotha’ bombers as they launched a raid on the capital on 6th December 1917. The different colours signify the four different detachments of 3 machines (A, purple), 4 (B&D, Red and Yellow), and 5 (C, Blue), making sixteen machines in all.

Operation Türkenkreuz (‘Turk’s Cross’) was launched on 25th May, when twenty-three Gothas were Gothas were sent to London. Heavy clouds caused them to divert and strike the area around Folkestone, where ninety-five people were killed. A second raid was similarly diverted to Sheerness, but on 13th June, a third did reach London, where the twenty-six Gotha bombers killed 162 people, including eighteen children, who died when a bomb crashed through their classrooms in a Poplar primary school. In addition, over four hundred were injured in the worst raid of the war. There was outrage and accusations that the Germans were resorting to cowardly measures. But until effective counter-measures were developed, little could be done. The first Gotha to be shot down was during a raid on 7th July. After that, anti-aircraft barrages and the improved skills of British pilots caused the Germans to resort to night-time raids from 6th September.

Anti-German feeling gripped the country from the moment war was declared but was particularly strong at the time of the Gotha Raids.

After the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine in May 1915, anti-German sentiment erupted into riots in Liverpool, where two hundred businesses were destroyed. In London, of the twenty-one Metropolitan police districts, only two were free from riots. In 1917, it was against this recent backcloth as well as that of the ongoing air raids that a royal proclamation was issued on 17th July:

‘We out of our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce, Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor.’

The previous name, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, had arisen from the marriage of Queen Victoria, herself a member of the House of Hanover that had ruled Britain since the death of Queen Anne in 1714, to Prince Albert in 1840. It was passed to their children and was the title used in Britain by Edward VII on his accession to the throne and then by George V. But by July 1917, it was felt insensitive for the royal dynasty to have German names amidst a major war with Germany and with Gotha aircraft bombing London. On hearing the news, the German Kaiser, Queen Victoria’s grandson and nephew to George, joked that he wanted to change the title of the Shakespeare play to The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

In wake of riots in the East End of London, during which properties suspected of being German-owned were attacked and destroyed, other immigrants took pre-emptive measures to avoid persecution.

By the end of July, Bertie was ill once more and transferred ashore to a hospital in South Queensferry, near Edinburgh. After eight years of either training or serving in the navy, Bertie realised reluctantly that his career in the service was over. He told his father:

“Personally, I feel that I am not fit for service at sea, even after I recover from this little attack.”

That November, after much hesitation, he finally underwent the operation for the ulcer, which went well; however, this sustained period of ill health would continue to affect him both physically and psychologically in the years and decades to come.

A Russian street in the wake of the Tsar’s abdication in March.

V. I. Lenin, architect of the Bolshevik Revolution.

On 7th November, the Bolshevik Revolution, inspired by Vladimir Lenin and organised by Leon Trotsky, was complete. An Armistice soon followed, and at Brest-Litovsk, the new Russian leaders had accepted a humiliating peace. Historians have tended to regard the last Romanov emperor’s gentle, ineffectual, tragic figure with some compassion. He was born into a too difficult destiny in which his virtues – loyalty and mercy – contributed to his undoing. The old autocracy collapsed from its own inherent rottenness and the ‘old order’ crumbled at the first challenge.

The Gotha raids continued, and by the end of the war, they had carried out fifty-two attacks and dropped 111 tons of bombs, killing over eight hundred people. The attack documented on the map was one of the least successful. Nicknamed the ‘cock-crow raid’ because of the early hour of the raid, just after midnight on 6th December 1917 (shown on the maps above), five thousand pounds of bombs were dropped, causing a hundred thousand pounds worth of damage and eighteen deaths, but good preparation by the Fire Brigade meant that the resulting fires were easily contained. Two Gothas were forced down by the anti-aircraft fire; one German crew downed near Canterbury surrendered to the local vicar; another was allowed to land unhindered at Rochford, after giving, by chance, the correct identification signal. Four more Gothas were either shot down or crashed, making German losses six out of sixteen.

The effects of the war were so catastrophic by this stage that the historian, looking back, is not inclined to be contemptuous of any effort to end it. But it is clear that the German offer made at the end of 1917 was impossible for the Entente Allies to accept. The reply of the allies on 30th December exposed it as a thinly veiled cover for new and anarchic methods of naval warfare, and to justify herself, she had to appear as an angel of peace who had been rudely repulsed. As a consequence of the rejection of their insecure overtures, the German Chancellor assented to the policy of ‘all out’ submarine warfare, which nearly brought Britain to its knees. There was more hope in the overtures of Austria-Hungary since the new emperor, Charles, made two proposals for a separate peace. We don’t know how his cousin, King George, received these proposals, but the reply Italy and France contained another allusion to Shakespeare, being redolent of Lucio’s comrade in Measure for Measure: “Heaven grant us peace, but not the King of Hungary’s!”

This third year of attritional warfare had been a wholly depressing one in Britain and for its Allies, now only France, with the United States Army on its way. The discomfort was growing in every British home since lights were dimmed and rations were reduced, and there was also a neverending tale of losses to rend many home hearts. The Russian revolution let loose a flood of theorising; there were incessant disputes with Labour, war-weary, puzzled, suspicious and poisoned by propaganda. Civilians at home and soldiers in the field felt themselves in the grip of an inexorable machine.

This was a dangerous mood, for, according to Buchan, it might have resulted in a coarsening of fibre and a blindness to the longer view and the greater issues.

That this was not the consequence was largely due to the King, who visited every industrial area in Britain to keep weary minds focused on the national war aims and the unity of his people: Wherever he went, he seemed to unseal the founts of human sympathy. He visited Clydeside, Tyneside, and most of the chief munition works, and to the alarm of government ministers, he also went to Lancashire during a strike and was warmly welcomed.

Nevertheless, to the workers, he seemed to come not only as King but also as a ‘comrade’. By the spring of 1918 in Britain, industrial strikes had receded, and the workers even gave up their Easter holidays to make up for lost guns and stores by increasing output. On 10th April, the House of Commons passed by a large majority a Bill raising the age limit of military service to fifty and giving the Government power to abolish the ordinary exemptions. Within a month from 21st March, 355,000 men were sent across the Channel. But when the King visited his armies in the last days of that month, the strategic situation was still on a razor’s edge. He had gone to them for a week during the flood tide of Somme battles; he had visited them again, accompanied by the Queen, on the eve of Passchendaele. Now he went to them again in the throes of their sternest trial. He saw remnants of battalions which had been through the retreat, and he saw units that, in a week or two, were to be engaged in the desperate stand on the Lys. The battlefield was solemn, for the British Army had already lost more men than in the thirty-four weeks of the Dardanelles campaign. The King’s visit was an appeal to his troops to “take counsel from the valour of their hearts.”

His Prime Minister, Lloyd George, paid tribute to the King for his efforts:

“The loyalty of the people was heartened and encouraged… by the presence of of the Sovereign in their midst, and by the warm personal interest he showed in their work and their anxieties. In estimating the value of the different factors which conduced to the maintenance of our home front in 1917, a very high place must be given the affection inspired by the King, and the unremitting diligence with which he set himself in those dark days to discharge the functions of his high office.”

David Lloyd George, Prime Minister from December 1916.

But it was not the King who was voted Man of the Year for 1918, but David Lloyd George himself, who was also popularly known as the Man Who Won the War. At the Head of a Wartime Co-Lib-Lab Coalition Government, he was returned at the General Election of December 1918, with an overwhelming majority of more than three hundred in the House of Commons.

The last Gotha Raid took place on 19th May, when thirty-eight Gotha aircraft and three of the even larger ‘R-type’ Giants buzzed over London and killed forty-nine Londoners in a final night of agony. The Sopwith Camels of the London air defence squadrons and anti-aircraft crews shot down six Gothas. With losses becoming unacceptably high for the rest of the war, the German airforce kept the Gothas back from further raids, while the centralisation of Britain’s previously separate air units into the newly-inaugurated Royal Air Force (RAF) in April 1918 further increased the British capacity to defend their airspace for the next twenty-two years, until the Blitz of the autumn and winter of 1940-41. At the beginning of the first world war, civilians had a relatively low chance of being killed in enemy raids. Only 1,300 civilians were killed by Zeppelin bombs in London in 1915, and even when the Gotha Giant bombers followed in 1917, a similar number of deaths from all their raids resulted from a single raid in the Second World War. What the German raids did was create and instil a sense of terror and defencelessness among British civilians.

The temper of Britain throughout the spring and summer of 1918 was heavy and apathetic, but now and then, it revealed by little spurts of violence how near men and women were living on the outer edge of their nerves. The crisis of March and April had produced a new resolution, but it was a resolution that had no exhilaration in it and little hope. People had begun to doubt that the war would ever end. The night was still so black that they had forgotten that the darkest hour comes just before dawn. Despite some naval successes, as the months passed and the news from the battlefield was only of still further retreats and losses, the popular view was still one of depression. Even the news of the turn of the tide did not lift the public mood because it could not comprehend the meaning of this. Everybody was tired and underfed; the influenza epidemic was also claiming hundreds of victims each week.

All over the country, there were strikes among munitions workers, followed by troubles in the transport services, with the miners, and in August among the London police. These difficulties were temporarily solved by the easy method of increasing wages, but ‘sober’ minds began to wonder where this facile business of ‘doles’ would end. Those in authority, aware that the last stage of the war was approaching, and knowing something of the state of the German people, were anxiously questioning whether a rot might set in that would nullify all the sacrifice on the Western Front. Then, in the autumn, the country suddenly woke up to the meaning of the news from France. At last, the western allies were winning. Slowly minds began to turn from preoccupation with the Western Front to other theatres of war throughout the world where the allies were also winning, demonstrating the sheer vastness of the war.

On resigning his commission, Bertie was determined not to return to civilian life while the war was going on and, in February 1918, he was transferred to the Royal Naval Air Service. He became a Squadron leader of the Boys’ Wing at Cranwell, Lincolnshire, where he remained until that autumn. During the last weeks of the war, he served on the staff of the Independent Air Force at its headquarters in Nancy and then remained on the Continent as a staff officer in the newly-formed Royal Air Force.

The Hundred Days & The Armistice:

The Hundred Days Offensive was a series of Allied engagements that put continuous pressure on the retreating Germans. It began at the Battle of Amiens on 8th August and ended on 11th November with the Armistice. Although the Germans realised they were to be denied victory, they fought tenaciously, inflicting heavy casualties.

Street celebrations on Armistice Day in London, 11th November 1918.

On the eleventh, great crowds assembled outside Buckingham Palace, and the King and Queen appeared on the balcony to receive such an acclamation as had rarely, if ever, greeted sovereigns of Britain’s reputedly unemotional people. The next days were full of ceremonials. On the 12th, they went in solemn procession to St Paul’s to give thanks for the victory. In the following week, they drove through the eastern, southern and northern districts of London and paid a brief visit to Scotland. A week later, on the 19th, in the Royal Gallery of the Palace of Westminster, the King replied to the addresses of the two Houses of Parliament. There, in the presence of political leaders and the great officers of State, and representatives of India and the Dominions, he expounded in simple words on the debt of the nation to its fleets and armies for their achievement; the pride of Britain in her Allies; the unspectacular toil of the millions at home who had made victory possible:

“… How shall we seek to achieve the victories of peace? Can we do better than remember the lessons which the years of war have taught, and retain the spirit which they have instilled? In these years Britain and her traditions have come to mean more to us than they had ever meant before. It became a privilege to serve her in whatever way we could; and we were all drawn by the sacredness of the cause into a comradeship which fired our zeal and nerved our efforts. This is the spirit we must try to preserve. It is on the sense of brotherhood and mutual good will, on a common devotion to the common interests of the nation as a whole, that its future prosperity and strength must be built up.The sacrifices made, the sufferings endured, the memory of the heroes who have died that Britain may live, ought surely to ennoble our thoughts and attune our hearts to a higher sense of individual and national duty, …”

He concluded with an expansion on the imperial themes he had spoken about eight years earlier in the month before his Coronation, in a homily on Milton’s proud saying: “Let not England forget her precedence of teaching the nations how to live”. Buchan reflects that he was entitled to exhort his people in this manner, for his House of Windsor had played their part in the struggle, unostentatiously performing hard and monotonous duties and sharing gladly in every national burden. The British people knew this and turned to the King as their ‘best friend’ with something more than respect and more profound than loyalty. Royalism was the willing creed of all, wrote John Buchan. For him,

its most impressive manifestation was not the crowds around Buckingham Palace, or the splendid occasion in the Royal Gallery, but what happened on the afternoon of Armistice Day. In the wet November dusk, the King and Queen drove a simple open carriage through the City of London, almost unattended and wholly unheralded. The merrymakers left their own occupations to cheer, and crowds accompanied the carriage through the newly-lighted streets, running beside it and shouting friendly greetings. It was an incident which interpreted better than any formula the meaning of a People’s King.

The Peace of the People’s King:

Throughout the following winter and the spring of 1919, the people of Britain continued to enjoy the King’s Peace:

On 27th November 1918, the King visited France and the troops awaiting demobilisation. He had been on the battlefield just three months before during the great advance of 8th August, and now he could examine at peace the ground where victory had been won and greet his troops as they moved eastward to the German frontier. In Paris, at banquets at the Elysée Palace and the Hotel de Ville, he spoke words of gratitude and friendship to the French people. A year before, there had been an attempt in Germany to drum up monarchical sentiment through films, lectures and articles showing the simplicity and devotion of the Imperial Household. Now, with political unrest in Germany, the suggestion in Berlin was that the removal of the Kaiser would placate the popular mood. In the final days of the war, Army officers had proposed that he should go to the front and die a glorious death in battle. The spirit in Germany remained one of defeat, hunger, despair, strikes and a revolution, which had begun at the end of October 1918…

In November 1918, the Kaiser was forced to abdicate and flee to the west. He had gone to war in 1914 in support of Austria-Hungary, a fellow empire which had collapsed at the beginning of the month. In the end, he lived out his life in exile in the Netherlands.

The menace of militarism had been defeated and a great arrogance overthrown. But what then? Buchan wrote that there was an old assumption that some spiritual profit is assured by material loss and bodily suffering. Still, he added, the moral disorder was at least as conspicuous as the moral gain in these immediate post-war months and years. Throughout Europe, in the fifteen years that followed, the old régimes based on old principles which had been assumed to be elemental truths were swept aside, except in Britain and France. The war had been fought by people rather than by leaders; now, new leaders emerged, and the people had put their fate into their hands.

The terms of the Armistice imposed on Germany by the Allies were severe and left it prostrate. According to the Manchester Guardian of 12th November 1918, Clause (4) called for the surrender or disarming of the German fleet giving the Allies the right to occupy Heligoland, if necessary, to enforce the naval clauses owing to the mutinous State of the fleet. It also had to surrender its guns and withdraw its armies from conquered territories. The German Government accepted these terms because the Allies, at the same time, made a promise to uphold the principles that US President Wilson had set forth as the basis of the settlement, the Fourteen Points. One of these was that all nations must reduce armaments, but the treaty that followed, signed with Germany at Versailles in June 1919, disarmed the defeated powers while the victors maintained their military strength.

Incensed by these clauses, the Admirals in the German grand fleet, which had been anchored at Scapa Flow since the armistice, decided to take direct action in response to them, as described in the caption to the picture below:

The German sailors risked their lives in carrying out their Admiral’s orders. At noon on the 21st, the German ensign was run up, the battleships began to settle, and their crews crowded into boats or swam for it. Some of the British guardships, uncertain as to what was going on, opened fire, and there were over a hundred casualties.

Celebrating the Peace & Commemorating the War, 1919-21:
The picture above is of the Hall of Versailles in June, taken from Sir William Orpen’s well-known picture. In it, Germany’s Johannes Bell is signing the Treaty, which gave the European powers, both defeated and victorious, so much trouble ever since.
On Lloyd George’s right are ‘Tiger’ Clemenceau and President Wilson. On his left are Bonar Law and Arthur J. Balfour.

The Victory Procession in July 1919 (pictured above and below) was an event in which troops representing fourteen victorious nations (including China and Portugal) marched through London: Roses were thrown in the paths of Sir Douglas Haig and Marchal Foch. The Cenotaph (meaning ’empty tomb’) at that time was temporary, made of plaster, to a design of Sir Edward Lutyens.

British sailors march through Whitehall in July 1919 to commemorate the end of the war.

It was replaced in 1920 and unveiled by King George V on Armistice Day, pictured below. Lutyens deliberately omitted any religious symbols because the men commemorated were of all faiths and none. Britain had emerged from the war with the monarchy stronger than ever. Four kings in Germany (of Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony and Wurtemberg) had been deposed; the empires of Russia and Austria-Hungary had collapsed; Greece, Turkey and Spain were later to become republics. But though Britain’s monarchy remained strong under George V until 1936, the interwar years brought strikes, economic crises, mass unemployment and, in Ireland, civil war. But the King remained detached from ideology and class-based politics, respected and liked by all.

The unveiling of The Cenotaph by the King (at the plinth on the right) in Whitehall, 11th November 1920.

Elsewhere, new monarchies and autocracies arose on the ruins of the old, more arbitrary and absolute than ever, and names like Führer, Duce, and Ghazi carried a weightier spell than those of emperor and king. Democracy, which the war seemed to have glorified, was largely in ruins. This flight from democracy had been accelerated by the war, but it had been long in the making. The reaction which might have been looked for after ‘the peace’ was nullified by the continuing international political and economic instability which resulted from it, which in turn resulted in the rise of new, more dangerous nationalisms and militarisms. As Buchan saw it:

Men were unwilling or unable to stand alone; they huddled together into hordes for safety and warmth, and were glad to surrender their wills to whoever or whatever promised security. The ordinary citizen had lost that confidence in himself that is the only basis for democracy.

Buchan, op.cit., p. 268.

From a map published in a school atlas in 1935.

The idea of creating a tomb in Westminster Abbey for The Unknown Warrior was first suggested by J. B. Wilson, the News Editor of the Daily Express, in the issue of 16th September 1919. He wrote:

‘Shall an unnamed British hero be brought from a battlefield in France and buried beneath the Cenotaph in Whitehall?’

The suggestion was adopted, but Westminster Abbey, not Whitehall, was chosen as the resting place. Early in November 1920, the bodies of six unknown men – killed in action – were brought to a hut at St. Pol, near Arras. The unknown warrior who was to receive an Empire’s homage was chosen by an officer who, with eyes closed, rested his hand on one of the six coffins. This was the coffin that came to London. Marshal Foch, the greatest French soldier, saluted the Unknown Warrior at Boulogne as the coffin was conveyed on board the British destroyer, Verdun. Just before midday on 10th November, HMS Verdun, with an escort of six RN destroyers, left Boulogne.

The destroyer, Vendetta, met them halfway with its White Ensign astern at half-mast. On the deck of the Verdun, four sailors stood guard over the coffin as the Union Jack draped over it was covered with wreaths, with an anchor of flowers on top. The field marshal’s salute of nineteen guns was fired from Dover Castle as the ship arrived at the dock, coming alongside Admiralty Pier in Dover Harbour. Six officers representing the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Air Force bore the coffin along the quayside from the dock to the train, with troops lining the route from Dover garrison.

Above: On the left, King George places a wreath on the Unknown Warrior’s coffin, which rests on the gun carriage that is to take it from the Cenotaph to Westminster Abbey. On the right, Field-Marshal Haig moves around to help the King.

The grave of the unknown soldier was then filled in with the contents of the hundred sandbags sent over for the grave. They were filled with earth from France and sent by train to Victoria Station. Flowers and wreaths again bedecked the coffin during the ceremony at the Abbey.

The first British Empire ended with the loss of the American colonies and the second with the first shots of the Great War. The third was slowly coming into being under the House of Windsor. King George V was King of Britain but also still Emperor of India, which he had visited in 1911 when he spoke at Delhi. Many Indian soldiers, especially from Sikh areas, had fought for the Imperial forces in the trenches. In 1917, the Secretary of State for India, E. S. Montagu, made the momentous declaration in the House of Commons that The policy of His Majesty’s Government was the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible Government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. This was followed in 1919 by the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which divided the functions of the Government of the Provinces into two classes, some reserved for the Governor and some entrusted to ministers responsible to the new local legislatures. A Central Legislature was also established. The Duke of Connaught formally inaugurated the plan in Delhi in February 1921 on behalf of the King-Emperor, and it was to be revised in 1931.

George V was also Sovereign of all the overseas dominions and territories of the empire. In addition, there were new mandates it needed to manage in the Middle East, including Iraq and Palestine, under the terms of the Paris Peace Settlement. During the controversies that followed, the monarchy remained, in the reign of George V, the cherished centre of unity around which union could grow. As such, its value was priceless, for it provided a solid and steadfast foundation on which new working mechanisms could be constructed and a new theory of Empire developed. David Edward, the Prince of Wales, was already conducting tours of the Empire with great success, increasingly basking in the adulation of the press and public both at home and abroad.

But those around the King began to feel that the Prince was enjoying the limelight rather too much for his own – or the country’s – good. The King himself was becoming concerned about his eldest son’s almost obsessive love of the modern – which George despised – his dislike of royal protocol and tradition, and, above all, his predilection for married women, which he seemed to have inherited from his grandfather, Edward VII. Father and son began to clash frequently, often over the most minor things such as dress codes, in which the King took an almost obsessive interest. As the Prince later recorded, whenever his father spoke to him of duty, the word itself created a barrier between them. Bertie, by contrast, was gradually becoming his father’s favourite. When peace came, Bertie, like many returning officers, went to university. In October 1919, he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he studied history, economics and civics for a year. It was not immediately clear why he, as the second son, would need such knowledge, but it was to prove more than useful a decade later. On 4th June 1920, at the age of twenty-four, he was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney. King George wrote to him:

‘I know that you have behaved very well, in a difficult situation for a young man & that you have done what I asked you to do. I hope that you will always look on me as yr. best friend & always tell me everything & you will always find me as ready to help you and give you good advice.’

In August 1920, minus David, the Royal Family put on a sporting team display of a return to normalcy on board his yacht in the waters around the Isle of Wight:

In his capacity as president of the Industrial Welfare Society, the Duke began to visit coal mines, factories and rail yards, developing an interest in working conditions and acquiring the nickname the ‘industrial prince.’ Starting in July 1921, he also instituted an interesting social experiment: a series of annual summer camps held initially on a disused aerodrome at New Romney on the Kent coast and later at Southwold Common in Suffolk, which was designed to bring together boys from a wide range of social backgrounds. The last took place on the eve of war in 1939.

The ‘King’s writ’ in Ireland – The Anglo-Irish War, 1920-21:
British troops during the Easter Rising of 1916. The rising was doomed from the start: Britain was not so distracted by the war in Europe that it was unable to react forcefully. Dublin was left badly battered.

The position of Ireland, after 120 years as an integrated part of the United Kingdom, changed dramatically in 1921, when the island was partitioned, and the two parts received different degrees of autonomy. The six northeastern counties remained part of the United Kingdom but were given devolved Government, while in the south, the Irish Free State was established as a dominion within the British empire. These changes were a result of the events that took place between 1912 and 1921, which followed a long period of constitutional impasse. Until 1914, the Irish Party, which called for Irish Home Rule, had the loyalty of most nationalists. The Easter Rising of 1916, the repression that followed it, and the threat of conscription in Ireland swung the electorate towards the more radical, republican Sinn Féin. With de facto independence as a British dominion achieved and Partition an established fact, the tide of radicalism began to recede.

Peace had come to most of the empire in 1918 but not to Ireland. In the election of November, the old Nationalist leaders and their party were roundly defeated and disappeared. Sinn Féinourselves alone,’ the republican nationalists, won most of the Irish seats, and in January 1919, they refused to take up their seats in London but set up a parliament and proclaimed the Irish Republic, as they had first attempted to do during the Easter Rising of 1916. Eamon de Valera, who had escaped from an English gaol, was President, its supporters were armed, and the King’s writ had ceased to run in Ireland.

The conflict raged on, becoming known as the Anglo-Irish War followed, putting the King’s ministers and their security forces in an intolerable position. In 1920 a new version of the Home Rule Bill was passed at Westminster, becoming the Government of Ireland Act, allowing for the setting up of parliaments in Dublin and Belfast. Largely Protestant and unionist Ulster accepted the scheme, but the republicans in the South rejected it. The Lord Mayor of Cork, who was an active Sinn Feiner, was among those arrested. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment. In Brixton Gaol, he declared he would starve himself to death in support of the republican cause. He died on 26th October after a seventy-four-day fast, and his body was taken back to Ireland for burial. Mourners followed his coffin through the streets.

By mid-1921, the growing severity of the conflict and the mounting casualties, particularly among the Crown forces, resulted in a desire on both sides to explore the possibility of a constitutional compromise. The British Government knew that it must either use its military strength to stamp out a full-scale rebellion at Britain’s door or it would have to agree on a treaty with the rebel government, resulting in a huge loss of face for Great Britain. The impasse was ended by the King’s intervention. He accepted that it was his duty as monarch to help unravel the tangled constitutional crisis into which the two countries had drifted.

On 22nd June 1921, in the newly-instituted Parliament of Northern Ireland in Belfast, the King made one of the most significant speeches of his life:

“… The eyes of the whole Empire are on Ireland today – that Empire in which so many nations and races have come together in spite of ancient feuds and in which new nations have come to birth within the lifetime of the youngest in this hall. I am emboldened by that thought to look beyond the sorrow and anxiety which have clouded my late vision of Irish affairs. I speak from a full heart when I pray that my coming to Ireland today may prove to be the first step towards the end of strife amongst the people, whatever their race or creed.

“In that hope, I appeal to all Irishmen to pause, to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget, and to join in making for the land which they love a new era of peace, contentment and goodwill. It is my earnest desire that in Southern Ireland, too, there may ere long take place a parallel to what is now passing in this hall, that there… a similar ceremony be performed.

“… The future lies in the hands of the Irish people themselves. May this historic gathering be the prelude of a day in which the Irish people, North and South, under one Parliament or two… shall work together… upon the sure foundation of mutual justice and respect.”

Michael Collins

He then invited both ‘governments’ to talks leading to the conclusion of an Anglo-Irish Treaty. To allow for the talks, a truce was called in the war on 11th July 1921. The British Government, which had been gradually moving towards some scheme of Dominion Home Rule since before the World War, opened negotiations in London with the Irish leaders led by realists like Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins (right), rather than hard-line republicans like de Valera.

Griffith and Collins wanted the substance of independence and did not want to quibble about constitutional forms. For de Valera, however, ever the idealist, the symbols of independence were precious and potent, and the oath of allegiance and headship of the King were badges of servitude. It was a tragic irony that the stumbling block should be the Sovereign who was the most earnest advocate of peace. After five months of hard and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations, the British Government finally lost patience and forced a settlement on the Irish delegation by threatening immediate and all-out warfare.

The Conference in London eventually led to a treaty, signed on 6th December, under which the whole of Ireland became the Irish Free State came into being with the status of a self-governing Dominion, but with the possibility of the North (the six counties of Ulster) being able to secede and become an autonomous region within the United Kingdom.

(to be continued…)

Featured

An Epilogue for Beren & Lúthien: Tolkien’s Last Years, 1966-1973 & The Work of Christopher Tolkien (-2017).

50 years ago – in 1972 – Queen Elizabeth II appointed JRR Tolkien Commander of the Order of the British Empire “for services to English Literature.” Outside Buckingham Palace with his daughter Priscilla.

The Road Goes Ever on – Headington to Bournemouth:

Although life retirement sometimes seemed ‘grey and grim’ to Tolkien, it also had many elements that suited him. For one thing, he and Edith, at last, had enough money. However, the tax authorities took a large proportion of his earnings, and on one occasion, Tolkien wrote across a cheque to the inland revenue the words ‘not a penny for Concorde‘. Near the end of his life, he made a financial settlement passing on most of his assets to his four children. He was always, as ever, concerned with providing for his family’s needs, buying a house for one of them and a car for another: He gave a cello to a grandson and paid the school fees for a granddaughter. Tolkien was generously philanthropic with his new-found wealth, donating a substantial sum, anonymously, to his parish church in Headington.

He and Edith were still very different people with widely differing interests, and even after fifty years of marriage, they were not always ideal company for each other. There were still moments of tension and irritation between them besides those of great tenderness and affection. Nevertheless, they celebrated their Golden Wedding in 1966 with many ceremonies. Among the events that marked it was a performance at their party in Merton College by Donald Swann of his own Tolkien song cycle, The Road Goes Ever On, with the composer at the piano and the songs being sung, appropriately, by William Elvin.

But the domestic arrangements at Headington were by no means ideal, and they deteriorated as Edith’s health declined, and her arthritis made her increasingly lame. She still managed to do most of the cooking, housework, and gardening, but as the 1960s advanced and she came closer to her eightieth birthday, she couldn’t manage the chores or the stairs much longer. Ronald helped as much as he could, but he was growing increasingly ‘stiff’ himself. So at the beginning of 1968, when he was seventy-six and she seventy-nine, they decided to move to a more convenient house which also had the advantage of preserving a measure of privacy. After considering several possibilities in the Oxford area, they decided to move to Bournemouth.

Like most south-coast resorts, the town attracted the elderly in large numbers. It served as a setting where they could spend time with others of their age and class. Edith had come to like it very much. Some years previously, she had begun to take holidays at the Miramar Hotel on the seafront to the west of the town, an expensive but comfortable and friendly establishment chiefly patronised by people like herself. Consequently, in Bournemouth, for the first time, Edith had made a large number of friends. After Ronald had retired and had given up his examination visits to Ireland, he had begun to accompany her on these holidays and soon realised that, on the whole, she was far happier there than she was at home in Oxford. The social setting at the Miramar was close to what she had known in the Jessop household at Cheltenham between 1910 and 1913: upper-middle-class, affluent, unacademic and with a warm friendliness towards its own kind. She felt entirely at home, back in her social milieu, as she had never been at any time in her married life.

Many of the other guests at the hotel were titled, rich, and self-assured, but Edith did not feel any inferiority, for she was now as wealthy as any of them. As to titles, her status as the wife of an internationally famous author cancelled out any feelings she might have of inadequacy. The Miramar gradually became the answer to Tolkien’s domestic problems. When the strain of keeping house became too much for Edith, they booked their standard rooms and arranged for a hire car and driver to take them down to Bournemouth. Edith soon recovered much of her strength and good spirits. Ronald was relieved to escape to the sea air from the confines of Sandfield Road and his despair at his own inability to get work done. He was not particularly happy at the Miramar itself. He shared Lewis’s dislike of the type of person whose general conversation is almost wholly narrative. So the visits to Bournemouth continued, and when the couple decided to leave Sandfield Road and find another house, they resolved to look for something near the Miramar.

Ronald and Edith bought a well-equipped bungalow a short taxi ride away from the Miramar Hotel. But the move to Bournemouth involved many sacrifices on Tolkien’s part. He had little wish to leave Oxford and knew he was cutting himself off from all but limited contact with his family and close friends. But, as with Headington, he found the reality a little harsher than he had expected. He wrote to his son Christopher a year after moving that he saw no men of his own kind. But the sacrifice had a purpose: Edith’s health and happiness. That purpose was achieved. She was consistently happier than she had ever been in their married life, and her continued pleasure at visits to the Miramar and the friendships she made there. She had ceased to be the shy, uncertain, sometimes troubled wife of an Oxford professor and became herself once more, the sociable, good-humoured Miss Bratt of her Cheltenham days before she married Ronald in 1916.

The Return of Beren & Lúthien; further progress in work:

Edith in 1916

Edith’s happiness was also gratifying to Ronald. It was reflected in his own state of mind so that the diary he continued to keep for a short while at Bournemouth was no longer full of the despondency which had so often taken him over at Sandfield Road. The absence of what he called ‘men of my own kind’ was made up for by frequent visits of family members and friends, while the almost constant interruptions from ‘fans’ they had endured in Headington came to a permanent end. A great deal more of his time was therefore available for work, and Joy Hill, a member of the Allen & Unwin staff, dealt with fan mail, coming down regularly to attend to the letters which found their way to him, though his new address remained secret.

He, therefore, began to work again with some thoroughness on The Silmarillion. Yet it was difficult for him to decide exactly where to start. In one sense, there was very little remaining to be done. The narrative itself was complete, beginning with an account of the world’s creation and dealing in the main with the struggle between the elves and the prime power of evil. To produce a continuous narrative, Tolkien had to decide which version of each chapter he should use, for there were many, dating from his earliest work in 1917 to some passages written in the last few years. But this involved so many decisions that he did not know where to start, and even if he managed to complete this work, he would have to ensure that the whole book was consistent with itself.

Over the years, he had, by his various alterations and rewritings, produced a massive confusion: Characters’ names had been changed in one place but not in another. Topographical descriptions were disorganised and contradictory. Worst of all, the manuscripts themselves had proliferated so that he was no longer sure which of them represented his latest thoughts on any particular passage. For security reasons, he had, in recent years, made two copies of each typescript and kept each copy in a different place. But he had never decided which was to be the working copy, and often he had amended each of them independently and in a contradictory fashion. To produce a consistent and satisfactory text, he would have to make a detailed collation of every manuscript, and the prospect of attempting this filled him with dismay.

He was also uncertain as to how the whole work should be presented. He was inclined to abandon the original framework, the introductory device of the seafarer to whom the stories were told. But he didn’t know what he would replace it with or whether it was enough simply to present the narrative as the mythology that had appeared in a shadowy form in The Lord of the Rings. In this latter respect, he had made his task even more complicated by introducing several new essential characters into the narrative, such as the elven-queen Galadriel and the Ents, who had not appeared in the original versions of the Silmarillion, but who now required some mention in it. He had managed to work out solutions to these problems but still had to ensure that they harmonised in every single deed and detail recorded in the two works. Otherwise, he would be bombarded with letters pointing out the inconsistencies. Besides these technical issues, he was still not beyond rewriting some fundamental elements in the whole story, which would have entailed complete rewritings.

By the summer of 1971, after three years at Bournemouth, he had begun to make progress. But, as usual, he was drawn aside to considerations of detail, like what form an individual name should take, rather than overall revision. Even when he did some actual writing of the narrative, it was not concerned with what had already been written but with the mass of ancillary material accumulated over the years. Much of this was in the form of essays on “technical aspects of the mythology, such as the comparison of the ageing processes of elves and men or the death of animals and plants in Middle-earth. He felt that every detail of his cosmos needed attention, whether or not the essays themselves would ever be published. Sub-creation had become a sufficiently rewarding pastime, apart from the desire to see the work in print. On some days, he would put in long hours at his desk, but on other days he would abandon any pretence of working. Yet overall, he was deeply concerned that time was slipping away with the book still unfinished.

At the end of 1971, the Bournemouth epilogue ended abruptly. Edith, aged eighty-two, was taken ill in the middle of November. She was moved to a hospital, and after a few days of severe illness, she died at the end of the month. After Tolkien had recovered from the first shock of Edith’s death, there was no question of him remaining in Bournemouth. Clearly, he would return as a widower to Oxford, but at first, there was uncertainty about what arrangements could be made for his accommodation. Then Merton College offered him a set of rooms, a flat, in one of their houses on Merton Street, where a ‘scout’ and his wife could take care of him. Charlie Carr and his wife, his caretakers, lived in the basement. This was the perfect solution and an unusual honour, which Tolkien accepted with the utmost enthusiasm. He moved into 21 Merton Street at the beginning of March 1972, typically making friends with the three removal men and riding with them in their pantechnicon from Bournemouth to Oxford. After all, he was more at home with the working classes than the retired military aristocracy of the Miramar Hotel.

Return to Merton Street & Awards; Honours from the Queen:
The Quad on Merton Street.

The Carrs provided breakfast for him every morning and other meals if he was feeling unwell or unable to eat in college. He could also get a meal and entertain guests at the Eastgate Hotel next door, where he had dined with Lewis in the thirties. As a wealthy man, he could now afford to eat there whenever he liked, though he took most of his meals in college, where he was also made most welcome in the Senior Common Room.

The Eastgate Hotel, on the corner of Merton Street and The High Street.

Although he had been distressed at the loss of Edith and was now a lonely man without his Lúthien, his almost bachelor existence in Merton Street provided some compensation for his loss and a reward for his patience during their time together in Bournemouth. There was no question of him becoming inactive, as he frequently visited the Oxfordshire village where his son Christopher and his family lived. He also went to stay in Sidmouth, Devon, with Priscilla and his grandson Simon. He revisited his old ‘Tea Club (TCBS)’ friend, Christopher Wiseman. He spent several weeks with John in his parish at Stoke-on-Trent, motoring through his beloved West Midlands landscape to visit his brother Hilary, still living on his fruit farm in the Vale of Evesham.

H.M. Queen Elizabeth II at her Coronation in 1953, the year before The Lord of the Rings was published.

His happiness was added to by the honours that were conferred on him. He received several invitations to visit American universities and receive doctorates, but he couldn’t face the long journey. There were also many tributes within his homeland. He was profoundly moved when, in the spring of 1972, he was invited to Buckingham Palace to be presented with a C.B.E. by the Queen. She had been eleven when The Hobbit was published, and The Lord of the Rings had hit bookstores two years into her reign. Tolkien wrote to his publisher Rayner Unwin about the day,

“… I was very deeply moved by my brief meeting with the Queen, & our few words together. Quite unlike anything that I had expected.”

Humphrey Carpenter (ed.) (1981), Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. London: George Allen & Unwin, Letter 334.

After everything he had lived through and all the fairy stories he had written, meeting the Queen was a special moment for him. But perhaps the most gratifying of all was the award in June 1972 of an honorary Doctorate of Letters from his own University of Oxford; not, as was made clear, for The Lord of the Rings, but for his contribution to philology. Nevertheless, at the degree ceremony, the speech in his honour by the Public Orator (his old friend Colin Hardie) contained more than one reference to the chronicles of Middle-earth, and it concluded with the hope…

…that in such green leaf, as the Road goes ever on, he will produce from his store Silmarillion and scholarship.

The Silmarillion & The Ad Eundem:

As far as The Silmarillion was concerned, however, the months were still passing by with little progress in the writing. There had been an understandable delay while Tolkien reorganised his books and papers after the move from Bournemouth. When he finally resumed work, he became once more enmeshed in technical problems. Some years previously, Ronald had decided that in the event of his dying before the book was finished, Christopher (who was already well-versed in the work) should complete it for publication. He often discussed the book with Christopher, contemplating the numerous problems that remained to be solved, but they made little progress in solving them. Christopher completed the editing within five years of his father’s death, so it was finally published in 1977.

Almost certainly, he did not expect to die soon. He told his former tutee, Mary Salu, that there was a tradition of longevity among his Suffield ancestry and that he believed he would live for many more years. But late in 1972, there were warning signs. He began to suffer from severe indigestion, was put on a diet and was warned not to drink wine. Despite his unfinished work, he did not relish the prospect of many more years living at Merton Street. He wrote to his old cousin, Marjorie Incledon, that:

I often feel very lonely. After term (when the undergraduates depart), I am all alone in a large house with only the caretaker and his wife far below in the basement.’

Tolkien at Merton Street in 1972

Nevertheless, he was still able to travel. In June 1973, he visited Edinburgh to receive an honorary degree from the university.

There was also a ceaseless stream of callers at Merton Street: his family, old friends, and colleagues, including Joy Hill from Allen & Unwin, to attend to fan-mail. There was also the regular Sunday morning drive by taxi to church in Headington and Edith’s grave in Wolvercote cemetery. But his loneliness didn’t cease. Yet the diet had apparently been successful, and in July, he went to Cambridge for a dinner of the Ad Eundem, an inter-varsity dining club. On 25 August, he wrote a belated note to his host, Professor Glyn Daniel…

… to thank you for your delightful dinner in St John’s, and especially for your forbearance and great kindness to me personally. It proved a turning point! I suffered no ill effects whatever, and have since been able to dispense with the diet taboos I had to observe for six months.

Three days after writing this letter, he travelled to Bournemouth to stay with the doctor and his wife, who had looked after him and Edith when they lived there. Two days later, he was in pain during the night, and the next morning he was taken to a private hospital where an acute bleeding gastric ulcer was diagnosed. Unlike Michael and Christopher, John and Priscilla were able to travel to Bournemouth to be with him in the nursing home. At first, the reports on his condition were optimistic, but after a further forty-eight hours, a chest infection had developed, and on 2 September, he died, aged eighty-one. His requiem mass was held in Oxford four days after his death, in the plain modern church in Headington, which he had attended so often. His son John chose the prayers and readings and said the mass with the assistance of Tolkien’s old friend Fr Robert Murray and his parish priest. However, there was no sermon, eulogy, elegy, or quotation from his writings. He had always disapproved of all kinds of biography.

The Dissolution of the Inklings: Endings & Epitaphs:

His ‘autobiography’ is The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, which led to the accolade of him as ‘the father of modern fantasy literature,’ otherwise known as ‘High Fantasy.’ The truth about him lies within these works and in his shorter stories and poetry related to his legendarium; Tree and Leaf, Farmer Giles of Ham, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses from the Red Book.

View of Magdalen College from the Eastgate Hotel.

The Inklings, the handful of men who met, in the 1930s and 40s, at Magdalen College on Thursday nights and at ‘The Eagle and Child’ on Monday mornings, were not a homogeneous group. However, as writers, they certainly exercised significant influence over each other. Neither were they homogeneous in their deaths and resting places. The graves of the group’s core can be found at various locations in and around the city of Oxford. Lewis’s grave, shared with his brother Major W. H. Lewis, is marked by a plain slab adorned with a simple cross and the words Men must endure their going hence. Hugo Dyson and Charles Williams are buried in the shadow of St Cross Church in the city centre, along with many other University men of their generation. All of them, as well as the Lewis brothers, were members of the Church of England, but there was no Catholic burial place in Oxford other than the corporation cemetery at Wolvercote, where a small area is reserved for members of the Church of Rome. Many of the tombstones are in Polish because the graves of emigrés predominate over English adherents to the Catholic faith. A grey slab of Cornish granite to the left of the group stands out clearly, as does its slightly curious wording:

Edith Mary Tolkien, Lúthien, 1889-1971.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, Beren, 1892-1973.

The Lost Tales – the editorial work of Christopher R. Tolkien:

His only epitaph lay in the references in this wording to Beren and Lúthien, his early narrative poem, which was based on and in which he ‘fantasised’ about his relationship with Edith. Tolkien found the inspiration for many of the ideas presented in the tale in his love for his wife and, after her death, had “Lúthien” engraved on her tombstone, and later “Beren” was engraved on his own. Short after Edith’s death, Tolkien had written the following in a letter to their son Christopher:

I never called Edith Lúthien – but she was the source of the story that in time became the chief part of the Silmarillion. It was first conceived in a small woodland glade filled with hemlocks at Roos in Yorkshire (where I was for a brief time in command of an outpost of the Humber Garrison in 1917, and she was able to live with me for a while). In those days her hair was raven, her skin clear, her eyes brighter than you have seen them, and she could sing – and dance. But the story has gone crooked, & I am left, and I cannot plead before the inexorable Mandos.

Carpenter & Tolkien (1981), Letter 340, to Christopher Tolkien.

The grave stands in suburban surroundings, very different from the Worcestershire countryside he grew up in, at Sarehole and visited in the Vale of Evesham. So, even at the end of his life’s story, at this plain grave in a public cemetery, we are reminded of the antithesis between the ordinary life he led and the extraordinary imagination that created his mythology. However, when a few weeks later, a memorial service was held in California by some of his American admirers, and his short story Leaf by Niggle was read to the congregation:

Before him stood the Tree, his tree, finished. If you could say that of a Tree that was alive, it leaves opening, its branches growing and bending in the wind that Niggle had so often felt and guessed, and had often failed to catch. He gazed at the tree, and slowly he lifted his arms and opened them wide. “It’s a gift!” he said.

Front cover of the 2017 hardback edition

The story’s first version is The Tale of Tinúviel, written in 1917 and published in The Book of Lost Tales. During the 1920s, Tolkien started to reshape the tale into an epic poem, The Lay of Leithian. Unfortunately, he never finished it, leaving three of seventeen planned cantos unwritten. After his death, it was published in The Lays of Beleriand. The latest version of the tale is told in prose in one chapter of The Silmarillion, published by Christopher Tolkien in 1977, and is also supposedly recounted by Aragorn in The Fellowship of the Ring. Christopher spent several years investigating the earlier history of The Silmarillion, which later became the basis of earlier volumes of The History of Middle-earth. In 1981, he wrote a letter to Rayner Unwin in which he said that he would enjoy writing a book called Beren with the original Lost Tale, The Lay of Leithian and an essay on the development of the legend. But he recognised that:

‘The problem would be in its organisation, so that the matter was comprehensible without editor becoming overpowering.’

The story of Beren and Lúthien is spread over many years and several books. It was a story that became entangled with the slowly evolving Silmarillion, and ultimately an essential part of it, so its developments are recorded in successive manuscripts primarily concerned with the whole history of the ‘Elder Days.’ So it is not easy to follow the story as a single and well-defined narrative. In an often-quoted letter of 1951, J. R. R. Tolkien called it ‘the chief of the stories of the Silmarillion,’ and he said of Beren that he is:

‘… the outlawed mortal who succeeds… where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown. Thus he wins the hand of Lúthien and the first marriage of mortal and immortal is achieved.

‘As such the the story is… (a)… heroic-fairy-romance, receivable in itself with only a general vague knowledge of the background. But it is also fundamental link in the cycle, deprived of its full significance out of its place therein.’

Some early versions of the story were published in a stand-alone book in 2017, edited by Christopher Tolkien. In his preface, he wrote that his purpose in the book was twofold. Firstly, he tried to separate the story so that it stood alone, in so far as that could be achieved without distortion. Secondly, he wanted to show how the story evolved over the years since in his foreword to the first volume of The Book of Lost Tales, he had written of the stories:

‘In the history of the history of Middle-earth the development was seldom by outright rejection – far more often it was by subtle transformation in stages, so that the growth of the legends… can seem like the growth of legends among peoples, the product of many minds and generations.’

Therefore, he employed a method of extracting passages from his father’s much longer manuscripts in prose or verse written over many years. It was an essential feature of the book that the development of the legend was shown in his father’s own words. In this way, he brought to life passages of close description or dramatic immediacy that had been lost in the narrative summary of The Silmarillion and discovered elements of the story that had been lost altogether. Christopher cited another of his prefaces, that of The Children of Húrin (2007), to show how, with The History of Middle-earth, he tried to decipher his father’s composition to exhibit the tales of the Elder Days as a creation of unceasing fluidity. He wrote:

‘It is undeniable that there are a very great number of readers of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ for whom the legends of the Elder Days are altogether unknown, unless by their repute as as strange and inaccesible in mode and manner.’

This is the kernel of the legend, but in this book, Christopher Tolkien has attempted to extract the story from the comprehensive work in which it was embedded; but that story was itself changing as it developed new associations within the larger history. To show something of the process whereby this ‘Great Tale’ of Middle-earth evolved over the years, he told the story in his father’s own words by giving, first, its original form, and then passages in prose and verse from later texts that illustrate the narrative as it changed. Taken together, they reveal aspects of the story, both in events and in narrative immediacy, that were afterwards lost.

In his Preface to Beren and Lúthien, Christopher Tolkien emphasised that the fluidity of his father’s work should not be exaggerated, however. There were, nonetheless, great, essential, permanences. But it was certainly his purpose to show how the creation of an ancient legend of Middle-earth reflected the author’s search for his own unique mythology. J. R. R. Tolkien, his son believed, saw the three Great Tales of the Elder Days (Beren and Lúthien, The Children of Húrin, and The Fall of Gondolin) as works sufficiently complete in themselves as not to require knowledge of the great body of legend he called The Silmarillion. However, the tale of The Children of Húrin, Christopher maintained, was:

‘… integral to the history of Elves and Men in the Elder Days, and there are necessarily a good many references to events and circumstances in that larger story.’

His edited version of the story of Beren and Lúthien is therefore an attempt to extract one narrative element from a vast work of extraordinary richness and complexity, but that narrative was itself continually evolving and developing new associations as it became more embedded in the wider history. Christopher was in his ninety-third year when he published this edition of his father’s writing. He published it in memorium because of the importance of the tale in his father’s own life and thinking on the union of ‘the greatest of the Eldar,’ and the mortal man, of their fates and second lives. Christopher recalled his father telling him the story, without any writing, in the early thirties. In his father’s letter to him, written in the year following her death, in which he expressed his wish to have Lúthien written on her headstone, J. R. R. T. returned to the origin of the tale in a small woodland glade filled with hemlock flowers near Roos in Yorkshire, where she danced.

The Legacy of Tolkien’s Loves, Languages & Literature:

Where did it come from, this imagination that peopled Middle-earth with elves, orcs and hobbits? What was the source of the literary vision that changed the life of this obscure scholar? And why did that vision strike the minds and harmonise with the aspirations of numberless readers worldwide? Tolkien would have thought that these were unanswerable questions but that the answer lay, at least in part, somewhere in the rural, English West Midland landscapes and dialects of his childhood and youth.

The Worcestershire countryside near Sarehole inspired Tolkien.

As a lecturer in English language and linguistics, Tolkien was acutely aware of how the English of his day was becoming standardised and not just in its written forms. He could hear how much diversity in dialectical forms was in danger of being lost. The multi-stratified Victorian and Edwardian middle classes had been defined not simply by their literacy but by their ability to ‘speak’ properly to distinguish themselves from the classes below them and even from the rural gentry and yeomanry in terms of ‘respectability’. One eighteenth-century grammarian made reference to the depraved language of the Common People. The relationship between social class and the language used in the eighteenth century was maintained through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Here, for example, is the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, Dr Henry Alford, writing in a book called The Queen’s English: Stray Notes on Speaking and Spelling in 1864:

And first and foremost, let me notice that worst of all faults, the leaving out of the aspirate where it ought to be, and putting it where it ought not to be. This is a vulgarism not confined to this or that province of England, nor especially prevalent in one county or another, but common throughout England to persons of low breeding and inferior education, … Nothing so surely stamps a man as below the mark of intelligence, self-respect, and energy, as this unfortunate habit…

Tolkien’s contemporaries continued to judge their fellow Britons by their speech as much as by other aspects of their behaviour, though some, like Tolkien, were much more positive in their reactions than others. In his case, the relative poverty of his upbringing and his encounters with village children taught him a measure of humility even before his experiences of commanding working-class soldiers in the First World War.

Appendix – The Common Speech:

Tolkien’s tales were created around the languages he began to invent while still at school. These carefully constructed languages, including fifteen Elvish dialects and languages for the Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, and Dwarves, also included elements of the West Midland dialect used in ‘the Common Speech’ of Middle-earth. For example, in his Prologue to the First Book of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote of the Hobbits’ languages that…

of old, they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion… A love of learning… Was far from general among them, but there remained still a few in the older families who studied their own books and even gathered reports of old times and distant lands from Elves, Dwarves and Men.

In Appendix F, in the third part of The Lord of the Rings, he provides more detail on The Languages and Peoples of The Third Age. The language represented in the books by English was the Westron or Common Speech of the Westlands of Middle-earth in the Third Age. The Westron was also used as a second language of intercourse by all those who retained a language of their own, even by the Elves, not only in Arnor and Gondor but eastward to Mirkwood. It was a Mannish speech, enriched and softened under Elvish influence.

“The Shire” was divided into four quarters, the Farthings, North, South, East and West, and these again into many folklands, which still bore the names of the leading families. Each Farthing had three Shiriffs.  Outside these were the Marches, East and West, and Buckland. The Hobbits of the Shire and of Bree had used the Common Speech for a thousand years before Bilbo and Frodo. Tolkien informs us that they had used it in their own manner freely and carelessly, though the more learned among them had still at their command a more formal language when occasion required. The Common Speech, the Westron, was current throughout all the lands of the kings from Arnor to Gondor and about all the coasts from Belfalas to Lune. There is no record of any distinct Hobbit language; Tolkien tells us:

In Ancient days, they seem always to have used the languages of Men near whom, or among whom, they lived. Thus they quickly adopted the Common Speech after they entered Eriador, and by the time of their settlement at Bree, they had already begun to forget their former tongue. This was evidently a Mannish language… akin to that of the Rohirrim…

Of these things there were still some traces left in local words and names, many of which closely resembled those found in Dale or Rohan… While more were preserved in the placenames of Bree and the Shire. The personal names of the Hobbits were also peculiar and many had come down from ancient days

Of the four hobbit friends who form a company to journey to Rivendell to join the Fellowship of the Ring, Meriadoc (Merry) and Peregrin (Pippin) both belonged to great families, the Brandybucks and the Tooks, giving their names to Buckland and Tookland. They were, therefore, ‘aristocratic’ hobbits. Apart from Bilbo and Frodo, the more middle-class Bagginses were spread throughout the Shire. Ham Gamgee,…

commonly known as the Gaffer, held forth at The Ivy Bush, a small inn on the Bywater road; and he spoke with some authority as he had tended the garden at Bag End for forty years before his son, Sam, took over.

Sam Gamgee, of course, Tolkien’s ‘working class hero’ as the story evolves in The Lord of the Rings; a faithful servant to Frodo Baggins, perhaps partly based on the men he commanded in the trenches on the Somme in 1916. In the end, Sam is judged not by the ‘quality’ of his speech but by his loyalty and the heroic nature of his actions.

In Chapter Nine of the first book, the Hobbits arrive at the inn in Bree to sojourn overnight on their journey out of the Shire. The landlord, Mr Butterbur, invites them to join the company in the bar with their news, a song or a story. Merry decides not to, perhaps using his seniority of status to caution his fellow travellers to be mindful of their mission and to speak politely:

So refreshed and encouraged did they feel at the end of their supper… That Frodo, Pippin, and Sam decided to join the company. Merry said it would be too stuffy. “I shall sit here quietly by the fire for a bit, and perhaps go out later for a sniff of the air. Mind your Ps and Qs, and don’t forget that you are supposed to be escaping in secret, and are still on the high-road and not very far from the Shire!”

“Mind your P’s and Qs”, meaning ‘be careful to say “please” and “thank you”,’ is redolent of late Victorian, middle-class English, certainly that of the West Midlands. It was the kind of idiom Tolkien’s mother might have used with her young son when sending his aunt’s ‘house in ‘respectable’ Edgbaston. In using this contemporary colloquial phrase, Tolkien deliberately emphasises the company of Hobbits’ use of the Common Speech of the Shire and Bree. In the context of the story, Merry’s use of it as a warning was an apt one.

Sources:

Humphrey Carpenter (1977, 2016): J. R. R. Tolkien – A Biography. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Christopher Tolkien (ed.) (2017): J. R. R. Tolkien – Beren and Lúthien. Glasgow: HarperCollinsPublishers.

The Fourth Age Limited (1954, 1966): J. R. R. Tolkien – The Return of the King, being the Third Part of The Lord of the Ring. Appendices. Oxford: George Allen & Unwin.

Robert McCrum, William Cran & Robert MacNeil (1986, 1987): The Story of English. New York & Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Tolkien

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beren_and_L%C3%BAthien

Featured

Faith, Fantasy & Fairy Tales – Tolkien, ‘Jack’ Lewis & ‘The Inklings’, 1926-66: Part Two – ‘Shadowy Abstractions’

Hobbits and Narnians:

There were eighteen long years between Jack Lewis’s conversion on the way to Whipsnade and the beginning of his writing of the Tales of Narnia. Throughout this time, while Tolkien was writing his Hobbit stories, Lewis was musing on the physical similarities that men and beasts have in common.

Ernest H. Shepherd’s 1959 colour illustration for Kenneth Grahame’s (1908) book, The Wind in the Willows. London: Methuen.
Chapter II: The Open Road: ‘Sitting by the side of the cart, Toad talked about all he was going to do.’

This is why he felt that Kenneth Grahame, in The Wind in the Willows, made the right choice in giving his principal character the form of a toad (pictured above). The toad’s face, with its fixed ‘grin’, bears such a striking resemblance to a specific type of human face that no other animal would have suited the part so well. Lewis saw these physical similarities as extending still further: some animals can be most interestingly used in picture books and children’s literature as representing the actual archetypes of some human and animal characteristics. He had an uncanny eye for their specific traits.

The illustration on the cover is from The Voyage of the Dawntreader, the third book of the Chronicles of Narnia written by Lewis

Walter Hooper was born in 1931 in North Carolina and began corresponding with C. S. Lewis in 1954 while serving in the US Army. After his service, he read theology and lectured on Medieval and Renaissance English at the University of Kentucky. Early in 1963, he visited Lewis in Oxford and subsequently became his secretary during Lewis’s long illness. Following his death in November, Hooper became the Trustee of the C. S. Lewis estate. In his 1980 paperback, Past Watchful Dragons: A Guide to the Chronicles of Narnia, Hooper argued that there was also an essential relationship between Lewis’s experience of intense longing and the Narnian Chronicles.

A Heartfelt Longing for Heaven:

The Pilgrim’s Regress, partly autobiographical, is the story of the Pilgrim’s quest for a far-off island, whose vision stung him with ‘sweet desire’. When Lewis realised that the word Romanticism in the subtitle was misunderstood, he wrote a preface to the third edition (1943) explaining the meaning he gave the word. For him, it meant ‘Joy’, the same Joy, or longing, that we can feel for our own far-off country, as in the Welsh word hiraeth, meaning a ‘heartfelt longing’: a longing which, although painful, is felt somehow to be a delight. A hunger more satisfying than fullness; poverty better than any wealth. A desire that is itself the object of desire, so much so that the new desire becomes an instance of the original one. We feel we know what the object of our desire is, but in the final achievement of that desire, we know that the real object of our desire is somewhere else entirely …

eluding us like the cuckoo’s voice or the rainbow’s end. “All I want”, someone will say, is a university degree, or a happy marriage, or a steady job … But when he is married or settled into the right job, or gets whatever it was he wants, it proves itself to be a cheat. It is not enough. It is not what he is actually looking for.

Lewis reasoned that if we find in ourselves a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for a different world. A happy marriage or a successful career was never intended to fulfil our desire for the far-off country; more likely, they were meant to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. The far-off land is Heaven, and nothing other than God can be our ultimate bliss. Lewis wrote that there is also a connection between our longing for Heaven and fairy tales. However, every aspect of modern life fixes our minds on this world, and to bring up the subjects of Heaven and fairy tales in some quarters was to be howled down as nostalgic, romantic, sentimental, or adolescent.

By 1940, Lewis was already an established writer of serious books on literature and religion, but, as a bachelor who did not know many children, he had never thought of writing a book for young readers. However, when he visited Northmoor Road, the Tolkien children liked him because he did not talk too condescendingly to them; and he gave them books by E. Nesbit, which they enjoyed. The nature of the Second World War changed Lewis’s perspective in that because it was ordinary citizens, including children, who suffered most, as their small island home was bombarded by four hundred planes a night in the infamous “Blitz” that changed the face of war, turning civilians and their cities, big and small, into the front lines.

The Railway Children was an Edwardian ‘classic’, first published during Lewis’ own childhood in 1906.

It was also during the Second World War when children from London were being evacuated to the country, four youngsters were billeted at Lewis’s home, The Kilns, in the Oxford suburb, Headington. Surprised to find how few imaginative stories his young guests knew, ‘Jack’ decided to write one for them and scribbled down the opening sentences of a story about four children who were sent away from London because of the air raids and went to stay with an old professor in the country. That is all he wrote at the time, but several years later, he returned to the story. The children (now named Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) found their way into another world, which he eventually called ‘Narnia’. More pictures came into his mind: a ‘queen on a sledge’ and ‘a magnificent lion’. But, for a long time, he did not know what these meant nor what the story was about.

Ross Wilson’s statue of Professor Kirke (Digory) in front of the wardrobe from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in East Belfast
By “Genvessel” – https://www.flickr.com/photos/genvessel

After that, all kinds of elements went into the making of Narnia. There was the intriguing question of the youngest evacuee as to what was behind the big old wardrobe which stood in The Kilns. And there were his childhood memories: how he and his brother, Warnie, used to climb into that very wardrobe, made by their grandfather, and tell each other stories in the dark. Some of Jack’s inspiration came from the books he had loved as a child: the talking animals in the tales of Beatrix Potter; the magical adventures that happened in the stories of E. Nesbit, such as The Railway Children (1906); the wicked queen from a Hans Andersen fairy tale; the dwarves from the old German myths; Irish folk tales, myths and legends, and mythological creatures from the legends of Ancient Greece. But these were just some ingredients for what Jack mixed into an entirely original confection of the oldest stories ever told, those of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament.

The Narnian Books – Allegories & Moral Tales?

In his History of Modern Britain, chronicling political and cultural events since the Second World War, Andrew Marr has described what emerged from Lewis’s pen as the Narnia books as a religious allegory for children. He characterises it as part of a period in which:

… there still existed an Anglican sensibility, a particularly English, sometimes grave, sometimes playful Christianity, with its own art and thought. It may have been wispy and self-conscious but it was also alive and argumentative, as it is not today. It was of course a limited and élite movement. Already, saucy revelations were where most people turned when they thought of immorality, not to sermons. … Were the British in the forties any more moral… than the modern British? This is one of the hardest questions to answer. Conventions and temptations were just so different. On the surface, it was certainly it was certainly a more discreet, dignified and rule-bound society. Divorce might have been becoming more widespread, but it was certainly still a matter for embarrasment, even shame.

In the early thirties, the average number of divorce petitions in Britain was below five thousand per year. During the war, it jumped to sixteen thousand. By 1951, with easier divorce laws, it was more than thirty-eight thousand. In the forties and fifties, it still carried a strong stigma across classes and reached up to the aristocracy and monarchy. As late as 1955, when Princess Margaret wanted to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend, the innocent party in a divorce case, a Tory cabinet minister, Lord Salisbury, warned that he would have to resign from the government if it allowed such a flagrant breach of Anglican principles.

This became a significant issue for a devout Catholic like Tolkien in the late 1950s when Lewis decided to marry divorcée Joy Davidman. Its role in the relationship of the two men should not be underestimated by those looking back to the period with more modern, socially liberal and secular eyes. Yet there was also a good deal of hypocrisy behind the fifties’ supposedly more morally ‘upright’ social attitudes. Tolkien was probably well aware of the continuance of the wartime boom in domestic adultery and homosexuality in Oxford. Still, he might have been shocked by the vast number of prostitutes in the red light districts of other cities, such as in Edgbaston in Birmingham, where he spent much of his childhood and adolescence. ‘Discretion’ was a keyword for Tolkien and his colleagues, and their issue with Lewis was over this in the late fifties rather than with the morality of divorce itself.

Finishing Frodo & Sam’s Quest – Into The Mountains of Shadow:

Map showing Mordor and part of Gondor, showing the Dead Marshes, The Dark Tower and Mount Doom

By the beginning of 1944, The Lord of the Rings had lain untouched for many months, and Tolkien wrote: I do not seem to have any mental energy or invention. But Lewis had noticed this and provided the impulse for him to get going again and finish the story. Tolkien admitted that he needed its pressure and would ‘probably respond’. So, at the beginning of April, he resumed work, beginning to write what eventually became the fourth book, which takes Frodo and Sam Gamgee across the Dead Marshes marshes towards Mordor, where they hope to destroy the Ring by hurling it into the Cracks of Doom. Tolkien was already writing long letters to his son, Christopher, who had been called up into the RAF and sent for training in South Africa. These letters carried detailed accounts of the book’s progress and his reading to the Lewis brothers and Charles Williams in the ‘White Horse’, at that time their favourite pub. The following extracts reveal the continuing role of Jack Lewis, in particular, on Tolkien’s writing:

Tuesday 18 April:

‘I hope to see C. S. L. and Charles W. tomorrow morning and read my next chapter – on the passage of the Dead Marshes and the approach to the gates of Mordor, which I have now practically finished. Term has almost begun...

Sunday 23 April:

‘I read my second chapter, Passage of the Dead Marshes, to Lewis and Williams on Wed. morning. It was approved I have now nearly done a third: Gates of the Land of Shadow. But this story takes charge of me, and I have already taken three chapters over what was meant to be one! And I have neglected too many things to do it. I am just enmeshed in it now, and have to wrench my mind away to tackle exam-paper proofs and lectures.’

Wednesday 31 May:

The Inklings meeting was very enjoyable. Hugo was there: rather tired looking, but reasonably noisy. The chief entertainment was provided by a chapter of Warnie Lewis’s book on the times of Louis XIV (very good I thought it); and some excerpts from C. S. L.’s “Who Goes Home” – a book on Hell, which I suggested should have been called rather “Hugo’s Home”. I did not get back until well after midnight. The rest of my time, barring chores … has been occupied by the desperate attempt to bring “The Ring” to a suitable pause, the capture of Frodo by the Orcs in the passes of Mordor, before I am obliged to break off by examining. By sitting up all hours I managed it and read the last two chapters (“Shelob’s Lair” and “The Choice of Master Samwise”) to C. S. L. on Monday morning. He approved with usual fervour, and was actually affected to tears by the last chapter, so it seems to be keeping up’.

Book IV of The Lord of the Rings was typed and sent to Christopher in South Africa. By this time, Tolkien was mentally exhausted by his feverish burst of writing. When my weariness has passed, he wrote to his son, I shall get on with my story. But in August, he wrote: I am absolutely dry of any inspiration for the Ring. By the end of the year, he had produced nothing new except a draft synopsis for the remainder of the story. Instead, he turned to other projects, including the idea of collaborating with Lewis on a book about the nature, function and origin of Language. But this came to nothing, and Lewis, referring sometimes later to this omission, described Tolkien as that great but dilatory and unmethodical man. ‘Dilatory’ was not altogether fair, but ‘unmethodical’ was often true. Tolkien made little, if any, progress on the story during 1945. On 9 May, the war in Europe ended, the same day that Charles Williams was taken ill. He died a week later, and though he and Williams had not always agreed on literature, they had become good friends by this time, and Tolkien felt the loss very deeply. It was a sign for him that peace would not bring an end to all troubles, something that Tolkien wrote in one of his letters to Christopher:

‘The War is not over (and the one that is, or part of it, has largely been lost). But it is wrong to fall into such a mood, for Wars are always lost, and The War always goes on; and it is no good growing faint.’

In the autumn of 1945, Tolkien became Merton Professor of English Language and Literature and, therefore, a Fellow of Merton College, which he found ‘agreeably informal’ after Pembroke. However, C. S. Lewis was passed over for the Merton Professorship of English Literature. Tolkien was one of the electors for this, and though there is no reason to suppose that he did not support Lewis in the election, the gap between the two friends widened again. There was undoubtedly a cooling on Tolkien’s part, which Lewis overlooked at first, and when he did notice it, he was disturbed and saddened. Nevertheless, Tolkien continued to attend gatherings of the Inklings, together with his son Christopher, who had resumed his studies at Trinity College. He was invited to read aloud from The Lord of the Rings typescript, as Lewis joked that he read better than his father. He later became an Inkling in his own right. But there was no longer the same ‘intimacy’ as of old between his father and Lewis. This may have been hastened by Lewis’s sometimes severe criticisms of details of The Lord of the Rings, particularly his comments on the poems, which he tended to dislike. Tolkien was often hurt by Lewis’s comments and generally ignored them, so Lewis later remarked, No one ever influenced Tolkien.

In the summer of 1946, Tolkien told Allen & Unwin that he had made a great effort to finish The Lord of the Rings but had failed to do so; the truth was, however, that he had scarcely touched it since the late spring of 1944. Nevertheless, he told them that he hoped to have it done by the autumn and did manage to resume work on it in the following weeks. By the end of the year, he told his publishers that he was “on the last chapters,” but then he moved house to the centre of Oxford, to a Merton College house which became available for rent. He and Edith moved in with Christopher and Priscilla in March 1947. By then, John was working as a priest in the Midlands and Michael, married with an infant son, was a schoolmaster. But the new home was very cramped, even for the four of them. Ronald had no proper study, only an attic ‘bed-sitter’, so it was agreed that the family would move again as soon as a bigger house as soon as one became available, but for the time being, they would have to ‘make do.’

Meanwhile, Rayner Unwin, the son of Tolkien’s publisher, who as a child had written the report that secured the publication of The Hobbit, had secured himself a place as an undergraduate at Oxford, and he made the acquaintance of Professor Tolkien. In the summer of 1947, Tolkien decided that The Lord of the Rings was sufficiently near completion for Rayner to be shown a typescript of the greater part of the story. After reading it, he reported to his father at Allen & Unwin that it was a weird book but a brilliant and gripping story. He remarked that the struggle between darkness and light made him suspect allegory, and he further commented:

Quite honestly I don’t know who is expected to read it: children will miss something of it, but grown-ups will not feel ‘infra dig’ to read it; many will undoubtedly enjoy themselves.

He had no doubt that the book deserved publication by his father’s firm and suggested that it would have to be divided into sections, commenting that in this respect, Frodo’s Ring resembled that of the Nibelungs. Stanley Unwin passed his son’s comments on to Tolkien, who was always annoyed by the comparison with the Nibelungenlied and Wagner. He once said that both rings were round, and the resemblance ceased. Then, on suspicion of allegory, he replied:

‘Do not let Rayner suspect “Allegory”. There is a “moral”, I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing. Even the struggle between darkness and light (as he calls it, not me) is for me just a particular phase of history, one example of its pattern, perhaps, but not The Pattern; and the actors are individuals – they each, of course, contain universals, or they would not live at all, but they never represent them as such.’

However, on the whole, he was delighted with Rayner’s enthusiasm for the book and concluded by declaring: The thing is to finish the thing as devised and then let it be judged. Yet even then, he did not finish ‘the thing’; he revised, niggled and corrected earlier chapters, spending so much time on it that his colleagues began to regard him as lost to philology. So the final full stop seemed further away than ever. But in the late summer months, ‘the thing’ finally reached its conclusion. Tolkien recalled that he ‘actually wept’ when writing the account of the welcome given to the hobbit heroes on the Field of Cormallen. He had long ago resolved to take the chief protagonists across the sea to the West at the end of the book, so with the writing of the chapter that describes the setting sail from the Grey Havens, the huge manuscript was almost complete. But not quite, for Tolkien, as he had once said, liked ‘tying up loose ends,’ and he wished to make sure that there were no loose ends in his epic story. So he wrote an epilogue with Sam Gamgee telling his children what happened to each of the principal characters who did not sail West. It ended with Sam listening to the sigh and murmur of the sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.

The Cracks of Doom

But now Tolkien had to revise, over and over, until he was completely satisfied with the entire text, which took many more months. It was not finished until the autumn of 1949, though it was still not ready for publication. Earlier in the year, however, his Farmer Giles of Ham had been published. Tolkien now lent the completed typescript of The Lord of the Rings to C. S. Lewis, who replied after reading it:

My dear Tollers,

‘Uton herian holbytlas’ indeed. I have drained the rich cup and satisfied a long thirst. Once it really gets under weigh the steady upward slope of grandeur and terror (not unrelieved by green dells, without which it would indeed be intolerable) is almost unequalled in the whole range of narrative art known to me. In two virtues I think it excels: sheer sub-creation – Bombadil, Barrow Wights, Elves, Ents – as if from inexhaustible resources, and construction. Also in ‘gravitas’. No romance can repel the charge of ‘escapism’ with such confidence. If it errs, it errs in precisely the opposite direction: all victories of hope deferred and the merciless piling up of odds against the heroes are near to being to being too painful. And the long ‘coda’ after the eucastrophe, whether or not you intended it or no, has the effect of reminding us that victory is as transitory as as conflict, that is (as Byron says) ‘there’s no sterner moralist than pleasure’, and so leaving a final impression of profound melancholy.

Of course this is not the whole story. There are many passages I could wish you had written otherwise or omitted altogether. If I include none of my adverse criticisms in this letter, it is because you have heard and rejected most of them already (‘rejected’ is perhaps too mild a word for your reaction on at least one occasion!). And even if all my objections were just (which is of course unlikely) the faults I think I find could only delay and impair appreciation: the substantial splendour of the tale can carry them all. ‘Ubi plura nitent in carmine non ego paucis offendi maculis.’

I congratulate you. All the young years you have spent on it are justified.

Yours,

Jack Lewis

Tolkien himself did not think the book was flawless, but we don’t know how he received Lewis’s response. Based on previous reactions to his friend’s criticisms, we can guess that he was not altogether pleased with it, despite the generally favourable terms in which his criticisms were ‘topped and tailed.’ But probably mindful of Lewis’s comments, he told Stanley Unwin:

It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can do no other.

Narnian Nymphs & Fauns – Fairy Stories of Other Worlds:

The continuing coolness between Lewis and Tolkien was probably due, on Tolkien’s side at least, to his open dislike of Lewis’s Narnia stories for children. In 1949 Lewis began to read the first of them, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, aloud to Tolkien. It was greeted with a snort of contempt as Tolkien told Roger Lancelyn Green:

“It really won’t do! I mean to say: ‘Nymphs and their ways, The Love-life of a Faun’!”

Nevertheless, Lewis completed it, and when it and its successors were published, Narnia found as broad and enthusiastic an audience as The Hobbit had enjoyed. Lewis said that ‘marvellous’ literature evoked his desire for Heaven; at the same time, he believed that there is no literature less likely to give a person a false impression of the world than fairy tales. His thoughts on the subject are clearly revealed in his essay, On Three Ways of Writing for Children. In it, he first draws our attention to a fundamental point made by his friend Tolkien that fairy tales were not originally written for children but gravitated to the nursery when they became unfashionable in literary circles.

Some children and some adults like fairy stories; some do not. Lewis maintained that so-called ‘realistic’ stories are far more likely to deceive than fairy tales because, though their adventures and successes are possible, they are almost infinitely improbable. While it is possible to become a duke with a palace or a millionaire with a yacht, it is unlikely that this will happen to all but a very few of us. On the other hand, no one expects the real world to be like that of fairy tales. The longing for fairyland is different, for it cannot be supposed that the boy who longs for fairyland really longs for the dangers and discomforts of a fairy tale. Lewis wrote further on this theme in his essay:

It would be much truer to say that fairyland arouses a longing for he knows not what. It stirs and troubles him (to his life-long enrichment) with the dim sense of something beyond his reach and, far from dulling or emptying the actual world, gives it a new dimension in depth. He does not despise real woods because he has read of enchanted woods: the reading makes all real woods a little enchanted. This is a special kind of longing.

C. S. Lewis, On Three Ways of Writing for Children

But Lewis maintained that at first, there was nothing specifically Christian about the pictures he saw in his mind, but that that element, as with Aslan, pushed its way in of its own accord. In another of his essays in Of Other Worlds; Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to be Said, touching directly on the Narnian stories, Lewis wrote that he chose the fairy tale as the form for his stories because of its brevity, its severe restraints upon description, its flexible traditionalism, its inflexible hostility to all analysis, digression, reflections and ‘gas’.

From Chapter Nine of ‘The Magician’s Nephew’: ‘The Lion was pacing to and fro about that empty land and singing his new song. It was softer and more lifting than the song by which he had called up the stars and the sun; gentle, rippling music. And as he walked and sang, the valley grew green with grass. It spread out from the Lion like a pool. It ran up the sides of the little hills like a wave.

It was a form he had long been in love with, and when the time came, he felt he would burst if he did not write one. Choosing that form, he said, was allowing the author in him to have its say. But then the man in him began to have his turn. He also saw how stories such as he had in mind could ‘steal past’ certain inhibitions that he had had in childhood. He believed that the reason we find it so hard to feel as we ought to about God and the sufferings of Christ is that an obligation to do so freezes feelings.

The stories in these seven books began as a series of pictures in the author’s head. Then, when he was forty, he decided to try to make a story out of it. He once said, “People won’t write the books I want, so I have to do it for myself.” In doing so, he wrote books millions of others also wanted to read. The first of these to be written was The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, published in 1950 with illustrations by Pauline Baynes, a young artist who perfectly captured, in line drawings, the pictures that ‘Jack’ Lewis had imagined. It began with the image of a snowy wood with a little goat-footed faun scurrying along carrying an umbrella and a pile of parcels. He later recalled that this picture had been in his mind since he was about sixteen.

Illustrating Narnia:
“Do not fly too high,” said Aslan. “Do not try to go over the tops of the great ice mountains. Look out for the valleys and the green places, and fly through them. There will always be a way through. And now be gone with my blessing.” “Oh, Fledge!” said Digory, leaning forward to pat the Horse’s glossy neck. “This is fun. Hold on to me tight, Polly.” The Magicians Nephew, chapter twelve.

Lewis, aged forty-eight.

Excellent as Lewis’s descriptions are, the books are so enhanced by the illustrations of Pauline Baynes that it would be a serious omission not to refer to her part, right from the start, in ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ as the collection of successful books eventually became known. The combination of stories and illustrations is one of the happiest collaborations in children’s literature. Recalling, in 1978, her early meetings with the author, she told a documentary film-maker:

C. S. Lewis told me that he had actually gone into a bookshop and asked the assistant there if she could recommend someone who could draw children and animals. I don’t know if he was just being kind to me and making me feel that I was more important than I was or whether he’d simply heard about me from his friend Tolkien.

Lewis had indeed admired Pauline Baynes’ illustrations of Tolkien’s Farmer Giles of Ham (1949). Later, he wrote to Walter Hooper that he had endless admiration for her illustrations of his Narnian books, particularly her drawings of his animal characters. Hooper wrote that she was very near the top of the list of all those who had drawn anthropomorphic beasts and fantasy creatures. 

As she stood looking at it, wondering why there was a lamppost in the middle of a wood and wondering what to do next, she heard the pitter-patter of feet coming towards her. And soon after that, a very strange person stepped out from among the trees into the light of the lamppost.’
Chapter One, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

The seventh and last book for children in C. S. Lewis’ Tales of Narnia is The Last Battle, first published in 1956. This was just a year after the ‘first’ book of the ‘Chronicles’, The Magician’s Nephew, was published in 1955, though actually, the sixth book Lewis wrote. It told of how the journeying between the two parallel worlds, ours and Narnia, began, as well as explaining various mysteries, such as how the wardrobe came to be a door into Narnia, and why there was a lamp-post in the middle of a wood.

And so Lucy found herself walking through the wood arm in arm with this strange creature as if they had known one another all their lives.’
Chapter Two, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

In the opinion of Walter Hooper, The Last Battle is the best written and the most sublime of all the tales of Narnia, the crowning glory of the whole Narnian creation. Everything else in all the other six stories finds its ultimate meaning in relation to this seventh and final book. Lewis’s didactic purpose should be apparent to those conversant with orthodox Christianity. He uses his own invented world to illustrate what the Church has been teaching since its beginning, which was becoming increasingly neglected or forgotten. Namely, this world will end; it was never meant to be our real home – that lies elsewhere; we do not know, nor can we, when the end will come, but we know that it will come from without, not from within.

The drowning of Narnia by a great ‘tidal wave’ or ‘tsunami’ from The Last Battle.

As the cover of its 1961 reprint (below) shows, this final book, The Last Battle, won the Carnegie Award for the best children’s book of 1956, then the highest mark of excellence in children’s literature. Yet, even then, Ronald Tolkien could not find it in his heart to reverse his original opinion. In 1964, in the year following Lewis’s death and five years after the last story, The Last Battle, had been published, he wrote, albeit somewhat mournfully:

‘It is sad that “Narnia” and all that part of C. S. L.’s work should remain outside the range of my sympathies, as much of my work was outside his.’

Lucy: “This is still Narnia, and more real and more beautiful than the one below. … I see … world within world, Narnia within Narnia.” The Last Battle, chapter sixteen.

Tolkien probably felt that Lewis had, in some ways, drawn upon Tolkien’s ideas and stories in the books. Just as he resented Lewis’s progress from ‘the convert’ to ‘the popular theologian,’ he was perhaps irritated by the appearance that the friend and critic who had listened to his tales of Middle-earth had, as it were, got up from his armchair, gone to the desk, picked up the pen, and ‘had a go’ himself. Moreover, the sheer number of Lewis’s books for children and the apparent haste with which they were produced undoubtedly annoyed him. The seven Chronicles of Narnia were written and published within seven years, fewer than half the number of years it took Tolkien to write and publish The Lord of the Rings. This provided another wedge between the two friends and colleagues.

The Fellowship of the Ring:

When Lord of the Rings was finally accepted for publication in 1952, C. S. Lewis wrote to congratulate his old friend and colleague, remarking: I think the prolonged pregnancy has drained a little vitality from you: There’ll be a new ripeness and freedom when the book’s out. But at that particular moment, Tolkien felt anything but free. He wanted to read the typescript of the book once more before it went to the printers and to iron out any remaining inconsistencies. Moreover, this was at a time when he had decided to move house again because the place the Tolkien’s had been living in since 1950 was made almost unbearable by the stream of motor traffic that roared past, day and night. So by the spring of 1953, Ronald had found a house in Headington, then a quiet suburb to the east of the city. He and Edith moved there in March.

The covers of the three ‘sub-titles’ as they appear today (see text below).

Despite the dislocation, Tolkien completed the first volume of The Lord of the Rings by mid-April and the second volume soon afterwards. Although the book was one continuous story and not a ‘trilogy’ – a point that Tolkien was always keen to emphasise – the publishers felt that it was best if it came out volume by volume, in three books, each with a separate title. Tolkien and Rayner Unwin eventually agreed upon The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King as the three titles. When Lewis was elected to a new chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge in 1954, which obliged him to spend much of his time away from Oxford, he and Tolkien met on comparatively few occasions after that. But despite this apparent widening of the ‘distance’ in their relationship, on 14 August 1954, a few days after the first volume had been published, C. S. Lewis published a review of The Fellowship of the Ring in Time and Tide, as he had done for The Hobbit seventeen years previously:

This book is like lightning from a clear sky. To say that in its heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, it has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate. To us, who live in that old period, the return – and the sheer relief of it – is doubtless the important thing. But in the history of Romance itself – a history which stretches back to the Odyssey and beyond – it makes not a return but an advance or revolution: the conquest of new territory.

Perhaps it was a little excessive for Lewis to contribute to the publisher’s ‘blurb’ and review the book, but he was determined to do everything he could to help Tolkien. However, before sending his contribution to Rayner Unwin, he had warned Tolkien that his name might do him more harm than good. Many literary critics writing in the 1950s and early 1960s equated ‘fantastic’ literature with ‘escapism’ and wishful thinking. More than one critic reviewing Tolkien’s book in August 1954 displayed an extraordinary personal animosity towards Lewis. But J. W. Lambert, writing in The Sunday Times, at least focused on the story, which he said had two odd characteristics: no religious spirit of any kind and, to all intents and purposes, no women. Neither of these statements was entirely fair, but both were reflected in the comments of later critics. But he also wrote that it sweeps along with a narrative and pictorial force. Tolkien wrote that the reviews were better than he had thought. After all three volumes had appeared, the critics could fully assess The Lord of the Rings as a whole story. Lewis paid another tribute in Time and Tide:

The book is too original and too opulent for any final judgement on a first reading. But we know at once it has done things to us. We are not quite the same men.

High praise also came from Bernard Levin, by then already a well-known writer and broadcaster, who wrote that he genuinely believed the book to be one of the most remarkable works of literature in our, or any, time. He added that it was comforting, in this troubled day, to be once more assured that the meek shall inherit the earth. But opinions were firmly polarised. The book had acquired its champions and enemies. As W. H. Auden wrote, nobody seemed to have a moderate opinion: either, like myself, they consider it a masterpiece of its genre, or they cannot abide it.

The ‘Clubbable’ Bohemian retires; Jack dies:

This is how it remained for the rest of Tolkien’s life: extreme praise from one faction, total contempt from the other. But it soon ceased to bother him much so long as he had a close group of friends and colleagues. C. S. Lewis wrote that he was a man of ‘cronies’… always best in some small circle of intimates where the tone was at once Bohemian, literary and Christian. So, when he retired from the Merton Professorship in the summer of 1959, he experienced a measure of unhappiness. In these later years, he still saw a little of Lewis, making occasional visits to the Bird and Baby and to ‘the Kilns’, Lewis’s house on the other side of Headington.

Tolkien and Lewis might have recovered and preserved something of their old friendship had Tolkien not been puzzled and even angered by Lewis’s marriage to Joy Davidman, which lasted from 1957, after Lewis had finished his Chronicles of Narnia, to her death in 1960. Some of Tolkien’s attitudes may be explained by her having been divorced before she married Lewis and by the more widely felt resentment at Lewis’s expectation that his friends should ‘pay court’ to his wife. In contrast, in the thirties, Lewis had regularly ignored the fact that his friends had wives to go home to. It was also almost as if Tolkien resented the intrusion of a woman into his friendship with Jack, just as Edith had resented his intrusion into her marriage. Ironically it was Edith who became the closest of friends with Joy.

The cessation in the mid-fifties of Tolkien’s regular meetings with Jack Lewis marked the closing of the ‘clubbable’ chapter in the life of ‘Tollers’, a chapter which had begun nearly fifty years earlier with the TCBS, the ‘Tea Club’ in Birmingham, and had culminated in the Inklings at Oxford. From this time, he was a solitary man who spent most of his time at home, taking care of Edith’s health and well-being as she became increasingly immobile. This was also a deliberate withdrawal from university society, for Oxford itself was changing. His generation was making way for a different breed of men, less discursive, less sociable and certainly less Christian. Besides, he still had The Silmarillion to complete, which Allen & Unwin were highly keen to publish, having been waiting for it for several years. During the sixties, Tolkien completed two other books for publication. Then, in 1961, his aunt Jane Neave, then eighty-nine, wrote to ask him if he wouldn’t get out a small book with Tom Bombadil at the heart of it, the sort of size of book that we old ‘uns can afford to buy for Christmas presents. The result was The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. The verses Tolkien selected for this book had been written mainly during the 1920s and ’30s, the exception being Bombadil Goes A-Boating, which was composed especially for the book. Again illustrated by Pauline Baynes, the book was issued in 1962, just in time to delight his Aunt Jane, who died a few months later.

The following year, he lost his friend of nearly forty years. Jack Lewis died on 22 November 1963, aged sixty-four, after a year-long illness. A few days later, Tolkien wrote to his daughter Priscilla:

So far I have felt the normal feelings of a man of my age – like an old tree that is losing all its leaves one by one: this feels like an ax-blow near the roots.

Despite these emotions, or perhaps because of them, he refused to write an obituary for Jack, who, as we now know, had already written one for him. Tolkien also turned down an invitation to contribute to the memorial volume. Instead, soon after Lewis’s death, he began to keep a diary again, something he had not done for many years. Like all of his previous journals, this was more often a record of sorrows than joys, so it does not provide a balanced picture of his ‘life after Jack’ at Sandfield Road, Headington. It does, however, indicate the appalling depths of gloom to which he now sank, albeit for only a short period. Typically, just as his despair over his failure to finish The Lord of the Rings led to him writing Leaf by Niggle, so his anxiety about the future and his growing grief about the onset of old age led him to write Smith of Wootton Major.

A Return to ‘Heroic Romance’:

Tolkien’s revision of the lecture, On Fairy Stories, was then published in 1964 together with Leaf by Niggle under the overall title Tree and Leaf, but he had not begun anything new. An American publisher had asked Tolkien to write a preface for a new edition of George Macdonald’s The Golden Key. He usually rejected such requests, but perhaps because Lewis had been passionately devoted to Macdonald’s work, he accepted. He set to work on it at the end of January 1965, when his spirits were at their lowest. He found much of Macdonald’s writing spoilt for him by its moral allegorical content. But he pressed on with the task as if he had to get something finished to prove that he was capable of doing so. He began to explain the meaning of the term Fairy to the young readers for whom the edition was intended. He wrote:

Fairy is very powerful. Even the bad author cannot escape it. He probably makes up his tale out of bits of older tales, or things he half remembers, and they may be too strong for him to spoil or disenchant. Someone may meet them for the first time in his silly tale, and catch a glimpse of Fairy, and go on to better things. This could be put into a short story like this. There was once a cook, and he thought of making a cake for a children’s party. His chief notion was that it must be very sweet …

The story was only meant to last for a few paragraphs, but it went on and on until Tolkien stopped, realising that it had acquired a life of its own and should be completed as something separate from the preface. The first draft was called ‘The Great Cake’, but he soon adopted the title Smith of Wootton Major. Tolkien called it an old man’s story, filled with the presage of bereavement, and said that it was written with deep emotion, partly drawn from the experience of the bereavement of “retirement” and advancing age. Like Smith, the village lad who swallows a magic star and so obtains a passport to Faery, Tolkien had, in his imagination, wandered through mysterious lands. Now, he felt the end approach and knew he would soon have to surrender his own star, his imagination. So it was the last story he ever wrote. He showed it to Rayner Unwin, who was delighted with it, and it was published in Britain and America in 1967, with illustrations by Pauline Baynes. It was well received by the critics, though some of them detected an element of allegory, which Tolkien duly and firmly denied. The Macdonald preface was never finished, however.

Tolkien, in retirement at Merton Street.

By the mid-sixties, much of Tolkien’s writing appealed to American students and its implied emphasis on protecting natural landscapes against the ravages of industrial society harmonised with the growing ecological movement. But its chief appeal lay, as Lewis had seen, in its unabashed return to heroic romance. Harsher critics called it ‘escapism’ and compared its influence to that of hallucinatory drugs in some student circles. However, The Lord of the Rings became the ‘go-to’ book of millions of young Americans, surpassing all previous best-sellers. At the end of 1966, at Yale University, it was selling better than William Golding’s Lord of the Flies at its peak; at Harvard, it was ‘outpacing’ J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. Branches of the Tolkien Society ‘mushroomed’ along the West Coast and in New York State and eventually grew into the Mythopoeic Society, devoted also to studying the works of C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams. At the same time, an interest in Tolkien’s books showed a marked increase in Britain, partly as a reflection of the cult that had grown up in America. British book sales rose sharply, a Tolkien Society began to meet in London and students at Warwick University renamed the ring road around their campus ‘Tolkien Road’.

Nightmares – ‘The Human Race’ against the ‘Modern Reformer’:

The Last Battle

Many professional educators of the 1950s and ’60s claimed that the Narnian battles and wicked characters frightened children and gave them nightmares. While Lewis agreed with them that nothing should be done likely to give the child those haunting, disabling pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless, he was strongly opposed to the notion that we must keep out of the child’s mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil. In this matter, he declared himself to be on the side of the human race against ‘the modern reformer’:

Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end of the book. Nothing will persuade me that this causes an ordinary child any kind or degree of fear beyond what it wants, and needs, to feel. For, of course, it wants to be a little frightened.

“Stop!” said the Witch. “Let him first be shaved.”
From The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Early in 1963, Walter Hooper had travelled to Oxford simply to have afternoon tea with C. S. Lewis. Within a week, the Professor asked him to become his ‘companion-secretary’, a post he fulfilled for the remaining months of the Professor’s life, also becoming the son I should have had. Besides being the joint author of a biography of Lewis, he edited ten volumes of Lewis’s works and continued to deal with a lot of the Professor’s ‘fan-mail’, much of it from children. Hooper claimed that while he had met some adults who considered Lewis’s fairy tales too violent for children, he had never met a child who did not love the Narnian adventures intensely. During his lifetime, Lewis received thousands of letters from children, and seventeen years after his death, Hooper still had to answer these letters, which children from all over the world continued to address to the author.

Stealing past Dragons – Writing for Children:

It would, perhaps, have been an intelligent guess to assume that Lewis began with the things he wanted to say about Christianity and other interests and then fixed on the fairy tale as a way of expressing them. But that is not what happened. Lewis said he could not and would not write that way and never actually ‘made’ a story. Instead, it all began with seeing ‘pictures’; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. It was, he remembered, more like ‘bird-watching’ than talking or building. Sometimes a whole set of images would join themselves together. Still, it was necessary to do some ‘deliberate inventing’, contriving reasons as to why characters should be doing multiple things in various places. But all this invention was done to use his fairy tales as a means to ‘steal past’ the usual treatment of Biblical stories:

The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all of these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.

A stained-glass depiction of an angel from
the Old Testament story of Jacob’s Ladder.

But Lewis shared Tolkien’s dislike of allegory. Even those likenesses that seem to bear the closest resemblance to historical events in this world can be similar without being the same. These similarities did not need a mature theological analysis for their perception; Lewis regarded children as the most aware of his readers. They were the first to respond to the ultimate likeness, as his reply to one little girl in 1960 reveals:

All your points are in a sense right. But I’m not exactly ‘representing the real (Christian) story in symbols. I’m more saying, ‘suppose there were a world like Narnia, and it needed restoring and the Son of God (or the Great Emperor-Over-Sea) went to redeem it, as He came to redeem ours, what might it, in that world, all have been like?’

Hooper argues that such parallels, variously transfigured as they are in Narnia, are not what the books are about. It is not the identifiably biblical elements which make us think of the Narnian stories as Christian. On the contrary, almost every page of every book is suffused with the moral quality that no one, whatever their confessional beliefs, could object to. The tales are not based on premeditated moral themes, but these themes grew out of the telling and are as much a part of the narrative as scent is to a flower. So, Lewis did not see his Narnian books as moral manuals for children, and he insisted that the stories were not ‘allegories’ in the traditional sense of the term.

By allegory, he meant using something real and tangible to stand for something real but intangible. Anything immaterial can be allegorised and represented by physical objects, but Aslan the Lion, for example, is already a physical object. To try to convey what Christ would be like in Narnia is to turn one physical being into another. That does not fall within Lewis’s definition of what constitutes an allegory. On the other hand, there is much in the tales, especially in The Last Battle, which would fit Lewis’s own description of symbolism, that we are the ‘frigid personifications’; the heavens above us are the ‘shadowy abstractions’. He believed that Heaven is the real thing, of which earth is an imperfect copy.

By the time C. S. Lewis became a Christian, he had already come a long way towards seeing that ‘Joy’, the deepest of longings of all men, is, at the bottom, a desire for Heaven. In this context, from the last book that C. S. Lewis was to write, Letters to Malcolm, the final paragraphs have become possibly the most famous he was ever to pen:

I do not think that the life of Heaven bears any analogy to play or dance in respect of frivolity, I do think that while we are in this ’valley of tears’, cursed with labour, hemmed round with necessities, tripped up with frustrations, doomed to perpetual plannings, puzzlings, and anxieties, certain qualities that must belong to the celestial  condition have no chance to get through, can project no image of themselves, except in activities which, for us here and now, are frivolous.

For surely we must suppose the life of the blessed to be an end in itself, indeed The End: to be utterly spontaneous; to be the complete reconciliation of boundless freedom with order – with the most delicately adjusted, supple, intricate and beautiful order?  How can you find any image of this in in the ’serious’ activities  either of our natural or of our (present) spiritual life? – either in our precarious and heart-broken affections or in the Way which is always, in some ways, a ’via crucis’…

… It is only in our ‘hours-off’, only in our moments of permitted festivity, that we find an analogy. … But in this world, everything is upside down. That which, if it could be prolonged here, would be a truancy, is likest that which in a better country is the End of ends. Joy is the serious business of Heaven.

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer.

Following his friend Jack’s death, Ronald Tolkien apparently spent many hours pondering these thoughts and others from C. S. Lewis’s last book. But from death and grief, as Lewis wrote, Christians must move on to the culmination of the triumphant theme of Joy as the serious business of Heaven.

“Reepicheep!” from the end of The Last Battle.

Sources:

Humphrey Carpenter (1977, 2016), J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography. London: George Allen & Unwin/ HarperCollins Publishers.

The Tolkien Estate Limited, http://www.tolkien.co.uk

Walter Hooper (1980), Past Watchful Dragons: A Guide to C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia. London: Fount Paperbacks (Collins).

Tim Dowley (ed.) (1977), The History of Christianity. Berkhamsted: Lion Publishing.

C. S. Lewis (1956, 1961), The Last Battle: A Story for Children. London: The Bodley Head.

C. S. Lewis (1998), The Chronicles of Narnia. London: Harper Collins.

C. S. Lewis (1944, 1952), Mere Christianity. London: William Collins (HarperCollins).

A. J. Chandler, C. S. Lewis’s Tales of Narnia, from Genesis to ‘Shadowlands’ – Stealing Past Dragons. Online article@chandlerandrewjames:

Featured

Faith, Fantasy & Fairy Tales – Tolkien, ‘Jack’ Lewis & ‘The Inklings’, 1926-66: Part One – Creator & Sub-creators.

Entertaining Angels Unawares:

Statue of Mary Magdalene, on the facáde of Magdalen College, Oxford.

When Tolkien returned to Oxford in 1925, an element was missing from his life. It had disappeared with the breaking of his fellowship of the TCBS at the Battle of the Somme, for not since those days had he enjoyed male friendship to the extent of emotional and intellectual commitment. He had continued to see something of the other surviving TCBS member, Christopher Wiseman, but Wiseman was now heavily involved with his duties as the headmaster of an independent Methodist school, Queens College in Taunton, which Tolkien’s grandfather had attended as one of its earliest pupils. When the two men met, they found little else in common. Then, on 11 May 1926, Tolkien attended a meeting of the English Faculty at Merton College. A new arrival stood out among the familiar faces, a heavily-built man of twenty-seven in baggy clothes who had been recently elected Fellow and Tutor in English Language and Literature at Magdalen College. This was Clive Staples Lewis, known to family and friends as ‘Jack’. At first, the two men were wary of each other. Tolkien knew that Lewis, although a medievalist, was in the ‘Lit.’ camp and thus a potential adversary, while Lewis wrote in his diary that Tolkien was a smooth, pale, fluent little chap, adding No harm in him: only needs a smack or so.

A Life Between Faith and Mythology:
The Mountains of Mourne in Ireland inspired Lewis to write about the landscape in The Chronicles of Narnia. Lewis wrote, “I have seen landscapes … which, under a particular light, make me feel that at any moment a giant might raise his head over the next ridge.”
Photo by Marksie531 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org

Clive Staples Lewis became the most famous defender of orthodox Christianity in the English-speaking world in the mid-twentieth century. Born in Belfast in 1898, he was the son of a solicitor and was brought up first as an Ulster Protestant, then as an Anglican, and educated at Malvern College. So he knew parts of the Worcestershire countryside that Ronald Tolkien grew up in and the very different landscape of Northern Ireland, shown above. During adolescence, he had professed agnosticism; instead, he had discovered that his greatest delight was to be found not in Christianity but in pagan mythologies. Like Tolkien, as a young man, C. S. Lewis had served in the trenches of World War One, and by the time he went to Oxford in 1917, he had become an atheist. Nevertheless, Lewis was determined that there were to be no flirtations with the idea of the supernatural.

Clive Staples ‘Jack’ Lewis, aged forty-eight

Bands of Brothers, bonds of brotherhood:

This sense of male companionship, which developed in the School of English at Oxford in the 1920s, was partly the result of the First World War, in which so many friends had been killed that the survivors naturally felt the need to stay close together. In particular, we can find something of the ties of male comradeship between Tolkien and Lewis expressed in both men’s work, especially in The Lord of the Rings. Despite their initial diffidence towards each other, Lewis soon came to have a strong affection for his keen-eyed elder, who liked good conversation, laughter and beer. At the same time, Tolkien warmed to Lewis’ quick mind and generous spirit. By May 1927, Tolkien had enrolled Lewis into the literary fraternity of the ‘Coalbiters’ to join in the reading of the Icelandic sagas, and a long and complex friendship had begun.

The comradeship between Tolkien and Lewis between 1925 and 1931 was remarkable and, at the same time, almost inevitable, given their shared experiences at the front and in the trenches. It was not homosexual nor misogynistic, yet it tended to exclude women, particularly Edith. This made it the great mystery of Ronald Tolkien’s life and, latterly, during his relationship with Joy Davidman, that of ‘Jack’ Lewis. On the occasions when, as a bachelor, Lewis visited Northmoor Road, he was shy and ungainly in his approach to Edith. Consequently, she could not understand the delight that Ronald took in his company, so she became a little jealous. After their move from Leeds, it quickly became clear to Ronald that Edith was unhappy with Oxford and especially resentful of his men friends. Indeed, he perceived that his need for an exclusively male company was not entirely compatible with married life. But he also believed that, on the whole, a man had a right to male pleasures and should, if necessary, insist upon them. In answer to a letter from one of his sons contemplating marriage, he wrote:

There are many things that a man feels are legitimate even though they cause a fuss. Let him not lie about them to his wife or lover! Cut them out – or if worth a fight: just insist.

There was also, in this context, the issue of Edith’s continuing lukewarmness towards Catholicism. Before they were married, Ronald had persuaded her to leave the Church of England and become a Catholic, and she had resented this a little at that time. However, in the second decade of her marriage, her anti-Catholic feelings hardened, and by the time the family returned to Oxford in 1925, she had almost given up going to mass. She also began to resent Ronald for taking the children to church so frequently, especially to confession, which she had hated from the beginning. For Ronald, his religious beliefs stemmed mainly from his emotional attachment to his mother’s memory, so he could not discuss her feelings rationally and lucidly demonstrated in his theological debates with Jack Lewis. Occasionally, her smouldering resentment would burst into fury, but after one such outburst in 1940, she and Ronald reconciled, and she decided to return to the Anglican church. She did not return to church-going, either as an Anglican or a Catholic, but remained respectful of church affairs for the rest of her life, showing no further resentment.

From the Left: Michael, Priscilla (front), John, Ronald, Christopher.

Although to some extent, they lived separate lives at Northmoor Road, it would be wrong to picture Edith as being totally excluded from his work. During these years, she did not share his writing as fully as she had done at Great Haywood when he began working on The Book of Lost Tales. Yet she invariably shared in the family’s interest when he was working on The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Although not published until 1937, letters from Ronald himself and Christopher, his son, confirm that The Hobbit was begun in 1930 or 1931 in manuscript form, though not completed in typescript until 1936. It was read to the three brothers (and probably listened to by Edith) in the family’s “Winter Reads” after tea-times in 1930-31, and there was a completed typescript of all but the final chapters in time for it to be sent to C. S. Lewis in 1932. Edith was also the first person to whom he showed two of his later stories, Leaf by Niggle and Smith of Wootton Major, and he was always warmed and encouraged by her approval. Ronald and Edith also shared many friends, including former students and colleagues such as Simonne d’Ardenne, Elaine Griffiths, Stella Mills and Mary Salu. These were family friends, as much a part of Edith’s life as Ronald’s, providing a binding force between them.

Those who knew the couple over the years never doubted that there was a deep mutual affection between them. But the essential source of their happiness was their shared love of family. They were proud of Michael when he won the George Medal for his action as an anti-aircraft gunner defending aerodromes in the Battle of Britain and equally proud when John was ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church shortly after the war. Tolkien was immensely kind and understanding as a father, never shy of kissing them in public even when grown men, and never reserved in his display of warmth and love.

Map of Oxford from North to South, showing Pembroke College and Merton College.

The particular friendship that developed between Tolkien and Lewis was not simply the result of shared wartime experiences and losses, however, but owed much to their shared sense of ‘Northernness’, not just relating their own’ north of Oxford’ origins but also to their mutual captivating with everything Anglo-Saxon and Norse. Since early adolescence, Lewis had been fascinated by Norse mythology. When he found in Tolkien another who delighted in the mysteries of the Edda and the complexities of the Völsunga saga, it was clear they had much in common academically. They began to meet regularly in Lewis’s rooms in Magdalen, talking of this legendarium or discussing the politics of the English School. They also commented on each other’s poetry. Tolkien lent Lewis the typescript of his long poem, The Gest of Beren and Lúthien, and after reading it, Lewis wrote to him,

I can quite honestly say that it is ages since we had an evening of such delight: and the personal interest of reading a friend’s work had very little to do with it – I should have enjoyed it just as well if I’d picked it up in a bookshop, by an unknown author.

Quoted by Carpenter (see below), p. 194.

He also sent Tolkien detailed criticisms of the poem, which he jestingly couched in the form of a mock textual, complete with the names of fictional scholars, who suggested that weak lines in the poem were simply the result of scribal inaccuracies in the manuscript, and could not be the work of the original poet. Tolkien was amused but accepted only a few of Lewis’s suggested emendations. But, on the other hand, he did rewrite almost every passage that Lewis had criticised so extensively that the revised version was scarcely the same poem. Lewis soon found this to be characteristic of his new friend, commenting that:

He has only two reactions to criticism. Either he begins the whole work again from the beginning or else takes no notice at all.

Carpenter, p 195.

By the end of 1929, Lewis was supporting Tolkien’s plans for the English School, and the two of them discussed strategies. Lewis wrote conspiratorially to Tolkien, forgive me if I remind you that there are orcs behind every tree. Together they fought a skilful campaign, and it was partly due to Lewis’s support on the Faculty Board that Tolkien managed to get his reformed syllabus accepted in 1931. In Surprised by Joy, Lewis wrote that his friendship with Tolkien…

… marked the breakdown of two old prejudices. At my first coming into the world, I had been (implicitly) warned never to trust a Papist, and at my first coming into the English Faculty (explicitly), never to trust a philologist. Tolkien was both.

Soon after the second prejudice had been overcome, their friendship moved on to confront the first.

Seeking Joy Within:

In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, Lewis defines ‘Joy’ by first recording three experiences from his early childhood. While standing by a flowering currant bush on a summer day, there arose in him the memory of a yet earlier morning in which his brother had brought into the nursery a toy garden. This memory within a memory caused a sensation of desire to break over him. Before he could know what he desired, the desire itself was gone, and he was left with a longing for the longing that had just ceased. His second ‘glimpse of Joy’ came through Beatrix Potter’s Squirrel Nutkin. This little book troubled him with the ‘Idea of Autumn,’ and he was plunged once more into the experience of intense desire. The third came to him while reading Longfellow’s poem Tegner’s Drapa. When he read,

I heard a voice that cried,

Balder the beautiful

Is dead, is dead …

… his mind was uplifted into huge regions of the northern sky. At the very moment he was stabbed by desire, he left himself falling out of that desire and wishing he were back in it. Lewis tells us that Joy, the quality common to these three experiences, is an unsatisfied longing that is more desirable than any other satisfaction. When he went to boarding school in Malvern, Worcestershire, his eyes fell on one of Arthur Rackham’s illustrations for Siegfried and the Twilight of the Gods, and his sense of joyful longing returned. In an instant, he was plunged back into the past of Balder and sunward sailing cranes and felt the old inconsolable urge. The memory of his own past Joy and the ‘Twilight of the Gods’ flowed together, he said, …

into a single, unendurable sense of desire and loss, which … had eluded me at the very moment when I could first say “It is”.

The young Lewis made many mistakes in his pursuit of Joy. As the old thrill became less frequent, he attempted most desperately to ‘have it again’. He turned from one medium of Joy to another, hoping always to find permanent satisfaction. He shifted to erotic pleasure, only to find that Joy is not a substitute for sex. Sex is very often a substitute for Joy. Lewis’ lost his virginity’ while at Malvern. Still, the ‘potent, ubiquitous and unabashed’ eroticism of William Morris’s romances chiefly persuaded him that sex might be the substance of Joy.

When, after the Great War, he became an atheist, all the images he associated with Joy were, he concluded, sheer fantasies. He had at last seen through them, and the important thing was to get ahead with the ‘good life’ without Christian’ mythology’. But by the mid-twenties, he had receded a little from this standpoint, and after taking a First Class in the English School (and earlier a double first in Classics) and while making a precarious living as a tutor, he arrived at what he called his New Look, the belief that the Christian’ myth’ conveys as much truth as most men can comprehend. By 1926 he had moved further back to the Christian’ fold’, coming to a conclusion that, in effect, his search for the source of what he called ‘Joy’ was a search for God. Soon it became apparent to him that he must accept or reject God. It was at this juncture that he met and became friends with Tolkien.

It is therefore surprising how, one by one, all of Lewis’s reservations about the Christian faith were swept away, as described in Surprised by Joy. But in Tolkien, Lewis found a person of wit and intellectual verve who was nevertheless a devout Christian. During the early years of their friendship, there were many hours when Tolkien would lounge around in one of Lewis’s armchairs in the centre of one of the big sitting rooms at Magdalen while Lewis, smoking his pipe, would pace up and down, suddenly swinging around and exclaiming “Distinguo. Tollers! Distinguo!” while Tolkien, also wreathed in pipe smoke, made too sweeping an assertion. But Lewis, in the matter of belief, was beginning to admit that Tolkien was right. So finally, after long searching and much reluctance, he was brought to his knees in the summer of 1929 and forced to acknowledge God was God. As Walter Hooper, his correspondent and secretary from 1954 to 1963, remarked, He who is the Joy of all men’s desiring came upon him and compelled him by divine mercy to surrender a long-besieged fortress. His surrender, however, was to become a Theist. He was not yet a Christian.

Finding Joy Within:

Map of the Oxford colleges from East to West, showing Magdalen College to the East of the High Street, and the Eastgate Hotel, no. 81, pictured below.

The Eastgate Hotel

The second stage of his conversion came two years later. Usually, his discussions with Tolkien took place on Monday mornings, when they could talk for an hour or two and then conclude with beer at the ‘Eastgate’, a nearby pub. But on Saturday 19 September they met in the evening. Lewis had invited Tolkien to dine at Magdalen, and he had another guest, Hugo Dyson, whom Tolkien had first met during his time at Exeter College in 1919. Now Lecturer in English Literature at Reading University, Dyson paid regular visits to Oxford. He was a Christian and a man of great wit. After dinner, the three men went for a walk, discussing the purpose of mythology. Lewis could not yet understand the function of Christ in Christianity, especially the meaning of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. He declared that he had to understand the purpose of these events and how, as he later expressed it in a letter to a friend,

… how the life and death of Someone Else (whoever he was) two thousand years ago could help us here and now – except in so far as his example could help us.

Magdalen Tower (see the number 2 on the map above for location)

As the night wore on, Tolkien and Dyson showed him that he was making a totally unnecessary demand. When he encountered the idea of sacrifice in the mythology of pagan religion, he admired it and was moved by it; indeed, the idea of the dying and reviving deity had always touched his imagination since he had read, as an adolescent, the story of the Norse god Balder in Longfellow’s poem (quoted above). But from the Gospels (they said), he required something more, a clear meaning beyond the myth. Could he not transfer his comparatively unquestioning appreciation of sacrifice from the myth to the true story? The following is an account of the continuing conversation based on Tolkien’s poem, Mythopoeia (‘the making of myths’ or Mysomythos), the manuscript of which his friend marked…

For C. S. L.

“But”, said Lewis, “myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver.”

“No”, said Tolkien, “they are not”.

And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their branches bent in the wind, he struck out a different line of argument.

You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a ‘tree’ until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say that it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed, only the myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards one true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

In expounding this belief in the inherent truth of mythology, Tolkien had laid bare the centre of his philosophy as a writer, the creed at the heart of The Silmarillion. Lewis listened as Dyson affirmed in his own way what Tolkien had said. Then Lewis asked,

You mean, that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened? In that case, … I begin to understand.

Finally, they were driven inside by the wind, and they talked on in Lewis’ rooms till three a.m., when Tolkien went home. After seeing him out into the High Street, Lewis and Dyson talked as they walked up and down the cloister of New Buildings at Magdalen College until the sky became light. A week later, Lewis rode to Whipsnade Zoo in his brother’s motorcycle sidecar. He later wrote that when they left Oxford, he did not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; when they reached the zoo, he did. After that, the old ‘bittersweet stabs of Joy’ continued as before. But now he knew to what, or rather to whom they pointed. Lewis wrote to his friend Arthur Greeves:

‘I have just passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ – in Christianity. … My long night talk with Dyson and Tolkien had a great deal to do with it.’

Meanwhile, Tolkien had been invigilating in the Examination Schools while composing the long poem Mythopoeia, which recorded all that he had said to Lewis, including that quoted above. He also wrote in his diary:

‘Friendship with Lewis compensates for much, and besides giving constant pleasure and comfort has done me much good from the contact with a man at once honest, brave, intellectual – a scholar, poet, and a philosopher – and a lover, after a long pilgrimage, of Our Lord.’

The quad of the Examination Schools in Merton Street, where Tolkien composed his poem Mythopoeia for Lewis in 1931. No. 82 on the map above.

So, after a long intellectual battle, Jack Lewis became a Christian in the summer of 1931. His autobiography, Surprised by Joy, traces the story of his conversion in his own words. But one of his reasons for writing the book was that he felt it to be a shared experience, easily misunderstood, difficult to bring to the forefront of consciousness, and of immense importance. The Pilgrim’s Regress, which is partly autobiographical, echoes this theme in the story of the pilgrim’s quest for a far-off island, the vision of which has stung him with ‘sweet desire’.

When Lewis realised that the word Romanticism in the subtitle was misunderstood, he wrote a preface to the third edition (1943) explaining the meaning he gave the word. For him, it meant ‘Joy’, the same Joy or longing that we can feel for our own far-off country: the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell, as he wrote in the Weights of Glory, published posthumously in 1965. A longing which, although painful, is felt somehow to be a delight. A hunger more satisfying than fullness; poverty better than any wealth. A desire is itself the object of desire, so much so that the new desire becomes an instance of the original one. We feel we know what the object of our desire is, but in the final achievement of that desire, we know that the real object of our desire is somewhere else entirely …

Anyone who wants to know what Tolkien and Lewis contributed to each other’s lives and careers should also read Lewis’s essay on ‘Friendship’ in his book The Four Loves, published in 1963, shortly before his death. It gives an account of how two companions became friends when they discovered a shared insight, how their friendship is not jealous but seeks out the company of others, how such friendships are necessary between men and how the greatest pleasure of all is for a group of friends to come to an inn at after a hard day’s walking. Lewis wrote:

Those are the golden sessions, when our slippers are on, our feet spread out towards the blaze and our drinks at our elbows; when all when the whole world, and something beyond the world, opens itself to our minds as we talk; and no one has any claim to the responsibility for another, but all are freemen and equals as if we had first met an hour ago, while at the same time an Affection mellowed by the years enfolds us. Life – natural life – has no better gift to give.

C. S. Lewis (1963), The Four Loves: Fontana, p. 68
The ‘Inklings’:

From the early thirties, the two men depended less exclusively on each other’s company and more on that of other professors, masters and fellows. In The Four Loves, Lewis states that two, far from being the necessary number for friendship, is not even the best, and he suggests that every new member added to a group brings out some particular attribute in the others. Tolkien had experienced this in the TCBS (Tea Club): the knot of friends, which now began to come together, was the ultimate expression of the principle based on the ‘clubbable’ urge that Tolkien had felt since these adolescent days. This group was known as ‘The Inklings’. It began to form about the time (in the early thirties) when the ‘Coalbiters’ ceased to meet, having fulfilled their aim of reading all the principal Icelandic sagas and the Elder Edda. ‘The Inklings’ was originally the name of a literary society founded in 1931 by a University College undergraduate. Lewis and Tolkien attended the meetings where unpublished compositions were read and criticised. After its founder Tangye Lean left Oxford, its name was transferred half jestingly to the circle of friends who gathered around Lewis regularly.

The Inklings have now entered literary history, and a good deal has been written about them. They were simply several friends, all male and all from different Christian backgrounds, who were interested in literature. There was no formal membership. Some regularly attended at specific periods, while others were only occasional visitors. Lewis was the invariable nucleus, without whom any gathering would have been inconceivable. Besides him and Tolkien, who were almost invariably present, other regular attendees in the years before and during the Second World War were Major Warren Lewis (C. S. Lewis’s brother, ‘Warnie’), R. E. Havard (an Oxford doctor who attended both the Lewis and Tolkien households), Lewis’s long-standing friend Owen Bayfield, and Hugo Dyson.

It was a very casual grouping, but there were certain invariable elements. It would meet on a weekday morning, usually in a pub, generally on Tuesdays in the ‘Eagle and Child’ (nicknamed ‘The Bird and Baby’), and on Thursday night in Lewis’s big Magdalen sitting room, congregating some time after nine o’clock. Tea would be made, pipes lit, and Lewis would ask for readings. Someone would produce a manuscript and begin to read it out loud – a poem or story or a chapter. Then there would be appreciation or criticism. There might be more readings, but soon there would be discussions of all kinds, sometimes heated debate, and the proceedings would terminate at a late hour. By the late thirties, the Inklings were an essential part of the lives of both Lewis and Tolkien, and among the latter’s contributions were readings from the still unpublished manuscript of The Hobbit. When war broke out in 1939, another man was recruited to the group of friends, Charles Williams, who worked for the Oxford University Press in London and was transferred to Oxford with the rest of the staff. Williams was in his fifties, and his writings were well-known and respected, albeit by a small circle of readers. Lewis had known and admired his work for some time, but Tolkien had only met him once or twice and soon developed a ‘complex’ about him.

Clearly, there was a little jealousy towards Williams on Tolkien’s part, for Lewis’s enthusiasm seemed to shift from himself to Williams. He wrote, uncharacteristically, that Lewis was a very impressionable man. So Williams’s arrival in Oxford marked the third phase in Tolkien’s friendship with Lewis, one marking a faint cooling on Tolkien’s part, which, as yet, Lewis probably hardly noticed.

Mere Christianity:

Something else made Tolkien cooler towards Lewis, something even more subtle yet more significant: Lewis’s growing reputation as a Christian apologist. As Tolkien had played such an essential role in Lewis’s conversion, he had always regretted that his friend had not become a Catholic but had begun to attend his local Anglican church, resuming the religious practices of his childhood and early adolescence. Tolkien maintained a deep resentment towards the Church of England, which he sometimes extended to its buildings, declaring that his appreciation of their beauty was marred by his sadness that they had been, as he considered, perverted from their rightful role in what he considered to be ‘the one, true faith.’ When Lewis published his prose allegory, The Pilgrim’s Regress, Tolkien thought the title ironical. He commented,

‘Lewis would regress. He would not re-enter Christianity by a new door, but by the old one: at least in the sense that in taking it up again he would also take up again, or reawaken, the prejudices so sedulously planted in childhood and boyhood. He would become again a Northern Ireland protestant.’

In his Broadcast Talks for the BBC in 1942-44, published in 1952 in his book Mere Christianity, Lewis set out his attitude toward Catholicism and a variety of Christian traditions and doctrines. In it, he answers what he called unwarranted conclusions drawn from the fact that he never says more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But to say more, he said, would take him at once into highly controversial regions which need delicate treatment. When Lewis was writing, the Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject were tough to dissent from in a manner which would not brand the dissenter as a heretic. On the other hand, Protestant views on the subject called forth feelings that go down to Monotheism’s very roots. To radical Protestants, it seemed that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled. Polytheism, he said, would have risen again. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about ‘mere’ Christianity for those who do not yet believe that the virgin’s son is God, he wrote, surely this was it.

Having served, like Tolkien, as a young man in the awful trenches of World War One and then in 1940 as an ARP Warden when the bombing of Britain began, the talks on which his book was based were given to men in the RAF who knew that, on average, after just thirteen bombing missions, most of them would be dead or missing. Tolkien, whose son was training in South Africa to fly such missions, was nevertheless far more ambivalent in his attitude towards aerial warfare in particular and Britain’s war aims in general, especially its alliance with the Soviet Union. For Lewis, it was the situation of these young men ‘on the front line’ of the conflict which prompted him to speak about the problems of suffering, pain, and evil, work that resulted in his being invited by the BBC to give a series of wartime broadcasts on the Christian faith.

At the same time, he admitted in the preface that the danger he faced was that of putting forward as common Christianity anything peculiar to the Church of England. He guarded against this by sending the original script of the section of his book dealing with What Christians Believe to four clergymen – Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic – asking for their criticism. The Roman Catholic thought he had gone too far about the comparative unimportance of theories of the Atonement. Otherwise, he wrote, all five of them agreed. Besides, in dealing with morals, he noted that:

Ever since I served as an infantryman in the First World War, I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I do not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

This stance, of course, marked another significant difference between Lewis and Tolkien, especially over the issue of divorce, which the two ‘fell out over’ when Lewis decided to marry Joy Davidman, an American divorcée in the late 1950s, first to secure her status as a British resident, and subsequently in a Christian ceremony in hospital, where she was terminally ill, performed by an Anglican priest.

The New Hobbit:

Despite their growing literary and religious differences, Tolkien remarked that it had been from Lewis, in about 1929, that he got the idea that his ‘stuff’ could amount to more than a hobby of writing stories for his children. There was, however, a good stretch of time between Lewis’s conversion on the way to Whipsnade and his writing of his Christian books for children, The Tales of Narnia. During this time, Tolkien had written and published The Hobbit, primarily by 1931 but not published until September 1937. Tolkien was a little nervous about Oxford’s reaction to how the story could be seen as the major fruits of research. But he need not have worried: initially, Oxford paid almost no attention. A few days after publication, however, the book received an accolade in the columns of The Times:

All who love that kind of children’s book which can be read and re-read by adults should take note that a new star has appeared in this constellation. To the trained eye some characters will seem almost mythopoeic.

The eye in question was that of C. S. Lewis, a regular reviewer for The Times Literary Supplement, who had managed to get this notice of his friend’s book into the parent newspaper. He also reviewed the text in glowing terms in the Supplement itself. There was an equally enthusiastic reaction from many other critics. However, some took delight in pointing out the ineptness of the publisher’s ‘blurb’ that compared the book to Alice in Wonderland simply because Lewis Carroll had also been an Oxford don. There were a few dissenting voices, but by Christmas had sold out. When the American edition was issued a few months later, it received approbation from most critics. It was awarded the New York Herald Tribune prize for the best juvenile book of the season. Stanley Unwin, the publisher, realised that he had a children’s best-seller on his list and wrote to Tolkien:

‘A large public will be clamouring next year to hear more from you about Hobbits!’

Tolkien duly set to work on the second book, based on much of the material he had already written in his legendarium. At about the time that he decided to call the book, The Lord of the Rings, Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler. Tolkien, like many others at the time, was suspicious not so much of German intentions as of those of Soviet Russia; he wrote that he had a loathing of any side that includes Russia and added:

‘One fancies that Russia is probably ultimately far more responsible for the current crisis and choice of moment than Hitler.’

The maps above and below show the location of Mordor.

However, this does not mean that the placing of Mordor (the seat of evil in the book) in the East is an allegorical reference to contemporary world politics, as some have suggested, for as Tolkien himself affirmed, it was a simple narrative and geographical necessity. In his previous book, he had already mapped out a large part of the Western part of Middle-earth (as shown in the maps above). Elsewhere he made a careful distinction between allegory and applicability:

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

C. S. Lewis wrote about The Lord of the Rings,

These things were not devised to reflect any particular situation in the real world. It was the other way round, real events began, horribly, to conform to the pattern he had freely invented.

Quoted in Carpenter, p. 253.

Tolkien hoped to continue the work on The Lord of the Rings in the early months of 1939. Still, there were endless distractions, among them his commitment to deliver the Andrew Lang Lecture at the University of St Andrews at the beginning of March. For his subject, he had chosen the topic initially promised to the undergraduate society at Worcester College a year previously: fairy stories. It was appropriate to the occasion, being a subject that had much concerned Lang himself, and it was also much in Tolkien’s mind while he was writing his new story. The Hobbit was clearly written for children and The Silmarillion for adults, but he was aware that The Lord of the Rings was less easy to categorise. In October 1938, he had written to Stanley Unwin that the story, seemingly taking on a life of its own, was getting out of control in forgetting “children” and becoming more terrifying than ‘The Hobbit.’ He added that it may prove quite unsuitable. But he felt strongly that fairy stories are not necessarily only for children, and he decided to devote much of his lecture to the proof of this belief. In doing so, he would touch on the crucial point in the poem Mythopoeia that he had written for C. S. Lewis years before, which he also decided he would quote in the lecture:

The heart of man is not compound of lies,

but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,

and still recalls Him. Though now long estranged,

Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.

Dis-graced he may be, though he is not de-throned,

and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned:

Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light

through whom is splintered from a single White

to many hues, and endlessly combined

in living shapes that move from mind to mind.

Though all the crannies of the world we filled

with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build,

Gods and their houses of dark and light,

and sowed the seeds of dragons – ’twas our right

(used or misused). That right has not decayed:

we make still by the law in which we’re made.

Man, the ‘sub-creator,’ was, in one sense, a new way of expressing the author’s motivation in the reader of what is often called the willing suspension of disbelief, and Tolkien made it the central point of the lecture. He wrote that what really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful ‘sub-creator’, creating a secondary world into which your mind can enter. Inside it, what the ‘sub-creator’ relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. The reader, therefore, believes it as long as they are ‘inside’. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken: the magic, or the art, has failed. They are then out in the primary world again, looking at the secondary world from the outside. At the end of the lecture, he asserted that there is no higher function for mankind than the ‘sub-creation’ of a secondary world such as he was already making in The Lord of the Rings. He hoped that, in one sense, the story and its entire related mythology would be found to be ‘true’. He went so far as to say it was a Christian venture to write such a story as he was now engaged in writing. He argued that:

The Christian may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed. So great is the bounty with which he has been treated that he may now, perhaps, fairly dare to guess that in Fantasy he may actually assist in the effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation.

The lecture was delivered at St Andrew’s in March 1939, and then Tolkien returned with renewed enthusiasm to The Lord of the Rings. Now, ‘the Ring’ was as important to him as ‘the Silmarils.’ In fact, it was now clear to him that the ‘new’ story was not so much a sequel to The Hobbit, at the instigation of his publisher, as a sequel to The Silmarillion. Every aspect of his early work was now playing a part in the new story: the mythology, which provided both a historical setting and a sense of depth, and the elvish languages he had developed so painstakingly and thoroughly over more than twenty-five years. Yet, Tolkien referred to the story in modest terms as ‘the new Hobbit’ to his friends.

Everyman’s Theologian:

Lewis’s conversion in 1931 had begun a new stage in their friendship. Gifted with an extraordinary intellect, it also triggered off a rich variety of individual creativity in Lewis. By the mid-1940s, he was receiving a great deal of publicity in connection with his Christian writings, The Problem of Pain and his international best-seller, The Screwtape Letters (1942), which won him the reputation of being able to ‘make righteousness readable’. But although he dedicated it to Tolkien, his friend thought the publicity now surrounding Jack was ‘too much for his or any of our tastes.’ As he observed his friend’s increasing fame in this respect, Tolkien perhaps felt as if a pupil had speedily overtaken his master to achieve almost unjustified fame. Not altogether flatteringly, he once referred to Lewis as ‘Everyman’s Theologian’. Lewis wrote many other works of theology and fantasy with theological dimensions but remained primarily a Professor of English Literature, first at Magdalen College, Oxford, until 1954, and then at Cambridge.

Magdalen College, Oxford.

Over the years, he also wrote many works of literary criticism, the best known being The Allegory of Love. Lewis achieved further fame as a preacher, debater, and a brilliantly effective ‘apostle to the sceptics’. Believing, as he said, that all that is not eternal is eternally out of date, he was utterly orthodox and therefore admired by Christians from all branches of the church. A jovial and ‘saintly’ man, he was a prolific author and could have amassed a fortune, but following his conversion, he gave away most of his earnings to charities. Any negative thoughts in Tolkien’s mind in the early nineteen-forties were well below the surface. He still had an almost unbounded affection for Lewis and perhaps still cherished the occasional hope that his friend might one day become a Catholic. And the ‘Inklings’ continued to provide much delight and encouragement to him. He wrote a parody of the opening lines of Beowulf in praise of the ‘brotherhood’:

Hwoet! We Inclinga! On aerdagum searopancolra snyttru gehierdon. Lo! We have heard in old days of the wisdom of the cunning-minded Inklings; how those wise ones sat together in their deliberations, skilfully reciting learning and song-craft, earnestly meditating. That was true joy!

(to be continued… )

Sources:

Humphrey Carpenter (1977, 2016), J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Walter Hooper (1980), Past Watchful Dragons: A Guide to C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia. London: Fount Paperbacks (Collins).

Tim Dowley (ed.) (1977), The History of Christianity. Berkhamsted: Lion Publishing.

C. S. Lewis (1998), The Chronicles of Narnia. London: Harper Collins.

C. S. Lewis (1944, 1952), Mere Christianity. London: William Collins (HarperCollins).

Featured

The Making of an English Mythology; from Reality to Fantasy and back again, 1917-1954: Tolkien’s Creative Years.

Men of the 1st Battalion in Tolkien’s Regiment, The Lancashire Fusiliers, in a communication trench near Beaumont Hamel,
during the 1916 Battle of the Somme.
Beginning the Epic – Great Haywood and Hull:

Following his recovery from the Somme and ‘trench fever’ on his return from France in 1916, Tolkien was determined to create an entire mythology for England. He had hinted at this during his undergraduate days at Oxford when he studied and wrote of the Finnish Kalevala: I would that we had more of it left – something of the sort that belonged to the English. This idea grew during his recuperation until it reached ‘epic’ proportions. This is how Tolkien expressed it when recollecting many years later:

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen), I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large to the cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story – the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply: to England, to my country.

It should possess the tone and quality of that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our “air” (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain the hither parts of Europe; not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine Celtic things), it should be “high”, purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long steeped in poetry. I would draw some of the great tales of fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd!

He was once more with Edith in Great Haywood in the English Midland countryside, which once more inspired him. His fellow surviving King Edward’s friend and member of the Tea Club – Burrovian Society (TCBS), Christopher Wiseman, was far away at sea. Still, he sensed something was about to happen and wrote to Tolkien, telling him that he ‘ought to start the epic.’ On the cover of a notebook, Tolkien wrote the title he had chosen for his mythological cycle: The Book of Lost Tales. Inside the notebook, he began to compose what eventually became known as The Silmarillion.

The Earthly Paradise & The Silmarillion – Tolkien’s Truth:

The device that linked the stories in the first draft of the book (which he later abandoned, to be completed by his son, Christopher and published in 1977) owes something to William Morris’s The Earthly Paradise. In the story, a sea-voyager arrives at an unknown land where he is to hear a succession of tales. Tolkien’s voyager was called Eriol, a name he explains as meaning one who dreams alone. But the stories that Eriol hears – grand, tragic and heroic – cannot be defined as the mere product of literary influences and personal experiences. When Tolkien began to write, he drew upon something more profound, a richer seam of his imagination than he had yet explored; and it was a seam that would continue to yield for the rest of his life. The first of the ‘legends’ that make up The Silmarillion tell of the creation of the universe and the establishment of the known world, which Tolkien, recalling the Norse Midgard and the equivalent words in Old English, calls Middle-earth. This was not intended to be another world or part of one, but our world, as he wrote, adding:

I have (of course) placed the action in a purely imaginery (though not wholly impossible) period of antiquity, in which the shape of the continental masses was different.

Later stories in the mythological cycle deal chiefly with the Silmarilli, the three fabulous jewels of the elves, which give the book its title, their theft from the blessed land of Valinor by the evil power Morgoth, and the subsequent wars in which the elves try to regain them.

Some theologically-oriented critics have puzzled over the relationship between these stories and Tolkien’s Christianity. They have found it difficult to understand how a devout Roman Catholic could write with such conviction about a world where God does not seem to be worshipped. However, there is no real mystery in his mythology. On the contrary, the Silmarillion is the work of a profoundly religious man who does not contradict Christianity but compliments it. True, in the legends, there is no worship of God, yet God is present implicitly and more explicitly in The Silmarillion than in the work that grew out of it, The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien’s universe is ruled over by God, The One. Beneath him in the hierarchy are The Valar, the guardians of the world, who are angelic powers, holy and subject to God; at one juncture in the story, they surrender their power into His hands. Tolkien cast his mythology in this form because he wanted it to be remote and strange, yet at the same time, not to be a lie. He wanted the mythological and legendary stories to express his own moral view of the universe; as a Christian, he could not place that view within a cosmos without the God he worshipped. At the same time, to set his stories ‘realistically’ in the known, historical world, with explicitly Christian beliefs, would deprive them of imaginative colour. So while God is present in Tolkien’s universe, He remains unseen in every sense.

In one sense, Tolkien believed that when he wrote The Silmarillion, he was writing the truth. He did not suppose that precisely such beings as he described, ‘elves’, ‘dwarves’ and malevolent ‘orcs’, had walked the earth and done the deeds he recorded. But Tolkien did feel, or hope, that his stories did embody profound truths. This is not to suggest that he was writing an allegory: far from it. Time and time again, he expressed his distaste for that form of literature; once writing, I dislike allegory wherever I smell it. Similar phrases can be found in his letters to readers of his books. So, in what sense did he regard The Silmarillion as ‘true’? A tentative answer can be extracted from his essay On Fairy-Stories and in his story, Leaf by Niggle, both of which suggest that a man may receive from God the gift of recording a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. Indeed, while he was writing The Silmarillion, Tolkien believed that he was doing more than inventing a story. He wrote of the tales making up the book:

They arose in my mind as ‘given’ things, and as they came, seperately, so too the links grew. An absorbing, though continually interrupted labour… since the mind would wing to the other pole and spread itself on the linguistics: yet always I had the sense of recording what was already ‘there’, somewhere, not of “inventing”.

The first story to be put on paper was written out during Tolkien’s convalescence at Great Haywood early in 1917, although it occupies a place towards the end of the cycle as published. This was The Fall of Gondolin, which tells of the assault on the last elvish stronghold by Morgoth, the prime power of evil. After a terrible battle, a group of the inhabitants of Gondolin make their escape, and among them is Earendel, grandson of the king. This provides the first link with the early Earendel poems, the first sketches of his mythology. The style of The Fall of Gondolin suggests that Tolkien was influenced by William Morris.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the great battle which forms the central part of the story owes its inspiration, at least partly, to Tolkien’s experiences at the Somme, or to his reactions to them, for the fighting at Gondolin has a heroic grandeur entirely lacking in modern warfare. But these can only be superficial influences, for Tolkien used no models or sources for his strange and exciting tale. Its two most notable characteristics were entirely his own devising: the invented names and the fact that most protagonists were elves.

It could be said that the elves of The Silmarillion grew out of the ‘fairy folk’ of Tolkien’s early poems, but in reality, there is little connection between the two. Elves may have arisen in his mind through his enthusiasm for Francis Thompson’s Sister Songs and Edith’s fondness for ‘little elfin people.’ Still, the elves of The Silmarillion have nothing to do with the ‘tiny leprechauns’ with ‘Goblin Feet’. They are, to all intents and purposes, men: or rather, they are Man before the Fall, which deprived him of his powers of achievement. Tolkien believed that there had once been an Eden on earth and that man’s original sin and subsequent dethronement were responsible for the ills of the world; but his elves, though capable of sin and error, have not ‘fallen’ in the theological sense, and so can achieve much beyond the powers of men. They are craftsmen, poets, scribes, and creators of works of beauty far surpassing that of human artefacts.

They are made by man in his own image and likeness: but freed from those limitations which he feels most to press upon him. They are immortal, and their will is directly effective for the achievement of imagination and desire.

Tolkien’s illustration from The Hobbit.

The names of persons and places in The Silmarillion were constructed from Tolkien’s invented languages, which were a raison d’étre for the whole mythology; it is perhaps not so surprising, therefore, that he devoted just as much time and attention to them as to the stories themselves. He had sketched several invented languages as an adolescent and had developed some of these to a level of some complexity. But his favourite was the one he based on Finnish, called Quenya. By 1917 it had become very sophisticated, with a vocabulary of several hundred words, though based on a more limited number of word stems.

From this ‘Primitive Eldarin‘, Tolkien developed a second Elvish language, spoken by different peoples among the elves. This he called Sindarin, and he modelled its phonology on Welsh, the language which after Finnish was closest to his own personal taste. However, he could not have chosen a more different basis for his main ‘elvish’ languages. He invented more, but the elvish names in The Silmarillion were constructed almost exclusively from Quenya and Sindarin. Later, he dismissed many of his earlier invented names as ‘meaningless’ and subjected others to severe philological scrutiny to discover how their development could be explained. He came to regard his own invented languages and ‘historical’ chronicles as ‘real’. This grew from his belief in the ultimate truth of his mythology.

Returning to the North & The Children of Húrin:

He began this work on sick leave from the army at Great Haywood in 1917. Edith helped him, making a fair copy of The Fall of Gondolin in a large exercise book. Working together like this provided an interlude of rare contentment. In the evenings, Edith played the piano, and John Ronald recited his poetry or made sketches of her. At this time, she also conceived a child. But the month in hospital in Birmingham had all but cured Tolkien of his trench fever, and he was called back to service in France by his battalion. He was posted temporarily to Yorkshire. Edith and her cousin Jennie packed their belongings once more and followed him north, moving into furnished lodgings a few miles from his camp at Hornsea. But after returning to duty, he went sick again and was placed in a Harrogate sanitorium. He was then sent for further training at an army-signalling school in the Northeast.

But by the second week in August, he was back in a hospital, this time in much more congenial circumstances at the Brooklands Officers’ Hospital in Hull. A friendly group of patients provided good company, among them a friend from the Lancashire Fusiliers. He could also continue with his writing. Meanwhile, Edith was heavily pregnant and living with her cousin in miserable seaside lodgings. There was no piano in the boarding house, food was desperately short due to the sinking of British ships by the U-boats, and she hardly ever saw Ronald, whose hospital was far from Hornsea. Edith regretted giving up her house in Warwick and decided to return to Cheltenham, where she had lived for three years before marrying Ronald, the only town she had ever really liked. She and Jennie could stay in rooms until the time came to give birth in a comfortable hospital.

At about this time, while in the Hull hospital, Tolkien composed another major story for The Book of Lost Tales. This was the tale of Túrin, to which he eventually gave the title The Children of Húrin. Again, specific early literary influences on Tolkien can be detected: the hero’s fight with the great dragon suggests a comparison with the deeds of Sigurd and Beowulf. At the same time, his unknowing incest with his sister and his subsequent suicide were derived from the story of Kullervo in the Kalevala. But these ‘influences’ were only superficial. The Children of Húrin is a powerful fusion of Icelandic and Finnish traditions. Still, it surpasses this to achieve a degree of dramatic complexity and subtle characterisation not often found in ancient legends.

The Tale of Beren and Lúthien:

On 16 November 1917, Edith gave birth to a son in a Cheltenham nursing home after difficult labour in which her life was in danger. Although discharged from his hospital, Ronald could not get leave to travel south until almost a week after the birth, by which time Edith had begun to recover. They decided to name the child John Francis Reuel in honour of Father Francis Morgan, Ronald’s former guardian (pictured below), who travelled from Birmingham to baptise the child. After the christening, Edith brought the baby back to Yorkshire, where she moved into furnished rooms at Roos, a village north of the Humber estuary and not far from the camp where Ronald was stationed and promoted to lieutenant.

By this time, however, it seemed unlikely that Ronald would be posted to France again. So on days when he could get leave, he and Edith went for walks to a small wood where she sang and danced among the hemlock, and from this came the story that was to be the centre of The Silmarillion: the tale of the mortal man Beren who loves the immortal elven-maid Lúthien Tinúviel, whom he first sees dancing among hemlock in a wood.

This profoundly romantic fairy story encompasses a broader range of emotions than anything Tolkien had previously written, achieving at times a Wagnerian intensity of passion. It is also Tolkien’s first quest-story; the journey of the two lovers to Morgoth’s terrible fortress, where they hope to cut a Silmaril from his Iron Crown, seems as doomed to failure as Frodo’s attempt to carry the Ring to its destination. Of all his legends, The Tale of Beren and Lúthien was the one best loved by Tolkien, not least because he identified the character of Lúthien with his own wife. After Edith’s death more than fifty years later, in 1971, he wrote to his son Christopher, explaining why he wished to include the name Lúthien on her tombstone:

She was (and knew she was) my Lúthien. I will say no more now. But I should like ere long to have a long talk with you. For if, as seems probable, I shall never write any ordered biography – it is against my nature, which expresses itself about things deepest felt in tales and myths – someone close in heart to me should know something about things that records do not record: the dreadful sufferings of our childhoods, from which we rescued one another, but could not wholly heal wounds that later often proved disabling; the sufferings that we endured after our love began – all of which (over and above personal weaknesses) might help to make pardonable, or understandable, the lapses and darknesses which at times marred our lives – and to explain how these never touched our depths nor dimmed the memories of our youthful love. For ever (especially when alone) we still met in the woodland glade and went hand in hand many times to escape the shadow of imminent death before our last parting.’

The young Tolkien family’s time at Roos ended in the spring of 1918 when he was posted to Penkridge, one of the Staffordshire camps where he had trained before going to France in 1916. By this spring, those of his battalion who had not been invalided out of France had all been killed or taken prisoner at Chemin des Dames. Edith travelled south with the baby and Jennie to be with her husband but was now tiring of her life, which she called a miserable, wandering, homeless sort of life. When Ronald was almost immediately recalled to Hull, Edith refused to go with him. She wrote to him assertively that she would never go round with you again. When he was again taken ill, returning to the officers’ hospital, she also wrote, I think you ought never to feel tired again, for the amount of bed you have had since you came back from France nearly two years ago is enormous. In the hospital, besides working on his mythology and elvish languages, he began to learn Russian and improved his Spanish and Italian.

Oxford again – Our home together:

He was discharged from hospital in October, and, with peace seeming a little nearer, he began to look for an academic job in Oxford. When the war ended on 11 November 1918, Tolkien contacted the army authorities and obtained permission to be stationed at Oxford to complete his education until demobilisation. He found rooms near his old digs in St John’s Street, and in late November, he and his family, together with Jennie Grove, took up residence there. Tolkien had long dreamt of returning to Oxford. But, throughout his war service, he had suffered an ache of nostalgia for his friends, his college and the way of life he had led for four years. He was also uncomfortably conscious of wasted time, for he was now twenty-seven, and Edith was thirty. But, finally, they could enjoy what they had long hoped for: Our home together.

Following demobilisation, Tolkien went to work as an assistant lexicographer for the New English Dictionary, the later parts of which were still being compiled at Oxford. The work-room was in the Old Ashmolean building where a small group of experts laboured away at producing the most comprehensive dictionary of the English language ever compiled. They had begun their work in 1878, and by 1900 the section covering the letters A to H had been published; eighteen years later, U to Z was still incomplete after the delays resulting from the war. Tolkien enjoyed working at the dictionary and liked his colleagues, especially the accomplished C. T. Onions.

For the first weeks, he was given the job of researching the etymology of warm, wasp, water, wick (lamp) and winter. Although wasp may not be a difficult word to define, the paragraph dealing with it cites cognates in Old Saxon, Middle Dutch, Modern Dutch, Old High German, Middle Low German, Middle High German, Modern German, Old Teutonic, Lithuanian, Old Slavonic, Russian and Latin. Not surprisingly, Tolkien found that this kind of work taught him a good deal about languages, and he once said of the period 1919-20 when he was working on the dictionary: I learned more in those two years than in any other equal period of my life. He did his job remarkably well, even by the high standards of the dictionary, and Dr Henry Bradley, his supervisor, reported of him that:

His work gives evidence of an unusually thorough mastery of Anglo-Saxon and of the facts and principles of the Germanic languages. Indeed, … I have never known a man of his age who was in these respects his equal.

Bradley was not a demanding taskmaster as far as hours were concerned; in any case, the work was scarcely supposed to occupy Tolkien’s entire working day. Like many of his colleagues, he was expected to fill out his time and income by teaching at the university. He made it known that he was willing to expect students, and the colleges began to respond, especially the women’s colleges, which needed someone to teach Anglo-Saxon to their young ladies. Tolkien had the advantage of being married, so a chaperon was not required to be sent to his home when he was teaching them.

As a result of this boost to their income, Ronald and Edith decided that they could afford to rent a small house, and they moved into one close to their rooms, into which they moved in the summer of 1919, engaging a cook-housemaid. Edith’s piano was brought back from storage, so she could play regularly for the first time in years. She was pregnant again, but she could now give birth in her own home and bring her second child up there. By the following spring, Ronald was earning enough from tuition to be able to give up the Dictionary work. Meanwhile, he continued to write The Book of Lost Tales, and one evening, he read The Fall of Gondolin to the Essay Club at his old college, Exeter. It was well received by the undergraduate audience.

Leeds and The Book of Lost Tales:

Suddenly, however, the family’s plans changed again when Ronald applied for the post of Reader in the English Language at the University of Leeds. He scarcely expected to be considered, but in the summer of 1920, he was called for an interview. He was met at the station by the Professor of English, George Gordon, who had been a prominent member of the English school at Oxford before the war. Tolkien knew before he left Leeds that he had got the job, but he soon had serious misgivings about his decision to accept the post and his family’s resulting move to the grimy, industrial north of England of that time. At first, life was difficult for him, especially since, soon after the beginning of the term in October, Edith gave birth in Oxford to a second son, who was christened Michael Hilary Reuel. Ronald was living in a bedsitting room in Leeds during the week, making the long train journey to Oxford at the weekends to see his family.

Not until the beginning of 1921 were Edith and the baby ready to move north, and even then, Tolkien could only find temporary accommodation for them in furnished rooms in Leeds. However, at the end of the year, they took the lease of a small, terraced house on a side street near the university, where they established their new home. The English Department was still small, but George Gordon was a good organiser and was building it up. He gave space in his office to Tolkien and showed concern for his domestic arrangements. Most importantly, he handed over responsibility to Tolkien for all the linguistic teaching in the department. Gordon had decided to follow the Oxford pattern and divide the Leeds English syllabus into two options, one in post-Chaucerian literature and the other concentrating on Anglo-Saxon and Middle English.

The latter course had just been established, and Gordon was keen for Tolkien to organise a syllabus that would be attractive to undergraduates and provide them with sound philological training. Tolkien immediately threw himself into the work, although at first, he was a little glum at the sight of solid-looking, somewhat dour Yorkshire students. However, he soon came to have great admiration for many of them and once wrote:

‘I am wholly in favour of the “dull stodges”. A surprisingly large proportion of them prove “educable”: for which a primary qualification is the willingness “to do some work”.

Many of his students at Leeds worked very hard and were soon achieving excellent results. But at the end of 1921, Cape Town University offered him the new De Beers Chair. In many ways, he would like to have accepted. It would have meant a return to the land of his birth, and he had always wanted to see South Africa again. But Edith and the baby were in no fit state to travel, and he did not want to be separated from her as his mother and father had been from each other when his father died. However, early in 1922, a new junior lecturer was appointed to the language side of the English Department at Leeds, a young man named E. V. Gordon. A small Canadian, unrelated to the Professor, he had been a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, where Tolkien had tutored him during 1920. So now he made him welcome in Leeds, writing in his diary that Eric Valentine Gordon has come and got firmly established and is my devoted friend and pal.

Soon after E. V. Gordon’s arrival, the two men began collaborating on a significant piece of scholarship. Tolkien had been working for some time on a glossary for a book of Middle English extracts. This meant, in effect, compiling a small Middle English dictionary, a task that he undertook with infinite precision and great imagination. The glossary took a long time to complete, but it reached print early in 1922, by which time Tolkien wanted to turn his hand to something that would give greater scope to his scholarship. He and E. V. Gordon decided to compile a new edition of the ME poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as there was no suitable edition for undergraduates. Tolkien was responsible for the text and glossary, while Gordon would provide the greater part of the notes. Tolkien found he had to work fast to keep up with Gordon. They finished in time for publication by the Clarendon Press early in 1925. It was a significant contribution to the study of Medieval literature.

Home life for the Tolkiens was generally happy at this time. Edith found the atmosphere in the university refreshingly informal after Oxford, and she made friends with other wives. Money was not plentiful, however, and they were saving to buy a house, so family holidays were few and far between. He had been composing a good deal of verse over these years in Leeds. Much of it concerned his mythology, some of which found its way into print in the Leeds University magazine, The Gryphon, in a local series called Yorkshire Poetry, and in a book of verses by members of the English Department entitled Northern Venture. In addition, he began a series of poems called Tales and Songs of Bimble Bay. One, The Dragon’s Visit, describes the ravages of a dragon who arrives at Bimble Bay and encounters Miss Biggins. A third, Glip, tells of a strange, slimy creature who lives beneath the floor of a cave and his pale luminous eyes. All were glimpses of essential things to come.

In May 1923, Tolkien caught a severe cold which turned into pneumonia. His grandfather, John Suffield, then ninety, was staying with the family at the time, and Ronald recalled a vision of him standing at the foot of his bed, speaking to him in contempt, to the effect that I and my generation were degenerate weaklings. Nevertheless, the old man lived on for another seven years, spending much time with his youngest daughter, Tolkien’s Aunt Jane. She had left Nottinghamshire and had taken a farm at Dormston in Worcestershire. It was at the end of a lane which led no further, and the local people called it Bag End. When Tolkien had recovered from pneumonia, he went with Edith and the children to stay with his brother, Hilary, who, on leaving military service, had bought a small orchard and market garden near Evesham, the ancestral town of the Suffields. The Tolkien brothers flew kites with the children, and Ronald also managed to find time to do some work, turning again to his mythology.

From Tolkien’s illustrations for The Hobbit.

The Book of Lost Tales was almost complete. At Oxford and at Leeds, Tolkien had composed the stories that tell of the creation of the universe, the fashioning of the Silmarils and their theft from the blessed realms of Valinor by Morgoth. The cycle still lacked a clear ending, but Tolkien wanted to conclude it with the voyage of Earendel’s star-ship, which had been the mythology’s first element to take hold in his imagination. But some of the stories were still only in synopsis form, and a little more effort was required to bring the work to its conclusion. Rather than pressing on towards this objective, however, Tolkien decided to rewrite it, almost as if he didn’t want to finish it. So he did not complete the work but went back and altered, polished and revised it. He also began to recast the two principal stories as poems. For the story of Túrin, he chose a modern equivalent of the type of alliterative measure found in Beowulf, and for The Tale of Beren and Lúthien, he decided to work in rhyming couplets.

Meanwhile, Ronald’s career at Leeds took a significant step forward. In 1922 George Gordon left to go back to Oxford to take the Chair of English Language and Literature. Tolkien did not get the vacated chair at Leeds, but the Vice-Chancellor promised him that the university would soon create a Professorship of the English language, especially for him. Two years later, in 1924, he became a professor at thirty-two, remarkably young by the standards of British academia at that time. In the same year, he and Edith bought a house in West Park, on the outskirts of Leeds. It was much larger than the house in St Mark’s Terrace and was surrounded by fields where they could take the children for walks. Edith was pregnant again, and when a third baby boy was born, they baptised him Christopher Reuel in tribute to Christopher Wiseman.

Return to Oxford & Resettlement – The Suburban Professor:

Then, early in 1925, came the word that the Professorship of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford was shortly to fall vacant; the post was advertised, and Tolkien applied. In theory, his chances were slim, for he was up against three other excellent candidates, including his old tutor at Oxford, Kenneth Sisam. Both the other two candidates withdrew, leaving Sisam, who was well-supported in Oxford, and Tolkien. He was also backed by many, including George Gordon, a master at intrigue. In the election, the votes came out equal, so the Vice-Chancellor had to cast his vote and did so in Tolkien’s favour. With that one act, Ronald had returned to Oxford, this time for good.

In one of the North Oxford streets, Tolkien found and bought a modest new house. The family travelled down from Leeds at the beginning of 1926 and moved in. Here, in Northmoor Road, they remained for twenty-one years but not in the same house. Later, in 1929, the Tolkiens bought a larger neighbouring house from Basil Blackwell, the bookseller and publisher, and they moved from number twenty-two to number twenty early in the new year. Shortly before the move, a fourth and final child was born, the daughter Edith had long hoped for, who was christened Priscilla Mary Reuel. After these two events, life at Northmoor Road was uneventful, a life of pattern and routine in which there were minor interruptions but no significant change.

So the Tolkiens had resettled in Oxford, where Ronald was Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon for twenty years, was then elected Merton Professor of English Language and Literature and went to live in a conventional Oxford suburb where he spent the early part of his retirement, then moved to the coast, returning to Oxford after Edith’s death in 1971 and himself died a peaceful death at the age of eighty-one, two years later. In biographical detail, it was an ordinary, unremarkable life led by countless other scholars, a life of academic brilliance, but only in a narrow field of little or no interest to the layman. And that would be that, wrote his biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, in the late seventies, …

… apart from the strange fact that during these years when ‘nothing happened’, he wrote two books which have become world best-sellers, books that have captured the imagination and influenced the thinking of several million readers. It is a strange paradox, the fact that ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ are the work of an obscure Oxford professor whose specialisation was the West Midland dialect of Middle English, and who lived an ordinary suburban life bringing up his children and tending his garden.

Carpenter (1977, 1982, 2016), J. R. R. Tolkien: London: HarperCollins Pubishers, p. 150.

Both from his letters and diaries, and the photographs of him with colleagues, students and family, it seems that Ronald Tolkien was entirely conventional in the places he lived in, even in the areas he visited. He occupied a North Oxford house, both inside and outside, almost indistinguishable from hundreds of others in that district (if anything, it was less flamboyant than many of its neighbours). He took his family on holiday to ordinary places. During the central years of his life, the richest period of creativity, he made no journeys outside the British Isles. This was mainly the result of straightened financial circumstances, for he did not lack the desire to travel, just the means. For instance, he would have liked to have followed E. V. Gordon’s example in visiting Iceland. Later in life, when he had fewer family ties and more money, he did make a few journeys abroad. But travel never played a large part in his life, simply because his imagination did not need to be stimulated by unfamiliar landscapes and cultures.

The Worcestershire countryside near Sarehole, looking west towards the Malvern Hills and the Welsh hills, as it looked in the 1890s.
The Thirties – Explorations & a Return to Sarehole:

In the 1930s, when he owned and drove a car, he loved to explore the villages of Oxfordshire, especially those in the east of the county, then still known as ‘Banburyshire’ by many villagers. But he was not by habit a long-distance walker, and only once or twice did he join his friend, C. S. Lewis, on the latter’s cross-country walking tours. He knew the Welsh mountains but rarely visited them; he loved the coasts, but his only expeditions to them took the form of conventional family holidays at seaside resorts. But he was not indifferent to his surroundings, for man’s destruction of the environment and the landscapes of England moved him to anger. Here, from his diary, is an anguished description of his 1933 return to his beloved childhood landscape near Sarehole Mill when he was driving his family to visit relatives in Birmingham:

‘I pass over the pangs to me of passing through Hall Green – become a huge tram-ridden meaningless suburb, where I actually lost my way – and eventually down what is left of beloved lanes of childhood, and past the very gate of our cottage, now in the midst of a sea of new red-brick. The old mill still stands, and Mrs Hunt’s still sticks out into the road as it turns uphill, but the crossing beyond the now fenced-in pool, where the bluebell lane ran down into the mill lane, is now a dangerous crossing alive with motors and red lights. The White Ogre’s house (which the children were excited to see) is become a petrol station, and most of Short Avenue and the elms between it and the crossing have gone. How I envy those whose precious early scenery has not been exposed to such violent and peculiarly hideous change.’

(Please note that 264 Wake Green Road is a private residence, as it was in 1896 when the Tolkiens lived there.)
From ‘The Birmingham Tolkien Trail’, a leaflet produced by Birmingham Museums (www.Birminghammuseums.org.uk). Gracewell cottages can be seen to the left of the road. The photograph on the left above dates from around 1896-1900, when the family lived in number 5, now 264.

He had spent four years of his childhood, his happiest, at Sarehole, where he lived in one of the small terraced ‘cottages’ with his mother and brother. Then it was still a Worcestershire hamlet outside the Birmingham boundaries.

Gracewell Cottages, Wake Green Road, today.

He was similarly sensitive to the damage inflicted on the Oxfordshire countryside by the construction of war-time aerodromes and the ‘improvement’ of roads. Later in life, when his strongest-held opinions began to become obsessions, he would see a new road that had been driven across the corner of a field and cry, “There goes the last of England’s arable!” By this time of his life, he would maintain that there was not one unspoilt wood or hillside left in the land, and if there was, he would refuse to visit it for fear of finding it contaminated by litter. However, he also believed that this was the penalty mankind paid for living in a fallen world, the result of man’s own sin. If this were not the case, he would have spent an entire undisturbed childhood with his mother in a paradise such as Sarehole had become in his memory. Instead, he believed his mother had been taken from him through the cruelty of her own family, and now even the Sarehole landscape itself had been wantonly destroyed.

Above: Moseley Bog today.

But although Tolkien lamented the encroachment of the suburbs on his former home and the cutting down of his favourite trees in his surroundings, there was one place that ‘civilisation’ had missed; Moseley Bog. It had been an ideal place for his childhood adventures. It was once a storage pool for Sarehole Mill and is also the site of two Bronze Age burnt mounds (see the recent photograph below). The Bog was later recalled in Tolkien’s description of the Old Forest, the last of the primaeval wild woods where Tom Bombadil lived. If he had stopped his car in Hall Green, Tolkien would have also been able to show his family one of the few remaining fords in the Cole Valley, still there today, where he and his brother learnt the West Midland dialect by playing with the children of nearby Hall Green (see the ‘sepia’ panel picture, top right).

The Bronze age ‘burnt mounds’ in Moseley Bog, on the bank of the millstream or ‘leat’. Recent photos by Andrew J Chandler.

In a world where perfection and true happiness were ultimately impossible, did it matter in what surroundings one lived? In the end, they were all merely transient. In this sense, Tolkien’s attitude was profoundly evangelical and ascetic, not to be confused with modern secular environmentalism. In his writing, one of the final chapters of Lord of the Rings (chapter eight of The Return of the King, The Scouring of the Shire) reflects Tolkien’s attitude through the discatastrophe they describe. Just as light is unperceivable without darkness, eucatastrophe is meaningless without the presence of discatastrophe or “sorrow and failure” (On Fairy-Stories: 153). This duality of light and dark, hope and despair, victory and defeat is integral to Tolkien’s created world. 

A more straightforward explanation of his personal passivity on environmental discatastrophe might be that by the time he reached middle age, his imagination no longer needed to be stimulated by experience. It had received all the stimulus it required in the early years of his life, the eventful years with changing places; now, it could nourish itself upon these accumulated memories. He explained this himself when describing the creation of Lord of the Rings:

One writes such a story not out of the leaves of the trees still to be observed, nor by means of botany and social-science; but it grows like a seed in the dark out of the leaf-mould of the mind: out of all that has been seen or thought or read, that has long ago been forgotten, descending into the deeps. No doubt there is much selection, as with a gardener: what one throws on one’s personal compost-heap; and my mould is evidently made largely of linguistic matter.

Tolkien is saying here that it was almost exclusively upon his early experience, sufficiently broken down by time, that he nourished the seeds of his imagination. Further experience was not necessary, and it was not sought. What he now required was more linguistic material. Besides being a professor of English language and philology, Tolkien read in thirty-five languages, everything from Old Norse to Lithuanian. He had invented his first ‘created’ language when he was just a teenager, and his later tales were then created around these carefully constructed languages, including fifteen Elvish dialects and languages for the Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, and Dwarves. I have already written about his emotional responses to Finnish, Welsh and Gothic and their strange sounds and words. While working on the Oxford Dictionary, he acquainted himself with several other early Germanic languages. He also read widely in Icelandic.

A West Midlander by blood – Dialects of Middle English:

Why, then, should he choose to specialise in early English? Someone so fond of strange words would be more likely to have concentrated his attention on foreign languages. But, to understand his choice, we need first to realise that something exciting happened to him when he first discovered that a large proportion of the poetry and prose of Old English and Middle English was written in the dialect that had been spoken by his mother’s ancestors. In other words, it was, at one and the same time, both remote in time and intensely and immediately personal. I have written in earlier articles about his deep attachment to the West Midlands and his belief that the town of Evesham and its surrounding county of Worcestershire had been the home of his ancestral maternal family, the Suffields. He once wrote to W. H. Auden:

I am West-midlander by blood, and took to early west-midland Middle English as to a known tongue as soon as I set eyes upon it.

Source: Freeborn (see source list below).

If we define a known tongue as something that already seemed familiar to him, we might be tempted to dismiss this as a ludicrous exaggeration. How could he recognise a language that was seven hundred and fifty years old, in which only two known texts survived, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, written in the northern variety of the dialect, placing it as anywhere between Salop (Shropshire) and (today’s) south Lancashire, and Piers Ploughman, written, in Tolkien’s southern variety by an author, Langland, whose exact whereabouts we know nothing about? Yet this was what he believed, and once this idea had occurred to him, it was inevitable that he should study the dialect closely and make it the centre of his life’s work as a scholar. This is not to suggest that he only studied the early English of the West Midlands. On the contrary, he became well versed in all the dialects of Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME).

Inside Language – The Teacher & Entertainer:

By the time Tolkien began teaching at Leeds University in 1920, he had extensive linguistic knowledge covering continental and ‘British’ languages (‘Celtic’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’). But this was not just dry academic knowledge. In the lecture theatre, his recitations of Beowulf, for example, became dramatic performances, an impression of an Anglo-Saxon bard in a mead hall, impressing generations of students because it brought home to them that that the poem was not just a set text to be read for examination purposes but a piece of poetry originally recited for its dramatic effect. One former student, the writer J. L. M. Stewart, described the impact of Tolkien’s performance as follows:

He could turn a lecture room into a mead hall in which he was the bard and we were the feasting, listening guests.

Another former student, W. H. Auden, wrote to Tolkien many years later:

I don’t think I have ever told you what an unforgettable experience it was for me as an undergraduate, hearing you recite ‘Beowulf’. The voice was the voice of Gandalf.

Besides being a teacher of philology, Tolkien was already an accomplished writer and poet by the mid-twenties, a man who not only studied words but knew how to use them for poetic effect. Of course, he could find poetry in the sound of words themselves, as he had done since childhood, but he also had a poet’s understanding of how language is used. This was expressed in a memorable phrase in The Times obituary of him, almost certainly written by C. S. Lewis (pictured below), which talks of his unique insight … at once into the language of poetry and … poetry of language. Thus, he encouraged students of early texts to treat them not as exemplars of a developing language but as literature deserving serious appreciation and criticism. Lewis also suggested in his obituary that Tolkien’s proficiency in the technical details of the language was the product of his long attention to private languages and their invention:

Strange as it may seem, it was undoubtedly the source of that unparalleled richness and concreteness which later distinguished him from all other philologists. He had been inside language.

Lewis, at age 48, a photograph by Arthur Strong, 1947. https://timfall.files.wordpress.com

Tolkien’s mentor in philology, Joseph Wright, had been trained in Germany, where the discipline first developed in the nineteenth century. Much as he loved his old tutor and found his books invaluable for their contribution to the science of language, Tolkien was possibly thinking of Wright when he wrote of the bespectacled philologist, English but trained in Germany, where he lost his literary soul. This could not be said of Tolkien himself; his philological writings invariably reflected the richness of his mind. He brought to even the most intricate aspects of his subject a ‘grace’ of expression and a greater sense of the significance of this matter. This is well demonstrated in his article on the Ancrene Wisse (1929), a medieval book of instruction for a group of anchorites, which probably originated in the West Midlands. Tolkien showed that the language of two important manuscripts of this text (one in Cambridge, the other in the Bodleian) was no mere unpolished dialect but a literary language with an unbroken tradition going back before the Norman Conquest. He expressed this conclusion in the context of writing about his beloved West Midland dialect as a whole:

It is not a language long relegated to the ‘uplands’ struggling once more for expression in in apologetic emulation of its betters or out of compassion for the lewd, but rather one that has never fallen back into ‘lewdness’, and has contrived in troublous times to maintain the air of a gentleman, if a country gentleman. It has traditions and some acquaintance with books and the pen, but it is also in close touch with a good living speech – a soil somewhere in England.

This kind of writing, forceful in its imagery, characterised all his articles and lectures, however abstruse or unpromising the subject might seem. In this respect, he almost founded a new school of philology; certainly, there was no precedent for the humanity he brought to the subject. It was an approach which influenced many of his most able students, who themselves became philologists of distinction. Even by the usual standards of comparative philology, Tolkien was extraordinarily painstaking in his research and preparation for classes, though some students found it difficult to follow his discourse. His concern for accuracy and flair for detecting patterns and relations should not be underestimated. He also demonstrated his deductive abilities in major and minor linguistic matters. When discussing a word or phrase with students, he would cite a wide range of comparative forms and expressions in other languages.

He was expected to give a minimum of thirty-six lectures a year. Still, he did not consider this sufficient to cover both Old and Middle English. In his second year after being elected Professor, he gave a hundred and thirty-six lectures and tutorials. Throughout the 1930s, he continued to provide at least twice the statutory number of classes each year, more than most of his colleagues, despite the appointment of an assistant, Charles Wrenn. In addition, he undertook a good deal of ‘freelance’ work as an external examiner to other universities, for with four children to bring up, he needed to augment his income.

The ‘Legendarium’ of Middle-earth:

Frontispiece to the Fifth HarperCollins edition of The Hobbit, 1995.

Turning to his story-telling, after becoming a professor at Oxford in 1925, he wrote his elaborate fantasy tales in his spare time, mainly for his own children. The longest and most important of these was The Hobbit, which he began in 1930 as a coming-of-age fantasy. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Silmarillion were to form a connected body of tales, fictional histories, invented languages, and literary essays about the make-believe world of ‘Middle-earth’. Tolkien gave the word ‘legendarium’ to his collection of works on this fictional realm.

Meanwhile, he revised the syllabus at the university, and for the first time in the history of the Oxford English School, something like a genuine rapprochement was achieved between ‘Lang.’ and ‘Lit.’ This was partly due to the active support of C. S. Lewis and others who had initially opposed his proposals. Tolkien’s contemporaries also had high hopes of him in terms of original research, for his glossary to Sisam’s book, his edition with E. V. Gordon of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and his article on the Ancrene Wisse manuscripts demonstrated that he had an unrivalled mastery of the early Middle English of the West Midlands. They expected him to continue contributing meaningful work in this field, and he had every intention of doing so. But his promised edition of the Cambridge Manuscript of the Ancrene Wisse for the Early English Text Society did not materialise for many years, while the more significant part of his research never reached print.

The delays were partly due to his decision to devote most of his time at Oxford to teaching, thus limiting his possibilities for original research. In addition, marking examination papers for widespread institutions throughout the British Isles to provide money for his family also ate into his available time.

But besides these necessary pressures, Tolkien’s perfectionism would not allow any of his work, whether stories or academic monographs, to reach the printer until it had been revised, reconsidered, and re-polished. In this respect, he was the exact opposite of C. S. Lewis, who sent manuscripts off for publication without a second glance at them. Lewis, well aware of this difference between them, wrote of Tolkien:

‘His standard of self-criticism was high and the mere suggestion of publication usually set him upon a revision, in the course of which so many new ideas occurred to him that where his friends had hoped for the final text of an old work they actually got the first draft of a new one.’

But what he did publish during the thirties was a significant contribution to scholarship. His paper on the dialects of Chaucer’s Reeve’s Tale soon became required reading for anyone who wished to understand the regional variations of fourteenth-century English. He read it to the Philological Society in 1931. Still, it was not published until 1934, with an apology for the lack of what he considered a necessary amount of revision and improvement. And his lecture Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics, delivered to the British Academy in November 1936 and published in the following year, is a landmark in the history of criticism of the Old English poem. In his lecture, he declared that although Beowulf is about monsters and a dragon, this does not make it negligible as heroic poetry. He told his audience:

“A dragon is no idle fancy. Even today (despite the critics) you may find men not ignorant of tragic legend and history, who have heard of heroes and indeed seen them, who have yet been caught by the fascination of the worm.”

Above: The Great Worm

This was Tolkien talking not primarily as a philologist or literary critic but as a storyteller. Just as Lewis said of his philology, He had been inside language, so it might also be remarked that when he talked of the Beowulf dragon, he was speaking as the author of The Silmarillion and, by this time, The Hobbit. This was first published with Tolkien’s illustrations in 1937 and was so popular that the publisher asked for a sequel, which did not arrive until 1954.

Thror’s Map from The Hobbit, showing the origins of the ‘Great Worms’, etc.

By the late thirties, Tolkien had planned to do much more: besides his much-delayed work on the Ancrene Wisse, he intended to produce an edition of the Old English poem, Exodus. He nearly completed this task, but it was never completed to his satisfaction. He also planned further joint editions with E. V. Gordon, particularly of Pearl and the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ elegies, The Wanderer and The Seafarer. But Gordon and Tolkien were now geographically distant from each other, and Gordon had moved from Leeds to take up a chair at Manchester University. As a result, the collaboration between them was technically less easy.

Gordon had done a great deal of work on all three projects, using Tolkien as a consultant rather than a full co-editor, but nothing had reached print by 1938. In the summer of that year, Gordon died suddenly from an unsuspected kidney disorder at forty-two. This unexpected event robbed Tolkien not only of a close friend but also of the ideal professional collaborator, whom he needed if only to make him surrender material to the printer. Tolkien had intended to complete Pearl but found himself unable to do so, as, by this time, he was absorbed in writing The Lord of the Rings.

Reality Intervenes again, 1938-53:

As war approached, Tolkien found another philologist who was an excellent working partner. This was Simmone d’Ardenne, a Belgian graduate who had studied Middle English with him for an Oxford B.Litt. in the early thirties. Tolkien contributed to her edition of The Life and Passion of St Juliene, a medieval religious work written in the Ancrene Wisse dialect. Indeed, her work contains more of Tolkien’s views on early Middle English than anything he ever published under his own name. Mlle d’Ardenne became a professor at Liége, and she and Tolkien an edition of Katerine, a Western Middle English text. But the war intervened and made communication impossible, and after 1945 nothing was achieved by them, barring a couple of short articles on topics concerned with the text’s manuscript. Although Tolkien was able to work with her when he attended a philological congress in 1951, she soon realised that by then, his mind was almost entirely on his stories.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, 1954 – High Fantasy & Discatastrophe:
The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

The translation of Gawain was finished in time for it to be broadcast by the BBC in 1953, Tolkien himself recording a short introduction and a longer concluding talk. Then, in 1954, his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings was published in three parts, carrying over the essential elements from The Hobbit, particularly the ‘One Ring’ that must be destroyed before it can be used by the Dark Lord, Sauron. The Lord of the Rings was also an extension of the tales of the Silmarillion.

Coventry Cathedral, 14 November 1940

The Trilogy is representative of the struggle between good and evil in epic terms and reflects some of the events of the early twentieth century, including the Blitz on Coventry of November 1940, which Tolkien could observe from his North Oxford garden, thirty miles away. It formed the ‘inspiration’ for the story of the burning of the Shire at the end of the third book, The Return of the King.

This was another example of Tolkien’s use of actual events to inform and influence his fictional discatastrophising. Still, his books were not intended, as both he and C. S. Lewis clearly testified, an allegory of the events of the two world wars.

Following the success of The Lord of the Rings, his publishers Allen and Unwin determined to issue the Gawain and Pearl translations in one volume. With this in view, Tolkien made extensive revisions to both translations, but an introduction was required, and Tolkien was uncertain of what to explain to the non-expert readers for whom the book was intended. So, once again, the project lapsed, and it was not until after his death that the two translations were published, with an introduction by Christopher Tolkien, making use of notes found among his father’s papers. Most importantly, the volume brings these poems to an audience that could not have read them in Middle English. For this reason, they are a fitting tribute to the work of a man who believed that the primary function of a linguist is to interpret literature.

Tolkien also wrote several shorter works during his lifetime. These included poetry related to his ‘legendarium’; Tree and Leaf, a mock-medieval story, Farmer Giles of Ham, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses from the Red Book. But Tolkien’s success with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings led to his accolade as ‘the father of modern fantasy literature,’ otherwise known as High Fantasy. However, rather than venturing too far into the fascinating labyrinth of ancient myths and languages, which some are keen to do, we may conclude that the enduring greatness of Tolkien’s fantasy literature for many lies in its exploration of the changing realities of a world being made modern. It is not allegorical in doing this, but it reflects those realities woven into a reimagining of fairy stories, sagas and folk tales.

Appendices:

APPENDIX B:

Sources:

J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography (1977, 1982, 2016), London: HarperCollinsPubishers.

Dennis Freeborn (1992), From Old English to Standard English. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.

Featured

J. R. R. Tolkien & Birmingham; the Formative Years, 1896-1916: Part Two (1908-16) – ‘Lang.’, Lore & Love.

Inventing Language:

As a result of his insatiable love of words, Ronald started to invent his own languages. Some children have rudimentary private languages that they like to share together. This was what Ronald’s cousins Mary and Marjorie Incledon had done. They now lived outside Birmingham at Barnt Green, the neighbouring village to Rednal, and Ronald and Hilary spent their school holidays there. When the elder sister lost interest in their invented language, Mary and Ronald collaborated to invent a new and more sophisticated ‘nonsense’ language called ‘Nevbosh’, in which they wrote limericks. In adult life, Tolkien believed that his impulse toward linguistic invention was similar to that felt by many schoolchildren. He once remarked, while talking about the invention of languages:

“It’s not that uncommon, you know. An enormously greater number of children have what you might call a creative element in them than is usually supported, and it isn’t necessarily limited to certain things: they may not want to paint or draw, or have much music, but they nevertheless want to create something. And if the main mass of education takes a linguistic form, their creation will take a linguistic form. It’s so extraordinarily common, I once did think that there ought to be some organised research into it.”

When the young Tolkien first set to work on his linguistic inventions on an organised basis, he decided to take an existing language as a model or at least a starting point. Unfortunately, Welsh was not available to him in sufficient quantity, so he turned to another favourite source of words, the collection of Spanish books in Father Morgan’sMorgan’sis guardian spoke Spanish fluently, and Ronald had often begged to be taught the language. Still, nothing came of it, though he was given the freedom of the books. So now he looked at them again and began working on an invented language called ‘Naffarin’. It showed a good deal of Spanish influence, but it had its own system of phonology and grammar. He worked at it now and then and might have developed it further had he not discovered a language that excited him far more than Spanish.

One of his school friends had bought a book at a missionary sale but found that he had no use for it and sold it to Tolkien. It was Joseph Wright’s Primer of the Gothic Language, and on opening it, Ronald was immediately delighted with its contents. Gothic had ceased to be spoken with the decline of the Gothic peoples in northern Europe, but written fragments survived for posterity, and Tolkien found them immensely attractive. He was not content simply to learn the language but began to invent ‘extra’ Gothic words to fill gaps in the limited vocabulary that survived and to move on from this to the construction of a supposedly unrecorded but historical Germanic language. He communicated his enthusiasm to Christopher Wiseman, who was a sympathetic listener since he was studying Egyptian hieroglyphics. Tolkien also began to develop his invented languages backwards, to posit the hypothetical ‘earlier’ words which he found necessary to establish an organised ‘historical’ system. He was also working on invented alphabets; one of his notebooks from his school days contains an outline of coded symbols for each letter of the English alphabet. But it was the foreign languages that occupied him most, and on many days he closeted himself in the room he shared with Hilary and, as he wrote in his diary, ‘did a lot of private lang.’

Duchess Road & Edith:

Father Francis had done much for the Tolkien boys since their mother’s death. Every summer, he took them on holiday to Lyme Regis, where they stayed at the Three Cups Hotel and paid visits to his friends in the neighbourhood. Ronald loved the scenery of Lyme Bay and enjoyed sketching it on wet days, but on fine days he was happiest exploring along the Jurassic Coastline, looking for fossils. Once, he discovered a prehistoric jawbone there and pretended it was a piece of a petrified dragon. On these holidays, Father Morgan talked a good deal with the boys and discovered how unhappy they were in the drab lodging provided for them by their Aunt Beatrice. Back in Birmingham, he looked for something better and thought of a boarding house in Duchess Road behind the Oratory, run by a Mrs Faulkner. He decided that her house might be a more pleasant home for Ronald and Hilary. Mrs Faulkner agreed to take them, and early in 1908, the boys moved into 37 Duchess Road. Nevertheless, it was a gloomy creeper-covered house hung with dingy lace curtains. Ronald and Hilary were given a room on the second floor. The other occupants of the house were Mr Faulkner, a wine merchant, their daughter Helen, Annie the maid, and another lodger, an orphaned girl of nineteen who lived on the first floor beneath the boys’ room and spent most of her time at her sewing machine. Her name was Edith Bratt.

She was remarkably pretty, small and slim, with grey eyes, firm clear features and short dark hair. She was an illegitimate orphan, her mother having died five years earlier and her father sometime before that. Her mother, Frances Bratt, had given birth to her in January 1889 in Gloucester, but her home was in Wolverhampton, where her family were industrialists. She was thirty at the time of Edith’s birth and moved to Handsworth, an old suburb of Birmingham, after the birth. The father’s name was not mentioned on the birth certificate, though Frances preserved his photograph, and his identity was known to the Bratt family. It is unlikely that Edith knew it; if she did, she never passed it on to her own children. Frances never married. Edith’s childhood had been moderately happy, brought up in Handsworth by her mother and older cousin, Jennie Grove. The Grove connection was much valued by the Bratts, for it linked them with Sir George Grove, the renowned editor of the musical dictionary.

Edith proved to have a talent for music. She played the piano well, and when her mother died, she was sent to a girls’ boarding school specialising in music; by the time she left school, she was expected to make her career as a piano teacher or possibly as a concert pianist. But her guardian, the family solicitor, did not know what he should do for the best. He found a room for her at Mrs Faulkner’s, supposing that her landlady’s enthusiasm for music would provide a suitable atmosphere as well as a piano for practising. In any case, Edith had inherited a small amount of land scattered through various parts of Birmingham, and the rent from this provided just enough to keep her. Edith stayed on at Mrs Faulkner’s, but she soon found that while her landlady was delighted to have a lodger who could play and accompany soloists at her ‘soirées’, she was not so fond of having her practice in the parlour. She would curtail this, with Edith retiring sadly to her room and sewing machine. Then the Tolkien brothers arrived in the house, and she found them enjoyable companions. She particularly liked Ronald, with his serious face and perfect manners. Though he was acquainted with few girls of his own age, he soon discovered that familiarity conquered any shyness on his part, and they struck up a friendship.

True, Edith was nineteen, and he was sixteen, but he was mature for his age, and she looked young for hers, neat and trim and exceptionally pretty. Indeed, she did not share his interest in languages and had received only a limited formal education, but her manner was brilliant and engaging. They became allies against ‘the Old Lady’ as they called Mrs Faulkner. Edith would persuade Annie, the maid, to smuggle titbits of food to the hungry boys on the second floor, and when the old lady was out, the boys would go to Edith’s room for secret feasts. Edith and Ronald frequented Birmingham’s tea shops, especially those with a balcony from where they would throw sugar lumps onto the hats of passers-by. Romance was bound to flourish between two people of their personalities and social positions. Both were orphans needing affection, and they found that they could give it to each other. During the summer of 1909, they knew they had fallen in love. Writing to Edith long afterwards, Ronald recalled:

‘… my first kiss to you and your first kiss to me (which was almost accidental) – and our goodnights when sometimes you were in your little white nightgown, and our absurd long window talks; and how we watched the sun come up over town through the mist and ‘Big Ben’ toll hour after hour , and the moths almost used to frighten you away – and our whistle-call – and our cycle rides – and the fire talks – and the three great kisses.’

‘Big Ben’ was probably the bell in the clock tower of Birmingham University, pictured above. At night, the tower’s brightly illuminated clock face is thought to have provided Tolkien with the idea for the terrifying Eye of Sauron.

Ronald was supposed to be working for an Oxford scholarship, but it was hard for him to concentrate when one half of his mind was occupied with inventing languages and the other with Edith. There was also a new attraction at school: the Debating Society, highly popular with the senior boys. He had not yet spoken in debates, probably because of his still adolescent voice and his reputation, already acquired, as an indistinct speaker. But this term, spurred on by his newfound confidence, he made his maiden speech on a motion supporting the objects and tactics of the suffragettes. It was judged a reasonable effort, though the school magazine thought that his talents as a debater were somewhat marred by faulty delivery. In another speech, on the motion that this house deplores the occurrence of the Norman Conquest, he attacked, according to the magazine, the influx of polysyllabic barbarities which ousted the more honest if humbler native words; while in a debate of the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays he poured a sudden flood of unqualified abuse upon Shakespeare, upon his filthy birthplace, his squalid surroundings, and his sordid character. He also achieved much success on the Rugby pitch. Although thin, almost scrawny, he had already learnt to compensate for lack of weight by playing with ferocity.

Dangerous Liaisons:

Then one day, towards the end of the autumn term of 1909, he arranged secretly with Edith that they should go for a ride into the countryside. ‘We thought we had managed things very cleverly,’ he wrote. ‘Edith had ridden off on her bicycle nominally to visit her cousin Jennie Grove. After an interval, I rode off “to the school sports ground”, but we reassembled and made for the Lickeys.’ They spent the afternoon on the hills and then went into Rednal village in search of tea, which they were given at a house where Ronald had previously stayed while working for his scholarship. Afterwards, they rode home, arriving separately at Duchess Road so as not to arouse suspicion. But they had reckoned without gossip. The woman who had given them tea told Mrs Church, the caretaker at the Oratory House, that Master Ronald had been to call and had brought an unknown girl with him. Father Francis then got to know about it. His feelings can be imagined when he learnt that the ward on whom he had lavished so much affection, care and money was not concentrating on his vital schoolwork but was, as he soon found out, conducting a ‘clandestine affair’ with a girl three years his senior who was living ‘under the same roof.’ He summoned Ronald to the Oratory, told him how deeply he was shaken and demanded that the affair should stop. He arranged for Ronald and Hilary to move to new lodgings to get Ronald away from ‘the girl.’

From the perspective of over a century later, it may seem strange that Ronald did not simply disobey Father Francis and continue the romance openly. But the social conventions of the time demanded that young people should obey their parents or guardians in all things. Moreover, Ronald had great affection for his guardian, besides the simple, practical matter that both he and his brother depended upon Father Morgan for money. Neither was he a naturally rebellious young man. Given all this, it is entirely believable that he agreed to do as he was told. At the height of the storm, Ronald had to go to Oxford for the scholarship exam. Oxford was new to him in every way, for none of the previous generations nor his ancestors had been university people. This was his chance to win honour for the Suffields and the Tolkiens, repay Father Francis’s affection and generosity and prove that his amorous liaison with Edith had not distracted him from his task. But it was not easy to achieve, and looking at the board after the examination, he saw that he had failed to win an award. As he turned his back on Merton Street and Oriel Square and headed back to the station, he must have wondered if he would ever return. But in truth, this first failure was not as catastrophic for him as it might have seemed. Competition for scholarships was consistently severe, and he could try again the following December. By that time, however, he would be nineteen; if he failed again, there would be little chance of his getting into Oxford. The commoner’s fees would be beyond even his generous guardian’s pocket. He would simply have to work harder. His first entry in his first diary on New Year’s reflected his mood in no uncertain terms:

‘Depressed and as much in dark as ever. God help me. Feel weak and weary.’

He was also faced with a dilemma, for though he and Hilary had moved to new lodgings, they were not far from Mrs Faulkner’s house, where Edith was still living. Father Francis had demanded that the love affair be ended, yet he had not explicitly forbidden Ronald to see Edith. Ronald hated to deceive his guardian for a second time, but he and Edith secretly exchanged letters and decided to meet clandestinely. They spent an afternoon together, taking a train to the countryside and discussing their plans. Edith gave Ronald a pen for his eighteenth birthday, and the next day he gave her a wristwatch for her twenty-first, which they celebrated in a Birmingham tea shop. Edith also told him she had accepted an invitation to go and live in Cheltenham with an elderly couple who had befriended her. Ronald wrote Thank God! in his diary, for it was the best solution to their immediate predicament. But once again, they had been seen together, and Father Morgan clarified his position this time. Ronald must not meet or even write to Edith. He could only see her once more to say goodbye when she left for Cheltenham. After that, they must not communicate again until he was twenty-one when the priest’s guardianship would end. This meant a complete separation of three years. Ronald wrote in his diary: ‘three years is awful.’

A more rebellious and less religious young man might have refused to obey, and even Ronald, loyal to Father Francis, found it hard to follow his guardian’s wishes. He prayed that he would see Edith by accident, and his prayers were answered when he saw her twice on the street, once when she was coming from the Cathedral, where she had prayed for him. But though these meetings were accidental, there was the worst possible consequence. At the end of February, Ronald received a threatening letter from Father Francis saying that he had been seen with Edith again, which was ‘evil and foolish’. He threatened to cut short his university career if he did not stop. When Edith learnt what had happened, she wrote to Ronald, ‘Our hardest time of all has come.’ At the beginning of March, Edith set out from Duchess Road for Cheltenham. Despite his guardian’s ban, Ronald prayed that he might catch a final glimpse of her. When the time came for her departure, he scoured the streets for her and finally, at Francis Road corner, she passed me on the bike on the way to the station. I shall not see her again, perhaps for three years.

Father Morgan was not a clever man for all his devotion and generosity. He did not perceive that by compelling Ronald and Edith to part, he was transforming a teenage love affair into a thwarted romance. Ronald himself wrote, thirty years later, that probably nothing else would have hardened the will enough to give such an affair (however genuine a case of true love) permanence. In the weeks after Edith’s departure, Ronald was mortified and depressed. There was little help to be gained from Father Francis, who was still deeply offended by the deception practised upon him. At Easter, Ronald asked for his guardian’s permission to write to Edith, which was granted, albeit grudgingly. He wrote, and she replied that she was happy in her new home and that all that horrid time at Duchess Road seems only a dream now.

The Tea Club (Barrovian Society):

For Ronald, the school now became the centre of life. Relations with Father Francis were still strained, and the Oratory could not entirely retain its former place in his affections. But at King Edward’s, he found good company and friendship. It was a day school, but it was an all-male society, and it was into this that Tolkien now threw himself. At the age when many young men were discovering the charms of female company, he was endeavouring to forget these and push romance into the back of his mind. All the pleasures and discoveries of the next three years were not to be shared with Edith but with others of his sex so that he came to associate the male company with much that was good in life. The school library was nominally under the control of an assistant master, but in practice, it was administered by a group of senior boys who were granted the title of Librarian.

In 1911, Ronald was one of these, along with Christopher Wiseman, R. Q. Gilson (the headmaster’s son) and three or four others. This little group formed itself into an unofficial society called the Tea Club. At first, they met in the library, but in the summer term, they moved to Barrow’s Stores on Corporation Street and changed their name to the Barrovian Society. In the Tea Room was a sort of compartment, a table for six between two settles, relatively secluded, known as the ‘Railway Carriage’. The Society’s membership varied, but it retained a nucleus of Tolkien, Wiseman and R. Q. Gilson. Tolkien’s contribution to the ‘TCBS’ as it came to be called, reflected the wide range of reading he had already encompassed. He delighted his with recitations of Beowulf, the Pearl, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He also recounted horrific episodes from the Norse Völsungasaga, with a passing jibe at Wagner, whose interpretation of the myths he held in contempt.

Later a fourth member was added to the group. This was Geoffrey Bache Smith, nearly three years younger than Tolkien. He was not a classicist like the others but lived with his brother and widowed mother in West Bromwich and possessed what his friends considered a ‘Midland wit’. He was also knowledgeable about English literature, especially poetry; he was a poet of some competence, and under his influence’ the TCBS became more aware of the significance of poetry. Tolkien was already interested in this and was beginning to write verse himself. His early efforts were rather juvenile in content, at least, about fairy spirits dancing on a woodland carpet. In April 1910, he had seen J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan at a Birmingham theatre and wrote in his diary:

Indescribable but shall never forget it as long as I live. Wish E. had been with me.

Fairy Tales & Folklore:

But perhaps of more importance was his enthusiasm for the Catholic mystic writer Francis Thompson. By the end of his school career, he was familiar with Thompson’s verse and later became quite an expert on him. In July 1910, he wrote a descriptive piece about a forest scene, Wood-sunshine, which resembled the first part of Thompson’s Sister Songs, where the poet sees first an elf and then a swarm of woodland sprites in the glade; when he moves, they vanish. Dancing elves appear in many of Tolkien’s early poems. But in 1910, his principal concern was to work for his second attempt at an Oxford scholarship. He put in as many hours of private study as possible, but there were still many distractions, including Rugby. He spent many afternoons on the school sports ground on Eastern Road, from which there was a long ride home by bicycle. He also spent a lot of time working on historical languages, including Latin and Greek, and his invented ones. He also devoted himself to the Debating Society. On one occasion, he astonished his school-fellows when he broke into fluent Gothic in the character of a barbarian envoy; on another occasion, he spoke in Old English. These activities occupied many hours, so he could not claim that he was well prepared for his scholarship examination when he set off for Oxford in December 1910. However, he had rather more confidence in his chances this time.

On 17 December 1910, he learnt that he had been awarded an Open Classical Exhibition to Exeter College. This result was not, however, as pleasing as it might have been, for he could have won a more valuable scholarship. However, it was no mean achievement, and with the aid of a school-leaving bursary from King Edward’s School and additional help from Father Francis, he would now be able to realise his dream of a place at Oxford. Now that his immediate future was secured, he was no longer under pressure in his schoolwork. Yet plenty was still to occupy him in his final terms at King Edward’s. He became a prefect, Secretary of the Debating Society, and Rugby Football Secretary. He read a paper to the school Literary Society on Norse Sagas, illustrating it with readings in the original language. At about this time, he also discovered the Finnish Kalevala or ‘Land of Heroes,’ the collection of poems which is the principal repository of Finland’s mythology. Not long afterwards, he wrote appreciatively of…

this strange people and these new gods, this race of unhypocritical lowbrow scandalous heroes. … the more I read of it, the more I felt at home and enjoyed myself.

The summer term of 1911 was his last at King Edward’s. It ended as usual with the performance of a Greek play with choruses set to music-hall tunes. This time the choice was Aristophane’s, The Peace, in which Tolkien took the part of Hermes. He had loved his school, and now he hated leaving it. He said he felt like a young sparrow kicked out of a high nest.

Tolkien as a young student at Oxford, 1911.

In the summer holiday that followed, he made a journey to Switzerland. He and his brother Hilary were among a party organised by the Brookes-Smith family on whose Sussex farm Hilary had been working, leaving school early to take up agriculture. Their Aunt Jane, now widowed, joined them, and they reached Interlaken, setting out on their Alpine hike. Before setting off on the return journey to England, Tolkien bought some picture postcards. Among them was a reproduction of a painting by a German artist. The mountain spirit called Der Berggeist showed an old man sitting on a rock under a pine tree, wearing a wide-brimmed round hat and a long cloak. He is talking to a white fawn, nuzzling his upturned hand, and has a humorous but compassionate expression; there is a glimpse of rocky mountains in the distance. Tolkien carefully preserved this postcard, and long afterwards, he wrote on the paper cover where he kept it: ‘Origin of Gandalf’.

Exeter College, Oxford:

In September, back in Birmingham, Tolkien packed his possessions, and at the end of the second week in October, he accepted a lift from his old schoolmaster, ‘Dickie’ Reynolds, and was driven to Oxford for the first time to start his first term. Although Tolkien never lived in the city again, he referred to Birmingham as his hometown and himself as a ‘Birmingham man’ for the rest of his life. Later in life, he explained that he drew inspiration for his writing from the people and landscapes of the city and the surrounding countryside. However, as the car bowled into Oxford, he had already decided he would be happy there. To the eyes of a casual observer, his own college, Exeter, was not, architecturally, the loveliest in the university. Its insipid frontage by George Gilbert Scott and its chapel, a tasteless copy of the Sainte Chapelle, made it no more remarkable than Barry’s mock-gothic school in Birmingham. But to Ronald Tolkien, it was his own college, his home, the first real home he had known since his mother’s death.

Tolkien spent Christmas with his Incledon relatives at Barnt Green near Birmingham. As usual in that family, as in many lower middle-class Midland families at that time, the season was enlivened by theatricals, some of which Ronald wrote, also taking leading roles. One of these was as a penniless student who meets a lost heiress in the lodging house where they both live and falls in love with her. But she has to remain undiscovered by her father until her twenty-first birthday in two days, after which she will be free to marry. This piece of family nonsense was even more topical than the Incledons realised. Not only was Ronald due to celebrate his own twenty-first, but a few days later, he also intended to reunite himself with Edith Bratt, for whom he had waited almost three years and who he was quite sure had waited for him. So as the clock struck midnight, marking the beginning of 3 January 1913, his coming of age, he sat up in bed. He wrote a letter to her, renewing his declaration of love and asking her: ‘How long will it be before we can be joined together before God and the world?’ But when Edith replied, it was to say that she was engaged to George Field, the brother of her school friend, Molly.

The Reunion and Religion:

Ronald could have decided to forget all about Edith. His friends knew nothing of her existence, and his aunts, uncles, and cousins had never been told about her. Only Father Francis knew, and even though he was no longer Ronald’s legal guardian, he had no wish that the affair should recommence. So Ronald could have torn up Edith’s letter and left her to marry George Field. Yet there had been declarations and promises in the Duchess Road days that Ronald felt could not lightly be broken, at least on his part.

So, on 8 January 1913, Ronald took’ a train to Cheltenham, where Edith met him on the platform. They walked out into the country and sat under a railway viaduct where they talked. By the end of the day, 8 January, she declared that she would give up George and marry Ronald. She wrote to George and sent back his ring. He was naturally distraught, and his family felt insulted and angry. But eventually, their friendships were restored. Edith and Ronald did not announce their engagement, being nervous about family reaction and wanting to wait until Ronald’s prospects were more certain. But Ronald returned to his new term at Oxford in a ‘bursting happiness’. He wrote to Father Francis explaining that he and Edith intended to be married. Though Ronald’s guardian’s reply was far from enthusiastic about this prospect, it was calm and resigned in tone and content. This was just as well for Ronald, as he was still dependent upon the priest’s financial support, so it was still essential that his former guardian tolerate the engagement. Ronald now had to turn his full attention to his degree examinations in Classics. He was relieved when he learnt that he had achieved a Second Class, but was advised to change to the English School and become a philologist. Tolkien agreed and, at the beginning of the summer term of 1913, began to read English.

In the months following their reunion, the question of Edith’s religion caused the couple some concern. If their marriage was to be blessed by the Catholic Church, she would have to become a Catholic. She was prepared to convert, but it was not so simple, for Edith was a very active member of the Church of England in her parish in Cheltenham, and Ronald now wanted her to renounce all her social contacts to join a church where she was not known. She was also afraid that her ‘Uncle’ Jessop, in whose house she lived, might be angry, for, like many of his age and class, he was strongly anti-Catholic and might not allow her to go on living under his roof until her marriage if she was ‘poped’. She suggested to Ronald that the matter might be delayed until they were officially engaged or the time of their marriage was near. But he would not hear of this since he despised the Church of England, calling it a pathetic and shadowy medley of half-remembered traditions and mutilated beliefs. ‘I do so dearly believe,’ he wrote to Edith, ‘that no half-heartedness and worldly fear must turn us aside from following the light unflinchingly.’ In writing so piously, he had chosen to forget his own lapses from attending mass of the previous year. For him, the question of Edith becoming a Catholic was more emotional and personal than religious or spiritual. He felt he was honouring his mother in following her religious beliefs. It was perhaps also, in part (though he would not admit it), a test of Edith’s commitment to him after her ‘unfaithfulness’ in becoming engaged to George Field.

Warwick & ‘Westerland’:

In any case, it was a test she passed, and she did what he asked, telling the Jessops she intended to become a Catholic. ‘Uncle’ reacted just as she had feared, for he ordered her to leave his house as soon as she could find some other accommodation. Faced with yet another accommodation crisis, Edith decided to set up a home with her disabled, middle-aged cousin Jennie Grove. Together they began to look for rooms, but Edith did not want to move to Oxford, perhaps resentful of Ronald’s pressure on her to convert and certainly because she wanted to remain independent until they were married. She and Jennie chose Warwick, which was not far from their native Birmingham but was far more attractive than the city. They managed to find temporary rooms, and Ronald joined them there in June. He and Edith found Warwick, with its hill, river and castle, a place of remarkable beauty. They went punting on the Avon. Together they attended Benediction in the Catholic Church, from which (as he wrote):

We came away serenely happy, for it was the first time that we had ever been able to go calmly side by side to church’.

But they also had to spend some time searching for a house for Jennie and Edith, and when a suitable one was found, there were innumerable arrangements to be made, which Ronald found rather irritating. He and Edith found that they no longer knew each other very well, for they had spent the three years of their separation in two totally different societies: the one, all-male, boisterous, and academic; the other mixed, genteel and domestic. They had grown up, but they had also grown apart; they would each have to make concessions to the other if they were to come to a fundamental understanding. Ronald would have to tolerate Edith’s absorption in the daily details of domestic life, trivial as they might seem to him. She, in turn, would have to make an effort to tolerate his preoccupation with books and languages, selfish as it might seem to her. They did not always succeed in this. Their letters were full of affection but also sometimes of mutual irritation. Ronald frequently addressed Edith as ‘little one’ and talked patronisingly of her ‘little house’ in Warwick, but she was far from ‘little’ in personality. Ronald tended to assume the role of sentimental lover, unlike his relationships with his male friends. Indeed, there was genuine love between him and Edith, but he often wrapped it up in a sentimental cliché. In contrast, if he had taken her into the company of his male friends, she might not have minded so much when the ‘bookish’ elements loomed large in their marriage. But he kept the two sides of his life as strictly separate as they had ever been.

In the autumn of 1913, his friend G. B. Smith came up to Oxford from King Edward’s School to be an Exhibitioner of Corpus Christi College, where he was to read English. The TCBS was now equally represented at Oxford and Cambridge, for R. Q. Gilson and Christopher Wiseman were at the latter. The four friends met occasionally, but Tolkien had never mentioned the existence of Edith Bratt to them. Now that the time was approaching for her reception into the Catholic Church and they had decided to become formally betrothed, he would need to tell his friends. He wrote to Gilson and Wiseman at Cambridge, uncertain what to say to them and not even telling them his fiancée’s name; clearly, he felt that all of that had little to do with male comradeship. They all congratulated him, though Gilson added, I have no fear… that such a staunch TCBS-ite as yourself will ever be anything else. Edith was instructed in the Catholic faith by Father Murphy, the parish priest at Warwick, who did the job no more than adequately. Ronald was later to blame much on the poor teaching given her at this time, but he did not help her much either. He found it difficult to communicate to her the passionate yet personal nature of his faith, inextricably entwined as it was with the memory of his mother.

On 8 January 1914, Edith was received into the Roman Catholic Church. The date had been deliberately chosen by both Edith and Ronald as the anniversary of their reunion. Soon after her reception, she and Ronald were officially betrothed by Father Murphy in his church. Edith made her first confession and communion, which she found to be a ‘great and wonderful happiness’; at first, she continued in this state of mind, attending mass regularly and often making her communion. But the Catholic church at Warwick was a poor affair compared with the splendours of her old parish church in Cheltenham. Although she helped with a church club for working girls, she made few friends in the congregation. She also began to dislike making her confession, and it was, therefore, all too easy when she was often worried about her health to postpone going to mass. She reported to Ronald that getting up to go to church early in the morning and fasting until she had taken communion disagreed with her. ‘I want to go,’ she told him, ‘and wish I could go often, but it is quite impossible: my health won’t stand it.’ She was leading a very dreary life even though she had her own house and the company of her cousin, Jennie, but unless Ronald paid a visit, there was no one else to talk to and nothing to do except keep house. She had her own piano and could practise for hours, but she was not needed as an organist at the Catholic Church and missed the social life of Cheltenham. She could only pay occasional visits to concerts or the theatre and was irritated to receive letters from Ronald describing his life at Oxford as full of dinner parties, ‘rags’ and visits to the cinematograph.

Now and then, he did some work, enough to win the Skeat Prize for English awarded by his college in the spring of 1914. He used the five pounds prize money to buy books of medieval Welsh poetry and several of the works of William Morris, an alumnus of Exeter College, including Morris’s translation of the Völgsungasaga, and his prose-and-verse romance, The House of the Wolfings. Tolkien found the latter very absorbing. Morris’s view of literature coincided with his own. Morris had tried to recreate the excitement he had seen in the pages of early English and Icelandic narratives. In his book, Morris’s land is threatened by a Roman invasion and centres on a tribe that dwells by a great river in a clearing in the forest named Mirkwood, a name taken from ancient Germanic geography and legend and later used by Tolkien in his fictive geography of Middle-earth. Many elements in the story seem to have impressed Tolkien, and he also appreciated another facet of the writing: Morris’s aptitude, despite the vagueness of time and place in which the story is set, for describing the details of his imagined landscape with great precision. In this, Tolkien was to follow Morris’s example.

His own eye for landscape received a powerful stimulus during the summer of 1914 when, after visiting Edith, he spent a holiday in Cornwall, staying on the Lizard peninsula, with Father Vincent Reade of the Birmingham Oratory. He never forgot the sights of the sea and the Cornish coastline, which became an ideal landscape in his mind. He wrote to Edith of these expeditions:

We walked over the moor-land on top of the cliffs to Kynance Cove. Nothing I could say in a dull old letter would describe it to you. The sun beats down on you and a huge Atlantic swell smashes and spouts over the snags and reefs. The sea has carved weird wind-holes and spouts into the cliffs which blow with trumpety noises or spoat foam like a whale, and everywhere you see black and red rock and white foam against violet and transparent seagreen.

One day he and Father Vincent explored the villages a short way inland from the Lizard promontory:

Our walk home after tea started with through rustic “Warwickshire” scenery, dropped down to the banks of the Helford river (almost like a fjord), and then climbed through “Devonshire” lanes up to the opposite bank, and then got into more open country, where it twisted and wiggled and wobbled and upped and downed until dusk was already coming on and the red sun just dropping… The light got very “eerie”. Sometimes we plunged into a belt of trees, and owls and bats made you creep: sometimes a horse with asthma behind a hedge or an old pig with insomnia made your heart jump…

The juxtaposition of “rustic Warwickshire” and the “Devonshire lanes” is an early example of how Tolkien blended the different regional sceneries of England into his imaginative and figurative writing. At the end of “the long vacation of” 1914, he travelled to Nottinghamshire to stay with his Aunt Jane on the farm she was running with the Brookes-Smiths and his brother Hilary. While there, he wrote the poem The Voyage of Earendel the Evening Star, which, borrowing from Cynewulf’s Crist, began as follows:

Earendel sprang up from the Ocean’s cup,

In the gloom of the mid-world’s rim,

From the door of Night as a ray of light

Leapt over the twilight brim,

And launching his bark like a silver spark

From the golden-fading sand

Down the sunlit breath of Day’s fiery death

He sped from Westerland.

The succeeding verses describe the starship’s voyage across the firmament, a ‘progress’ that continues until the morning light blocks out all sight of it. This notion of Cynewulf’s mariner, whose ship leaps into the sky, had grown from the starship’s Earendel in Cynewulf. Still, the poem it produced was entirely original, marking the beginning of Tolkien’s own mythology. But it looked as if that would now have to wait. By the time he wrote this, in the late summer of 1914, the British Empire had declared war on Germany. Already young men were enlisting in their thousands, answering Kitchener’s appeal for volunteer soldiers.

The War, the Working Class & the Wedding:

Field Marshal Kitchener whose face & finger were featured on recruiting posters when he became War Secretary in 1914.

If there was any doubt as to whether the trade unions and the working classes would support the war, that doubt was soon swept away within a week of the declaration of war in a wave of patriotic fervour and a spirit of youthful adventure. The resolutions of class solidarity, the vows of internationalism, and the pledges of strikes to stop the war were all whispers in the wilderness when it came. Britain entered the war as the only belligerent relying on a volunteer army. Such was the response to the call to join the colours that the first Military Service Act, introducing conscription, was not passed until January 1916. Following Lord Kitchener’s call for recruits to his New Army, men were promised if they joined up with colleagues or friends, they would be able to serve in the same unit. The first battalions of pals to join up were in Liverpool and Lancashire, and the rest of the country soon followed. The battalions included the Birmingham Pals and the Cambridge Pals. So Tolkien’s relatives were shocked when he elected not to volunteer immediately for the British Army. In a 1941 letter to his son Michael, Tolkien recalled:

“In those days chaps joined up, or were scorned publicly. It was a nasty cleft to be in for a young man with too much imagination and little physical courage.” 

The photograph, Sergeant and recruits, shows how thousands of workers enlisted. The posters behind evoke the ‘jingoism’ of the times.

Tolkien was concerned about staying at Oxford until he could finish his degree, which he hoped would be First Class Honours. So, though his aunts and uncles expected him to sign up, especially as his brother had already enlisted as a bugler, he returned to Oxford for the Michaelmas term. But when there, he met only one of his friends who had returned. However, he became more cheerful when he learnt of a scheme that would enable him to train for the army while at the university but defer his call-up until after he had taken his degree. He signed on for it and was soon delighted to discover that his TCBS friend, G. B. Smith, was still up at Oxford waiting for a commission. Smith was to join the Lancashire Fusiliers, and Tolkien resolved to try for a commission in the same regiment, if possible, in the same battalion.

A platoon of the Worcester Regiment marching to the Western Front in August 1914

Some readers and critics have maintained that Tolkien’s ideas for his ‘trilogy’, The Lord of the Rings, became ‘forged’ in the heat of the Great War. The Fellowship of the Ring seems to be based on the same sense of adventure, comradeship and the reality of the loss and suffering of ‘pals’ in the war. At first, however, Tolkien did not directly experience this volunteer army.

For most of the academic year which followed, Tolkien’s mind was occupied with the seeds of his mythology when he was not preparing for ‘Schools’, his final examination in English Language and Literature. The examination began in the second week of July, and Tolkien was triumphant, achieving his First Class Honours. He could, in consequence, be reasonably confident of getting an academic position when the war was over, but, in the meantime, he had to take up a commission. He later recalled that by the time he passed his finals in July 1915, the hints about joining up were “becoming outspoken from relatives”. Accordingly, he was commissioned as a temporary second lieutenant in the Lancashire Fusiliers on 15 July 1915 and trained with the 13th (Reserve) Battalion on Cannock Chase, based at a camp near Rugeley, near Staffordshire, for 11 months. In a letter to Edith, Tolkien declared his distaste for the hierarchical nature of army life:

“The most improper job of any man … is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”

His training began in July at Bedford, where he was billeted in the town with half a dozen other officers. He bought a motor bicycle he shared with a fellow officer, and when he got weekend leave, he rode over to Warwick to visit Edith. After that, they were moved to Staffordshire and around the country, from one camp to another. ‘Gentlemen are non-existent among the superiors,’ he wrote to Edith, ‘and even human beings rare indeed.’ By the beginning of 1916, he had decided to specialise in signalling and was eventually appointed battalion signalling officer.

Embarkation for France was now near, and he and Edith decided to get married before he left, the appalling death-roll among the British troops making it clear that he might never return. They had, in any case, waited long enough, for he was twenty-four, and she was twenty-seven. Ronald went back to Birmingham to see Father Morgan about transferring his modest share capital into his own name and confirming that he was marrying Edith. He managed to arrange the money matters, but when it came to it, he could not tell his old guardian about the marriage. It was not until a fortnight before it took place that he finally wrote and explained. Father Francis wrote back to wish them every blessing and happiness and declared that he would conduct the ceremony himself at the Oratory. However, arrangements had already been made for the wedding at the Catholic Church at Warwick. They were married after early mass on 22 March 1916. The only remaining ‘hitch’ with the ceremony was the civil signing of the register, as Edith did not know, or had forgotten, her father’s Christian name and ended up writing that of one of his brothers. She then had to explain her illegitimacy to Ronald for the first time. However, the couple resolved not to speak of it again. After the wedding, they left by train to Clevedon in Somerset, where they stayed for a week.

Ronald returned to Oxford from the honeymoon and Edith to Warwick, though only to wind up her affairs. The couple had decided that Edith would not have a permanent home for the duration of the war but would live in furnished rooms as near as possible to Ronald’s camp. She and Jennie, therefore, moved to Great Haywood, a Staffordshire village. There was a Catholic Church in the village with a kindly priest, and Ronald found suitable lodgings. But scarcely had Ronald settled into these when he received his embarkation orders. On 2 June, Tolkien received a telegram summoning him to Folkestone for posting to France. The night before, the couple stayed at the Plough and Harrow Hotel in Birmingham, their last sojourn in the city and the first spent together, just across the Hagley Road from Ronald’s final lodging house in the town on Highfield Road. So late on Sunday, 4 June, he set off for Folkestone and France. He later wrote:

“Junior officers were being killed off, a dozen a minute. Parting from my wife then… it was like a death.”

Scarcely a month later, at 7.30 a.m. on 1 July, the troops in the British front line on the Somme went ‘over the top.’ Rob Gilson of the TCBS was among them, serving in the Suffolk Regiment. They scrambled up ladders from the trenches and into the open, forming up in straight lines, as they had been instructed, beginning their slow tramp forward, slow because each man was carrying at least sixty-five pounds of equipment. They were told that the German defences had already been virtually destroyed by the early-morning barrage, but they could see as they approached that the wire was not cut, and the German machine guns opened fire on them. Tolkien’s battalion remained in reserve, moving to a village called Bouzincourt, where they bivouacked in a field or (like Tolkien) slept in huts. There were clear signs that things had not gone well when hundreds, many hideously mutilated, returned from the front line. The truth was that on the first day of the battle, twenty thousand allied troops had been killed.

Men of the 1st Battalion in Tolkien’s Regiment, The Lancashire Fusiliers, in a communication trench near Beaumont Hamel, during the 1916 Battle of the Somme. Rob Gilson of the TBCS was killed on the first day of the battle.

On 6 July, Tolkien’s Lancashire Fusiliers went into action, but only ‘A’ company was sent down to the trenches, and Tolkien stayed at Bouzincourt with the remainder. He re-read Edith’s letters with news from home and looked again at his collection of notes from other members of the TCBS. He was worried about both Gilson and Smith, who had both been in the thick of the battle. He was, therefore, overwhelmingly delighted and relieved when later in the day, G. B. Smith actually turned up at Bouzincourt alive and uninjured. Smith stayed for a few days’ rest before returning to the lines, and he and Tolkien met and talked as often as they could, discussing poetry, the war, and the future. They waited anxiously for news of Rob Gilson. Finally, on Sunday night, his company returned from the trenches; a dozen of their number had been killed and more than a hundred wounded. Those who were able told tales of horror. Then, on Friday, 14 July, it was the turn of Tolkien and his company to go into action. What Tolkien now experienced had already been endured by thousands of other soldiers.

For signallers such as Tolkien, however, there was a certain bitter disillusionment, as instead of the neat, orderly conditions in which they had been trained, they found a tangled confusion of wires, field telephones out of order and covered with mud, and worst of all, a prohibition on the use of wires for all but the least important messages, since the Germans had tapped the lines and intercepted crucial orders preceding the attack. Even Morse code buzzers were prohibited, and instead, the signallers had to rely on flags, lights and, at the last resort, runners or even carrier pigeons. Tolkien never forgot the ‘animal horror’ of trench warfare. His first day in action had been chosen by the Allied commanders for a major offensive, and his company was attached to the 7th Infantry Brigade for an attack on the ruined hamlet of Ovillers, which was still in German hands. The attack was unsuccessful, for once again, the enemy wire had not been properly cut, and many of Tolkien’s battalion were killed by machine-gun fire. But he survived unhurt, and after forty-eight hours without rest, he was allowed some sleep in a dug-out. After another twenty-four hours, his company was relieved from duty. On his return to the huts at Bouzincourt, Tolkien found a letter from G. B. Smith:

15 July 1916

My dear John Ronald,

I saw in the paper this morning that Rob has been killed.

I am safe but what does that matter?

Do please stick to me, you and Christopher. I am very tired and most frightfully depressed at this worst of news.

Now one realises in despair what the TCBS really was.

O my dear John Ronald what ever are we going to do?

Yours ever,

G. B. S.

Rob Gilson had died at La Boiselle, leading his men into action on the first day of the battle, 1 July. Tolkien wrote back to Smith: I do not feel a member of a complete body now. I honestly feel that TCBS has ended. But Smith replied: The TCBS is not finished and never will be. A few days later, Tolkien was among those who supported the storming of the Schwaben Redoubt, a massive fortification of German trenches. Prisoners were taken, among them men from a Saxon regiment that had fought alongside the Lancashire Fusiliers against the French at Minden in 1759. Tolkien spoke to a captured officer who had been wounded, offering him a drink of water; in return, the officer corrected his German pronunciation. On 19 August, Tolkien and G. B. Smith met again at Acheux. They talked and met again the following days, on the last of which they had a meal together at Bouzincourt, coming under fire but surviving without injury. On 19 August, he returned to the trenches, although there was no longer the same intensity of fighting as during the first days of the Battle of the Somme. However, British losses were severe, and many of Tolkien’s battalion were killed. He remained entirely uninjured, but the longer he stayed in the trenches, the greater his chance of being among the casualties. As to leave, it was always imminent but never delivered.

During the First World War, the University of Birmingham was requisitioned by the army as the 1st Southern Military Hospital. Various parts of the campus were used as temporary wards, including the Great Hall (above). In November 1916, Tolkien was brought to the hospital after being diagnosed with trench fever. He stayed in the hospital for six weeks, and although he gradually recovered his health over the next twelve months, he never returned to France.

His rescuer was ‘pyrexia of unknown origin’, as the medical officers called it. To the ordinary soldiers, it was simply known as ‘trench fever.’ Carried by lice, it caused a high temperature and other fever symptoms, and thousands of men had already reported being sick with it. Then, on 27 October, it struck Tolkien, who was billeted at Beauval at the time, twelve miles behind the lines. When he was taken ill, he was transported to a nearby hospital, and a day later, he was on a sick train to Le Touqué, where he remained for a week. But his fever did not die down, and on 8 November, he was put on a ship to England. Upon arrival, he was taken by train to a hospital in Birmingham, where he had white sheets and a view of the city he knew so well. He was reunited with Edith, and by 8 December, he was well enough to leave the hospital and go to Great Haywood to spend Christmas with her. In 1944, Tolkien wrote to his soldier son Michael that she was courageous to marry a man with no money and no prospects except that of being killed in the Great War. Besides being his lifelong companion, Edith later became Ronald’s muse for one of his fictional characters.

Conclusion – The Breaking of the Fellowship:

In Great Haywood, Ronald received a letter from Christopher Wiseman, who was serving in the Navy. He had received news about G. B. Smith, who had been hit by the burst from a shell while walking down a road behind the lines. He was wounded in the right arm and thigh. An operation was attempted, but gas-gangrene set in, and he succumbed to his injuries by mid-December. He was buried in Warlencourt British Cemetery. Not long before being injured, he had written to Tolkien:

My chief consolation is that if I am scuppered tonight … there will still be left a member of the great TBCS to voice what I dreamed and what we all agreed upon. For the death of one member of its members cannot, I am determined, dissolve the TCBS. Death can make us loathsome and helpless as individuals, but it cannot put an end to the immortal four!

Many of Tolkien’s dearest school friends were killed in the war. Among their number was Rob Gilson of the Tea Club and Burrovian Society, their school club, who was killed on the first day of the Somme while leading his men in an assault on Beaumont Hamel. Fellow TCBS member Geoffrey Smith was also killed during the battle when a German artillery shell landed on a first-aid post. Subsequently, after his invaliding out to England, Tolkien’s battalion was almost completely wiped out. Quite naturally, all this was to have a profound effect on his future writings.

Tolkien’s formative years began as he found friendship, courage and motivation among a group of fellow outcasts at King Edward’s School. Their bond strengthened as they matured, first at school and then at university. World War One threatened to tear their fellowship apart. These war-time experiences also inspired him to write his Middle-earth novels. Tolkien began to imagine his fantasy Middle-earth at that time. The Fall of Gondolin was the first prose work he created, and it contains detailed descriptions of battle and street fighting. He continued the dark tone in much of his legendarium, as seen in The Silmarillion. The Lord of the Rings, too, was later described by some literary critics as a war book. However, Tolkien was reluctant to explain the influences on his writing while explicitly denying that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory of the Second World War, but admitting to certain connections with the Great War. His friend and fellow Inkling, C. S. Lewis, also described the work as having the quality of Great War literature in many of its descriptions. In France, Tolkien had found himself commanding enlisted men drawn mainly from the mining, milling, and weaving towns of Lancashire. Their influence on him is evident, particularly in the Fellowship of the Ring and the character of Sam Gamgee. According to fellow-author John Garth, Kitchener’s army at once marked existing social boundaries and counteracted the class system by throwing everyone into a desperate situation together. Tolkien was grateful, writing that it had taught him…

“… a deep sympathy and feeling for the Tommy; especially the plain soldier from the agricultural counties”.

John Garth later added that Tolkein “felt an affinity for these working-class men”, but military protocol prohibited friendships with “other ranks”. So instead, Tolkien was required to …

“take charge of them, discipline them, train them, and probably censor their letters … If possible, he was supposed to inspire their love and loyalty.”

Tolkien himself later lamented what he saw as their misplacement of this love and loyalty, certainly in the more senior officers, as demonstrated at the Battle of the Somme.

General Source:

Humphrey Carpenter (1977, 1982), J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Related Sources:

Dennis Freeborn (1992), From Old English to Standard English: A Course Book in Language Variation across Time. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.

Sam Newton (2003), The Reckoning of King Raedwald: The Story of the King linked to the Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial.

Local Sources:

https://www.birminghammuseums.org.uk/sarehole

https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/9230/birmingham_tolkien_trail

Featured

J. R. R. Tolkien & Birmingham, 1896-1916: The Formative Years, Part One (to 1908) – Middle English

The South African Prelude – Beginnings in Bloemfontein:

Arthur Reuel Tolkien and Mabel Suffield (pictured above in the family group), both from Birmingham, were married in Cape Town Cathedral on 16th April 1891, after which came an exhausting railway journey of nearly seven hundred miles to the capital of the Orange Free State. Less than a year after proposing to Mabel, Arthur had obtained a post with the Bank of Africa and had sailed to the Cape. Mabel had celebrated her twenty-first birthday at the end of January 1891, and only a few weeks later, she was on board Roslin Castle and sailing towards South Africa. Bloemfontein was of no great size, and it certainly did not present an impressive spectacle to the newlyweds as they got off the train at the newly-built station. In the centre of the town was the market square where the Dutch-speaking farmers from the veldt trundled in aboard great ox-wagons to unload and sell the bales of wool that were the backbone of the State’s economy. Around the square were clustered solid indications of civilisation: the collonaded Parliament House, the two-towered Dutch Reformed Church, the Anglican cathedral, the hospital, the public library, and the Presidency. There was a club for European residents (Dutch, English and German), a tennis club, a law court, and a sufficiency of shops. But the trees planted by the first settlers forty years before were still sparse, and the town’s park had only ten willows and a patch of water. Only a few hundred yards beyond the houses was the open veldt, where wolves, wild dogs and jackals roamed and menaced the flocks and where after dark, a postrider might be attacked by a marauding lion. Writing to her family, Mabel summed up the town as an ‘Owlin’ Wilderness! Horrid Waste!’

However, the life she found herself leading was by no means uncomfortable. The premises of the Bank of Africa, in Maitland Street just off the market square, included a solidly built residence with a large garden. There were servants in the house, some black or coloured, some white immigrants, and there was a broader company to be found among the English-speaking residents of the town. They organised regular rounds of dances and dinner parties. But Arthur could not afford to take life easy, for although there was only one other bank in Bloemfontein, this was the National Bank, native to the Orange Free State. Arthur was the local manager of the Bank of Africa and, as such, an uitlander, and his bank was only tolerated by a special parliamentary decree.

On 3rd January 1892, Mabel gave birth to a son, John Ronald Reuel, who was christened in Bloemfontein Cathedral on 31st January. In November, he had his photograph taken (above) in the garden of Bank House in his nurse’s arms while his father posed jauntily in his white tropical suit and boater. Behind stood two black servants, a maid and a house-boy named Isaak, both looking pleased and perhaps a little surprised to be included in the photograph. Mabel found the Boer’s attitudes to the natives objectionable. However, in Bank House, there was tolerance, most notably over the unusual behaviour of Isaak. One day. he ‘stole’ the little baby and took him to his kraal, where he showed off the novelty of a white baby. The incident upset everybody, but Isaak was not dismissed, and he later named his own son ‘Tolkien’. Many months later, when Ronald began to walk, he stumbled on a tarantula. It bit him, and he ran in terror across the garden until the nurse snatched him up and sucked out the poison. When he grew up, he could remember running in fear through the long, dead grass, but the memory of the tarantula itself faded, and he said that it left him with no particular dislike of spiders. Nevertheless, in his stories, he wrote more than once of monstrous, venomous spiders, including Shelob in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

Soon after the baby’s first birthday, her sister and brother-in-law May and Walter Incledon arrived from England. Walter was a Birmingham merchant in his early thirties with business interests in the South African gold and diamond mines. He left May and their small daughter Marjorie at Bank House while travelling in the mining areas. It was winter in southern Africa and intensely cold, and the two sisters huddled around the dining-room stove while Mabel knitted baby garments and talked about Birmingham days. Although home leave could be taken within a year or so, Arthur was always finding reasons for postponing their visit as a family. In the end, the trip had to be delayed, as Mabel found herself pregnant again, and on 17th February 1894, she gave birth to another son, Hilary Arthur Reuel. Hilary was a healthy child, who flourished in the local climate, but his elder brother struggled with teething, which wore his mother out. Moreover, the weather was at its worst: an intense drought was followed by a plague of locusts which swarmed across the veldt and destroyed its fine harvest. Despite all this, Arthur wrote to his father the words that Mabel had dreaded to hear:

“I think I shall do well in this country and do not think I should settle down well in England again for a permanency.”

Yet whether they were to stay or not, it was clear that the heat harmed Ronald’s health and that something must be done to get him to cooler air. So in November 1894, Mabel took the boys to the coast near Cape Town. Ronald was nearly three and retained a faint memory of this trip. After the holiday, Mabel and the children returned to Bloemfontein and began preparing for the whole family’s trip to Birmingham. Arthur badly wanted to accompany them, but he could not afford to be away from his desk, for there were railway schemes underway in which the bank had a stake.

They stayed with Mabel’s parents, and the spring and summer passed with a marked improvement in Ronald’s health, but although Arthur wrote to say that he missed his wife and children very badly and longed to come and join them, there was always something to detain him. Then, in November, came the news that he had contracted rheumatic fever. He had partially recovered but could not face an English winter and would have to regain his health before making the journey. Mabel spent an anxious Christmas, though Ronald enjoyed himself and was fascinated by the sight of his first Christmas tree, which was very different from the wilting eucalyptus adorning Bank House the previous December. Finally, in January, Arthur was reported to be still in poor health, and Mabel decided that she must go back to Bloemfontein to care for him. Arrangements were made, and an excited Ronald dictated a letter for his father to the nurse in which he said:

“I hope the ship will bring us all back to you… I am got such a big man now because I have got a man’s coat and a man’s bodice… Mamie says you will not know Baby or me… we have got such big men… we have got such a lot of Christmas presents to show you… Auntie Gracie has been to see us… I walk every day and only ride my mailcart a little bit…

The letter was never sent, for a telegram arrived to say that Arthur had suffered a severe haemorrhage and Mabel must expect the worst. The next day, 15th February 1896, Arthur died. By the time a complete account of his last hours had reached his widow, his body had been buried in the Anglican graveyard at Bloemfontein, five thousand miles away from his family in Birmingham.

Birmingham at the end of the Victorian Age:

Birmingham’s diverse industrial base made it a serious rival to Manchester as England’s second city in the later nineteenth century. The Corporation gained a reputation for its municipal enterprise and public works, including one of the country’s most extensive urban tramway systems. On the map below of Birmingham in 1885, we can see how the tramways were initially drawn by horses, then gradually replaced by motorised trams by the end of the century. The grimy, haphazard industrial inner city was soon surrounded by a ring of public parks in the rapidly expanding suburbs. Despite its reputation as a factory city, Birmingham has always had more trees than people.

Re-settlement in Birmingham:

When the first wave of shock was over, the suddenly widowed Mabel Tolkien knew that she must make decisions. She and the two boys could not stay forever in her parents’ crowded home, a little suburban villa, yet she scarcely had the resources to establish an independent household. Arthur had only amassed a modest sum of capital chiefly invested in South African mines for all his hard work and conscientious saving. Though the dividend was high, it would not bring her an income of more than thirty shillings a week, scarcely enough to maintain herself and two children even at the lowest standard of living. There was also the question of the boys’ education. She could manage the early years herself, for she knew Latin, French and German and could also paint, draw and play the piano. When the boys were old enough, they would take the entrance examination for King Edward’s School, widely considered the best grammar school in the City of Birmingham, which their father had attended.

Meanwhile, she must find cheap accommodation to rent. There were plenty of lodgings in the city around its urban and suburban areas, but the boys needed fresh air and countryside. So she began to search through the classified advertisements in the local newspapers. Ronald was now in his fifth year and slowly adapting to life under his grandparents’ roof. He sometimes expected to see the verandah of Bank House jutting out from his grandparents’ home in Ashfield Road, King’s Heath. In the evening, his grandfather would return from a day tramping around the streets of Birmingham, cajoling orders for Jeyes Fluid from shopkeepers and factory managers. John Suffield was sixty-three, but his long beard made him look much older, and he vowed to live to be a hundred. He did not seem to object to earning his living as a commercial traveller, even though he had once managed his own drapery shop in the city centre.

Ronald came to feel far closer to the Suffield family than his father, though his Tolkien grandfather lived only a little way up the road from the Suffields, and he was sometimes taken to see him. But John Benjamin Tolkien was eighty-nine and had been badly shaken by Arthur’s death and was in his own grave six months later. There was still, however, Ronald’s aunt, his father’s younger sister, Aunt Grace, who told him stories of the Tolkien ancestors who had, she claimed, fought with the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria at the Siege Of Vienna in 1529. He had shown great daring in leading an unofficial raid against the Turks and capturing the Sultan’s standard. Aunt Grace claimed that this was why he was nicknamed Tolkühn, meaning ‘foolhardy’. There was also a story that a later ancestor had fled the Reign of Terror in 1794 under the old Saxon family name and set up in London as a harpsichordist and clock-repairer. Indeed, the Tolkiens were present at the beginning of the nineteenth century, recorded as clock and watch manufacturers and piano-makers. As a piano-maker and music-seller, John Benjamin Tolkien had come to Birmingham some years later.

Above: A painting of the scenic countryside that inspired Tolkien’s ‘Shire.’

Like many urbanised middle-class Midland families, The Tolkiens liked to tell stories that gave a romantic colouring to their origins. Still, whatever the truth of those stories, the family at the time of Ronald’s childhood was entirely English in character and culture, indistinguishable from thousands of other middle-class tradespeople and professionals who populated the Birmingham suburbs. In any case, Ronald was rather more interested in his mother’s family. He discovered that though the family was now found in Birmingham, its origins were in the quiet Worcestershire town of Evesham, where the Suffields had lived for many generations. Being a homeless child, he held on to the concept of Evesham in particular and the whole West Midland area as his true home. He once wrote about Evesham and Worcestershire in the following terms:

‘Though a Tolkien by name, I am a Suffield by tastes, talents and upbringing… Any corner of that county (however fair or squalid) is an indefinable way “home” to me, as no other part of the world is.’

264 Wake Green Road (5 Gracewell Cottages), located behind the tree on the left. (Please note that 264 Wake Green Road is a private residence.)

By the summer of 1896, Mabel had found them a home to rent cheaply enough for herself and the children to live independently. So they moved a short distance, a mile or so beyond the southern boundary of Birmingham to the hamlet of Sarehole. The impact of this move on Ronald was both immediate and permanent. Just at the age when his imagination was opening up, he found himself in a corner of the Worcestershire countryside. The house they came to was 5 Gracewell Cottages, a semi-detached brick cottage at the end of a row. Outside the gate, the road ran up a hill into Moseley village and thence towards Edgbaston and the city centre. In the other direction, it led towards Stratford-upon-Avon.

But traffic was so limited (to the occasional farm cart or tradesman’s waggon) that it was easy to forget how near the city was.

KEY TO MAIN MAP: (1) Tolkien’s first home, 264 Wake Green Road, (2) Sarehole Mill, (3) Moseley Bog, (4) Cole Valley, (5) The Oratory, (6) Perrot’s Folley/ Edgbaston waterworks tower, (7) Highfield Road/ Plough & Harrow Hotel, (8) King Edward’s School, (9) the University of Birmingham,
(10) Library of Birmingham/ repertory Theatre (Gamgee plaque).

Sarehole – The Mill on the River Cole:

Over the road, a meadow led to the River Cole, little more than a broad stream, and upon this stands Sarehole Mill, an old brick building with a tall chimney. There has been a mill on this site since 1542, but the current building dates from the mid-eighteenth century. Corn had been ground there for three centuries. Still, Matthew Boulton, the local industrialist, leased the mill between 1756 and 1761 and used it as a ‘flatting mill’, producing sheet metal used for button manufacturing, before opening his Soho works in the city.

The sign outside the entrance to the museum shows its geographical relationship to the Cole Valley.

In the 1850s, a steam engine was installed, and a chimney was built to provide power when the river was low. When the Tolkiens lived in Sarehole, the mill’s chief purpose was to grind bones to make manure.

The photograph on the left shows Gracewell Cottages (on the left) in 1905, three years after the Tolkiens left no. 5. The meadow over the road (on the right) gives a clear idea of the unbroken view the young Ronald would have had to Sarehole Mill.

Yet the water still tumbled over the sluice and rushed beneath the great wheel, while inside the building, everything was covered with fine white dust. Hilary Tolkien was only two and a half, but soon he was accompanying his elder brother on expeditions across the meadow to the mill, where they would stare through the fence at the water-wheel turning in its dark cavern or run round to the yard where the sacks were were swung down onto a waiting cart.

Ronald and Hilary spent many hours exploring the grounds of Sarehole Mill and being chased off by the miller’s son. Sometimes they would venture through the gate and gaze into an open doorway, where they could see the great leather belts, pulleys, and shafts with the men at work. There were two millers, father and son. The old man had a black beard, but it was the son who frightened the boys with his dusty white clothes and sharp-eyed face. Ronald named him ‘the White Ogre.’ When he yelled at them to clear off, they would scamper away from the yard and run round to a place behind the mill where there was a silent pool with swans swimming. At the foot of the pool, the dark waters would suddenly plunge over the sluice to the great wheel below: a dangerous and exciting place. Not far from Sarehole Mill, a little way up the hill towards Moseley was a deep tree-lined sandpit that became another favourite haunt for the boys. Indeed, explorations could be made in many directions, though there were hazards. An old farmer who once chased Ronald for picking mushrooms was given the nickname ‘the Black Ogre’ by the boys. Such ‘terrors’ were the essence of those days at Sarehole, here recalled by Hilary nearly eighty years later:

“We spent lovely summers just picking flowers and trespassing. The Black Ogre used to take people’s shoes and stocking from the bank where they’d left them to paddle, and run away with them, make them go and ask for them. And then he’d thrash them! The White Ogre wasn’t quite so bad. But in order to get to the place where we used to blackberry (called the Dell) we had to go through the white one’s land, and he didn’t like us very much because the path was narrow through his field, and we traipsed off after corn-cockles and other pretty things. My mother got us lunch to have in this lovely place, but when she arrived she made a deep voice, and we both ran!”

In the 1960s, Tolkien contributed to the public appeal to restore the mill as a museum. Today it is part of the Birmingham Museums Trust. As well as being a working water mill, the museum features The Signposts to Middle-earth exhibition, which tells the story of Tolkien’s connections with Sarehole and the surrounding area. Nearby Moseley Bog became his Old Forest of Middle-earth. The contemporary painting of Sarehole Mill (above) shows how it would have looked from their home across Wake Green Road.

Moseley, Hall Green & King’s Heath:

The Ivy Bush provided the basis for the Tavern in Chapter One of The Lord of the Rings, where Gaffer Gamgee ‘held forth.’

A little further towards the city centre in Edgbaston is Perrott’s Folly tower (below right), considered the model for at least one of The Two Towers.

Tolkien later lamented the encroachment of the suburbs upon his former home, but there is one place that ‘civilisation’ missed: Moseley Bog. The Bog was an ideal place for Tolkien’s childhood adventures. It was once a storage pool for Sarehole Mill and is also the site of two Bronze Age ‘burnt mounds’. The Bog is recalled in Tolkien’s description of the ‘Old Forest,’ the last of the primaeval wild woods where ‘Tom Bombadil’ lived. It is now a Local Nature Reserve managed by the Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust.

There were few houses at Sarehole beside the row of cottages where the Tolkiens lived, but Hall Green village (pictured below, 4) was only a short distance away down a lane and across a ford. Gradually they made friends with the local children, which was not always easy, for their own middle-class accents, long hair and pinafores were mocked, and they, in turn, were not used to the Worcestershire dialect or the rough ways of the country boys. But they began to pick up something of the local vocabulary: ‘chawl’ for a cheek of pork, ‘miskin’ for dustbin, ‘pikelet’ for crumpet and ‘gamgee’ for cotton wool. The last owed its origins to Dr Sampson Gamgee, a Birmingham man who had invented ‘gamgee-tissue’, a surgical dressing made from cotton wool.

His name quickly became a household name in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

The Shire Country Park follows the attractive and varied valley of the River Cole as a green ribbon for some four miles from Small Heath to Yardley Wood. It was named in 2005 to reflect Tolkien’s links with the local area. The park contains wetland, grassland, woodland and heath. Herons, mallards and moorhens are common, and kingfishers can sometimes be seen hunting along the meandering river. The ford at Green Road (formerly Green Lane, pictured above) is one of the few remaining fords along the Cole Valley and was very familiar to young Ronald Tolkien.

Home Education:

Mabel Tolkien taught her two children at home. Ronald, as he was known in the family, was a keen pupil. She taught him a great deal of botany and awakened in him the enjoyment of the look and feel of plants. Young Tolkien liked to draw landscapes and trees, but his favourite lessons were those concerning languages. Her two sons could have had no better teacher, nor she an apter pupil than Ronald, who could read by the time he was four and had soon learnt to write proficiently. His mother’s own handwriting was delightfully unconventional (see her script on the Christmas postcard from Bloemfontein, top). Having acquired the skill of penmanship from her father, she chose an upright and elaborate style, ornamenting her capitals with delicate curls. Ronald soon began to practise a hand that was, though different from his mother’s, to become equally elegant and idiosyncratic. But his favourite lessons were those in languages. Early in his Sarehole days, his mother introduced him to the rudiments of Latin, which delighted him. He was just as interested in the shapes and sounds of words as in their meanings, and she realised that he had a particular aptitude for languages. She began to teach him French, but he liked this much less because the sounds did not please him as much as those of Latin or English.

She also tried to interest him in learning to play the piano, but without success. It seemed instead as if words took the place of music for him and that he enjoyed listening to them, reading and reciting them, almost regardless of their meaning. He was good at drawing, too, mainly when the subject was a landscape or a tree. His mother taught him a great deal of botany, which he soon became very knowledgeable about. But, again, he was more interested in the shape and feel of a plant than in its botanical details. This was especially true of trees, which, although he liked drawing them, he enjoyed being with them most of all. He would climb them, lean against them, and even talk to them. It saddened him to discover that not everyone shared his feelings toward them. One incident, in particular, remained in his memory:

“There was a willow hanging over the mill-pond and I learned to climb it. It belonged to a butcher on the Stratford Road, I think. One day they cut it down. They didn’t do anything with it: the log just lay there. I never forgot that.”

Outside the school-room hours, his mother gave him plenty of storybooks. He was amused by Alice in Wonderland, though he had no desire to have adventures like Alice. He did not enjoy Treasure Island, the stories of Hans Christian Andersen, nor The Pied Piper. But he liked ‘Red Indian’ stories and longed to shoot with a bow and arrow. He was even more pleased by the ‘Curdie’ books of George MacDonald, which were set in a remote kingdom where misshapen and malevolent goblins lurked beneath the mountains. The Arthurian legends also excited him. But most of all, he found delight in the Fairy Books of Andrew Lang, especially the Red Fairy Book, for tucked away in its closing pages was the best story he had ever read. This was the tale of Sigurd, who slew the dragon Fafnir: a strange and powerful tale set in the nameless North. Whenever Ronald read it, he found it absorbing:

“I desired dragons with profound desire, … Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood. But the world that contained even the imagination of the Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.”

The Viking Völsunga saga was the basis for this story, telling the story of Fafnir. Initially, the son of a dwarf king, Fafnir and his brother Regin killed their father to steal his gold. But greedy Fafnir took the gold from his brother and turned into a dragon to guard his hoard. The mortal hero Sigurd (Siegfried) avenged the deed by plunging his sword into the dragon’s heart. Fafnir and Siegfried are featured in Richard Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, a four-part opera cycle based on Germanic and Norse mythology. But Ronald was not content merely to read about dragons. When he was about seven, he wrote his first story about a dragon. Yet all he could recall of it later in life was his mother’s typically ‘Victorian’ grammarian insistence on his correct use of the order of adjectives:

“I remember nothing about it except a philological fact. … My mother said nothing about the dragon, but pointed out that one could not say ‘a green great dragon’, but had to say ‘a great green dragon’. I wondered why, and still do. The fact that I remember this is possibly significant, as I do not think I ever tried to write a story again for many years, and was taken up with language.”

Even so, Tolkien’s later writing style was full of complex uses of adjectives, for which it was criticised. Anyone who has tried to read his books out loud to children will recognise this as an ‘issue’ if not an obstacle! Somehow Mabel managed to feed and clothe the boys on her meagre income, eked out with occasional help from the Suffields and Tolkien relatives. Yet through the daily worries of the family’s poverty-stricken existence, there shone the family’s love for each other and for the Sarehole countryside, a place for adventure and solace. Ronald revelled in his surroundings with a desperate enjoyment, perhaps sensing that this paradise would be lost one day. Occasionally a strange dream would come to trouble him, that of a great wave towering over the trees and the green fields and advancing to engulf him and all around him. It was a dream that recurred for many years.

A Divided Family – Anglicans, Nonconformists and Catholics:

Christianity had played an increasingly important part in Mabel Tolkien’s life since her husband’s death, and each Sunday, she had taken the boys on a long walk to a ‘high’ Anglican church. Then one Sunday, Ronald and Hilary found that they were going to a different place of worship: St Anne’s, Alcester Street, in the ‘slums’ near the city centre, a Roman Catholic Church. She had been thinking for some time about becoming a Catholic. Nor did she take this step alone. Her sister May had returned from South Africa, now with two children, leaving her husband Walter to follow when he had completed his business there. Unknown to him, she, too, had decided to become a Catholic. During the spring of 1900, May and Mabel received instruction at St Anne’s, and in June of the same year, they were welcomed into the Roman Church. Immediately the wrath of their family fell upon them. This was at a time when Birmingham was riven by sectarianism. Joseph Chamberlain, the former Mayor of Birmingham, was a Liberal Unionist MP for the city. Despite being a government minister, as a strong nonconformist, he was committed to the campaign against state funding for church schools, which was characterised as Rome on the rates. Nonconformity had reached its zenith in Birmingham. John Suffield, the father of Mabel and May, had gone to a Methodist School and was now, like Chamberlain, a Unitarian. To him, his daughters should turn ‘Papist’ was an outrage beyond belief. May’s husband, Walter Incledon, considered himself a pillar of his local Anglican church, and for his wife to associate herself with the Roman Catholics was simply out of the question. Returning to Birmingham, he forbade her to enter a Catholic church again, and she had to obey him, but she subsequently turned to spiritualism instead.

Walter Incledon had provided a small amount of financial support for Mabel since Arthur’s death, but now there would be no more money from that source. Instead, she faced hostility not just from Walter and other members of the Suffield family but also from the Tolkiens, many of whom were Baptists and therefore strongly opposed to Catholicism. The strain of this, coupled with the additional financial hardship, did no good for her health. Still, nothing would shake her loyalty to her new faith, and against the opposition of both families, she began to instruct Ronald and Hilary in that faith. Meanwhile, it was time for Ronald to be sent to school. In the autumn of 1899, aged seven, he took the entrance examination for King Edward’s but failed to obtain a place. A year later, he retook the examination and passed, entering ‘KEGS’ in September 1900. A Tolkien uncle better-disposed towards Mabel paid the fees, then twelve pounds per annum. The school was in the centre of the city, four miles from Sarehole but close to New Street Station, but for the first few weeks, Ronald had to walk much of the way, for his mother could not afford the train fare, and the trams did not run as far as his home, or even close to it.

Starting School – King Edward’s, Moseley & King’s Heath:

His four-mile morning walks could not continue, and Mabel regretfully decided that their days in the ‘shire’ would have to end. Instead, she found a house to rent on Alcester Road in Moseley, nearer the centre and already on the tram route to New Street Station and King Edward’s. So, late in 1900, she and the boys packed their belongings and left the cottage where they had been so happy for the past four years. ‘Four years,’ Ronald Tolkien wrote, looking back from old age, ‘but the longest-seeming and most formative part of my life.’ His home life was very different from what he had known at Sarehole. His mother had rented a small house on the main road in Moseley, which, though originally a village like Hall Green, had become a city suburb by then. The view from the windows was a sad contrast to the shire countryside of Sarehole, which Ronald was desperately forlorn at being severed from. The trams struggled up the hill, and in the distance were the smoking chimneys factory chimneys of Sparkbrook and Small Heath. But no sooner had they settled than they had to move again since the house was to be demolished to make way for a fire station. Mable found a villa less than a mile away in a terrace row behind King’s Heath Station. The family soon moved again to Westfield Road in Kings Heath, where they were now not far from her parental home, but what had really dictated her choice was the presence in the road of the new Roman Catholic church at St Dunstan, corrugated outside and pitch-pine within.

Ronald found some comfort in this new home. The King’s Heath house backed onto a railway line, and life was punctuated by the roar of trains and the shunting of trucks in the nearby coal yard. Yet the railway cutting had grass slopes, and he discovered flowers and plants here. And something else attracted his attention: the curious Welsh placenames on the coal trucks in the sidings below, which he could not pronounce. So it came about that he began to learn the Welsh language by pondering over the signs for Nantyglo, Senghenydd, Blaenrhondda, Penrhiwceiber, and Tredegar. Then, later in his childhood, he went on a railway journey to Wales, and as the station names flashed by him, he knew that there were words more appealing to him than any he had yet encountered, an ancient language but one which was still alive. He asked for information about it, but the only Welsh books that could be found for him were incomprehensible. Yet he had found another linguistic world to fire his creative talents, one to which he later returned.

King Edward’s School could scarcely be missed by the traveller arriving in Birmingham on the London and North Western Railway, for it rose majestically above New Street Station’s subterranean smoke and steam. It resembled an Oxford college, a heavy and soot-blackened Victorian gothic construction that was designed by Sir Charles Barry and AWN Pugin, the architects of the rebuilt Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament). Sadly, Barry’s building was demolished after the school had moved to new premises in Edgbaston, just outside the city centre, in 1935. However, a whole corridor was saved and rebuilt in Edgbaston as the new school chapel. Founded by Edward VI, the school was generously endowed, and the governors had been able to open branch schools in many of the poorer parts of the city, which formed the King Edward’s Foundation Schools. But the standards at the original ‘High School’ were still unrivalled in Birmingham, and many of the hundreds of boys went on to win awards at major universities. By the time Tolkien joined them, ‘KEGS’ had almost outgrown its buildings and was cramped, crowded and noisy. It presented a daunting prospect for a boy who had been brought up in a quiet country village, and, unsurprisingly, Ronald spent much of his first term absent from school due to ill health. But he soon grew accustomed to the school’s rough-and-tumble routine.

The Oratory & Ladywood:

Although he did not initially show any outstanding aptitude in classwork, Tolkien proved to be a good all-rounder. Besides diligently pursuing his academic studies, he was an enthusiastic sportsman, actor, librarian and secretary of the school debating and literary societies. Meanwhile, his mother was becoming restless. She did not like the King’s Heath house and discovered that she did not like St Dunstan’s Church. So she began to search around, once again taking the boys on long Sunday walks in search of a place of worship that appealed to her. She soon discovered the Birmingham Oratory, a large church in the Ladywood suburb of Birmingham that was looked after by a community of priests. The Birmingham Oratory had been established in 1849 by John Henry Newman, then a recent convert to the Catholic faith. He had spent the last four decades of his life within its walls, dying there in 1890. Surely, she thought, she would find a friend, sympathetic counsellor, and confessor among them. Newman’s spirit still presided over the high-ceilinged rooms of the Oratory House on The Hagley Road, and in 1902, the community still included many priests who had been his friends and had served under him.

When Tolkien’s mother converted to Catholicism in 1900, the family worshipped at St Anne’s Church in Alcester Street, Digbeth. After moving to Edgbaston in 1902, Mabel and the boys attended Cardinal Newman’s Oratory on the Hagley Road. The family lived in nearby Oliver Road, and, for a time, Ronald was enrolled at St Philip’s School on the same street.

One of these was Father Francis Xavier Morgan, then aged forty-three, who shortly after the Tolkiens moved into the Ladywood district took over the duties of a parish priest and came to call. In him, Mabel soon found not only a sympathetic priest but a valuable friend. Half-Welsh and half-Spanish, Morgan was not a man of great intellect, but he had an immense fund of kindness, humour and flamboyance often attributed to his Spanish connections. He soon became an indispensable part of the Tolkien household. Without his friendship, life for Mabel and her sons would have shown scant improvement over the previous two years. They moved to Ladywood near the Catholic Oratory church, to a house only one degree better than a slum, while all around them were mean side streets. However, next to the house was the Oratory, attached to which and under the direction of its clergy was the St Philip’s Grammar School, where the fees were lower than King Edward’s and her sons could receive a Catholic education.

Early in 1902, Ronald and Hilary were enrolled at St Philip’s School. But although it was only a step from their front door, its bare-brick classrooms were no substitute for the splendours of King Edward’s, and the school’s academic standards were correspondingly lower. Ronald quickly surpassed his classmates, and Mabel, almost as soon, realised that St Philip’s could not provide the education Ronald needed. So she removed both boys and began again to give them home tuition, with much success in Ronald’s case, as he won a Foundation Scholarship to King Edward’s and returned there a few months later. Hilary, however, failed his entry test and continued to be educated at home.

In charge of the Sixth Class at the school was George Brewerton, one of the few assistant masters who specialised in teaching English literature. At that time, this subject was scarcely featured in the curriculum. Brewerton was a medievalist and, always a fierce teacher, he demanded that his pupils should use the plain old words of the English language, for instance, not manure but muck. He encouraged them to read Chaucer and recited The Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English:

From Chaucer’s Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

To Ronald Tolkien’s ears, this was a revelation, and he resolved to learn more about the history of the language. At Christmas 1903, Mabel Tolkien wrote to her mother-in-law about his progress:

He is going along at a great rate at school – he knows far more Greek than I do Latin – he says he is going to do German with me these holidays – though at present I feel more like Bed.

One of the clergy, a young, merry one, is teaching Ronald to play chess – he says he has read too much, everything fit for a boy under fifteen, and he doesn’t know any single classical thing to recommend him. Ronald is making his First Communion this Christmas – so it is a very great feast to us this year. I don’t say this to vex you – only you say you like to know everything about them.

A Worcestershire Convalescence; Grief & Faith:

The New Year did not begin well. Ronald and Hilary were confined to bed with measles followed by whooping cough and, in Hilary’s case, pneumonia. The additional strain of nursing them proved too much for their mother, and by April 1904, she was in the hospital, diagnosed with diabetes. Hilary was sent to his Suffield grandparents and Ronald to Hove to his Aunt Jane. Insulin treatment was not yet available for diabetes patients, and there was much anxiety about Mabel’s condition. Still, she had recovered sufficiently by the summer to be discharged from the hospital. Clearly, she must undergo a long and careful convalescence. A plan was proposed by Father Morgan. At Rednal, a Worcestershire village a few miles beyond the city boundary, Cardinal Newman had built a modest country house which served as a retreat for the Oratory clergy. On the edge of its grounds stood a cottage occupied by the local postman, whose wife could let the family have a bedroom and sitting-room, so in June 1904, the three joined together once more for a summer in the countryside. It was as if they had returned to Sarehole. The boys had the freedom of the estate and could also roam further away in the Lickey Hills. Father Morgan paid them many visits there, sitting upon the verandah of the House smoking a large cherrywood pipe, to which Tolkien traced his later addiction to the Pipe. It was an idyllic existence.

In September, Ronald – now fit and well – returned to King Edward’s. But his mother could not yet bring herself to return to the smoke and dirt of Birmingham. So, for the time being, Ronald had to get himself to school and back via train, and Hilary met him on his return with a lamp. However, Mabel’s condition began to deteriorate, and at the beginning of November, she collapsed suddenly and (for the boys) terrifyingly and sank into a diabetic coma. Six days later, on 14th November, with Father Francis and her sister May at her bedside in the cottage, she died. Nine years after her death, Ronald wrote:

My own dear mother was a martyr indeed, and it is not to everybody that God grants so easy a way to his great gifts as he did to Hilary and myself, giving us a mother who killed herself with labour and trouble to ensure us keeping the faith.

It gives some indication of the way he associated her with his membership in the Catholic Church. Indeed, it might be said that after she died, his religion took its place in the affections that she had previously occupied. The consolidation that it provided was both emotional and spiritual. Perhaps her death also had a cementing effect on his study of languages. It was she, after all, who had been his first teacher and had encouraged him to take an interest in words. Now that she was gone, he would pursue that path relentlessly. Indeed, the loss of his mother profoundly affected his personality. It made him into a pessimist, or rather it split his personality. By nature, he was a cheerful, almost irrepressible person with a great zest for life. He loved good conversation and physical activity. He had a deep sense of humour and an excellent capacity for making friends. But from this point on, there was to be another side to his personality, more private but predominant in his diaries and letters. This side of his mind was capable of bouts of profound despair. More precisely, when he was in this mood, he had a deep sense of impending loss, rather like his Sarehole dreams of a great wave. Nothing felt safe, nothing would last, and no battle would be won forever.

Mabel Tolkien was buried in the Catholic churchyard at Bromsgrove. Over her grave, Father Morgan placed a stone cross of the same design used for each of the Oratory clergy in their Rednal cemetery. Mabel had appointed him to be the guardian of the two boys in her will, which proved a wise choice, for he displayed unfailing generosity and fatherly affection to them. His generosity took a practical form, for he had a private income from his Anglo-Spanish family’s sherry business. Since, as an Oratorian, he was not obliged to surrender his property to the community, he could use this money for his own purposes. Mabel had left only eight hundred pounds of invested capital to support the boys. Still, Father Francis quietly augmented this from his pocket and ensured that Ronald and Hilary did not go short of anything essential to their well-being.

An Edgbaston Interlude, 1904-08:

Immediately after their mother’s death, the priest had to find somewhere new for them to live together: a tricky problem, for while ideally they should be placed with their own closest relatives, there was a danger that the Suffield or Tolkien aunts and uncles would try to move them away from the control of the Catholic Church. There had already been some talk about contesting Mabel’s will and sending the boys to a Protestant boarding school. However, one relative, an aunt by marriage, had no particularly strong religious views and had rooms to let. She lived in Edgbaston near the Oratory, and Father Francis decided that her house would be as good a home as any for the moment, at least. So a few weeks after their mother’s death, Ronald and Hilary (now thirteen and eleven) moved into their aunt’s top-floor bedroom. Her name was Beatrice Suffield, and she lived in a dark house in Stirling Road, a long side street in the district of Edgbaston.

The boys had a large room to themselves, and Hilary was happy leaning out the window. But Ronald was still numb from grief at his mother’s death and hated the view of the unbroken rooftops and factory chimneys beyond. The countryside was just visible in the distance, but it now belonged, in Ronald’s imagination, to a remote past that could no longer be regained. He felt trapped in the city, severed from the open air, the Lickey Hills, and the Rednal cottage where they had been so happy with their mother. Because her death had taken him away from all these beloved things, he came to associate them with her. His feelings towards the rural landscape, already sharpened by the earlier severance from Sarehole, now became charged with personal bereavement. These recollections of the countryside of his childhood and youth later became a central part of his writing, intimately bound up with his love for the memory of his mother.

Whilst living in Edgbaston, Ronald Tolkien would have been familiar with two distinctive landmarks. The extraordinary 96ft. Perrott’s Folly is named after John Perrott, who had it built in 1758. The crenellated Gothic tower was originally part of a hunting lodge. In the 19th century, it became one of the first weather recording stations in the country. Along the road at Edgbaston Waterworks stands a later Victorian chimney tower. The tower was part of a complex of buildings designed by J H Chamberlain and William Martin around 1870. The pair of towers, visible from Aunt Beatrice’s home in Stirling Road, is said to have suggested ‘Minas Morgul’ and ‘Minas Tirith’, the Two Towers of Gondor, after which the second part of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is named.

The brothers lived in Stirling Road between 1904 and 1908. Aunt Beatrice gave Ronald and Hilary board and lodging but not much more. She had been recently widowed and was childless and poorly off. Sadly, she was also deficient in affection and showed little understanding of the boys’ mental and emotional states. One day, Ronald came into the kitchen, saw a pile of ashes in the grate, and discovered that she had burnt all his mother’s personal papers and letters. She had never considered that he might wish to keep them. Fortunately, the Oratory was near, and it soon became the boys’ real home. Early in the morning, they would serve mass for Father Morgan at his favourite side-altar. They would then eat breakfast in the refectory before setting off for school. Hilary had passed his entrance examination and was now at King Edward’s, and the two boys would walk together down New Street if there was time or take a horse-drawn tram if the clock at Five Ways showed that they were running late.

Studies in Old English & Middle English:

Ronald made many friends at school, and one boy in particular soon became an inseparable companion. A year younger than John Ronald, as he was known to these friends, Christopher Wiseman was the son of a Wesleyan minister living in Edgbaston. The two boys met in the Fifth Class in the autumn of 1905, Tolkien achieving first place in the class and Wiseman coming second. Their rivalry soon became a friendship based on a shared interest in Latin and Greek, a great delight in Rugby Football and an enthusiasm for discussing anything and everything. Wiseman was a staunch Methodist, but the two boys found that they could also discuss religion without bitterness. Together they moved up the school. The study of Latin and Greek was the backbone of the curriculum, and Tolkien demonstrated a natural aptitude for these. They were taught particularly well in the First (or Senior) Class, which Ronald reached shortly before his sixteenth birthday. By then, he was also developing an interest in the general principles of language. It was one thing to understand Latin, Greek, French and German, but quite another to know why they were what they were. Tolkien had begun to look for the elements that were common to them all: he had begun, in fact, to study philology, the science of words. He was encouraged to do even more when he became acquainted with Old English and Middle English.

Under George Brewerton’s tuition, Ronald Tolkien had shown an interest in Chaucerian literature. Brewerton was pleased by this and offered to lend Ronald an Anglo-Saxon primer, an offer which was eagerly accepted. Opening its covers, Tolkien found himself face to face with the language spoken by the English before the first Normans set foot in their land. Anglo-Saxon, also called Old English, was familiar and recognisable to him as an antecedent of his own language and, at the same time, was remote and obscure. In fact, Old English was the language of the Anglo-Saxon period, up to about 1150, after the Norman Conquest. Our knowledge of it is based on a few manuscripts that survive from the time, from which the grammar and vocabulary have been reconstructed by scholars, from the sixteenth century onwards, but mainly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The English were not a politically unified nation until late OE times, and they came from different parts of western Europe and spoke various dialects of West Germanic.

They settled in different parts of what became England and Scotland. Still, they were able to communicate with each other since dialects are varieties of language which differ in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar but are not different enough to prevent understanding. The country settled by the English from the sixth to the eighth centuries is sometimes referred to as the heptarchy since it had seven kingdoms, the most powerful of which were, in turn, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex. However, the fact that there were seven kingdoms did not mean that there were seven dialects. The evidence of the manuscripts suggests that there were three or four: Northumbrian and Mercian (developing from West Germanic ‘Anglian’), Kentish and West Saxon (originating from ‘Jutish’ and ‘Saxon’). It is usual to use the late West Saxon dialect to describe ‘Old English’ because, by the tenth century, it was a standard written form, and most surviving manuscripts were written in West Saxon.

The primer Brewerton lent to Tolkien explained the language in words that he could easily understand, and he was soon making light work of translating the prose examples at the back of the book. He found that Old English appealed to him, though it did not have the same aesthetic charm as Old Welsh. This was somewhat a historical appeal, the attraction of studying the ancestors of his own language. He began to find real excitement when he progressed beyond the simple passages in the primer and turned to the great Old English poem of Beowulf. Reading this first in a translation and then in the original language, he found it to be one of the most extraordinary poems he had ever read: the tale of the warrior Beowulf, his fight with two monsters, and his death after a battle with a dragon. The facsimile below is of the beginning of the manuscript poem:

The extract below is from a translation by Sam Newton (2003) in which a ship-burial, thought to be like the one uncovered at Sutton Hoo in Suffolk, is described in the poem:

After discovering Beowulf, Tolkien returned to Middle English and found Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. This was another poem to fire his imagination: the medieval tale of an Arthurian knight and his search for the mysterious giant who is to deal him a terrible axe blow. Tolkien was delighted by the poem, especially its language, for he realised that its dialect was approximately that which had been spoken by his mother’s West Midland ancestors. In the Anglo-Saxon incursions and settlements of Britain, the Angles occupied the Midlands, the North and what is now southern Scotland. The general term Anglian is used to describe their dialect of Old English (OE). Still, its northern and southern varieties were different enough for two dialects to be recognised: Northumbrian (north of the Humber) and Mercian (south of the Humber). During the Middle English (ME) period, the Mercian (Midlands) dialects developed differently. The East Midlands was part of the Danelaw, the area settled by Scandinavians or Norsemen and under Danish law throughout much of the ninth century, but the West Midlands was not. So the dialect of the East Midlands came under the influence of the Danish Old Norse (ON) speakers, while Old English Mercian became two ME dialects: East Midlands and West Midlands. The following two texts from the fourteenth-century poem Piers Plowman illustrate the West Midlands dialect. However, scholars have placed the dialect as being from the area covered today by Cheshire or south Lancashire rather than Warwickshire or Worcestershire.

Sir Gawain and The Green Knight is a romance in alliterative verse which tells the story of the legendary court of King Arthur. The one surviving manuscript was probably written towards the end of the fourteenth century. The author’s name is not known. The poem is written in 101 stanzas with varying unrhymed alliterative lines followed by five short rhymed lines. Like in all OE and ME poetry, it was written to be read aloud to an audience. Although it was contemporary with Chaucer’s writing, it is more difficult for the modern reader than a comparable stanza of Chaucer’s writing, partly because some vocabulary is from a stock of words which came down into modern English spoken dialects but not into written Standard English. The story of the poem is that during the New Year celebrations at King Arthur’s court, a Green Knight rides in, carrying a battle-axe and challenges any knight to strike him a blow with the axe, provided that he can strike a return blow a year and a day later. Gawain takes up the challenge:

The following stanza of the poem tells what happened when Gawain took up the Green Knight’s challenge to strike a blow with the axe.

Piers Plowman is one of the most famous poems in Middle English. It must have been a very popular work because over fifty manuscripts have survived. The poem is an allegory of the Christian life and the corruption of the contemporary church and society, written in the form of a series of dreams or ‘visions’. The following text is from the ‘Prologue,’ in which the writer dreams of a fair field full of folk, the world of contemporary society.

Piers Plowman is a humble poor West Midland labourer who stands for the ideal life of honest work and obedience to the church. The author was William Langland, but nothing is known about him apart from what can be inferred from the text of the poem. However, the reader must remember that the ‘dreamer’ of the visions is a character in the story and may not always be identified with the author. There are three versions of the poem, the A, B and C texts, which show that Langland constantly revised and extended the verse from the 1360s until the 1380s when the C-text was completed. Of course, the printed text is edited based on one of the C-text manuscripts but uses other manuscript readings or makes changes where the manuscript does not make good sense. Some modern punctuation has also been added, so we are not reading the exact form of the original manuscript. Nevertheless, it is a fine fourteenth-century example of the tradition of alliterative verse in English. The dialect is (south) West Midland ‘but rather mixed’, the dialect that Tolkien took to be that of his ancestors. But the fifty manuscripts and successive text versions also have many variant spellings. As a result, the editors of modern versions have to choose from the available alternatives. In addition, the manuscripts used by the editor are copies, not the original.

Text 45 (below) is a facsimile of an extract from one of the C-text manuscripts. In the first line, which can be described as What is parfit patience: quod Actiua uita, a question is put to Patience by Activa Vita (Active Life). They are allegorical characters in the poem. Piers Plowman is seeking how to live a good life, and the next Passus (section) describes the life of ‘Dowel’ – that is, how to do well.

Typical grammatical markers of ME West Midlands dialects, variants from OE, include:

Tolkien began to explore further in Middle English and read the Pearl, an allegorical poem about a dead child, believed to have been written by the author of Sir Gawain. Then he turned to Old Norse, reading line by line in the original words the story of Sigurd and the dragon Fafnir that had fascinated him in Andrew Lang’s Red Fairy Book when he was a small child. By this time, he had acquired a range of linguistic knowledge and awareness that was remarkable for a schoolboy. He continued his search for the ‘bones’ of all these languages, rummaging in the ‘Philology’ sections of the school library and the nearby bookshop. It was not an arid interest in the scientific principles of language; it was a deep love for the look and sound of words, springing from the days of his mother’s first Latin lessons.

From Middle England to Middle-earth:
A blue plaque on the Birmingham Repertory Theatre commemorates Dr J Sampson Gamgee, founder of the Birmingham Hospital Saturday fund. ‘Gamgee tissue’ was the local name for cotton wool, and the surgeon’s widow lived opposite Aunt Beatrice’s house in Stirling Road, so Ronald Tolkien would have been very familiar with the name, though unconscious of its origins when he used it for Frodo’s faithful companion in his book.

To be continued (for sources, see part two)…

Gallery:
Featured

Orbán & Fidesz versus Soros, et. al: Whose Values? -The Continuing Confrontation.

Extract from a Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the 31st Bálványos Summer Free University and Student Camp, 23 July 2022, Tusnádfürdő [Băile Tuşnad]:

We have managed to separate our big debate on the whole gender issue from the debate on EU money, and the two are now moving forward on separate tracks. Here too, our position is simple. We are asking for another offer of tolerance: we do not want to tell them how they should live; we are just asking them to accept that in our country a father is a man and a mother is a woman, and that they leave our children alone.

And we ask them to see to it that George Soros’s army also accepts this. It is important for people in the West to understand that in Hungary and in this part of the world this is not an ideological question, but quite simply the most important question in life. In this corner of the world there will never be a majority in favour of the Western lunacy – my apologies to everyone – that is being played out over there.

Since November 2017, Diana Senechal has taught English, American and British Civilization at Varga Katalin Gimnázium in Szolnok, Hungary. From 2011 to 2016, she helped shape and guide the philosophy program at Columbia Secondary School for Math, Science & Engineering in New York City. In her recent weblog post, she clarified and summarised Orbán’s rather tangled statements while at the same time challenging the more extreme views put forward in his speech:

Moreover, the West itself, through ethnic mixing and other changes applauded and abetted by the international Left (including the “troops of Soros”), has turned into something that could be called the Post-West. In fact, the “true West” now exists in Central Europe alone; the rest has become the Post-West. 

As for the family, it is already changing in Hungary, with no help from “Soros troops.” Many young people in Hungary—by which I mean people in their late teens through early thirties—yearn for a more open and flexible way of living. Not all women want to be housewives. Not all men want to be served by their wives. They (women and men) want partnerships, cameraderie, friendship, shared interests, joint projects. Some might not want to marry. And many (though not all) young people, whether heterosexual or otherwise, believe that gay people should be accepted and treated with dignity. Young people have a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, feelings on these issues, but they see that this range exists. Orbán denies this range by asserting the existence of a single Hungarian view. A generation or two ago, that might have been more true. But not now. Hungary is far more diverse (ideologically, personally, even ethnically) than Orbán recognizes.

But he resolves this by writing off the Hungarians who don’t fit his model. Apparently, in his view such people are international leftists, “Soros troops”, etc., not true Hungarians. They are not even true Westerners! The true spiritual West, according to Orbán, lives only in those who will defend the Hungarian peoples from the encroachments of the surrounding world. As proof that he represents the true Hungarian view, he would likely cite the fact that the Hungarian people keep voting for Fidesz. But this conceals a more complex situation: Fidesz itself is not monolithic, and not everyone who votes for Fidesz does so enthusiastically, in full agreement with its official ideology. (Never mind gerrymandering, media bias, etc.)

Diana Senechal (2022); see ‘sources’ below.
A Postcard from Multi-Cultural Birmingham:

I had just started a fortnight’s holiday when I read about this speech and thought it even more twisted than his previous pontifications from Transylvania. As usual, he shows his ignorance of ‘Western’ history and culture. Back in the UK for the first time in three years, watching the Commonwealth Games, it’s great to see how my home city of Birmingham is welcoming the world. I’ve never been prouder of its multicultural heritage and traditions and refuse to be branded as one of ‘Soros’s troops.’ I had my own motivations for coming to live and work in Hungary in 1990. At that time, I was only vaguely aware of who George Soros was, mainly in connection with his speculation against the pound in the early 1990s.

Opening up Central-Eastern Europe in the Eighties:

By the 1980s, both the liberal and nationalist oppositions to communist rule in Hungary had established links with the leaders of Hungarian minorities abroad and drew encouragement and support from Hungarian emigrés in the West. The New York-based Open Society Foundation was launched by the American businessman George Soros in 1982 and opened a legal office in Budapest in 1987. Since 2010, he has become “public enemy number one” in Hungary, so I became interested in a collection of essays about him published by the Harvard Business Review a few months ago. In his introduction to these, Peter Osnos explains how, over the years, Soros became a primary nemesis to the global extreme Right, which deployed a mix of conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic tropes to discredit his activities on behalf of progressive causes and civil society. Osnos points out that:

The bizarre notion that he is mastermind of everything the right-wingers around the world reject is nonsense.

Bizarre or not, these theories led to a bomb being placed in the mailbox outside his home in Bedford, New York. Yet Soros has displayed extraordinary equanimity in almost every way. What did bother him was that in his homeland, the autocratic leader Viktor Orbán, who, in 1989, had studied at Oxford as a Soros-funded fellowship scholar, made him the nemesis of his nativist political strategy. Orbán’s values have always been those of the village pump! Soros’ values came from his unique heritage: the influence of his father, Tivadar, in the war years was a basis for his own daring and risk-taking in finance and in life generally.

The ‘Young liberal-communist’ in 1989.
Orbán, the ‘player’ with his eyes on ‘the game’ in 1990.

By early 1989, however, the tectonic plates in Europe had begun to shift. The Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had unleashed perestroika and glasnost but was soon losing control of the Soviet state apparatus and of public opinion in his empire. In Hungary, the régime was losing its capacity to create fear and buy off discontent. A steady stream of samizdat publications, concerts, dance performances, and seminars started a ferment the Communist Party central committee proved incapable of controlling. In the summer of 1989, the young dissident Viktor Orbán made a dramatic public speech at the public reinternment of Imre Nagy, calling for the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Shortly afterwards, Soros funded a scholarship for Orbán to spend a semester at Oxford. Meanwhile, the talk was beginning to circulate, both in the Hungarian Foundation and in the Inter-University seminar which had met at Dubrovnik in March, about the setting up of a new university.

in the autumn of 1989, as Zsuzsanna Szelényi has recently reminded us in her book Tainted Democracy, things were on the move all over Eastern Europe. On 9th November, the Berlin Wall came down and the whole edifice of the Soviet empire crumbled before our eyes. At that point, Orbán was just starting his sojourn in Oxford, studying political philosophy. I cannot help thinking that had he stayed there for at least a term or a semester, he might have learnt more than he obviously did about the philosophic basis of western European ‘liberal democracy’. But in December, he returned to Hungary, eager not to miss out on standing in the first free elections for forty years, due to take place the following April. Szelényi has recalled that of all of us, Orbán was the most decisive in preparing for his role in politics. Writing in 2001, a fellow former Fidesz friend also remembered his words at the time:

Then Viktor said something to the effect that a man should want to be the best at what he does. If he chooses science, he should want to be the most outstanding scientist; if he chooses politics, he should become prime minister.

György Petőcz, ed. (2001), This was just the orange (Hungarian), Budapest: Irodalom Publishers, p.121.

At the dawn of the régime change, when most twenty-somethings were just beginning to contemplate a role in politics, Orbán was already gearing up for the highest office. Nonetheless, at that point, there were several other leading personalities in Fidesz.

Meanwhile, Soros remained sceptical and cautious, believing, to use a phrase of Popper’s, that “piecemeal social engineering was the most effective way to make the change.” Young dissidents like the historian István Rév warned him that the Academy of Sciences only to maintain its privileged position, but Soros stuck with the collaboration, believing that he should work with existing institutions. Historian László Kontler, then a young instructor who attended the 1989 Dubrovnik meetings, remembers that while the creation of a university was on the agenda, no one realised how quickly events were moving in the region. The talk was not, he recalled, about the transition from communism but how to support a university curriculum that would “undermine the credibility of Soviet ideology.”

A Kick up the Nineties – Another Prague Spring:

The fall of the Berlin Wall accelerated the plans and discussions about the new university. The question ceased to be whether there should be a new international university but when it should start and where. On the latter question, there was only one answer as far as the Hungarian intellectuals were concerned: Budapest. But there were also meetings at the university, where Soros secured a promise from the new Czechoslovak PM, a former dissident, that the university could have a lease on a trade union building in Prague. That seemed to settle the question of location, but Soros still hesitated, and he continued to do so throughout 1990. Meanwhile, Fidesz became a genuine electoral team, working together in an astonishingly positive mood, according to Szelényi. On 25th March they learned that they had won nine per cent of the votes cast in the general election, and thereby gained entry to the National Assembly.

For weeks, they were in a state of elation, looking forward to new lives. Twenty-two of them entered as Members of Parliament. They elected Orbán as the leader of their group and, since the nascent party was still small, he also became the party leader. By this time his name was the most familiar of them, and he had undoubted skills in organising and debating, which would be badly needed in Parliamentary disputations. His leading role soon became visible at the helm of the group, both in the management of day-to-day matters and in directing longer-term policies and strategies. His constant football metaphors and gestures made this male-dominated group even more macho, however, alienating its few female members. Besides Zsuzsanna Szelényi, there was only one other woman among the twenty-three MPs, Klára Ungár, an economist. Yet in the first two years of the Parliament, Fidesz’s principles were clearly and consistently liberal. They believed firmly in constitutional democracy and human rights while calling the previous régime to account, as well as advocating compensation for all assets seized by the communists. The Party’s economic programme stated:

At the centre of our thinking is the individual, the human with free will, not some community of people, some social group, class, or the entire so-called nation.

András Bozóki, Carte Blanche, p. 608.

This philosophy was very far removed from the collectivist narrative that Fidesz adopted later under Orbán. In 1992 the party joined the Liberal International, its leader – Otto Graf Lambsdorff, president of the Free Democratic Party in Germany, became Orbán’s mentor, and drew him into the European liberal circuit. It was also during this period that I remember Charles Kennedy, later leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK Parliament, visiting Budapest to develop links with the liberal left in Hungary. I met him and a group of Young Liberals at Ferihegy airport where they quizzed me about Fidesz, the SZDSZ and the general political situation in Hungary. At the time I remember my view as being one of cautious optimism, though it was still difficult to identify which party was the most liberal of them all. Very early on, László Kövér had expressed the view that the SZDSZ represented an existential threat to Fidesz, and that the latter’s most important goal should be to distance itself from the other ‘liberal party’. He told his Fidesz colleagues that the greatest political opponent is always the one who is closest to you and drew a distinction between Fidesz as a party of the provinces and the SZDSZ as consisting of metropolitan intellectuals. Gradually, the supporters of a liberal centrist strategy became a marginalised minority.

The reputation and popularity of Fidesz continued to grow within Hungary after the April 1990 elections. Six months later, at the municipal elections in the autumn of 1990, several hundred of the party’s candidates won seats across the country, in both rural and urban areas. Despite the increasingly hostile mood within the party and the autocratic tendencies displayed in internal meetings by Orbán and Kövér, Fidesz’s popularity among the electorate climbed unchecked, and in December 1992 it was polling at over thirty per cent.

Soros, meanwhile, still vacillated over the creation of an international university for Central Europe, sometimes thinking he should invest in existing universities, sometimes believing he needed partners to help him finance a new university. But, slowly, he realised that if he wanted to start a new university, he would have to do so with his money alone. In December 1990, at a meeting in Oxford, he finally told the assembled Czech, Polish, British and Hungarian academics that he would fund the foundation of a new university that would open in Prague in the Spring of 1991. Michael Ignatieff, a recent rector, has written of how Soros’ mind suddenly shifted into a higher gear:

Once he made up his mind, his instincts were radical. Once established in Prague, the university should also have campuses in Warsaw and Budapest. For him, it was evident that Central Europe had a common culture and history and should have a university to reflect that identity. … as time went on, the fragmentation of Central Europe became ever more evident, but in this bright and hopeful moment of transition, it still seemed possible to have a university in three capitals in the region.

Ignatieff in Osnos (ed.), p. 167.

In thinking about what kind of university the region needed, Soros reasoned that in a time of change, it needed experts in transition: lawyers to write constitutions, more lawyers to privatize state companies, economists to figure out how to unleash the disciplines of a price system on a socialist command economy, political scientists to assist in the creation of free political parties. As Ignatieff has further commented,

Founding a university to change the course of history meant training a new élite to take the place of the discredited and bankrupt communist cadres in government offices, factories research institutes and social institutions. The focus of the education offered should be practical, vocational, and policy-orientated. Soros was enamoured of intellectuals, but he was even more enamoured of ‘doers’. … What the region needed, in other words, was a ‘trade school for transition,’ a place that would train a new élite to manage the shift away from communism…

But that’s not how things turned out … Instead of a training school, the institution George Soros got for his money was… a highly academic graduate school in the social sciences and humanities. … Little by little history and the humanities made their way into the curriculum of Central European University. For someone who thought he was making history happen, for someone whose success with money taught him his instincts were nearly always right, the largest surprise about the university’s founding is that Soros listened and learned.

Ignatieff in Osnos, pp. 168-69.

János Kis credits Soros with listening but also ascribes this willingness to listen to his deep motivations:

“It is true that George imagined CEU as a trade school for the transition to democracy. But this is not a complete account of what he had in mind. He also wanted CEU to be the lighthouse of the liberal thought in the region. … So George’s commitment to liberal values, including the value of open society, was a driving force moving CEU away from his other ideal, a trade school for practitians, and in the direction of a graduate school in social sciences and the humanities.”

Quoted by Ignattieff in Osnos (ed.), p. 169.

Once Soros gave the go-ahead in December 1990, founding the university in the space of just nine months was an almost inconceivable undertaking. At any other time, it would have been absurd to try, but in the euphoria and state of high energy released by the collapse of the Soviet empire, anything seemed possible. By September 1991, Central European University opened for classes in the trade union building in Prague. The Budapest programmes started with legal studies, history, and environmental sciences and developed with political science and international relations. Soros committed $5 million a year to the CEU. The new governments in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland were reluctant to subsidise what they characterised as an American billionaire’s vanity project. An appeal to wealthy private sponsors in the UK and Europe met with a similar reaction. It began to dawn on Soros that if the university was to survive, it would be with his money alone.

Viktor Orbán with Gábor Fodor, pre-1994.

In 1993, Fidesz finally decided to elect its party leader independently of the choice of leader of the parliamentary group. But Orbán was the only candidate, and the mood at the congress in February 1993 became increasingly tense when Orbán insisted that his divisive ally, László Kővér, should also become his successor as leader of the parliamentary group. He also submitted new statutes of association for the party, which gave its leader very strong powers. Once elected as party leader, Orbán quickly centralised the use of financial resources, decision-making and the distribution of positions. Debates within the parliamentary revealed a harshness that would previously have been unthinkable, and a bullying style of leadership became the norm. The humiliating and degrading language that went with this style was used openly, especially towards Gábor Fodor (pictured above), the key representative of the moderate liberals within the group. ‘Orbán’s people’ compiled dossiers on members of the group in a clear effort to intimidate them.

Orbán then announced a ‘change of direction’ later that year, defining the party as a ‘national liberal’ party. By that time the governing conservative coalition had become incredibly unpopular, and when Prime Minister József Antall died, it was thrown into confusion. In this context, it was difficult to understand why Orbán, instead of agitating against the conservative governing parties, unexpectedly set upon the Socialist Party (MSZP). This strategy, which placed Fidesz alongside the failed right-war parties, was utterly counterproductive and was at odds with the fact that Fidesz had made a pact with the SZDSZ ahead of the 1994 elections. The SZDSZ was cooperating with the MSZP, fearing a rise of the far right. The increasing polarisation between the left-liberal and conservative forces led to intense and often bitter conflicts within Fidesz. In this toxic environment, in May 1993 it emerged that Orbán was making secret deals with MDF (Democratic Forum) politicians without the knowledge of the Fidesz leadership as a whole and that the party had invested hundreds of millions of forints in the businesses of Orbán’s childhood friend and financial advisor, Lajos Simicska. It soon became clear that the leader’s power was dependent on his having people in the leadership who were loyal to him and would not obstruct his use of party funds.

In an attempt to counterbalance Orbán’s growing dominance, Gábor Fodor made a last-ditch effort to secure the chairmanship of the National Council, the second most important position within the party. But in a carefully orchestrated session at the congress, Orbán’s candidate defeated Fodor, who left the party a few weeks later to join the SZDSZ. No one could now stop Orbán running his vitriolic anti-communist campaign. The party that in 1990 had entered Hungarian pluralistic politics by virtue of its ‘innocence’, and that three years later was preparing to be in government, polling at over thirty per cent of the popular vote, gained only seven per cent of the vote in the 1994 elections, less than that gained in 1990. Orbán resigned as party chairman, but there was now no one who could replace him, and he was re-elected as party leader in June 1994. He retained the assets acquired from party funds and entrenched his supporters at the helm of the party leadership. Others, including Zsuzsanna Szelényi and István Hegedűs, left what had now become an illiberal, autocratic, right-wing party.

The Re-emergence of Anti-Semitism & The Far Right:

The Central European University grew rapidly throughout the 1990s. Students were flooding in from all parts of Central and Eastern Europe and from Central Asia. At the same time in Hungary, the dissident political movement of 1989 was replaced by the darker, resurgent forces of nationalism and authoritarianism. This was accompanied, here and there, by a deep current of right-wing anti-Semitism. A disgruntled right-wing Hungarian dissident, István Csurka, wrote an anti-Semitic attack on Soros and the CEU in 1993, describing him and other Western liberals as ‘termites’ undermining the foundations of the Hungarian nation. At the time, it was easy to dismiss Csurka as a radical outlier, but since then, such vitriolic views have been shared by more ‘mainstream’ Magyar politicians. By the end of the century, the politics of the Central European countries had become resolutely nationalist, and the overall regional identity was relatively weak. The university still called itself Central European, but by the late 1990s, it had become a Hungarian institution with US accreditation. Soros secured a magnificent former palace in the heart of downtown Pest that became the university’s home.

But while he was increasingly excited by the institution taking shape, Soros was also immune to the euphoric illusion that the liberal democratic transition was irreversible. On the contrary, he was fiercely critical of the failure of the Americans and Western Europeans to grasp how epoch-making the collapse of the USSR had been and how fragile the prospects for democracy really were, even in America. Soros became disillusioned by how few governments and foundations followed his lead. As he watched the West missing its chance to link the former Soviet empire to itself and its democratic ideals, as Former Yugoslavia descended into a downward spiral of violence, his public commentary on the region became even darker. In testimony before the US House of Representatives in 1994, he said:

“When I embarked on my project, I was planning on a short-term campaign to seize the revolutionary moment and to provide an example that would be followed by the more slowly moving, more cumbersome institutions of our open societies. But I was sadly mistaken. Now I must think in biblical terms – forty years in the wilderness.”

George Soros, quoted by Ignatieff in Osnos (ed.), pp. 175-76.

From the late 1990s, Fidez militantly supported and reinforced the right-wing élite, convinced that the cultural élite still consisted of a majority of liberal, left-wing figures. Fidesz’s founding generation had entered politics at a transformative moment in Hungary’s history. Being in power and in government from 1998 created the idea that Fidesz was destined to lead Hungary into the twenty-first century. For its leaders, this meant that politics was not just their profession, but their destiny. Orbán’s self-image as a chosen leader and his tenacious personality weighed decisively on how the party was transformed over the decades. Far beyond Fidesz, he built a political tribe that considered him a hero and still does.

Yet before Fidesz’s first advent to power in 1998, Soros’s Central European University was enjoying considerable success. From an enrolment of seventy-six in 1991, CEU was taking in 674 students by 1998. At first, CEU was an attractive option for students in the region, especially since Soros was paying full scholarships. Many of these students then completed doctorates at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Stanford. Instead of training an élite who would stay in the region and lead it forward, CEU became a means of exiting it altogether.

At the same time, demographic growth in the Central European region was faltering, and the number of young people eligible for graduate education began to decline. A university founded to create a transition élite in the region was slowly losing its core student population from the region. In its place, CEU began recruiting worldwide. Whereas in 1991, it recruited students exclusively from the twenty-seven countries of the former Soviet bloc, by 2000, it was recruiting from the USA, the UK, and Western Europe, and after 2010 from Africa, Asia and Latin America. By 2020, it was recruiting students from 120 countries. The CEU story, therefore, is about unintended consequences, which did not surprise its founder. It is no coincidence that the following quotation is displayed in the CEU building in Budapest:

“Reality has the power to surprise thinking and thinking has the power to create reality. But we must remember the unintended consequences – the outcome always differs from expectations.”

Quoted by Ignatieff in Osnos (ed.), p. 177.
Into the New Millennium – A ‘Conservative’ Counter-Revolution:

By the early 2000s, politicians like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland, Vladimir Meciar in Slovakia and Václav Klaus in the Czech Republic were lining up together to accuse the liberal transition élite of weakening national culture and protecting the former communist élite. Dissidents who had been in prison or under surveillance before 1989 were now attacked for being insufficiently anti-communist. Still, the attacks worked, partly because the ‘conservatives’ were more successful than the liberals in building up their support in ‘civil society’: in the churches, small-town professionals and village dwellers who had known stability under the communist régime. These ‘conservative’ social groups now looked at the depopulation of villages with alarm. They vehemently opposed the sale of public lands and properties to a wave of private and foreign speculators. The liberal élite had laid the foundations for a new Central-Eastern Europe: they had written the constitutions, privatised the state companies, created the new commercial law for the capitalist economy and prepared the post-communist states for entry into the EU. But in the process, these changes had cost them the support of voters, who gravitated towards right-wing parties better positioned to exploit their anxieties about identity, community, and religious faith.

Slowly, in Hungary, it became apparent that the Fidesz victory of 1998 represented a sea change in the direction of the transition itself. Creating a new liberal transition élite had been Soros’s explicit strategy. Still, the problem was that this new élite, drawn from the former dissidents, had been too small to lead a successful transition, let alone the kind of social transformation that Orbán and Fidesz had been planning in opposition. To succeed, the liberal dissidents would have to have made common cause with members of the former ‘reform’ communist élite, who had rebranded themselves as ‘socialists’. For the transition to succeed, this alliance between the socialists and liberal democratic parties entailed many compromises which were especially distasteful to the latter, involving agreements not to prosecute former police informers and security apparatus members. These compromises doomed both the socialists and liberals alike. The new élite of the transition was also tarnished by the radical economic disruption of the transition itself, which created a political opening to the right throughout Central-Eastern Europe.

Joining the European Union – The Era of Euro-Atlantic Integration:

By the time Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Croatia and the Czech Republic joined the European Union in 2004, Soros could have been forgiven for believing that his investment in transition had paid off. All these countries had been stabilised by the powerful incentives of the Euro-Atlantic integration process. The expectation was that, once inside the Union, the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, together with the European Court of Justice, would exert a transnational regulatory role, ensuring that these countries remained on the democratic path. Guided by this expectation, the Open Society Foundations began scaling back its investments in the Balkans and Central Europe. Its attention shifted to other regions of the world, particularly to the foundation’s work in the United States and South Africa.

In the USA, over time, Soros was able to change the terms of the debate over social reform and helped enact policy and elect new leadership that made a real difference for millions caught up in the overcriminalization of America. While Soros has fostered these deeper trends, making investments in structures and collaborations that have outlasted campaign cycles in a political world famously addicted to short-termism, he has also played an outsized role in the political careers of young leaders of colour like Barack Obama and Stacey Abrams. They have changed the face of American politics. Soros has played a leading role in the transformation of progressive politics and in the transitions to democracy in numerous countries on virtually every continent.

While the CEU continued to grow, the political climate in Hungary continued to darken. After Hungary joined the European Union in 2004, thousands of Hungarians had taken out mortgages with Western banks denominated in euros. When the financial crisis hit in 2007-08, they suddenly found themselves underwater, and the government struggled to offer any help. Public finances collapsed. In 2010 the socialist government was swept from power, and the Fidesz Party, led by Viktor Orbán, came into office. Orbán had already served one term as PM between 1998 and 2002, preparing the country for EU entry. But after he was turned out of office, he was stung by his defeat and vowed, in a famous speech, that never again would ‘the Hungarian nation’ be in opposition. The faculty at the CEU had never heard this kind of rhetoric before, especially the idea that Fidesz was the incarnation of the nation.

During his time out of office, Orbán built a broad ‘civil society’ movement of the right, largely based in the Hungarian churches, and developed an ideology with deep roots in the small towns and rural areas: hostile to ‘Western’ condescension, assertive of Hungarian pride and language. Once in power, the new Fidesz government rewrote the constitution, slapped down the liberal media, and set about exerting party control over the Supreme Court and other vital institutions. From the beginning, the CEU’s professors joined with the liberal media in analyzing and denouncing these trends. The hope at the time was that the university could ride out the radical shift in the political climate.

The Migration Crisis of 2015 & its Political Aftermath:

Above: Refugees are helped by volunteers as they arrive in the EU on the Greek island of Lesbos.
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor at the time of the Crisis.

Then, late in August and early September 2015, the migration crisis broke into Europe and shattered the uneasy truce between Orbán and the European Union. A million Syrian refugees left their camps in Turkey and flooded across the Aegean into Greece, then turned northwards through the Balkans and into Hungary from Serbia, eager to take advantage of Angela Merkel’s call to give them a home in Germany.

Orbán tried at first to hold the line and then opened the border. Migrants engulfed trains at Budapest’s main railway stations, heading towards Austria and Germany.

Orbán’s poll numbers had been languishing that summer, but he quickly seized the political opportunity that had been handed to him, and he became Merkel’s most vituperative opponent and an even more strident critic of Muslim immigration and the supposed threat it posed to ‘European civilization.’ Soros was among Orbán’s most determined critics. As a Holocaust survivor, an immigrant, and an American citizen, he believed that Europe should respond with generosity to the plight of the Syrian refugees fleeing civil war in their home country. In editorials, he urged Europe to give the refugees homes. From the CEU, students and faculty went to help the refugees camped at the border and in the railway stations of the capital. Students brought plugs to charge refugee phones, food, water, and maps to guide them to safety in Germany. For their ‘pains’, the Orbán government accused them of ‘people-smuggling’.

A solid two-thirds of Hungarians polled during this period felt that the government was doing the right thing in criticising the idea of quotas of refugees issued from Brussels or Berlin. Soros disagreed, however, and was said to have spent considerable sums during 2015 on pressure groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) making a case for open borders and the free movement of migrants into and around Europe. As well as a website called ‘Welcome2EU’, the Open Society Foundation published leaflets informing migrants of what to do. These told them of their human rights in Europe and what the authorities could and could not do, especially at the borders, as the Orbán régime’s controls tightened. In October 2015, Orbán criticised the Central European University’s circle of activists who support anything that threatened nation-states. In an email to Bloomberg, Soros said that his university was seeking to uphold European values while Orbán’s government sought to undermine those values. He went on to say of Orbán’s policy:

His plan treats the the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.

‘Orbán accuses Soros of stoking refugee wave to weaken Europe,’ Bloomberg, 30 October 2015.

The dialogue between the two men ceased almost before it had properly begun. After the traumatic days of the migration crisis, however, CEU sought to establish businesslike relations with the Fidesz régime, and the university’s leaders believed it had succeeded. But that did not mean the CEU’s professors stopped criticising the government. The university’s constitutional experts analysed the gerrymandering of the electoral system, the neutering of the Supreme Court, and the new media laws. At the same time, other scholars denounced the corruption of what one university affiliate, Bálint Magyar, called Orbán’s ‘mafia state.’ When Michael Ignatieff became rector later that autumn, however, George Soros flew in for his inauguration and the opening of the new building. The ceremony, attended by key figures close to the government, emphasised the university’s Hungarian associations and pointed to a renewal of good working relationships between the institution and the government.

Nevertheless, this was the last time to date that George Soros would set foot in his native land. Then, in November 2016, Donald Trump won the US presidential election, and almost immediately, relations between the Orbán government and the CEU began to deteriorate. The Obama administration had put the US-Hungarian relationship into a ‘deep freeze’ to express its disapproval of the régime’s corruption and its violations of the rule of law. Now the Trump administration began to signal a change of policy, and Orbán felt confident enough to make a direct attack on Soros. Viktor Orbán had himself been a beneficiary of George Soros’s support. Still, the sudden attack that Orbán mounted against Soros, beginning in late 2016, was not part of a personal vendetta, according to Ignatieff. Ignatieff believes that it was purely political in motivation; targeting Soros as the embodiment of everything Fidesz stood against – Europe, multiculturalism, immigration, secular tolerance, the open society – was a brilliant way to reach out to a small-town base disoriented by change.

Making an alien US-based speculator public enemy number one also appealed to “the national bourgeoisie,” the urban middle class whose own fortunes depended very much on allegiance to a single party with control of state assets and state budgets. Orbán also understood CEU’s vulnerability as a foreign-accredited university paying high salaries and preaching values of multicultural tolerance and openness. It enjoyed solid support in Budapest but not among the small towns and villages of rural Hungary, the political power bases of most Hungarian conservative and nationalist parties.

The Soros Conspiracy Theory Campaign of 2017:

In the Spring of 2017, a sea of posters flooded Hungary. This new campaign was initiated, as usual, by Orbán, in a significant interview he gave to state broadcasters at Easter, in which he said:

“The whole issue is that George Soros, who stays out of the public eye, is, through organisations in Hungary, putting huge sums of money into supporting illegal immigration.”

Magyar Idők (in Hungarian), Prime Minister’s Office, 15 April 2017, http://www.ministerelnok.hu/.

He reminded people that Hungarians, as always, were still fighting for freedom, and at the centre of that field of battle was the issue of migration. In this battle, he claimed, the enemies of the Hungarian nation were those subsidised by the American financier George Soros. Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that it was the prime minister himself who was developing a conspiracy theory, painting George Soros as the global orchestrator of the refugee crisis. This was the way that the second ‘anti-migrant campaign’ or rather ‘migrant mirage’ kicked off. The posters, showing the laughing face of George Soros, shrieked:

‘Don’t let Soros have the last laugh!’

‘Soros is cheating at the game!

‘Soros pulls the strings that work the Brussels politicians!’

Soros wants to influence the whole world!

‘Soros may have killed his mother!’

‘We can expect a wave of extreme left violence from Soros in Budapest!’

Nobody could escape hearing the name ‘Soros’ every day. Before this, it was a name better known, outside of the USA, in Britain and western Europe. Within Parliament, there was constant, disdainful ‘chanting’ of ‘Soros’ every day from the Fidesz benches. Naturally, the opposition MPs all became ‘Soros’s hirelings’, allegedly trying to destroy Europe with a flood of refugees. Government politicians and Fidesz media trumpeted Orbán’s crazy creation and magnified it a thousand times. After people had been bombarded with these absurdities for many months, it was hardly surprising that they started to echo them on social media, even some of the moderate, formerly liberal intelligentsia I had known since the beginning of ‘the transition’ years. Every week I lost many good ‘friends’ as the divisions in Hungarian society visibly widened. The government played into these divisions by announcing a series of so-called ‘national consultations’. One of the first of these posed the question,

George Soros wants to persuade Brussels to settle at least one million from Africa and the Middle East in European Union territory. Do you support this part of the Soros Plan?

‘The complete national consultation questionnaire’ (Hungarian), 444, 28 September 2017, 444.hu.

Ostensibly a Government-published questionnaire sent out to every voter, the consultation contained a series of false assertions that the Fidesz communications think tank dubbed the ‘Soros Plan’. Yet again, there was a deliberate blurring between the public information role of government and Fidesz propaganda containing downright lies. According to these false accusations, the plan consisted of a proposal for Brussels to force Hungary to dismantle its border fence and pay HUF 9,000,000 (EUR 25,000) per capita to the immigrants. The aim of the ‘plan’ was, according to the cyclostyled letter, to limit the use of Hungarian as a language. This served to reinforce the fears of the population and create a basis for the Hungarian government ‘having to protect’ the country against ‘external enemies’. Moral panic was stirred up to a fever pitch directly by the Government, which, normally and constitutionally, had the duty of allaying people’s fears. Yet this all-out ‘official’ campaign lasted right up to the day of the 2018 General Election so that it became almost indistinguishable from the Fidesz election campaign.

The 2018 Election Campaign & the Demise of the CEU in Budapest:

The scapegoating of Soros, as well as the attack on the NGOs associated with him, was not the product of Orbán’s twisted imagination nor the conception of his propaganda team. It was the idea of Arthur J Finkelstein, an American communications adviser who had worked for the US Republican Party since the 1970s and had become notorious for working on three campaigns for Jessie Helms, the openly racist, homophobic and anti-feminist senator for North Carolina. Oddly enough, Finkelstein and his partner George Birnbaum had already tried their strategy in Israel, but in Hungary, it worked like a treat. In an interview he gave to a Swiss magazine in 2019, Birnbaum boasted of how the invention of Soros as the arch-enemy was the best of all their creations:

‘Soros proved to be the perfect choice. First because you could stick the liberal lable on him, and second, because he embodies everything the conservatives hate in a successful left-winger: a financial speculator who wants a weaker form of capitalism. Third, because he doesn’t do politics, so he had no political means to bite back, and he doesn’t even live in the country.’

‘The Finkelstein Formula’ (German), Das Magazin, 12 January 2019.

In this interview, Birnbaum also described how, in the pair’s work with Orbán since 2008, they had first helped him go for the communists, then in 2010 the exponents of finance capitalism, then in 2014 the Brussels bureaucrats, and finally in 2018 Soros and the liberals.

‘Only Fidesz!’ Viktor Orbán makes a speech at an election rally in 2018.

The first sign of this direct attack as part of Fidesz’s election strategy came just before Christmas 2017 when Orbán delivered a speech rallying Fidesz members of parliament and supporters to prepare for the 2018 national elections. Orbán declared that his objective in the election campaign would be to drive George Soros and all his works from Hungary. This strategy had been proposed by a US Republican campaign adviser, who urged Orbán to ‘scapegoat’ Soros as the man threatening Hungary with mass migration. This, as Ignatieff comments, is how a populist “politics of enemies” works. Orbán needed an enemy of stature, and the Hungarian opposition was too weak and divided to give him a worthwhile target. It was far more effective to make a man not even a resident in the country responsible for all its woes and to make his ‘open society’ the symbol of everything Orbán was running against. Campaign posters soon filled every available space on the subway, the trams and the outdoor billboards: the picture of a smiling George Soros as a puppet master pulling the opposition leaders’ strings was most prominent among them. When critics pointed out that the figure of “the laughing Jew” had been a trope of the Nazi newspaper in the 1930s, the régime revealed its ideological ignorance and reacted with indignation:

How dare you accuse us of anti-Semitism?!

Indeed, the anti-Soros campaign was not intended to be anti-Semitic, it was obviously (to reasonably educated observers) based on classic anti-Semitic tropes, tapping into old prejudices that were never far beneath the surface in Hungarian society, especially in the rural areas that were Fidesz’s ‘strongholds’. This ‘new’ kind of anti-Semitism, directed at Soros personally, had first appeared in 1950s eastern Europe, including Hungary in 1956. It made shameless use of other Nazi-era tropes while indignantly denying that it was doing so. The billionaire could do nothing in response since the more he retaliated, the more he would confirm the claim that he was interfering in internal politics, which he never had any intention of doing. Birnbaum conceded that with ‘the Soros formula’, they had manufactured an effective, Orwellian enemy that could be adapted easily for use anywhere in the world. According to Fidesz’s own polling company, sixty-one per cent of Hungarians associated negative characteristics with the previously largely unknown person of Soros. In fact, even half the voters for opposition parties shared this opinion of him. This helps to explain why none of their leaders spoke out against these personal attacks.

In the election campaign, all that Fidesz had to do was to link the names of opposition politicians to Soros, so that they too appeared in a negative light. The country was plastered with billboard posters showing the opposition leaders with Soros behind them, with a wicked grin. But the political and social divisions created by the anti-refugee and anti-Soros campaigns cannot be pinned solely on the role of Finkelstein and Birnbaum. The mega-campaign that dominated Hungarian public life and discourse in 2016-18 was undertaken by Fidesz’s centralised control of the Hungarian media through the communications empire it had built since 2010.

But the campaign of personal defamation was accompanied by a direct attack on the institution he had sponsored which began in 2017 but continued beyond the 2018 Election and into the 2020s. In March 2017, CEU heard from friends inside the civil service that the régime was planning to revise the higher education law. It was instantly clear that while the law was nominally directed at all thirty foreign higher education institutions working in Hungary, it targeted only one. It required every foreign institution to negotiate a bilateral agreement between its country of origin and the Hungarian government and to maintain a campus on its native soil. CEU is one of many US institutions abroad which does not maintain a domestic campus in the USA. With support from Soros and the board of trustees, the CEU administration publicly opposed the legislation as a discriminatory attack on academic freedom and set about mobilising support in Hungary, Europe, and the USA. In late May 2017, a crowd of eighty thousand Budapest citizens gathered on the Buda bank of the Danube, crossed the Chain Bridge and marched past the CEU building to Parliament Square, chanting for “Free Universities” in a “Free Society.” It was the largest demonstration seen since the heady days of 1989.

Above: The Hungarian Opposition demonstrates on one of the main Danube bridges.

Orbán agreed in early June to enter into negotiations with the State of New York to see whether an agreement could secure a way for CEU to stay in Budapest. Over the summer of 2017, the chief legal counsel of the governor of New York met with Orbán’s designated representative, and in late August, an apparent breakthrough occurred. CEU would establish a campus at Bard College and conduct educational programmes there, satisfying the Hungarian requirement for a US campus. The Hungarian government would allow CEU to remain in Budapest. The university signed the agreement and waited for the government to do the same. The signature never came.

Soros had never believed that a deal with Orbán was possible. Unfortunately, he turned out to be correct in his assessment. The university’s leadership had been ‘played’ by Orbán. For the remainder of the year, right through to the election of April 2018, the anti-Soros barrage was unrelenting. Not only were subways, buses, and streets plastered with anti-Soros posters, but there were also incessant television attacks claiming that an open society meant submerging Hungary in a deluge of refugees. This strategy had the desired result, and in the election, Fidesz once again secured the two-thirds majority of seats within Parliament necessary to make constitutional changes. Within weeks, Soros ordered the closing of the Open Society Foundation’s offices in Budapest, and by the autumn of 2018, the CEU had succeeded in securing a new home in Vienna. However, the CEU retained its research establishments and administrative functions in Budapest.

The Ongoing War between Fidesz & the NGOs:

Meanwhile, through its ongoing smear campaign against externally-funded NGOs, the government party had managed to a general mistrust of any NGO dealing with public life. As with commercial companies, the press and media, the government strove to divide the NGOs, drawing the line between ‘the ugly’ (the Soros foundations), ‘the bad’ (those who remained critical of the Fidesz government) and ‘the good’ (those that had adapted to the system). Several of the NGOs, supported by the Norway Grants’ Active Citizens Fund, survived the government attacks, sought out fresh funds, and stood up for their beliefs with even more determination. This annoyed the government because the ruling party came up with a new formula. Fidesz’s politicians announced that there were some organisations that were pseudo-civil, maintained by foreign funding in order to …

‘… push global capital and political correctness over the heads of national governments. These organisations must be held back by all means, and must be stamped out.’

Here’s the new enemy: Another attack launched against NGOs (Hungarian), Magyar Nemzet,/magyarnemzet.hu/

This communications campaign marked another milestone in the attack on NGOs. Fidesz submitted a new bill to Parliament on ‘the transparency of organisations financed from abroad’. Citing the need to prevent money laundering and terrorism, it determined that every NGO that received more than HUF 7.2 million (EUR 20,000) per year from foreign donors must register on the Civil Information Portal set up by the government for this purpose, and in every public appearance it must display the text ‘foreign-funded organisation’. This law followed the model of the Russian ‘foreign agent’ law of 2012, which regarded foreign support of NGOs as a threat to national security, and demanded that a set of NGOs register themselves as ‘foreign agents’. That the law was seriously discriminatory was demonstrated by the high number of exceptions, not just because it did not apply to the foundations of parliamentary parties, but also because thousands of organisations supporting Fidesz were exempted, enabling it to continue to collect large sums from abroad. In one interview, Orbán gave himself away: he said that there were sixty-three organisations in Hungary receiving funds from George Soros, which made it clear that these were the dozen or so organisations being targeted by the government.

The governing party thus built up a conspiracy narrative in which migrants (suspicious terrorists) and critical civil society organisations (those helping ‘migrants’) were linked with George Soros and his ‘watchdog’ NGOs. Fidesz amplified this, using government communication channels, in a structured propaganda campaign. This strategy was complemented by the parallel attack against the Central European University (CEU). The government accused the private university, founded by Soros, of having irregularities in its operations, and then passed a bill that stated that a university had to re-accredit itself, one requirement of which was a treaty between Hungary and the USA, giving the Hungarian government the right to determine the continued existence of the institution. These two legal amendments went beyond the propaganda campaign stigmatising the CEU to a level of intimidation which threatened its right to exist. Both the anti-NGO and the anti-CEU laws came before the EU’s Court of Justice, and in 2020 the court found, in two separate rulings, that these were contrary to the Accession Treaty on membership of the European Union that Hungary had signed back in 2004. It required the Orbán government to repeal them. Even when the laws were passed, Fidesz knew that they infringed EU legal principles and thereby the Hungarian Constitution, and would not stand up in the ECJ, but in advance of the 2018 elections it had wanted to show how determined it was to stand up to the ‘enemy attacking the nation’.

Fidesz then proposed less obviously repressive bills, but these were still intimidating and proved equally effective. Their effects were protracted, without any end in sight, and the whole offensive scared off many long-standing and potential charitable donors from abroad. They said that they did not want to be active in a country where they were not welcome. It was incredibly dispiriting for those of us who had once been welcomed as charitable workers to Hungary, to see how easily the Orbán government was able to disseminate its xenophobic propaganda and impose its will on a once hospitable country. Although the Open Society Foundations were Orbán’s primary target, forcing it to remove its headquarters from Budapest, the question still arose as to what Hungary could expect from the remaining charitable organisations if even big, wealthy international players were turned off or turned away by its current government. Even Orbán’s party needed NGOs in order to maintain the legitimacy of its power.

Other wealthy philanthropists, besides Soros, have chosen to bail out of Central Europe in the face of the unremitting hostility of the national governments and the general darkening of the prospects for an open society in Central-Eastern Europe. The speculator George Soros might have believed in those prospects once, but the CEU experience changed him. He had initially thought of his venture into higher education in Central-Eastern Europe as temporary, risky speculation that might pay off. Over time, he discovered just how difficult it was to change the political culture of a whole region. His foundations had been expelled from Russia, and his philanthropy had been unable to stop the consolidation of single-party authoritarian rule in Belarus and Hungary. He had sought to mobilise Western European governments to bring down the divides with Eastern Europe and genuinely integrate the two halves of the continent. He had been rebuffed, and instead of his philanthropy drawing support and encouragement from private donors, he had to go it alone. Nothing had turned out quite as he had hoped, but he was not surprised by this. Unintended consequences are the stuff of history, and history is never over. The future of Hungary will have many chapters after the one(s) written by Viktor Orbán.

Meeting the Moment -1989 and All That:

It could be argued that, by the early 1990s, Soros’ ambitions had met the historical moment. And yet, in his tenth decade, the world remains by most measures a divided and disturbing place. While preserving the forms of democracy, too many countries – the USA included – have been drawn to authoritarian rulers and right-wing populist movements that persecute minority racial, ethnic and religious groups and seek to dismantle the collaborative institutions to which Soros has devoted much of his life. In his native Hungary, despite his considerable role in helping the country move past Soviet-era repression, Viktor Orbán’s relentless, anti-Semitic attacks on Soros drove his Central European University out of the country, and it is unsafe for Soros to visit his beloved birthplace of Budapest. Most fundamentally, the core tenets of the open society are challenged as never before. Political and ideological differences are bitterly fought out, as parties and philosophies have their time in and out of power. Soros wants a system that functions but is sceptical when one side has too much power. The cycles of ‘normal politics’ depend upon a shared belief in underlying democratic systems and norms and on a shared understanding of the facts – a transpartisan view that the truth matters. Soros claims that without agreement on that principle, the political contest deteriorates into a shameless manipulation of the truth. As Laura Quinn of Catalyst noted,

“Soros is an emblem of a society which values institutions and norms – the exact embodiment of the enlightenment values they are trying to kill.”

In a further article, Ivan Krastov points out how, after the 1989 Revolutions in Central-Eastern Europe, it was those most impatient to see their countries change who were the first to leave. For many liberal-minded Eastern Europeans, a mistrust of nationalist loyalties and the prospect of joining the modern world made emigration a logical and legitimate choice. As a result, he writes, the revolutions of 1989 had the perverse effect of accelerating population decline in the newly liberated countries of Central-Eastern Europe. From 1989 to 2017, Latvia lost twenty-seven per cent of its population, Lithuania twenty-three per cent, and Bulgaria almost twenty-one per cent. Hungary lost nearly three per cent of its population in the 2010s after the EU’s freedom of movement arrangements encouraged migration, especially to the United Kingdom. In 2016, around one million Poles were living in the UK. This emigration of the young and talented was occurring in countries already with ageing populations and low birth rates. Together, these trends set the stage for demographic panic. Thus, the combination of emigration and the fear of immigration best explains the rise of populism in Central-Eastern Europe, which feeds off a sense that a country’s identity is under threat. Moving to the West was equivalent to rising social status, and as a result, those who stayed behind in their own countries started feeling like poor relations. Success back home was devalued in countries where most young people dreamed of leaving.

Hello, Viktor!
Conclusion – The “Soros Affair” & its Lasting Legacy:

In 1989, as in the revolutions of 1848 and 1956, liberals and nationalists were political allies, a coalition that broke the back of communism in the former Soviet-controlled countries. Viktor Orbán, a nationalist in liberal clothing at first, in the 1990s, was the best illustration of this conjoining of forces. But by the beginning of the current century, as in the last days of the Habsburg Empire at the beginning of the previous century, liberals and nationalists have become the worst of enemies and have remained so into the 2020s. George Soros, who advocates for international governance, universal human rights and a progressive migration policy, is now deemed a significant, sinister threat to the nation-state. What Krastev labels the “Soros Affair” – the obsession of the nationalists with labelling any supporter of the ideas of the open society as a traitor – plays a lamentably similar role to the “Dreyfus Affair” in late-nineteenth-century France. Soros has proved correct in his belief that the twenty-first century will be defined by the clash between the ideals of an open society and those of a closed society as an incarnation of old notions of tribalism. Many Central-Eastern European nationalists have embraced the current right-wing Israeli government in order to challenge their most senior and most bitter enemy, Jewish cosmopolitanism, as embodied by George Soros.

Goodbye, Mutti!

A Hungarian Jew who became an American financial speculator is now the fiercest defender of the European Union, and he is defending the Union on two fronts: against political élites in Central-Eastern Europe who benefit significantly from the generosity of the Union’s subsidies and against Brussels bureaucrats who resist the need to reinvent the EU. What makes Soros so infuriating to Eastern Europe’s illiberal leaders is that he exposes their biggest lie: that open society liberalism is an alien import into the region. And to make their fellow citizens believe the lie, the illiberal nationalists have had to turn Soros into a foreigner, a person not from the region. As Krastov concludes, it is clear that if George Soros did not exist, the Eastern European nationalists would have had to invent him. As Soros turned ninety-one, his commitments to the CEU indicated that he had come to an important insight that might not have occurred to him in the 1980s, when he began his efforts to change the history of his native region. He had grasped that régimes come and go, single-party rulers come and go, single-party rulers come and go, but institutions, universities especially, endure. Some of what Soros had tried to create had been swept away, but his institutions may yet endure as his lasting legacy long after Viktor Orbán’s rhetoric has lost any power it once possessed.

Post-script – The 2020 Attack on universities & The 2022 Election:

In 2020, the government announced a ‘change of model’ for nine Hungarian state universities, and without consulting the leaderships of these universities, imposed a new type of public foundation on them, giving the boards of these foundations the authority for all policy decision-making within the institutions. These boards of trustees were soon filled with Fidesz appointees. In the end, it was the second wave of the Covid epidemic that put paid to the three-month-long resistance to these changes within some of these universities. The students stopped their demonstrations due to the risks of infection. As with so much else, the Orbán régime made good use of the pandemic: the government was able to restrict freedoms to a disproportionate extent. Massive fines were imposed on those organising demonstrations, and health workers were forbidden to resign from their jobs or to give out any information to the public.

In spite of all the attacks on the NGOs and universities, civil activism had undergone enormous development over the twelve years of the Orbán régime. Organisations under pressure have formed networks of unity and mutual support, and encourage others to stand up to Fidesz’s local rulers and agents, even if they are unable to challenge them at the national level. It seemed as though by 2022 the atmosphere of fear around Fidesz had been dispersed. The unexpected crowds who participated in the opposition’s primary election and the teachers’ strikes in January showed a more conscious, public resistance.

A recent photo of Orbán with fellow Nationalist autocrat and ally, Vladimir Putin.

But this was just another illusory moment. The Orbán régime would do anything to maintain its grip on power as their fourth general election approached, and therefore to maintain the citizens’ political passivity. The middle classes had been pacified by ensuring their economic well-being, even though this was mainly due to EU funding. If Fidesz’s power were to cease, tax cuts and salary increases could not be delivered, they were told. The dissatisfaction of lower-status social groups had been defused by reducing them to a state of utter dependency and near slave labour for their subsistence. Conscious, autonomous action had not yet resulted in the critical mass that could have prevented the further erosion of democracy. And when Russia’s war in Ukraine threatened Orbán’s pro-Russian foreign policy in the midst of the election, the electorate was told they must choose between ‘blood’ and ‘oil’ – their blood and Putin’s oil. Of course, they chose the latter and returned Fidesz with another super-majority.

Sources:

https://abouthungary.hu/speeches-and-remarks/speech-by-prime-minister-viktor-orban-at-the-31-st-balvanyos-summer-free-university-and-student-camp

Peter L. W. Osnos (ed.) (2022), George Soros: A Life in Full. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Zsuzsanna Szelényi (2022), Tainted Democracy: Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary. London: Hurst & Company.

László Kontler (2009), A History of Hungary. Budapest: Atlantisz Publishing House.

Douglas Murray (2018), The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Featured

Britain, Europe and The World in 1937: A Moment in History Repeating itself? Part One

Updated, with added material on Britain.

Andrew James Chandler's avatarAndrew James

Democracy and Dictatorship – 2022 & 1922-1937:

The fall of the three great European empires at the end of the First World War – Austria, Germany and Russia – the chief centres of autocratic rule, seemed a happy augury for the future of democratic government. After the war, this was established in the new states, whose rulers recognised the wisdom of adopting constitutions modelled by Western Powers. In every European country, except Russia, where a new form of government, a Communist dictatorship, was maintained, the principle of representative government was accepted. Source: Richards et al., 1937.

Beginning his keynote address on Russia’s War on Ukraine on 28th June 2022, the newly-commissioned Head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, spoke of the similarity of the events of 1937 in Europe to the continuing and impending events of 2022 in the central-eastern part of the continent:

“This is our 1937…

View original post 9,349 more words

Featured

A Gentle Gulliver – Warwickshire Adventures & Sojourns

Andrew James Chandler's avatarAndrew James

Seymour and Vera Gulliver,
in Leamington Spa in the 1970s. Photo by Arthur J Chandler

Mooching with Seymour Henry:

Forty years ago this summer (2022), my grandfather, Seymour Henry Gulliver, died aged eighty-two. He was born at the beginning of the twentieth century at Ufton-on-the-Hill, Warwickshire, the seventh child and one of the younger sons of a large family of thirteen children, eleven of whom survived into adulthood. Seymour was extremely proud of his father, George, an agricultural labourer, and his beautiful, brilliant mother, Bertha (neé Tidmarsh), who lived to the age of ninety-seven. As an infant, Seymour became famous in Ufton because, before he could walk, he shuffled off down the steep hill and along the main road on his first adventurous expedition and had to be returned on the carrier’s cart. This propensity remained with him throughout his life since he loved what he called “mooching” and…

View original post 5,392 more words

Featured

A Gentle Gulliver – Warwickshire Adventures & Sojourns

Seymour and Vera Gulliver,
in Leamington Spa in the 1970s. Photo by Arthur J Chandler
Mooching with Seymour Henry:

Forty years ago this summer (2022), my grandfather, Seymour Henry Gulliver, died aged eighty-two. He was born at the beginning of the twentieth century at Ufton-on-the-Hill, Warwickshire, the seventh child and one of the younger sons of a large family of thirteen children, eleven of whom survived into adulthood. Seymour was extremely proud of his father, George, an agricultural labourer, and his beautiful, brilliant mother, Bertha (neé Tidmarsh), who lived to the age of ninety-seven. As an infant, Seymour became famous in Ufton because, before he could walk, he shuffled off down the steep hill and along the main road on his first adventurous expedition and had to be returned on the carrier’s cart. This propensity remained with him throughout his life since he loved what he called “mooching” and continued to do this right up to the end of his life. He enjoyed three holidays in his last year, including his particular choice of one in Dorset, where he could undertake a pilgrimage in the steps of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. His Gulliver forebears were originally a prosperous Banbury family of innkeepers. There are still tombs in the levelled churchyard of the Parish Church near where the original Banbury Cross once stood. There is also a ‘memorial’ stone to the Gullivers, whose name was used by Jonathan Swift for his three-volume work of satire, which later became the children’s book Gulliver’s Travels in later centuries. According to some local historians, Swift most likely spent a lot of time at the White Lion (Inn) at Ufton in the company of the real Lemuel Gulliver and persuaded the innkeeper to allow him to use his name as a nomme de plume to avoid the Crown’s censorship or other punishments. The sketch in the frontispiece of the original work (shown below) could be a portrait of the genuine Gulliver.

The Memorial Stone to the Gullivers of Banbury in the graveyard of the Parish Church.
The 1912 First Edition of the ‘Children’s Edition’ of ‘Gulliver’s Travels.’

The frontispiece of the 1726 Edition, Vol I.

Banburyshire Beginnings:

By the 1830s, the Gullivers and the Tidmarshes, Seymour’s maternal ancestors, were healthy farming folk from ‘Banburyshire’ (now Oxfords/ Northants/ Warwicks). Throughout his life, Seymour delighted in telling many tales about his maternal grandfather, Henry Tidmarsh (b. Great Rollright, c. 1840), who had lost his arm in a threshing machine. He was also legendary as the man who would go out in all weather with a shire horse and chain to assist the coaches on a challenging hill on the Leamington to Banbury road. In one case, he saved the life of an heir to a titled family whose mother perished in a snow storm. On a visit to the area late in life, Seymour was able to point out his grandmother’s cottage in the village of Rollright and the graves of other well-known Tidmarshes.

Henry Tidmarsh and family
Joseph Arch of Tysoe

The Gullivers had been involved in the struggle of the Warwickshire agricultural labourers from the 1860s, led by the Methodist lay-preacher and later founder of the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, Joseph Arch of nearby Tysoe (pictured above). A public house in Barford, near Stratford, is named after him. Vinson Gulliver, born in Oxfordshire in 1833, had married Hannah Green, George’s mother, from Wormleigton in Warwickshire in 1855. According to recorded family folklore, he was an itinerant preacher who marched with Joseph Arch of Tysoe through the Warwickshire villages of Wellesbourne and Barford, later becoming the first secretary of the Warwickshire Agricultural Labourers’ Union in the 1860s.

Bertha Gulliver (née Tidmarsh), aged 33, had six children in 1899 in Ufton. Seymour was the seventh, born the following year, 1900. She had thirteen children in all (one died as a baby).

Bertha Tidmarsh met her husband when working as a maid at the Chamberlains’ House at Ufton-on-the-Hill near Leamington. The Chamberlains owned the Harbury cement works. George Gulliver, born in Ufton in 1862 (pictured below), was a coachman with the Chamberlains. He used to drive them around in a coach with two horses.

George Gulliver
The Family at Ufton-on-the-hill:

Seymour, the seventh child, was just an ordinary boy, nearly two years older than Jessie, who therefore knew him well as they grew up together, playing outside. She was born the year Queen Victoria died, 1901. Her earliest memory was from when she was about two and a half, and the Gulliver family was living at Ufton. She sat on the school wall, and the teachers came out and told her to get off because the children couldn’t concentrate with her sitting on the wall. She went home to her mother and asked what concentrate meant, but she couldn’t speak it very well. So her mother told her she could sit on the wall at play-time and dinner-time or during holidays, but she mustn’t sit on the wall when the children were in school because they couldn’t concentrate when she was playing on the wall. She thought that was a bit hard for one two and a half years old. So she used to go around Ufton with her elder brothers, Seymour and Arnold, and they’d play around Harbury Cement Works. Her brothers once got an old door, put two pieces of wood under it, and used two other pieces for paddles, taking Jessie out on a small brook near the works. Their mother and father were very angry with the boys because they could easily have fallen into the brook and drowned. But, said Jessie, looking back, you know what they say, God looks after children and drunkards! Nevertheless, their mother often told

St. Michael’s Church, Ufton, Warwickshire (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jessie also remembered leaving Ufton and going to Wroxall as a child of three. Her father left his job as a coachman at the Chamberlain’s house to work for them instead at Harbury Cement Works. So first, they lived in a rented cottage in Bishops’ Itchington, not far from Ufton. They paid half a crown a week for it in rent. However, the cement works didn’t suit her father because the cement dust got on his chest, and he had to go back onto the London work, riding the coaches between Leamington and London. Jessie could remember how hard up they were at this time. One Sunday, when she was about three or four, she came home from Sunday School, where they’d been reading about Joseph with the coat of many colours. Her mother had bought her brother Arnold a little navy blue coat, and he’d left it on Harbury Cement Works, and she was ever so upset and crying when Jessie went home, and, of course, all Jessie could say to the rest of the family was… 

he’s lost the coat of many colours! Butit was a job for my mother to get clothes for us in those days, and she liked us to be dressed nicely. I don’t know how she managed to do it, but she did.”

So it was that, with a large and expanding family to feed, in 1904, George accepted an invitation to work on Lord Dugdale’s estate near Wroxall, along the old coaching road running west from Warwick and Leamington. He was under-manager on one of the four estate farms. Seymour’s older brothers were old enough to begin working alongside their father at Wroxall Farm. Vinson, the eldest son, had already left school at twelve to work on a farm near Ufton, looking after cattle, horses and pigs. The Dugdales were very generous to all their labourers, who were given comfortable houses with gardens, and at Christmas, each family would receive a ton of coal and a piece of beef, plus some money for the children’s shoes. In addition, the Dugdales sent a hamper of things for each birth, including coverings with golden embroidery. So now the family felt a lot better off. The only problem was that the children had to walk a mile and a half to school, run by the nearby abbey, for which they received a shoe allowance. Otherwise, they were comfortable enough, even with two more additions to their family. Soon after they moved to Wroxall, Jessie discovered her love of poetry by attending The Band of Hope. This was a temperance society for children, which she began attending when she was between four and five. Even so young, the children had to promise never to drink. To help her understand what this was all about, she had to learn to recite by heart a piece called, The Convict’s Little Jim, which she could still recite, word perfect, nearly ninety years later. However, looking back from 1992, she commented that she had always thought it was a terrible thing to teach a child, with scenes of domestic violence, murder and execution!

Vinson Gulliver, the firstborn, outlived all but one of his thirteen siblings to become Britain’s oldest man at 108 in 1995.
Wroxall and World War:

They were still quite poor but relatively happy until George had trouble with the manager over ‘harvest money’ Vinson and Alfred had to work longer hours alongside their father, but only George received the overtime pay when they were paid out. George went to see Lord Dugdale about this, who confirmed the sums and ordered his manager to pay them in full. The manager did this but subsequently did his best to make George’s position as under-manager untenable. Vinson craved the city’s bright lights and found work in the engine sheds at Trafford Park, Manchester, in 1907. His starting wage was just eleven shillings per week, of which eight went on his rent, so he could not send much money home. That left Alfred, aged fourteen, as the only sibling able to bring in a wage, so, when Seymour was about nine, in 1909, the family moved from Wroxall to Walsgrave-on-Sowe, then still in Warwickshire, on the eastern side of Coventry. Although still young, Seymour was old enough to learn lessons about injustice and victimisation, which he applied throughout his working life. Alfred worked on the farm at Wroxall until he was fifteen in 1908, when he went into the Navy, inspired by his uncle, Alfred Tidmarsh, who was also a CPO, having joined in the age of sailing ships. In uniform, Uncle Alfred had visited his sister at Wroxall on leave.

 

CPO Alfred Tidmarsh
Alfred Gulliver served on HMS Thunderer, the third Alfred in the family to serve in the Navy. He became a Chief Petty Officer and went all through the First World War. Then, due to his perfect eyesight, he became a range-finder instructor, serving in the Second World War, aged fifty-five, but stayed in dock training the gunners.

A few months before his death, Seymour revisited all the villages where he had lived and worked as a boy. In addition, he went back to the City of York, and Catterick, where he was stationed during the war. He tried to join the Army in 1917, although he would not be eighteen until the following spring. He was at Catterick Barracks when the influenza epidemic struck, wiping out almost all of the company he had joined. When he wrote to his mother about this, she arrived at the camp gates in Yorkshire, produced his birth certificate and demanded her son back. She took him back to Coventry on the train, so he survived both the war and the epidemic.

Caludon Lodge & Walsgrave-on-Sowe – Between the Wars:

By then, the family had moved to live and work at Caludon Farm near Walsgrave (in 1909), now the site of one of Coventry’s comprehensive schools. They had gone to live at Caludon Lodge, a larger house built in brick, with railings all around it, little holly bushes all around the garden, and a porch in the middle. The kitchen and the front room were at right angles to each other, and there were two passages, one from the front room and one from the kitchen. There was a big yard at the back with a long bench where their mother could put about four bowls for washing. There was a big ‘copper’ (kettle) and a little one. Bertha always had the little one on, and the children used to go and get sticks (for the wood-fired range), so there was always warm water in the big kitchen to wash with. There was a most beautiful garden, with pear trees, plum trees and apple trees with mistletoe growing up one of them:

It was ever so long; it went right down past two houses, and Mr Green eventually took a piece off it and built two houses on it for more farm labourers.

Seymour joined his father and brothers on the farm in Walsgrave with his father and brothers when he left Binley Park elementary school just before the First World War. He later told his daughter, my mother, how he rode on top of the hay-loaded waggons into Coventry, coming into the narrow medieval Spon Street on top of the hay, touching the overhanging eaves of the half-timbered houses on either side. So they had quite a happy time at Walsgrave. They could go to Binley, Wyken or Stoke schools. But Caludon was outside the Parish of Walsgrave (which was still in Warwickshire, outside the Corporation area), so they couldn’t go to the Church of England village school. So, they were sent to Binley Elementary School, which was run by Whitley Abbey, and they found themselves having another two-mile walk to school across the fields, starting early with two sandwiches each to eat on the way. Then they had a school dinner and a meal when they got home at about half past four. Soon after they arrived, Binley Pit was sunk, and a new school had to be built, so Seymour’s last year at school was spent there. On leaving school aged thirteen just before the war, Seymour had gone to work in the offices of nearby Binley Colliery when he was still so young that he needed a stool to reach the telephone.

Returning to Binley Colliery after his ‘adventure’, he went underground as a collier, not just because, as a reserved occupation, it kept him from being conscripted, but also because there was more money to be earned working at the coalface, which he needed to begin married life with Vera Brown, a ribbon-weaver from a long-established village family. They were both very young when they met in 1917. Their wedding took place in Walsgrave Baptist Church in 1918, conducted by Rev. Penry Edwards of Treorchy in the Rhondda, who had recently become the first full-time minister at the chapel and had baptised Vera shortly before. After their marriage, Seymour and Vera set up a home in one of the gardeners’ cottages belonging to the Wakefield Estate. However, Seymour’s decision to work underground was costly, eventually ruining his health.

At the pit, he became involved in the trade union, The Miners’ Federation. In May 1926, Seymour went out on strike and was locked out of the colliery for six months in support of the miners, especially those in South Wales, who worked in difficult places and had their wages cut. He urged his fellow miners to continue their strike in support of the starving Welsh miners, even though this meant privation and an eventual return to work for less pay. There were many miners in Walsgrave at that time, so the Lock-out hit the village hard. Vera had to return to work as a skilled weaver at Cash’s factory, and Seymour took over the housekeeping and looked after their two children. He and the other colliers could only earn money from tree-cutting up at the Coombe, a wooded area on Lord Craven’s estate around the historic Coombe Abbey, the Cravens’ House since the late seventeenth century. The miners earned a little money from the timber they cut, caught rabbits, pinched the odd pheasant and were given scraps from the Abbey kitchens, bowls of dripping and left-overs from banquets held there, which Seymour would bring home. He later helped to settle unemployed miners from South Wales in the village and at the colliery.

School House Lane, Coal & the Blitz on Coventry:

Nevertheless, by 1928, the couple had saved enough to afford a mortgage. That year, the young family moved into their newly-built house in Walsgrave, which that same year had been adopted by the City Corporation, where my mother was born in 1931, by then the youngest of four children, three girls and a boy, who had seven children in all, three girls and three boys. The Gullivers had also become well-known characters in the village, especially in the Baptist Chapel, where Vera was a deacon, as well as in the Co-operative Society and the nascent local Labour Party. Almost as soon as they moved in, their front room became the Headquarters for the Labour Party during the elections, and the bay window was full of posters at these times. Of course, it was in a strategic position, next to the polling station, the Village School, so no one could doubt Vera and Seymour’s allegiances. They helped get the first majority Labour government elected under Ramsay MacDonald in 1928. In 1937 the party swept to power in the City for the first time, beginning its programme of municipal socialism.

As prosperity returned with a boom in Coventry, coal-miners’ wages also improved. However, many chose to desert the pits for cleaner, high-wage jobs in engineering in the city, especially in the car factories and later, during rearmament, the Shadow factories. However, Seymour stuck to his job at the colliery because he liked the economic security that came with it and the sense of camaraderie. Although not a hard drinker, like many colliers, he naturally liked to call into the pub for a much-needed pint on his way home after a hard shift at the coalface. The Baptists frowned upon and shunned the pubs in the village because there were many well-known heavy drinkers, but they understood that it was natural for the miners to enjoy a drink together on the way home. The only problems in some families came on weekly paydays when they received their wages in cash. On these days, all the wives would send their children, and Daphne was one of these, to wait for their fathers and get their pay packets from them in case any of them might be tempted to donate too much into the pub’s coffers! Every mother would direct their kids to stand outside The Craven Arms and The Red Lion to collect the wages. This, of course, was more of a show of traditional solidarity by the wives than an act of necessity, especially as the local publicans were strict about not serving those who had, in their opinion, had one too many.

As Daphne grew up in Walsgrave in the thirties, she remembered The Walsgrave Show, a vast agricultural and horticultural event. She could remember her father winning prizes for vegetables and children making bouquets out of wildflowers. It was a show run by local farmers like Harold Green, whom the Gullivers had worked for before the first war, but it attracted farmers, showjumpers and other participants from far and wide. It eventually combined with the Kenilworth Show and became the forerunner of The National Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh.

Walsgrave and the Second World War:

When the second war broke out in 1939, the excellent community spirit in Walsgrave continued. The most noticeable difference, at first, was in the availability of food and rationing. There were queues for tomatoes, but the Co-op Shop was fair to everyone, and the vegetable cart continued to do its village rounds. One day, Daphne went out with her mother to buy oranges, rationed to one per person per week. So, they could have five. A group of internees were making their way up the Lane to the farm at the top as the cart passed. Vera asked the vendor Albert for a knife and cut all five into slices. Then, she went over to the boys and gave each one a slice of orange. Daphne, quite naturally for an eight-year-old, protested, but Vera told her, “oh well, these lads are very young, and they’ve been living off potatoes up at the farm, so they need that orange much more than you do”.

People were encouraged to produce their own food on their allotments. So, as well as growing vegetables, Seymour kept pigs and poultry on his allotment along Woodway Lane. You could keep pigs during the war, but you had to have a permit to kill them. You could sell them to the authorities, but they didn’t pay much. So Seymour decided to take his sow into hiding in their house when her time came. Daphne remembered these war-time pigs and piglets well:

…we had a litter of pigs; we decided we were going to have a litter, and then we had some sleeping quarters for these piglets, and when the time came, the wretched sow had all those little piglets on the hearth, and we were giving them drops of brandy, trying to revive them and keep them going. I think we saved about five.

But they got to be little suckling pigs and one of them wasn’t quite right. So they decided they were going to ‘knock this one off’. So Bill Gately worked up the abattoir and we persuaded Bill to come and knock this little pig off. They’d just gone up the garden, ’cause he was working all day so it was dark now, and the air-raid siren went. So, no one dared shine a flashlight or anything and well, you can imagine these little pigs running and squealing all over the sty, and them trying to get hold of this particular one, and Bill was muttering and stuttering, you know. Well, eventually, we caught this pig and killed it quietly at the kitchen sink.

We had no permit, and then someone came around afterwards, knowing that we’d done this, and he asked, “what did you do with the Tom Hodge?” So Seymour says, “what’s that?” and they said, “well, you know, its innards!”Dad says, “oh! We buried them up the garden”. “Oh, oh dear!”he says, “the best part of the pig!’”Anyway, he comes back after a few minutes and says, “well, if I know Seymour, it won’t be buried deep!” So he goes up the garden with his fork and forks all this up. Eventually, he took all these chitterlings and well, of course, to anyone who likes chitterlings… but it put me off pork for the rest of my life!  

Daphne also remembered the first significant air raids and the first use of the communal shelter at the school. The Anderson shelters that people had put up in their gardens by the summer of 1940 had become flooded, so they had to go to the shelter at the school, which had been put there for the school children. However, as there were no day-time raids, it had not been used and was still locked. Nevertheless, the schoolmaster, ‘Gaffer’ Mann, refused to open it when the first night-time raids on Coventry began in early autumn. So Seymour fetched his collier’s pick axe to break the lock, and all the residents of School House Lane went in.

Though Walsgrave was of no military importance, Capability Brown’s huge landscaped pool at Coombe Abbey, a mile or so away from the village, was on the German ‘Baedeker’ map books and was used as a landmark by the German bomber crews. The Rolls Royce Engine Factory at Ansty was manufacturing aircraft engines less than a mile from this. There was also an aerodrome there, built before the war. The then Rootes assembly plant at Ryton-on-Dunsmore was only a few miles away on the same side of the city, with its shadow factory producing aircraft and military vehicles. Planned under Chamberlain’s Government in 1936, these factories did not appear on the Luftwaffe’s maps nor on Baedeker’s; hence the importance of incendiary bombs dropped around the city’s outlying areas and the largely wooden medieval city centre in the 1940 Blitz. On the evening of the 13th November through the ‘full moon’ night to breakfast time on 14th November, Coventry was subjected to an eleven-hour sustained Blitz, giving both the English and German dictionaries the word Coventration as a synonym for blanket-bombing rather than lightning raids, which had been the previous strategy in attacking London and other regional ports and cities, including Coventry. ‘Operation Moonlight Sonata’ as the Germans named was, like Beethoven’s famous piece, designed in three ‘movements’ in order to set fire to the city and light up the sky so the bombers could locate the factories at a three-mile radius or more. The Rootes Shadow Factory had only just begun production in 1940. The German blanket-bombers searched for the shadow factories on the ground, using the Coombe Pool as a focal point on which to reflect their beams. Huge craters were left on the landscape around the village for many decades afterwards. I remember Seymour showing me these when I joined him on one of his mooches. He described his arrest as an ARP Warden of a German pilot who had bailed out over Coombe Park, landing in the farm lane and breaking his legs. Seymour had to use his bicycle to get the airman the mile or so to the village police station. Daphne recalled the night of 13th-14th November and the effect of the bombing of the city centre, three miles away, as they ran for the shelter:

We put up the cushions from the furniture, put them on our heads, and ran up the shelter. It was a bright moonlit night; tracer bullets were flying around like tracer bullets everywhere, and the whole city was on fire. Everything was lit up like it was daylight; it was a most awesome sight and of course, for days afterwards, the burnt paper was coming down.

The School Log for 15th November echoes this description of destruction:

School reassembled – about only 130 were present – this is due to the results of a terrific 11-hour raid on Coventry and the immediate neighbourhood. The Church Hut used for 70 to 80 infants had to be used as a home for the people who were bombed out of the city.

Seymour was on air-raid duty that night and recalled one bomb that fell in what was known as The Hollow, just past The Mount Pleasant. He said that the old, cruck-beamed cottage was severely damaged as the patrol went towards it, and he was sure there would be at least one person dead inside. But when they went inside, they found that the main beam had fallen across the fireplace, and all the family were protected by it, around the fireplace. He said that it was a miracle no one was hurt. During the raids, an evacuated family slept in every room of the Gullivers’ house, even under the table.

School records for 1940 show that a total of six hours and ten minutes was spent in the school shelter, with one visit lasting over two hours. But, of course, nearly all the raids took place during nighttime. Even the attack of the 14th/15th of November was not detected until after 3 p.m., the end of the school day, and the bombing had ended in time for the school to open ‘as normal’ the following morning. Though the sirens went off earlier that evening, most people recall being at home having had tea or supper when the bombing started. The schools nearer the centre were far more badly affected, and many of those rescued in these areas were still under the rubble until about 7 a.m., having been trapped for more than twelve hours in some cases. Walsgrave escaped lightly compared with the mass destruction of the city centre and the older factory areas in the suburbs, though it might have been a different story had the Luftwaffe been able to locate the Ansty and Ryton factories. Many in the village realised this vulnerability and though not forced to, sent their children away to safer rural areas if they could. Daphne was evacuated to relatives near Bridgwater in Somerset for a while. In addition to his ARP duties, being in a reserved occupation as a collier at the pit, Seymour took on responsibility for the Bevin Boys, the well-educated young graduates and undergraduates sent to work in the pits.

A Sense of Justice:

Seymour had a strong sense of social justice and was a keen member of the Binley lodge of the Miners’ Federation. On one occasion, he stuck up for a fellow collier who was bullied by a foreman, whom he struck, and was dismissed from Binley Colliery on the spot. He had to go to Newdigate Colliery to get work there. The conditions there were far worse than at Binley, and when he undressed to bath in front of the living room fire, his clothes would stand up by themselves from the combination of mud, coal dust and sweat which had caked them in the pit and then dried on them during his long walk home at the end of each shift. His body was covered with boils, and he had to have special treatment at the Coventry and Warwick Hospital, where they made an experimental serum to cure his condition. Eventually, his wife Vera told him,

“… you’ll just have to put your pride in your pocket; you can’t go back down Newdigate; you’d better go back to Binley and ask for your job back.

So he returned to Binley Colliery, apologised, and got his job back, later becoming a pit overseer and a safety officer for the National Coal Board. In 1978, I began researching the Welsh colliers who had come to the Midlands between the two world wars, many to work in the car industry. Many also found their way into Warwickshire’s pits, especially Binley Colliery, and worked alongside my grandfather at the coalface. He remembered one family in particular, arriving in the village with the children and all their worldly possessions on a cart. Before his death from pneumoconiosis, the Dust, in 1982, I got to know Seymour more fully as an ‘autodidact’ who read avidly and rapidly. He gave detailed reviews of the books I brought home from university in Cardiff on the Welsh miners, referencing his experiences working in the Warwickshire coalfield. I had frequent, lengthy conversations with him about these experiences.

Walsgrave-on-Sowe village centre
Conclusion – Joy, Opportunity & Dignity:

By nature, Seymour was the quiet member of his sixty-year partnership with Vera, who died in 1978, a gentle, calm man who liked to spend every available moment out of doors, especially in his garden. He was the backbone of his family and a provider who seldom lost a working day and was always ready with wise advice. His charity extended beyond his own home, and there was always a bed and a meal for all comers. When his hard-earned allowance of coal was tipped up at the gate, there was always a barrow-load for some needy neighbour, and his silent acts of kindness were many. He was never aggressive on his own behalf but always hated any form of injustice and, on occasion, suffered much hardship as a result, and even lost his job by sticking up for others.

His four children and seven grandchildren were the joy of his life, and the growth of the welfare state, enabling his grandchildren to attend good schools and colleges, and to qualify for varied professions, always seemed a miracle to him as something happening during his own lifetime, more than making up for his own lack of opportunity. For the summer when he died, he had planned several expeditions, just as it had been his choice to visit Torquay in the Spring of 1982. However, his many health problems suddenly overcame him. He succumbed and died of a chest infection, which led to pneumonia within the short time since his last daily walk from one end of the village to the other three weeks earlier. He had always known that the effect of the coal dust would end his life. He died peacefully, with courage and great dignity.

Based on an obituary by his daughter, Daphne Irene Chandler (neé Gulliver), 1982, letters & family histories recorded by Vinson Gulliver and Jessie Gardner (née Gulliver); transcriptions & articles by Andrew J Chandler, 1992-2012, Daphne’s son. Daphne married the minister of Walsgrave Baptist Church, Rev. Arthur J Chandler, in 1953 and died in 1993. Jessie lived to 101, dying in 2002.

Beyond their Graves – Tracing the Lives and Times of the Gullivers: Part 1 (Chapter 1)

Our Family in World War One

The Gullivers: Travels Through Time, 1833-1953

Featured

Britain, Europe and The World in 1937: A Moment in History Repeating itself? Part Two

‘Special Operations’, 2022 & April 1937- March 1938:

Just as the so-called Russian ‘Special Operation’ which began on 24th February 2022, did not represent the beginning of War in Ukraine, the invasion of its sovereign territory having commenced in 2014, so too, no single event in 1937 or 1938 represented the beginning of war in Europe or, indeed, the world. However, the year from the spring of 1937 to March 1938 can be taken as a bridging period into the series of ‘Bloodless Conquests’ made by Germany in 1938-39. In 1937, having ‘liberated’ the Saarland and the Rhineland, Hitler turned to the question of creating a Pan-German state by absorbing the German populations of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Like all Pan-Germans, Hitler longed to unite the German peoples of Western and Central Europe into a single state, or Reich. Pro-Nazi organisations existed in Austria and Czechoslovakia among German populations anxious to share in the Nazi revolution. Hitler felt that, by 1937, the international circumstances and Germany’s growing military strength were favourable enough to enable him to force the pace in his foreign policy. In November, he warned his military leadership that a settlement of the Austrian and Czechoslovak questions was next on his agenda when the right moment came:

The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community and to enlarge it.

Adolf Hitler, 5 November 1937.

Meanwhile, while pretending to uphold a policy of non-intervention, Hitler sent his ‘volunteers’ to Spain to help Franco. The Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936 and was at once recognised as the showdown between Left and Right in Europe. November saw active German intervention when Hitler sent the Condor Legion, a unit composed of over twelve thousand ‘volunteers’ and Luftwaffe warplanes, to support his fellow Fascist General Francisco Franco. In Spain, the Legion perfected the carpet-bombing technique, which dropped nearly 2.7 million pounds of bombs and fired more than four million machine-gun bullets. Meanwhile, Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Italy sent forces that eventually numbered seventy-five thousand men. Stalin countered the dictators’ moves by sending men and arms to aid the Republicans, while Britain and France remained ‘neutral’, agreeing not to sell arms to either side. In reality, this policy assisted Franco, receiving more war materiel from Germany and Italy than the Republicans got from Russia.

But the Civil War was, initially, less dangerous to European peace than Mussolini’s conquest of Abyssinia. It was a war about Spain’s fate, fought out by Spaniards to the bitter end. Despite the Spanish government’s legitimacy, the British government fell into the pious posture of ‘Non-Intervention’ once more, as it had done over Abyssinia. Britain and France held a conference in London where they persuaded twenty-six other governments to officially back this principle, though many subsequently breached the embargoes. The conference set up a committee to police the principle in practice. Both Germany and Italy took seats on it, which they kept until June 1937, by which time, as Roberts puts it, the farce could not be played out any longer. But in both cases, Ethiopia and Spain, the cynical policy pursued by the dictators increased their confidence and further embittered their relationships with the democracies. November 1936 also saw Germany and Japan sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, aimed at opposing the USSR’s Third Communist International but also creating what became known as The Axis. For the moment, however, Hitler cranked up his sabre-rattling policy towards his neighbours, particularly those with large German populations contiguous with the borders of the Reich.

When Italian troops moved into Spain on Franco’s side, the Left redoubled its efforts to rally support for the Republicans. Writers, photographers and painters from all over Europe set to work as propagandists. By the spring of 1937, there were thirty thousand Germans and eighty thousand Italians in Spain. The Germans marched and, worse, had fleets of aeroplanes. The Republicans had practically no planes. The deliberate bombing of civilians was still regarded as unimaginable barbarity. So when the Kondor Legion bombed Guernica, the Basque capital, on 27th April, practically wiping it out, the whole world was outraged, and Picasso’s famous picture went on tour all over Europe. The Nazi propaganda machine under Dr Goebbels swung into action to convince everyone that the Basques had blown up their own city to discredit Franco. At a dinner party at Philip Sassoon’s, the diplomat and diarist Harold Nicolson, who had just become an MP for ‘National Labour’, murmured to Anthony Eden that he wanted “the Reds to win.” The destruction of Guernica reinforced his feelings as he wrote to his wife, Vita, that…

only that ass Teenie (Victor Cazalet) goes on sticking up for Franco. I could have boxed his silly ears … I do so loathe this war. I really feel that barbarism is creeping over earth again and that mankind is going backward.

Non-Intervention to Appeasement, 1935-37:

In public, however, Nicolson firmly supported the government’s policy of Non-Intervention, praising Eden, its glamorous advocate on the world stage. Britain, Harold instructed the House, could no longer indulge in its ‘missionary foreign policy’ of the nineteenth century to impose our views, our judgements, our standard of life and conduct upon other countries. Without even a trace of irony, he fell back on commonplaces, advising the House that the best way forward was to maintain traditional British interests, the ‘preservation of peace’ and the ‘arrangement of the balance of power’. However, he failed to spell out how this was to be accomplished in the then-current climate of European affairs. When the Foreign Affairs Committee met in July to discuss the Spanish situation, Harold, now its vice-chair, was agitated to find ‘an enormous majority’ passionately anti-government and pro-Franco, a setting that allowed much of the younger Tories to ‘blow off steam.’ He told Eden that he opposed granting ‘belligerency rights’ to either side, as this would only serve Franco’s cause. Eden agreed and, in turn, admitted that non-intervention had ‘largely failed.’ This fact could not be disguised with the Italians, Germans, and Russians roaming the Spanish battlefields. But neither was the concomitant, that there was no alternative if an all-out European conflagration was to be avoided.

A. J. P. Taylor wrote in 1969 that it puzzled post-war observers that Churchill was disregarded when dangers and difficulties accumulated for Britain in the mid-thirties. Baldwin and MacDonald were blamed for the sloth and blindness they demonstrated towards the continental threat, and so too was British public opinion. But Taylor also blamed Churchill for losing hold of public opinion through his obsession with empire and intemperate opposition over India. The British people would no longer respond to the romantic call of Imperial glory. He had nothing to say, at least before 1937, about the great economic questions, like unemployment. He remained notably silent during the interminable debates on these in the Commons. R. R. James (1970) wrote of how by 1933, Churchill was widely regarded as…

a failed politician, in whom no real trust could reasonably be placed; by June 1935 these opinions had been fortified further. His habit of exaggerating problems, and in clothing relatively minor questions in brightly coloured language, had the effect that when a really major issue did arise there was no easy way of differentiating it…

Churchill’s campaign for rearmament lacked the essential qualities of a crusade. It was limited; it was personal; it was far from national; and it was closely linked to the political fortunes of its leader. Great speeches in Parliament and stirring public appeals do not constitute a crusade. …

These comments do not contravert Churchill’s record on Defence matters in the years 1932-36. … the central fact that he sensed danger long before most of his contemporaries discerned it. His central theme was unanswerably right. But the failure of his campaign was not entirely the result of the folly of others. A dispassionate assessment of why his reputation remained so low at the end of 1936, after a period in which his warnings had proved to be abundantly justified, must return to the quotation… ‘Every man is the maker of his own fate.’

R. R. James, Churchill: A Study in Failure, 1900-39. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970.
pp. 121-2, 358-9.

Soon after he became a National Labour MP in 1935, Harold Nicolson admitted to Churchill that he felt ‘terribly hampered’ in deciding ‘about foreign policies’ because he had no conception whatsoever as to our real defensive capabilities. Churchill fed him an (inflated) assessment of Germany’s air strength, which, if augmented by the Italian air force, was a very excellent striking machine. This led Harold to the inescapable conclusion that we are not in a position to go to war without active Russian assistance. Malcolm MacDonald, Secretary of State for dominions (and later for colonies) whose judgement he valued, reiterated that Britain was too weak to gamble on war:

It would mean the the massacre of women and children in the streets of London. No Government could possibly risk a war when our anti-aircraft defences are in so farcical a condition.

The Spanish civil war continued until 1939, but most surviving British International Brigaders returned home in 1937. One in five of them had been killed, and three in four of the survivors were injured. But it had been less like the great confrontation between Good and Evil, won by the latter, and more like the dress rehearsal for something far worse. The Fascists had been more greatly encouraged by their Spanish adventures, leading Hitler and Mussolini to form their Rome-Berlin Axis, beginning a massive build-up of their armed forces. Hitler interpreted Non-Intervention as a green light, but he still needed more time in 1937 to prepare for his campaign of conquest. The growing danger in Europe encouraged the democracies to believe that a policy of ‘appeasement’ was the only way to ensure peace. The great upholder was the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who took office in May 1937, following Stanley Baldwin’s ‘retirement’. For many months, Baldwin had been to retire from political life, but events before and after King Edward’s abdication had kept him in office. As soon as King George VI had been crowned, Baldwin decided to hand over the Premiership to Neville Chamberlain, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on 28th May, the Chamberlains moved into No. 10 Downing Street. Baldwin went into the House of Lords as Earl Baldwin of Bewdley. René Cutforth wrote of him…

that certainly, his chief influence had been anaesthetic… unless circumstances forced him into action, he had preferred to drowse. It may be that to his deep-rooted aversion to confrontation, his genius for keeping antagonisms safely in solution and never allowing them to crystallise out, we may owe the fact that, when finally we had to go to war, we went as one people, an undivided nation.

René Cutforth, pp 115-6.
From Baldwin to Chamberlain & All souls, 1937:

The picture above shows Earl Baldwin at his first public appearance since taking the title, receiving a presentation gift from Neville Chamberlain, his successor as PM. The long ‘Baldwin-MacDonald era’ came to an end, but Chamberlain was to hold the top post for only three years. After that, the Cabinet was reshuffled, but only from the existing pack, with Eden remaining as Foreign Secretary. Many among both contemporaries and historians have characterised Chamberlain as:

a vain man who thought that a personal approach by him to the dictators would succeed where other methods had failed. He believed that friendly relations could be established with Hitler by meeting his demands halfway and thus forcing him to negotiate and not use force. It was a disastrous policy.

Donald Lindsay (1979), Europe and the World, 1870 to the Present Day. Oxford: Oxford University Press (‘O’ Level text).

Apart from being another Conservative Midlands industrialist, the new Prime Minister had little in common with the old one. Neville Chamberlain was an upright provincial, nonconformist businessman with an old-fashioned moustache who had once been Lord Mayor of Birmingham and whose qualities of vision and imagination seemed to suit him admirably for such a position. He has been frequently described as autocratic, and the extent to which he relied on his ‘inner cabinet’ of congenial ministers has been often criticised. There is, however, no orthodoxy in these matters, and Chamberlain is neither the first nor the last PM to have been criticised for their strength of will and determination. As Keith Robbins has suggested, whether that quality is admired or condemned depends upon the course of events. A political observer at the time he became PM wrote of him:

This seeming lack of breadth of mind and culture… arouses some misgivings about Mr Chamberlain. Clarity of mind – and he has it in an unusual degree – is not enough if the mind, so to say, sees the field with searching clearness, but not the field as part of the landscape, and that kind of limited vision is not necessarily compensated by courage such as Mr Chamberlain has. The two together could be a positive danger.

Stanley Baldwin had not been fond of first-class minds: Chamberlain’s Cabinet also excluded most of the ablest men so that by 1938, Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper, Harold Macmillan and Leopold Amery formed a minor Conservative opposition inside the party. The old gang, Lord Halifax, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoare, were given the jobs. One Minister, Sir Thomas Inskip, was a man of such natural endowments that when his appointment as Minister of Defence was announced, the House of Commons sat there laughing for several minutes. In that company, Sir Anthony Eden, still at the Foreign Office, though not for long, resembled at age forty-something of a whizz-kid. Baldwin had preferred to leave his Ministers to their own devices, but Chamberlain was an interfering Prime Minister: he liked, he said, to give each of his ministers a policy, and it was in Foreign Policy that the PM interfered most because, though having little experience in that field, he had a policy and it was not the same as Eden’s. That policy was the line that came to be known as ‘appeasement’. There was nothing new in it: it was believed by almost every ‘liberal’ mind in Britain (including Churchill’s) that the Versailles Treaty had been unjustly harsh to the Germans and that some kind of ‘give and take’ policy might have modified the explosive situation in Europe.

By 1937 there was a bitter ideological debate on appeasement, reflected in G. M. Trevelyan’s letter to The Times in which he wrote that dictatorship and democracy must live side by side in peace, or civilisation is doomed. To this, he added that Englishmen would do well to remember that the Nazi form of government is, in large measure, the outcome of Allied and British injustice at Versailles… During the winter and early spring of 1937-38, Harold was invited to participate in a kind of ‘brains trust’ on foreign affairs at All Souls College, Oxford. Its purpose was to set out guidelines that would neutralise the menace of the totalitarian states. It was organised by Sir Arthur Salter, an Oxford ‘don’ and was dubbed ‘Salter’s Soviet’ by Lionel Curtis, one of its more energetic members. It was an assortment of idealogues, with the historian A. L. Rowse, a fierce critic of the government policy rubbing shoulders with some of its most ardent supporters, Lord Allen of Liverpool and Arnold Toynbee. Rowse later (1961) summarised the debate and discussion:

So Baldwin passed from the scene, and Neville Chamberlain reigned in his stead. He may not have had Baldwin’s weakness for fellows of All Souls, but he was even more dependent on two of them. He wanted Simon to to succeed him as Chancellor of the Exchequer; while on his breach with Eden- virtually a dismissal – Halifax came to his rescue and became Foreign Secretary.

Chamberlain’s course was hopeless from the start. It was at one time the fashion to exonerate him and place most of the blame on Baldwin. But where Baldwin’s were sins of omission, Chamberlain’s were sins of deliberate commission. He really meant to come to terms with Hitler, to make concession after concession to the man to the man to buy an agreement. Apart from the immorality of coming to terms with a criminal, it was always sheer nonsense; for no agreement was possible except through submission to Nazi Germany’s domination of Europe and, with her allies and their joint conquests, of the world…

It is no use making concessions to a blackmailer or an aggressor; he will only ask for more. … In fact, we were left without any effective means, with no power whatsoever, in a hopeless minority, with no organs of opinion at our command, to try and do something of what the government should have been doing. We were all too ineffective, condemned to making bricks without straw. …

Chamberlain knew no history … had no conception of the elementary necessity of keeping the balance of power on our side; no conception of the Grand Alliance, or of its being the only way to contain Hitler and keep Europe safe…

The total upshot of (‘the appeasers’) efforts was to aid Nazi Germany to achieve a position of brutal ascendancy, a threat to everybody else’s security or even existence, which only a war could end. … These men had no real conception of Germany’s character or malign record in modern history.

A. L. Rowse, All Souls and Appeasement, Macmillan, 1961, pp. 37-9, 63, 117.

Among others, Harold Macmillan, Basil Liddell Hart, and H. A. L. Fisher were included, while Geoffrey Dawson and Leopold Amery remained on the fringes. Between December 1937 and May 1938, it convened nine times, usually at weekends at All Souls but also at members’ flats in central London. Finally, Lionel Curtis put forward a programme, arguing that twenty years of peace were worth any price:

We offer Germany: (i) Anschluss (union with Austria); (ii) arrangements granting cantonal status to Sudetenland by Czech government; (iii) recognition of Germany’s colonial rights; (iv) admit Germany’s prior economic interests in eastern Europe.

We demand from Germany: (i) assurance that extension of German interests in eastern Europe would not entail any attack upon the autonomy of other countries; (ii) that Germany agree to the limitation of arms under which she would be the strongest power in central Europe but unable to dominate the collective force of other powers, i.e. preponderence but not supremacy; (iii) and that Germany not support Italian aims in the Mediterranean and Africa.

This was too much for Harold Nicolson, who shocked Curtis with his ‘anti-German stance’. He put on record his belief in Germany’s ‘aggressive ambitions’, underscoring the ‘heroic motive’ that inspired German youth and that conditioned them to sacrifice themselves in the pursuit of power. Nor would he hear of granting economic privileges in eastern Europe to Germany. This was skirting the main issues, however. Would firmness, taking a stand against the dictators, deter them or provoke them into embarking on ever more reckless adventures? No consensus was reached on this crucial point, the primary purpose of convening the ‘Soviet’ in the first place. As Harold termed it, the split between ‘the realists and the moralists’ was complete and irreconcilable.

Exit Eden; Enter Halifax, 1937-38:

Eden was contemptuous of Italy and was persuing a solid line on non-intervention, insisting that the Germans and the Italians should take their promises not to interfere in the Spanish Civil War more seriously. A Non-Intervention Agreement was supposedly in operation, though that did not serve as a significant obstacle to German, Italian and Soviet activities. However, at the end of August 1937, a torpedo, believed to have been fired from an Italian submarine, was inaccurately fired at a British destroyer. The British and French governments summoned a conference of interested states, but neither Germany nor Italy attended. Britain and France agreed that in future, their warships would attack unidentified submarines in the western Mediterranean. The Italians then decided to join in patrolling, thereby improving the diplomatic atmosphere. Meanwhile, Chamberlain deprecated any tendency among his colleagues to lump Germany and Italy together as ‘fascist powers’. For him, Germany was the problem, and by the end of the year, he had begun to address it directly.

Source: These Tremendous Years, 1919-38, March/April 1938.

Chamberlain thought Eden was being inconsiderate to Italy and set about conciliating Mussolini. This involved accepting Il Duce‘s conquest of Abyssinia. Finally, in a conversation between Grandi, the Italian Ambassador, and Eden and Chamberlain together, the Prime Minister actually argued Grandi’s case for him against Eden. Neville Chamberlain then went forward with his proposed Anglo-Italian agreement, without terms, to ease the bad feeling between Italy and Britain that had started over Abyssinia. Eden remained a firm believer in the League of Nations policy and was convinced that Mussolini should first be required to withdraw Italian troops fighting under Franco’s command in Spain. The Cabinet threatened to split on the issue, but on 20th February, Eden (shown above with his wife Beatrice) resigned. This was, ostensibly at least, because he could not agree to recognise the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, but, as we have already noted, it was also the case that Eden had been growing increasingly angry at the extent to which, after he succeeded to the premiership in May 1937, Neville Chamberlain took a specific interest in the conduct of foreign policy. It was frustration at this state of affairs that Eden could no longer manage. Lord Halifax, who had no objection to letting Chamberlain run the Foreign Office, was made Foreign Secretary in his stead. After his resignation, however, Eden by no means made life difficult for his former colleagues. Professor Keith Robbins wrote (in 1988) that:

He occasionally expressed a mild and judicious dissent but it was certainly not a root-and-branch opposition to all appeasement of the type that the Prime Minister was still engaged. And there was no one simple anti-appeasement front. It was only on the eve of war in 1939 that closer ties existed between Churchill, Eden and their respective followers and something approaching an ‘anti-appeasement’ front was formed.

Keith Robbins, Appeasement, Historical Association Studies (Second edn.) Oxford: Blackwell.

Eden’s successor, Lord Halifax, belonged to the generation ‘above’ him. Both men came from (somewhat different) landed families in the North of England. Already an MP at the outbreak of the Great War, Halifax spent three years of the war in Flanders and was one of a large number of Tory MPs in 1919 who pressed Lloyd George for harsher peace terms to be imposed on Germany. Such actions do not suggest an excessive tendency towards appeasement. However, as Viceroy of India (as Lord Irwin) from 1926, he came into direct conflict with Churchill. The latter – an influential figure in Baldwin’s two governments in the 1920s – continued to assert that Britain had no intention of relinquishing its ‘mission’ in India. It was perhaps somewhat inevitable that the analogies between India and the deteriorating situation in Europe, however absurd they may seem in post-imperial Britain, should suggest themselves to the mind of Halifax, as they had done to those of Simon and Hoare. In India, in his dealings with Gandhi and the Indian political leaders, Irwin had been able to make a ‘pact’ which had ended the Civil Disobedience Campaign (see the photo from 1930 below). He had achieved this, he firmly believed, by a series of face-to-face meetings in which ‘some face’ had to be lost by the British to reach a general settlement. As Lord Privy Seal from 1935, Halifax had taken an increasing interest in foreign affairs, pondering the possible applications of his Indian experiences to the peace of Europe. In reply to a suggestion in July 1936 that there was a certain similarity between the characters of the chief actors in Germany and India – a potent inferiority complex, an idealism, a belief in a divine mission and a difficulty in dealing with unruly lieutenants – Halifax replied:

There is much in common between Germany and India, and part of the trouble during recent years has been that the French have been so anxious to maintain things that evoke Germany’s inferiority complex.’

Andrew Roberts (1991), The Holy Fox: A Biography of Lord Halifax. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

The ability of the English gentlemen at the Foreign Office to discern an ‘inferiority complex’ in others was very well developed. Very different though they were, both Gandhi and Hitler delivered prophetic messages which somehow had to be dealt with. Halifax, it seems, from an early stage in government, was very interested “in getting together with Hitler and squaring him.” However, had Halifax, the Beaverbrook press and the ‘boffins’ at the Foreign Office been as familiar with Gandhiji’s Autobiography (1925) and his History of Satyagraha in South Africa as they were, presumably, with Mein Kampf, they might also have been able to make the comparison and ‘spot the difference’ between an idealism based in shared moral values (with most of India’s British Raj) and nonviolent doctrines, on the one hand, and on the other, one based on concepts of racial superiority and aggressive expansionism. Moreover, most Indian statesmen, including Gandhi himself, had been educated in England and therefore literally spoke the same language to a very advanced level. He was not the first to make this fatal error, nor would he be the last. After an extensive period in the India Office, the young R. A. B. Butler came to the Foreign Office as Under-Foreign Secretary to Halifax in 1938. He felt the problem before him was the same in both cases: dealing with the ‘status’ of a great people, this time Germany – then India.

In any case, Halifax got his face-to-face chance with Herr Hitler in November (17th -21st) 1937. His visit to Berlin and Berchtesgaden came just a month after rioting had begun in the Sudetenland. Eden was not altogether happy about this visit by a Cabinet colleague with no responsibility for foreign affairs; still, Halifax’s experience of dealing with ‘awkward men’ as Viceroy of India ameliorated Eden’s objections, though the Foreign Secretary still gave Halifax firm advice that he should keep the Germans guessing about Britain’s intentions.

The conversation ranged widely, and Hitler appeared to be very upset that Germany no longer had colonies. As a result, it subsequently appeared in London that there might be the possibility of reverting to this question again. However, it was difficult to tell how serious Hitler’s interest really was, as he did not return to it in subsequent negotiations. The two men then got down to specific questions concerning Danzig, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Halifax reiterated that while the status quo was not sacrosanct, the British government felt strongly that any changes could only occur through ‘peaceful evolution.’ Halifax also let Hitler know that German internal policy was distasteful to the British.

Lord Halifax touring Berlin with Göring.

To be fair to Halifax, his own diary entry makes it clear that it was obvious to him during or soon after the meeting that he could no longer pretend (if he ever really had) that Hitler shared the same values or ‘spoke the same language’ that he had been able to use in his face-to-face talks with Gandhi.

That soon became ‘blindingly’ obvious when the Führer suggested to Halifax that Gandhi might usefully be shot. Even so, Halifax (not yet Foreign Secretary) wanted to go on talking in the belief that, sooner or later, some form of understanding might, Micawber-like, ‘turn up.’ Germany’s ‘state of revolution’ would eventually cease, there would be a broader return to order, and peace would prevail. This was now a form of appeasement from weakness rather than from strength. Certainly, Halifax picked up on many contemporary assumptions about Britain’s army and navy, which made him cautious. Still, there was also a pervasive, paradoxical sense that the appeasers played a purposeful and still-determining role in the adjustments of world power that seemed to be taking place.

However, it was hardly the case that the Führer was ‘squared’ on this occasion. We had a different set of values and were speaking a different language, Halifax subsequently confided in his diary. Yet he did not concede that further conversation was pointless and that Britain should prepare for war. Instead, he reported to the Cabinet that, in his view, the Germans had no policy of immediate adventure. Their country was still in a state of revolution.

Nevertheless, they would press their claims in Central Europe, though not in a form to give others a cause or occasion to intervene. From this report of Halifax’s ‘interview’ with Hitler, Chamberlain took the view that an atmosphere had been created in which the ‘practical questions’ involved in a pan-European settlement could be discussed. He began to clear the ground with the French. His ‘realistic’ view of the European future was of its management by the four Great Powers – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – and it was up to Britain and Germany to lay the foundations of this. There was an inherent tension in Chamberlain’s position at this point. Britain was still to play a supporting European role, but the PM remained opposed to the idea of a substantial continental army. Britain could not countenance the continent slipping under German, especially Nazi, domination. Yet it was obvious that German influence over central Europe would be extended, and that should surely be a matter of continuing concern. The covert message was that borders should be adjusted, if not fully revised, albeit by agreement.

One possible source of encouragement in the face of the deteriorating European situation might have been provided by the United States. In October 1937, President Roosevelt made his Chicago ‘Quarantine’ speech which seemed to indicate that the administration was not totally uninterested in the trend of world affairs. The difficulty, however, was to find out precisely what the speech was meant to imply. The suggestion that aggressors might be ‘quarantined’ seemed to be meaningless. The neutrality legislation rendered any dramatic intervention impossible, although various spokesmen and emissaries seemed to be sending confusing messages across the Atlantic. Chamberlain was not impressed, as he did not want his foreign policy initiatives to be frustrated by US intervention, particularly since he did not believe that this would amount to anything but words. On the other hand, Eden believed that the Americans should be ‘educated’ in the hope of securing their support in the future. The Prime Minister took the initiative in sending a cold communiqué in mid-January 1938 to a general letter from Roosevelt suggesting an international conference. Eden took offence, as perhaps the PM had hoped he might. Differences mounted between the two men, particularly, as already noted, on how to handle Italy.

Eventually, in February, Eden resigned. He was no longer prepared to play a subordinate role in executing policy, which Chamberlain supposed he had accepted. His resignation cannot, however, be interpreted as a dramatic dissociation from the appeasement policy. His differences with Chamberlain at this point can still be described as technical, perhaps personal, rather than substantive. Also, it was, and still is, difficult to tell how decisions were being made in Berlin and whether the German Foreign Office really had much say in policy-making. In a sense, Chamberlain was joining a fashion by using special emissaries who were not under the control of the Foreign Office to take soundings and convey messages on his behalf. After Eden’s resignation, Halifax became Foreign Secretary. Nevertheless, the framework of his ideas had not changed in the interval:

… you have got to live with devils whether whether you like them or not …

Roberts, loc. cit. p. 85

He was reflecting on Eden’s ‘natural revulsion’ for dictators. He suggested that the best way to deal with them was to keep them guessing about what you might do in central Europe – a position which also had the advantage of preventing the French from making assumptions about British intentions in this area. It was, however, also the case that the government did not, in fact, know what it would do, as was demonstrated in both the Austrian and Czechoslovak crises later in the year of his appointment. It was only then, in September 1938, when Chamberlain brought back the terms offered by Hitler in Bad Godesberg, that Halifax changed his mind. There is testimony that by this time, Halifax had come to loathe Nazism and had lost all his delusions about Hitler.

Lord Halifax (left) with Hitler and von Ribbentrop.

Halifax was a very tall man (six feet five inches) and referred to Hitler as ‘a nasty little man’, whereas Goebbels was ‘a little man’ whom he liked. Lord Halifax was a personification of Britain, which had to stoop from its imperial ‘heights’ to be conquered. In this, he also personified the policy of appeasement, together with Chamberlain, another tall statesman. Halifax’s career, then, is a reminder that the term ‘appeaser’ is not rigid. Halifax may have ‘stiffened’ in 1938; in some readings, he may have ceased to be an appeaser. However, the War Cabinet debates of late May 1940 are a reminder that Halifax still brought what he saw as a rational calculation of Britain’s interests to the table at that dire juncture. His approach contrasted sharply with the instinctive tone adopted by Churchill. In this sense, Halifax remained an appeaser, if a modified one. His contemporary biographer explained Halifax’s practical motivation in favour of appeasement:

There is no more sincere believer in the League of Nations and all that it stands for, as his early speeches show. But he was quite frankly impatient with the idealism which was ready to sacrifice all hope of real peace in the vain effort to enforce upon the world an ideal which had become impracticable.

He is English in his good-natured hatred of cruelty, and his instinctive revolt against injustice in any form; in the cool, rather stolid courage with which he faces danger, and in the dogged patience and perseverance with which he pursues his aims through apparently insuperable difficulties … and in his cautious reluctance to accept a course of conduct simply because it is logical.

Stuart Hodgson, Lord Halifax (1941), pp. 241, 244.

Playing for Time – British Foreign Policy, 1937-38:

The rise of the aggressive fascist dictatorships in Italy and France, together with the growing success of Franco’s forces in Spain, meant that the rise of Fascism dominated British Foreign Policy in the late 1930s. The British government pursued its policy of Non-Intervention in Spain, alongside the appeasement of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, in the hope of avoiding a general European war. However, Germany and Italy had left the Non-Intervention Committee on 23rd June, and soon after, by July 1937, a second war was already in progress, this time in the Far East between Japan and China.

In an aerial attack on Shanghai on 28th August, sixteen Japanese planes bombed the area around Shanghai South Station, killing two hundred people. The baby in the picture, crying amid the ruins, was filmed by a Chinese cameraman, and it was estimated that a hundred and thirty-six million people worldwide saw the scene in newspapers and newsreels.

In July, Japan marched into China and took Peking without a formal declaration of war. Japan invaded after the Chinese had fired on Japanese soldiers engaged in manoeuvres near the Manchukuo frontier. Britain, although having critical commercial interests in China and Singapore, was not strong enough to take on Japan, but China’s resistance was greater than that expected by the Japanese. Chiang Kai-Shek had become China’s nationalist dictator and built a disciplined, well-equipped army. His wife, Mei-Ling (see the inset photo above), was an American-educated Methodist member of China’s ruling House of Soong. She took over the propaganda organisation, acting as a news censor. She also negotiated, through her influential family, foreign loans.

No clear military or political agreement had been forged between Germany, Italy and Japan. Still, they had become identified by the mid-1930s as revisionist powers who hoped to alter the existing distribution of territory and global influence in their favour. The direct result was to create a widening rift between these dictatorships and Britain and France, which initially, Hitler had not anticipated and did not welcome. Having proclaimed the Rome-Berlin Axis at the end of 1936, Mussolini subsequently joined Germany and Japan in the Anti-Comintern Pact in November 1937. In the spring of 1938, however, a political crisis in Austria provided the opportunity Hitler awaited to force a union between the two German states. As his formal ally, Mussolini no longer stood in the way of Hitler’s long-held plan as he had done in previous years.

Women and children sheltering from Axis bombing in Spain.

From its outset, the Spanish Civil War had absorbed the international community’s attention. It now served as a litmus test for whether democracy would survive or Fascism triumph. The extreme polarisation of political forces inside Spain, together with the active involvement of Italy and Germany on behalf of the insurgents and the Soviet Union supposedly championing the cause of the Left, turned the civil war into the ideological cause célébre of the late 1930s. Writing in 1938, the Duchess of Athol pointed to the risks of continuing the Non-Intervention policy thus far pursued by Britain and France:

Unless, indeed, the Fascist Powers wish a European War here and now, a rapid flow of arms to the Republicans plus the possibility of a Franco-British blockade, might induce the aggressors to withdraw at least part of their armed forces. If the Spaniards were at last left to fight it out, a loyalist victory would be assured, and a heavy blow would have been dealt to aggressive dictators. A new hope of peace would dawn for Europe.

… If Spain be allowed to pass under Fascist control, the dictators will have won the first round of the game, and the succeeding ones will be infinitely harder, and more costly, to, to wrench from their hands.

It is not clear, then, that whatever our next move may be, the first, if we are not to be parties to an appalling tragedy and to a terrible blunder, must be to abandon the so-called Non-Intervention policy and restore to the Spanish Government its right under International Law to buy arms?

The Duchess of Atholl, Searchlight on Spain (1938), pp. 329-30.

Government troops surrender to Nationalist forces on a front in Northern Spain. For foreigners who fought in the Spanish War, the main impact was not so much the battle experience as the bitterness of this family quarrel and the enormous numbers of people executed on both sides.

A further famous incident in the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 was ‘The Panay Incident’, which took place on 12th December, when Japanese planes again swooped down, this time to bomb (‘accidentally’) the US gunboat Panay that was steaming along the Yangtze River with refugees from Nanking, China’s capital. For twenty minutes, Panay seamen fired away with old Lewis guns shown in the picture (below left), but the planes kept in the line of the sun, so blinding the gunners. Within two hours, the Panay sank (pictured above), and fifty-four survivors who had got to the river bank hid in the rushes till the planes, which had machine-gunned them as they abandoned ship, flew off. The picture below (right) shows Quartermaster John Lang receiving emergency care for severe chin and arm wounds. Hirosi Saito, Japan’s ambassador to the United States, offered immediate apologies when he heard the news. He claimed the bombing was “completely accidental… a terrible blunder.” Soon after, the Tokyo government made offers of full compensation and a promise to punish offenders.

Source: These Tremendous Years.

In this ‘global’ context, therefore, it should come as no surprise to us, with the benefit of hindsight, that in late 1937 and early 1938, it looked as though Britain would be able to play no military role in Europe whatsoever. There was certainly nothing which could conceivably have been done by Britain and France, acting without Italy, to prevent the Anschluss of Austria to Germany in March 1938. A year later, the Chiefs of Staff also expressed the opinion that there was nothing that Britain, France and their potential Central European allies could do by sea, on land or in the air to prevent the military defeat of Czechoslovakia. The only thing that could be done at this stage was to declare war on Germany and defeat it in what would undoubtedly be a prolonged struggle. In all likelihood, Italy and Japan would exploit a Central European war for their own ends, making it a pan-European and then a world war. The weight of advice received by the Cabinet was such that it would have been a fearless and perhaps foolhardy PM who ignored it. These practical realities may not explain the development of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy in 1938-40, but it does explain why there was no ‘rush to war’ in the spring of 1938. According to some historians, before 1936, the British intelligence community underrated the military potential of Germany; between 1936 and 1938, it overcompensated for its earlier misjudgement and exaggerated the capacity of the German armed forces.

It was, however, and still is, the Prime Minister from May 1937, Neville Chamberlain, who is primarily regarded as the prince of the appeasers. It is his name rather than any other which is inseparably attached to the policy of appeasement in its most ardent phase, though he did not invent the term. The fact that the policy is so firmly linked to one individual is a further reminder, already confirmed in considering foreign secretaries, that appeasement was not a simple formula, put into operation without variation regardless of who happened to be in government at any given time. Each prominent appeaser had his own agenda and brought to the task of shaping policy individual preconceptions, analogies and experiences. So it was with Neville Chamberlain. It was not a sufficient explanation of his failings as PM that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1931 to 1937, he had been so preoccupied with domestic economic matters that he was ignorant of world trends and developments. Almost by definition, especially in the circumstances of the mid-1930s, a Chancellor had to have a broad knowledge of international affairs, and Neville was nothing if not conscientious and thorough in his preparation. The confidence with which he expressed views on international issues of the day may have been exaggerated, but it was not without foundation. Even though he was sixty-eight when he became prime minister, he was fit and vigorous, brisk and efficient.

In short, few recent writers think that Chamberlain became an appeaser because he was stupid or ignorant, though other ministers and previous prime ministers may deserve this verdict. Some have suggested that there was something to be said for the policy; others, as already noted above, see it as a disastrous policy, stemming ultimately from the vanity, touchiness and obstinacy of the PM’s personality. While it is desirable that leading politicians believe in themselves, Chamberlain did so to excess. He came to ‘own’ the policy in a very personal, perhaps undesirable manner. These character defects brought about the tragedy of complete failure in foreign policy and earned him posthumous derision. So when we consider the course of action followed by the National Government throughout 1937 and early ’38 and its persistence in seeking an accommodation with Hitler, even a humiliating one, must lie with Chamberlain himself. In an ‘alternative’ 1937, another Prime Minister or a more flexible Chamberlain could only have represented an improvement in the foreign policy that was actually followed. In his defence, it has long been conceded that Chamberlain’s very real, personal sense of horror at the possibility of a second world war within twenty years of the last did not mean that he pursued ‘peace at any price.’ Duff Cooper, writing in 1953, drew a more sympathetic portrait than most of Chamberlain’s personal motivations:

I had sympathy with Chamberlain’s attitude. He had become Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1931 when the country, we were told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. He had brought about a great financial recovery. He was about to welcome the return of prosperity and he hoped to use the money in beneficial measures of social reform. Suddenly he saw his dreams dissolving. The plenty he had laboured so hard to collect was going to be thrown away on re-armament, the least remunerative form of expenditure. But all was not yet lost. There was no certainty of war. …

… He had never moved in the great world of politics or finance, and the continent of Europe was a closed book. He had been a successful Lord Mayor of Birmingham, and for him the Dictators of Germany and Italy were like the Lord Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, who might belong to different political powers and have different interests, but who must desire the welfare of humanity, and be fundamentally reasonable, decent men like himself. This profound misconception lay at the root of his policy and explains his mistakes.

Duff Cooper, Old Men Forget (1953) p. 200.

But whatever the flaws in his approach to the dictators, Chamberlain did rearm the country and did not leave Britain defenceless in 1940. He was not, in his own mind, merely clearing the path for its abject surrender, but neither is it clear that he was simply ‘playing for time.’ He seemed sincere in his publicly stated belief that he was having some success in promoting ‘peaceful change’ or at least that he was only acquiescing in the minimum use of force to allow contentious matters to be resolved in Germany’s favour, so long as the safety or independence of the United Kingdom was not directly threatened. He stuck obstinately to these objectives of 1937 through the occupation of Austria in March 1938 to the occupation of Prague in March 1939. Even then, he refused to accept that the premiss on which he had based so much of his thinking since becoming PM, and even before, now seemed fatally flawed. As Keith Robbins has concluded:

The power of a Prime Minister is formidable and a great deal does indeed hang, for good or ill, on his leadership. But is it persuasive to pin so much on one individual appeaser? There were, naturally, serious military and economic issues which had always to be addressed… underlying structural considerations… but, in so far as the final decisions are always political, we need to return to ‘public opinion’ and the appeasers. A retrospective justification attempted by some appeasers was that the Cabinet did not in fact have much room for manoeuvre. They could only work, in a democracy, within the parameters of what they believed the public would accept. Could Chamberlain have acted differently supposing, for a moment, that he wanted to?

Robbins, loc. cit., p. 46.

One of the more recent historians to reflect on this point, R. A. C. Parker (1993), considered that in 1938 Chamberlain could have secured sufficient support either for the policies he pursued or for an anti-German alliance. It has been implied that ‘public opinion’ was in flux and was simply at the PM’s disposal to channel as he chose. But it is not clear that, early in 1938, this was the case. In the Cabinet and in the Foreign Office, however, the desks were cleared for action. But the self-confidence displayed by the Prime Minister seemed puzzling, even to some of his ‘inner cabinet.’ The initiative in Europe was held by Germany, in association with Italy, and by contrast, France seemed inert and bewildered. How could Britain, which still lacked an army capable of fighting on the continent, stem the tide? The PM seems to have hoped that Hitler’s ambitions were limited. They might only extend to the inclusion in one German state of all the German speakers of central Europe. The readjustment of the frontiers involved might be uncomfortable, but it was difficult to resist in principle. National self-determination, a by-word at Versailles, had become an almost sacred doctrine after the dissolution of the old empires. It might just be possible, therefore, to bring about changes by negotiation and bring about a European settlement underwritten by Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Events were shortly to put the assumption that war could be avoided in this way to the test.

It was only in September 1938, after Munich, that it seemed that the appeasement policy had majority popular support in Britain, albeit accompanied by a profound sense of shame over the surrender of the Sudetenland. After Munich, the same historian wrote, Chamberlain could have ‘given up’ appeasement and based a policy of resistance to Hitler on a restored national consensus. No doubt he could have attempted such a change of course, but, given the efforts which he had personally invested in the appeasement policy as the means of achieving a ‘lasting peace,’ it would have been very difficult for him to have publicly indicated his scepticism in what he had achieved without in turn giving Hitler a propaganda coup. If a decisive shift in public opinion was possible before March 1939, Chamberlain chose not to make it, and neither did he make it even after the occupation of Prague.

There were occasions, however, when Chamberlain did feel that his views were being circumvented by a Foreign Office which did not share them. This led him to seek advice beyond the Foreign Office and rely even more on his own assessments of European political developments. He was willing to be briefed by ambassadors like Sir Neville Henderson, the Ambassador in Berlin, whose interpretations and suggestions corresponded with what the PM wanted to hear. As a result, he became increasingly implicated in what Professor Watt described as Chamberlain’s ‘constitutionally dubious’ practices. In a circle which became vicious, some officials in the Foreign Office were not averse to leaking information to politicians whose views were not shared by the Cabinet. Could such ‘subversion’ of the government be justified? Some historians have gone so far as to believe that Chamberlain deviously exercised a ‘tight control’ over the press during the late thirties, eliminating the Foreign Office News Department as a source of anti-appeasement advice in Whitehall. Downing Street then became the sole distributor of news from Whitehall. The editor of The Times, Geoffrey Dawson, was in close contact with the government and was singled out as the most prominent appeaser in the press. It is therefore argued that no alternative to appeasement was ever consistently argued in the British press or relevant facts and figures ever given in its support. Ironically, Chamberlain himself ultimately suffered from his success in lining up newspaper proprietors. He deluded himself into supposing that what could be read in the press was ‘real’ public opinion. Whether an alternative ‘real’ public opinion ever existed, however, and whether, if so, we can know what he was, raises vast and possibly unanswerable questions.

‘The appeasers’ should not, however, be dismissed as a small coterie of individuals living in a world of their own. They responded to the feelings and concerns evident, to varying degrees, in British society at large in this period, even if they too readily assumed that their response was the correct one. Even so, while the views of individual appeasers are important, they must also be placed in a more general policy context. Only by bringing the personal and the structural together can we understand appeasement in action. On 12th March 1938, German troops marched across the Austrian border, and within days the county’s independence was at an end. For weeks before this development, Austro-German tension had been high, and some such outcome was not altogether unexpected. It may have been only at the last moment that Hitler judged it safe to annex his homeland.

Martin Gilbert wrote (in 1966) that the policy of appeasement, as practised between 1919 and 1929, was wholly in Britain’s interests and was not intended as an altruistic policy. British policy makers reasoned that the basis of European peace was a flourishing economic situation, unhampered by political conflict. Therefore, multi-lateral appeasement would promote mutual understanding by ensuring general European prosperity. Only through the success of this policy could Britain avoid becoming involved again in a war arising out of national ambitions and frustrations: a war which might prove even more destructive than the Great War of 1914-18 had been. As Gilbert concluded, …

… appeasement was never a coward’s creed. It never signified retreat or surrender from formal pledges. … Appeasement was not only an approach to foreign policy, it was a way of life, a method of human contact and progress.

M. Gilbert, The Roots of Appeasement. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966, pp. 96-97, 177.

In the context of 1937, free from hindsight, Gilbert argued that appeasement was a policy of constant concessions based on common sense and strength. However, by the mid-1970s, a flood of evidence became available after the Public Record Act of 1967, and it was this evidence that confirmed Gilbert in his revisionist view of these issues and events:

I had not realised the extent to which Neville Chamberlain’s Cabinet were prepared to deceive Parliament. I had not realised the extent to which they chose to ignore the evidence of Hitler’s intention put before them. … And finally, no one had realised the extent to which, after Munich, far from using the so-called ‘year gained’ to re-arm. Chamberlain had adopted a quite different policy and a quite different attitude, that now the time had come to for a real agreement with Hitler which would make massive rearmament unnecessary, and disarmament a possibility.

Source: Norman Rose (see below).

So ends a full and historic year, Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary on New Year’s Eve, 1937. It had been a happy year, a useful year for him personally, though the gulf in the appeasement debate between the ‘realists’ and the ‘moralists’ was wider than ever. Besides, there was one continuing, frustrating snag for those who clung to an optimistic view: it was clouded by menace on the continent. Between March 1938 and March 1939, Hitler absorbed into his new Reich not only Austria and the Sudetenland, both of which could be claimed to be historically German but, under its new name of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the remainder of the Czech lands as well as the Lithuanian Baltic port of Memel with its surrounding lands. In addition, Hungary obtained parts of southern Slovakia and Ruthenia, which had substantial Hungarian minorities and had belonged to the Crown lands of St Stephen before 1918. Yet, in the spring of 1938, the unknown publishers of These Tremendous Years had this as their last page, which reminds us of the benefits and pitfalls of hindsight in historical judgement:

Source: These Tremendous Years, 1919-38.
Source: Overy.

In the thirty years following ‘Munich’, ‘appeasement’ became very clearly linked to the three meetings between Chamberlain and Hitler, which took place in October 1938. The place and the concept were seen as the twin symbols of British folly. Yet Gilbert argued that they were separable items of vocabulary, not collocations. He saw them as separate policies and argued that ‘Munich’ was a policy in its own right, dictated by fear and weakness, which Chamberlain devised, not as a means of postponing war but, as he personally believed, of making Anglo-German war unnecessary in the future. In the end, this was not a’ realistic’ view, as the map below of German conquests and administration by November 1942 demonstrates.

Left: Hitler with Heinrich Himmler, SS Commandant. Source: Overy

Conclusions – ‘Later Than They Thought’:

There was much in Gilbert’s research to suggest that a distinction needs to be drawn between the Baldwin-Eden appeasement policy followed until May 1938, which had many of the common characteristics of ‘revisionist’ policies pursued since 1922, and that which developed under Chamberlain and Halifax in response to the international crises of 1938, which became closely associated with the ‘Munich Agreement’. Fifty years on from Munich, Keith Robbins (1988) drew several conclusions in respect of the general debate on ‘Appeasement’ at that time. I have selected some of these that agree with my findings, especially on ‘economic appeasement.’

Therefore, there were perfectly plausible reasons for arguing both that Britain could not afford defence expenditure in the later 1930s and that it could not afford not to increase such spending:

“The economic difficulties of Britain in the 1930s do not in themselves explain appeasement, but no explanation can ignore those deep-seated problems.” (p. 87)

“The task of seeking to reconcile Britain’s imperial role with its European position can be seen to have worried all British Foreign Secretaries and their advisers in the first half of the twentieth century.”(p. 87)

“… there is a danger in assuming … that the pattern of British decline was predetermined. At the heart of the argument about appeasement is a debate about inevitability. We can point to the rise of other centres of power and the extreme difficulty of adequately defending so ramshackle a structure as the British Empire, but does that mean that there was so very little scope for manoeuvre in the 1930s?” (88)

“… Churchill saw signs of defeatism in government policies and believed that a display of resolution and self-confidence would bring its own reward. It is possible that a greater willingness to threaten intervention might have deterred Hitler, at least in the short term. In the longer term, however, it seems entirely likely that Hitler would have gone to war in circumstances which might have been as favourable as those of 1939.” (88)

“That is not to suggest that Chamberlain’s psychological understanding and tactical methods were flawless. He did not grasp the dynamics of Hitler’s régime and did not display a deep understanding of the aims, beliefs and practices of National Socialism.” (88)

“Even so, it is difficult to assess what difference Chamberlain’s shortcomings in this respect actually made to the conduct of policy. Lloyd George was blessed with much more imagination, but his analysis of Hitler’s mind and intentions was no better than Chamberlain’s. Another set of men in power would no doubt have made some, but not a vast, difference to the policies that were followed. Chamberlain, his colleagues and most of British opinion supposed it quite reasonable to believe in a world in which there was an underlying harmony between nations. It was surely inconceivable that governments would set out deliberately to use force. As evidence to the contrary mounted, Chamberlain and many of his countrymen looked around the world and were appalled by the ‘horrible barbarities’ they observed. Had ‘such a spectacle of human madness and folly’ ever been seen before?” (Holsti, 1991, pp.234-42). (88-89)

“The policies pursued in various areas – the economy, defence planning, industrial and technological development – may have produced the combination of conditions which enabled Britain to survive in 1940. But those same policies … substantially contributed to the ‘loss’ of Europe … Does this mean that appeasement was a success or failure? Of course, it would be consoling to believe that there could have been a policy in which there was no distinction between British interests and those of non-Nazi Europe as a whole. The inability of British and French governments ever to co-operate effectively is a sufficient commentary on this aspiration.” (89-90)

“A substantial section of British opinion had no wish to accept the priorities which would have been required to achieve the necessary image of strength. The problem of how a peace-loving democracy can be persuaded to prepare for war is an enduring one to which there is no easy answer. … British policy at Munich … was sometimes condemned for its apparent display of weakness by those who liked to regard themselves as exponents of power politics and a show of force. It was equally condemned, however, by many who had been adamantly against any vigorous policy of British rearmament. It was possible for people simultaneously to suffer anguish at the prospect of another major war and to feel intense remorse at what they believed to be Britain’s callous indifference to the plight of Czechoslovakia.” (90)

“… we can never be certain what the consequences of alternative policies might have been. Between 1939 and 1941 world politics evolved in a way that few observers could have predicted with confidence even in 1938.” (90)

These quotations seem most relevant to the current debate about the parallels with the current crisis in central-eastern Europe, though, as the events and evidence presented above clearly demonstrate, in any distinct era the devil is always in the detail. In many ways, we are already well past the Anschluss, if not already in the midst of a Sudeten crisis, in which case this is our 1938 Moment, with warnings abounding about the readiness of NATO countries to commit troops and military materials to a widening ‘hot war’ in eastern Europe. We may well find ourselves looking back on the 2020s in a similar way to the way Réne Cutforth looked back on the 1930s and drawing the conclusion that it was later than we thought.

Sources:

Keith Robbins (1988), Appeasement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents & Debates: Twentieth-Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Richard Overy (1996), Historical Atlas of the Third Reich. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Andrew Roberts (2010), The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. London: Penguin Books.

Asa Briggs, et al., (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Norman Rose (2005), Harold Nicolson. London: Pimlico (Random House).

René Cutforth (1976), Later Than We Thought: A Portrait of the Thirties. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Michael Clark & Peter Teed (eds.) (1972), Portraits & Documents: The Twentieth Century, 1906-1960. London: Hutchinson Educational.

Irene Richards, J. B. Goodson & J. A. Morris (1938), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War & After, 1914-35. London: George Harrap & Co.

Unknown author/ publisher (1938), These Tremendous Years. Printed in London & Northampton, 1938.

Featured

Britain, Europe and The World in 1937: A Moment in History Repeating itself? Part One

Democracy and Dictatorship – 2022 & 1922-1937:
The fall of the three great European empires at the end of the First World War – Austria, Germany and Russia – the chief centres of autocratic rule, seemed a happy augury for the future of democratic government. After the war, this was established in the new states, whose rulers recognised the wisdom of adopting constitutions modelled by Western Powers. In every European country, except Russia, where a new form of government, a Communist dictatorship, was maintained, the principle of representative government was accepted. Source: Richards et al., 1937.

Beginning his keynote address on Russia’s War on Ukraine on 28th June 2022, the newly-commissioned Head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, spoke of the similarity of the events of 1937 in Europe to the continuing and impending events of 2022 in the central-eastern part of the continent:

“This is our 1937 moment. We’re not at war, but we must act rapidly so that we are not drawn into one by our failure to contain territorial expansion … so we never find ourselves asking that futile question, ‘could we have done more?’

Sky News Report, 28. 06. 2022.

How did that ‘moment’ arise, and how significant was it in the subsequent events of interwar Europe? What are the parallels with recent events in Europe and elsewhere? The Paris Peace Settlement had left every post-war state in central Europe with internal problems and potential border disputes. It proved easier to break up the multi-ethnic empires than to replace them with ethnically homogeneous states. Restored Poland and Czechoslovakia both had significant German minorities after 1919 and disgruntled Slav minorities. The two new states established in Paris, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, also had substantial Hungarian minorities, as did Ukraine (in its western sub-Carpathian region) and Romania (in Transylvania). Hungarian resentment at the loss of over two-thirds of its pre-war land and at the exclusion of more than one-third of the Hungarian-speaking population was to simmer throughout the interwar period. Some 9.5 million ethnic Germans, or thirteen per cent of the German-speaking peoples, found themselves ‘marooned’ in the often uncongenial atmosphere of Czechoslovakia or Poland. The Germans of Austria were explicitly forbidden under the terms of Versailles from seeking Anschluss (union) with Germany, which contributed to undermining the newly founded Austrian Republic.

Time Chart of International Events & Relations, 1919-1929. Source: Donald Lindsay (1979), Europe & The World, 1870-1979.

As the economic situation in Germany grew worse during 1929-33, the Nazi Party (NSPD) increased its support in the Reichstag, and in 1933 the President, Hindenberg and the Nationalist Party, supporters of the old imperial régime, were forced to share power with Hitler, who became Chancellor.

There was often an acute sense of grievance among both winners and losers. The strictures of the Versailles Treaty managed to alienate many Germans from the new democratic Weimar Republic without seriously diminishing German might in perpetuity. A nation forged on Europe’s battlefields in the mid-nineteenth century bitterly resented attempts to exclusively blame its ruling élite for the outbreak of the Great War and the restrictions on its future military capabilities. In fact, her armed forces were merely streamlined into the professional nucleus of future mass armies. In this climate, it was not entirely surprising that swathes of desperate people, including the young, should have invested their hopes in the multiple temptations offered by Hitler’s National Socialists, with their identification of culprits, espousal of egalitarian mediocrity, and their messianic visions of future national greatness. By 1933, the most dangerous dictator had come to power after other authoritarian solutions had been essayed and failed. A peculiarly ‘democratic’ figure, the Führer was worshipped like a god by his followers, in itself testimony to the power of charismatic celebrity in the modern age.

Time Chart of International Events & Relations, 1930-39. Source: Donald Lindsay, Europe & The World, 1870-1979.

For the first five years of his rule, the Nazi dictator confined himself to chipping away at the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. He refused, for example, to resume the reparation payments set at Versailles, while in 1933, he took Germany out of the League of Nations. Moreover, by promising that Germany only wanted to live at peace with her neighbours so long as all people of the German ‘race’ were within ‘the Fatherland’, he lulled the democratic statesmen into a false sense of security. Only after 1937, when German military strength had been built up, Hitler’s demands became limitless, and the democracies slowly came to understand the danger he represented. In 1933, British public opinion was very mixed regarding what to do about Hitler. Victor Gollancz, the left-wing author and publisher, wrote this retrospective in 1953, reflecting on his conflicted feelings in 1933:

… I felt passionate about checkmating Hitler. But pacifism, genuine pacifism, previously asleep, was simultaneously beginning to stir. I began to wonder whether military resistance – killing your enemy, hacking your enemy’s guts out, driving your enemy mad – could ever be right. If it could ever be right, then it must be right when you used it, as in this case, to prevent the enslavement, the utter degredation of mankind: but could it? If the worst happened, if war came, shouldn’t I find myself a pacifist? Shouldn’t I say, don’t retaliate, don’t despitefully use them, don’t wound, don’t kill? And yet surely to prevent a war that immediately threatened was demanded, above everything, by my very hatred of wounding and killing? By, I almost began to say – my very pacifism? … The fact is that I never really faced the issue: or rather, I avoided facing it with a sort of unconscious deliberation.

Victor Gollancz (1953), More for Timothy, pp. 354-5.
German & Japanese Expansion, 1933-39:
Source: The Times History of Europe (2002).

Pervasive pacifism, an understandable reaction to mass carnage within living memory, shaped how the powers responded to the advent of predatory dictators and militarists. Ordinary people had already, by 1933, invested many expectations in the new League of Nations as a forum for resolving international conflicts without violence. There was a widespread fear of militarism and suspicion of the armaments industry, ensuring that the League had no effective means of stopping any future transgressors should moral persuasion or sanctions fail to work.

Source: Lindsay, 1979
Source: Lindsay, 1979.

Japanese aggression in northern China (above), followed a few years later by Italian imperialism in the Horn of Africa, was the League’s first crisis, and it failed in both cases. Statesmen who had lost relatives in the Great War, like Neville Chamberlain, or who had fought in it, like Lord Halifax, were loath to risk a future conflict over such issues as the fate of three million Sudeten Germans who claimed their human rights were being abused. The French PM, Daladier, had also fought in the war, and the French government adopted a defensive mentality, symbolised by the construction of the Maginot Line. It never occurred for a moment to anybody that the French behind their Maginot Line, an impregnably fortified strip stretching all across northern France to the Belgian border with hundreds of miles of underground workings, might turn out not to be a tower of military strength and virtue and the West’s main guarantor on land.

Source: archive.guardian.co.uk
Rehearsal, Rearmament & Remilitarisation, 1935-37.

‘The Rehearsal’, as the contemporary journalist René Cutforth titled these preceding events in his 1976 retrospective Portrait of the Thirties, commenced in the early months of 1935, with Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Hitherto it had not been thought necessary to consider Italy a hostile power. That position now changed, but though the Mediterranean fleet of the Royal Navy was superior to the Italian navy, Italian air attacks in the Mediterranean could be decidedly uncomfortable.

The British – their empire at its maximum extent – pondered how to balance multiple global military commitments against domestic demands for lower taxes and improved health and housing. Britain had been rearming, though by no means feverishly, since 1935, but there were still 1.6 million unemployed. By 1937, a large influx of refugees from Central Europe, primarily Jewish, into Britain, so large as to be noticed among the crowds on London streets. The number of intellectuals among the refugees was disproportionately large, but the ordinary refugees were unpopular, but not, except among Mosley’s blackshirts, violently so. The London intellectual attitude seemed much like that of Duff Cooper when he wrote, although I loathe anti-Semitism, I … dislike Jews. This was also the view of a large section of the British aristocracy at the time.

There were also strains of these attitudes in the Labour members of the National Government like the anti-Zionist Lord Passmore (Sidney Webb), whose laws restricted Jewish emigration to British-controlled Palestine. In addition, there were also echoes of petty anti-Semitism among ordinary Londoners like a well-known bus conductor on the Swiss Cottage run who expressed his feelings by bawling out ‘Swiss Cottage – Kleine Schweizer-Haus.’ Until Kristallnacht in the autumn of 1938, however, these expressions of anti-Semitism were mixed up with anti-German sentiments, which survived among older generations who had directly experienced the 1914-18 war. The children of the Kindertransports of 1938-39, pictured below, generally received a warm British welcome from their foster parents and broader society.

The main strands of German foreign policy in the first three years of Hitler’s chancellorship were remarkably different from the foreign policy constellation created in 1937. The first signs of a new era came in October 1933, when Hitler took Germany out of the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference at Geneva because it was still treated as a second-class citizen in the other capitals of Europe. Hitler agreed to plans for expanding the military already laid before 1933 and authorised the secret development of an air force. Forms of military training were introduced in the guise of youth movements and the numerous ‘gliding clubs’ which provided the first volunteers to fly Germany’s forbidden aircraft. But Hitler approached foreign policy issues prudently so as not to provoke Allied intervention. Like every state affected by the international economic slump, the Nazi régime wanted to stabilise and revive economic life before pursuing a more active policy abroad. In Mein Kampf and his second book, written in 1928, Hitler argued that German interests would best be served by an alliance with Britain, which would give Germany a free hand in Continental Europe, particularly in the conquest of ‘living-space’ (Lebensraum) in the east. After 1933 he looked for an improvement in Anglo-German relations with economic and trade agreements, which meant that Britain was the only major state to keep credit lines open to Germany throughout the 1930s.

Source: Overy.

By the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Saar Basin, rich in iron ore, was to be governed by the League of Nations for fifteen years. In January 1935, the time had come for the Saarlanders to vote on whether they wished to be reunited with Germany, become part of France, or remain under the League. Most Saarlanders were German and therefore likely to vote in favour of a reunion with Germany, despite the rumours already spreading about Nazi methods. Nevertheless, the Nazis organised an ‘excellent’ propaganda campaign, and the result was overwhelming. More seriously, later that March, Hitler reintroduced conscription and an airforce, both forbidden in 1919.

Source: Overy (see source list below).

Source: Overy

Hitler declared that he intended to raise an army of 550,000, involving a complete reorganisation of Germany’s small but well-trained army, which alarmed his generals. In reality, for the next two years, Hitler was in no position to fight if opposed. Britain came to his aid by reaching an agreement over naval armaments in June 1935. It was thought quite sensible to sign this Anglo-German Naval Agreement because it restricted the German fleet to thirty-five per cent of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet and forty-five per cent of its submarines. Supposing that this agreement would be honoured, it made it more feasible to think of sending a fleet to Singapore to act as a deterrence to Japanese expansion in the Far East. Britain also did little in response to Hitler’s rearmament declaration. All the time, there was a balance to be struck between the claims of the Far Eastern empire and those of Europe.

Source: Richards et al., see source list below.

A rally to celebrate the Saar plebiscite.

The 1935 Referendum in the Saarland, rearmament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland rapidly persuaded Hitler to widen his ambitions. At this point, his relations with Italy and Japan were not as favourable as they were to become. The German Foreign Office preferred to continue to develop its extensive trading links with China. Italy looked at a resurgent Germany to the north with some anxiety, especially when fears were raised about an Anschluss which might threaten Italy’s Alpine territories. Only the rift between Italy and the western powers over the Ethiopian war of 1935/6 drove Hitler into opportunistic support for his fellow Fascist leader, Mussolini. In the east, Germany had concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland in 1934, but the Nazis’ hatred of Marxism meant that it had only distant or hostile relations with the USSR until the dramatic ‘vault fáce’ of 1939. The distractions caused by the Spanish Civil War, the chaos unleashed in the Soviet Union by Stalin’s purges, and the reluctance of Britain and France to take the threat of German expansion seriously all combined to make his task substantially easier.

Rhineland remilitarisation, 1936. The areas marked in hatch were included in the demilitarised zone; those in dark green were areas occupied by the allies, 1923-30. The arrows mark the German advance.

The European nations had spent much of these months in 1935-36 distracted by events in Abyssinia, arguing over whether the League should impose sanctions on Italy, and what these should be. In February 1936, however, Eden had recommended to a committee of senior Cabinet members that Paris and London should enter into negotiations for the surrender of their rights in the ‘zones’ of the Rhineland under their control, while such surrender still has… a bargaining value.

Unfortunately for Anthony Eden, it was in that very month that Hitler determined upon an action that would remove that card from the British Foreign Secretary’s hand. Hitler seized his opportunity to unilaterally remilitarise the Rhineland on 7th March by sending forty thousand troops into the frontier territory.

Source: Irene Richards, 1937: “The map suggests that the settlement made at Versailles has failed completely to satisfy the needs of Europe. Not only has the defeated state of Germany openly repudiated the restrictive clauses of the Treaty, but the victor states, recognising that the collective security of the League Covenant is uncertain, have reverted to pre-War methods of forming alliances and piling up armaments. Two countries, Italy and Japan, have already undertaken military conquests in defiance of solemn treaty promises. … The principal developments in addition to Hitler’s repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles have been:
(a) the rapprochement of France and Soviet Russia… (b) The Re-armament of the Great Powers… (c) Anglo-German Rivalry.”

At the same moment, Hitler repudiated the Locarno Pact agreed over a decade earlier, using the excuse of the threat posed by a more recent agreement between France and Soviet Russia. The other Locarno powers were duped into believing that he would make a new agreement with them and perhaps even return to the League. Both Britain and France had been expecting that Hitler would raise the issue as a matter of negotiation. The British, Eden in particular, were annoyed not so much by the action itself as by the fact that Hitler would not now have to make any concession in return. A demilitarized Rhineland had been very important for French security, but the French government was initially hesitant in its reaction. A general election was soon to take place and France had no troops nor even plans for a counter-attack. Britain had no intention of fighting to uphold the Locarno treaties. In his post-war book, The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill described the reaction of the leading British politicians to this first blatant breach of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles:

On Monday, March 9th, Mr Eden went to Paris accompanied by Lord Halifax and Ralph Wigram. The first plan had been to convene a meeting of the League in Paris, but presently Wigram… was sent to tell Flandin (French foreign minister) to come to London. … Flandin … arrived … and at about 8:30 on Thursday morning he came to my flat in Morpeth Mansions. He told me that he proposed to demand from the British Government simultaneous mobilisation of the land, sea and air forces of both countries, and that he had received assurances of support from all the nations of the ‘Little Entente’ and from other states. … There was no doubt that superior strength still lay with the Allies of the former war. They had only to act to win. Although we did not know what was passing between Hitler and his generals, it was evident that overwhelming force lay on our side. …

Mr Chamberlain was at this time, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the most effective Member of the Government. His able biographer, … gives the following extract from his diary:

‘March 12, talked to Flandin, emphasising that public opinion would not support us in sanctions of any kind. His view is that if a firm front is maintained, Germany will yield without war. We cannot accept that as a reliable estimate of a mad Dictator’s reaction.’

W. S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (1948), p. 168.

Hitler’s bluff had succeeded brilliantly and the leaders had surrendered their last chance of checking him without serious risk of war. As at least one historian has pointed out (Bell, 1986, p. 211), France had the opportunity to stop Hitler, but only by going to war. Had it taken this option, it might well have been successful; but the encounter would have been no pushover. However, German army sources have recently been discovered, suggesting that a withdrawal plan had been prepared for this eventuality, confirming Flandin’s view of the situation. In his New History of the Second World War, Andrew Roberts (2009) has shown that had the German army been opposed by the French and British forces stationed nearby, it had orders to retire back to base. Such a reverse would almost certainly have cost Hitler the Chancellorship. The fact remains, however, that there was not the will in France to undertake such an expedition. Equally certainly, there was no desire in Britain to support the French in such an operation. A former senior Liberal minister in the National Government, the Marquis of Lothian, reacted by saying, they are only going into their own back garden. The Western powers, riven with guilt about having imposed a ‘Carthaginian Peace’ on Germany in 1919, had allowed the Germans to enter the demilitarized zone designated under Article 180 of the Versailles Treaty, without any opposition. When Hitler sought to assure the Western Powers that Germany wished only for peace, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Arthur Greenwood, told the House of Commons:

Herr Hitler has made a statement … holding out the olive branch … which ought to be taken at face value … It is idle to say that these statements are insecure.

The Re-occupation of the Rhineland. German troops march through the city of Karlsruhe.

Writing to his wife on 12th March, Harold Nicolson described the impact of the British reaction to the Rhineland Reoccupation on the Anglo-French alliance:

House of Commons: The French are not letting us off one jot or tittle of the bond. ‘The Covenant of the League has been violated. Locarno has been violated. We merely ask you to fulfill your obligations under those two treaties.’ We are thus faced with repudiation of our pledged word or the risk of war. The worst of it is that in a way the French are right … if we send an ultimatum to Germany, she ought in all reason to climb down. But then she will not climb down and we shall have war. Naturally we shall win and enter Berlin. But what is the good of that? It would only mean communism in Germany and France, and that is why the Russians are so keen on it. Moreover, the people of this country absolutely refuse to have a war. We should be faced with a general strike if we even suggested such a thing. We shall therefore have to climb down ignominiously and Hitler will have scored. We must swallow this humiliation as best we may, and be prepared to become the laughing stock of Europe. …

Harold Nicolson, Diaries and Letters, 1930-1939 (1967). pp. 249-50.

Retrospectively, the Rhineland crisis has been seen as the first conspicuous failure of appeasement. In one sense, it was, but it has also been stressed that the contemporary reaction was characterised by annoyance rather than failure. The concept of a demilitarised zone was an anachronism. It perpetuated the German sense of inferiority which precluded a deeper and more lasting settlement. On the other hand, it would probably have to be faced that once the militarization of the Rhineland had been completed, the scope of the French army would be that much further reduced. There was also the possibility that Belgium would return to neutrality, though the speed with which this subsequently occurred came as a surprise to London. Both of these developments forced British ministers to begin to reflect on the significance of France and the Low Countries for the security of Britain. However, no very positive action resulted. Hitler’s gamble had been justified and his generals, who had opposed it, had been proved wrong.

The re-orientation of German foreign policy coincided with the decision, taken in 1936, to launch large-scale German rearmament and the construction of a siege economy based on the policy of autarky, or self-sufficiency. Therefore, also in August, he drafted a document on German strategy (later known as the Four Year Plan Memorandum) which formed the basis of the reorientation of policy. Hitler wanted Germany to develop a ‘blockade-free’ economy in which materials for war would be produced at home instead of being imported. This policy of self-sufficiency, or autarky, was introduced with the formal establishment of the Four Year Plan organisation in October 1936. Over the following two years, the organisation initiated expensive programmes in basic chemicals, synthetic fuel and rubber, aluminium and iron-ore extraction, all designed to reduce German dependence on outside sources. The Plan also introduced a programme of improvement in German agriculture to ensure that Germany would not be starved into submission in a future war.

1936 marked a significant break in economic and military strategy for Germany. With the economic strategy, Hitler ordered a significant increase in military expenditure based on the expansion plans the forces’ chiefs had already drawn up in 1936. Germany adopted compulsory two-year military service and Hitler ordered the building of the Siegfried Line, a formidable series of defences along the Rhine and the Saar. With the economy back to the levels of the 1920s and the political stability of the régime more assured, Hitler was in a position to start rearming seriously and create an economy geared more closely to the conduct of large-scale warfare. Hitler’s programme imposed a faster pace and a larger scale, however.

Hermann Göring (right) was the ‘plenipotentiary’ of the Four Year Plan, announced amid much noisy propaganda at the Party Rally in Nuremberg in September. Its unpublished purpose was to prepare the economy and armed forces for war by the year 1940. It was about this time that Hitler began to drop clear hints to those of his entourage who were privy to the thoughts of the Führer about the prospect of a great war in the 1940s which would redraw the map of Europe in Germany’s favour. There was never a clearly articulated plan tied to this date, but, for example, coordinating a programme of labour retraining would ensure that the depth of skilled labour needed for a war economy would be in place by that time. Hitler was prepared to be flexible and to await opportunities. On a number of occasions, he indicated that the years 1943-45 were the point at which war was likely, even desirable. This was the date he gave at a meeting on 5th November 1937, called by Hitler in order to give his ‘executive’ a clear idea about his future strategy.

It was held in the Reich Chancellory. The details, set down in the so-called ‘Hossbach Memorandum’ (a record of the meeting later compiled by Hitler’s army adjutant, Colonel Friedrich Hossbach), indicated the immediate aims of incorporating Austria and destroying Czechoslovakia.

These ‘minutes’ also prove conclusively that the ‘Four Year Plan’ was part of Hitler’s wider ‘master plan’ incorporating economic, military and foreign policy strategies, albeit one which could be moved forward as opportunities presented themselves. The meeting lasted for nearly four hours and was intended to leave the senior executive officers of the Reich under no illusions as to where his plans were leading. The participants included General Werner von Blomberg (pictured above), who had been made the first field marshal of the Reich in 1936; General Werner von Fritsch, commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht; Admiral Erich Raeder of the Navy and Göring, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe; and the Foreign Minister, Baron Konstantin von Neurath. The Führer began by stating that the purpose of the meeting could not be discussed before the Reich Cabinet just because of the importance of the matter. He then explained how the histories of the Roman and British Empires ‘had proved that expansion could be carried out only by breaking down resistance and taking risks.’ These risks, by which he meant short wars with Britain and France, would have to be taken before the period 1943-45, which he regarded as ‘the turning point of the régime‘ because, after that time…

“… the world would be expecting our attack and would be strengthening its counter-measures from year to year. It would be while the world was preparing its defences that we would be obliged to take the offensive.”

Domarus, Essential Hitler, p. 604.

Before then, in order to protect Germany’s flanks, Hitler intended to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously and ‘with lightning speed’ in an Angriffskrieg (‘offensive war’). He believed that the British and French had already tactically written off the Czechs and that without British support, offensive action by France against Germany was not to be expected. Only after the speedy destruction of both Austria and Czechoslovakia and then Britain and France could he concentrate on the creation of a vast colonial empire in Europe.

Greater Germany & The Consolidation of Power:
&A German poster of 1939 charting the development of Grossdeutschland – Greater Germany. A Pan-German state had been the aim of many German nationalists since the period of unification in the mid-nineteenth century. Bismarck, a Prussian, created a small Germany in 1871: Hitler, an Austrian, created a large Germany by 1939. Bismarck’s Germany lasted for forty-seven years, Hitler’s only for six.

The apparent immediacy of these plans alarmed Blomberg and Fritsch, the latter even proposing to postpone his holiday, due to begin in a few days’ time. Both men ‘repeatedly emphasised that Britain and France must not become our enemies.’ Together, the pair might have prevented Hitler from carrying out the second part of the Hossbach plans, but Blomberg was forced to resign in January 1938 when it emerged that his new, young bride had been involved in pornography and prostitution in Berlin eight years earlier. The scandal briefly extended to Hitler and Göring, both of whom had stood witness for the couple at their wedding in the war ministry. A week later, Fritsch was also forced to resign when he was framed in another sex scandal, most likely by Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, and General William Keitel, a devotee of Hitler. Hitler was swift in exploiting this potentially embarrassing situation by appointing no formal successor to Blomberg, taking over the role of war minister himself with Keitel as his Wehrmacht advisor, a man appointed for his sycophancy and total lack of personality and intellect. At the Nuremberg Trials, Keitel testified that:

“No one issued orders independently of Hitler. Of course I signed them … but they originated with Hitler. It was the wish and desire of Hitler to have all the power and command reside in him. It was something he could not do with Blomberg.”

Goldensohn, Nuremberg Interviews, p.158.

In replacing Blomberg with himself and Keitel, Hitler sealed his personal control over the German armed forces as early as the end of January 1938. Within days he carried out a massive reorganisation of the upper echelons of the military machine: twelve further generals were dismissed and the occupants of no fewer than fifty-one other posts were reshuffled. The way was now clear for Hitler to establish complete domination of Germany’s armed forces. Over the coming years, he would become more and more closely involved in every aspect of strategic decision-making through Keitel and his other equally obsequious deputy, Colonel Alfred Jodl. The German High Command was thus usurped by a man whom many of them admired as a politician and statesman but whose talent as a military strategy was a completely unknown quantity and quality.

“The new régime, particularly Göring, are masters in the art of party-giving.” Sir Henry ‘Chips’ Channon, ‘Diaries’.

Between 1936 and 1939, almost two-thirds of all industrial investment in Germany was devoted to the implementation of autarkic plans. The shift to large-scale armaments and a strategy of opportunistic expansion fundamentally altered Germany’s position in Europe, as the 1935 map below shows. So large were the plans for rearmament and economic development that neither the armed forces nor the economic administration thought them remotely feasible. The level of state debt increased sharply and the growth of living standards came virtually to a halt. The militarization of the economy forced a much higher level of state management and eroded the independence of private business. The price of extensive military commitment was a command economy and a distortion of Germany’s pattern of consumption and international trade.

Besides Göring, the other driving force behind the ‘change of gears’ was the Party’s self-proclaimed foreign policy expert, Joachim von Ribbentrop. He had helped to secure the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 and was sent as Hitler’s special representative in London to try to secure a wider British alliance. His aims, first as special commissioner, then from August 1936 as German ambassador, were frustrated not only by his own diplomatic ineptitude but also (and more seriously) by the unwillingness of the British government to make any substantial concession to the German position. There were eminent economists at hand to suggest to the British government that there was a good chance of the German economy crashing under the pressure of the four-year plan. Ribbentrop became a strident anglophobe during his years in London and he ultimately succeeded in turning Hitler against a British alliance. Ribbentrop was also keen to support Japan rather than China and was instrumental in setting up the Anticomintern Pact directed against International communism, signed on 25th November 1936. Italy joined a year later, despite Mussolini’s abiding distrust of German motives and manoeuvres. He was ‘wooed’ by both Ribbentrop and Göring, his isolation from the western democracies over Abyssinia and intervention in the Spanish Civil War already pushing him in Germany’s direction.

The Political Prelude in Britain – 1936-37 – Kings & Fascists:

In the course of 1936 in Britain, three Kings had reigned and the unemployment figures were improving, but the political skies over the British Isles, Europe and the Far East were growing darker.

The new king, George VI, his Queen, Elizabeth and his children Elizabeth, aged nine and Margaret, appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after the Coronation in May 1937. Source: These Tremendous Years, 1919-38.

In 1937, George VI was crowned king, Ramsay MacDonald died, Baldwin retired, the British government announced that it had plans to evacuate the capital in a time of war and that air-raid shelters were to be built, and Wallis Simpson became Duchess of Windsor. Baldwin’s handling of the abdication meant that his image as a safe pair of hands was assured. It has been argued that Baldwin and Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had meant to get rid of Edward VIII all along. They had failed, through Godfrey Evans at the Palace and Thomas Jones, the Cabinet secretary, to stop his visit to the South Wales coalfield the previous October and his misreported remark in Dowlais, ‘terrible, terrible, something will be done about this,’ had further antagonised the government and ‘establishment’. The intelligence services continued to watch the former monarch and Mrs Simpson in exile on the continent, where the latter was already known to have Nazi friends via the German embassy in London.

Source: These Tremendous Years, 1919-38.

On 4th May 1937, a week before his brother’s coronation, Edward, now the Duke of Windsor, married Mrs Simpson near Tours in France. In October, the exiled couple met Hitler at his mountain villa in Berchtesgaden, near the Austrian frontier. While the Duchess chatted with the Nazi leaders, the Duke had a twenty-minute private conversation with Germany’s dictator. Criticism followed this action in making Germany the first country of a series visited in a tour he had planned to investigate social conditions. It was obvious to the Foreign Office that Hitler and Mussolini were drawing closer together, and it rightly believed that Hitler had his eye on annexing Austria, though this was not to become a reality until March 1938. But early in November, the first public speech since leaving England, the Duke told newspaper men in Paris that he was mystified by the ulterior motives attributed to his activities. He observed that:

“Though one may be in the lion’s den, it is possible to eat with the lions if on good terms with them.”

But the political connotations of this ill-advised trip were clear, even if discounted by the Duke himself. Before the abdication, Baldwin had already threatened that the Cabinet would resign if King Edward went against his advice in pursuing these personal links. Now his subsequent visit left diplomats and politicians like Harold Nicolson considerably on edge. He himself had refused to travel through Germany ‘because of Nazi rule’, telling ‘Chips’ Channon that:

We stand for tolerance, truth, liberty and good humour. They stand for violence, oppression, untruthfulness and bitterness…’

These were distinguishing traits which he obviously felt had eluded the notice of the Windsors. It must have confirmed for Harold what many others suspected: that the Windsors had fallen heavily for the champagne-like influence of von Ribbentrop. The Duke’s views were well-known and were to come to the fore following the Fall of France in May-June 1940. Like some in Whitehall, he favoured a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany, and the Germans were almost certainly aware of this. With Ribbentrop at the helm, they plotted to keep the Duke in occupied Europe and reinstate him as King once they had conquered Britain. However far-fetched a prospect this might be, after May 1940, Churchill refused to allow the Duke back into England. Instead, he dispatched him to the Bahamas to be governor there, where he remained until 1945. Rumour had it that Ribbentrop “had used Mrs Simpson.” More seriously, Chips Channon had admitted that the new King, George VI, was also, before the outbreak of war, going the dictator way, and is pro-German, against Russia and against too much slip-shod democracy. More recently, it has been suggested that Edward differed in many aspects from the government’s foreign policy and foolishly allowed his tongue to wag in an ‘unconstitutional’ fashion. In Germany, his indiscretions created an impression of warm sympathy for the Nazi state’s people and an exaggerated idea of the Duke of Winsor’s power and influence. But there is no evidence to suggest that the former King’s views, however pro-German, influenced British government policy before or after 1940. After due consideration, Harold Nicolson concluded that Edward believed more than he should have in German integrity and in his ability to influence the course of events.

Fascism in Britain, for all the passions it aroused in 1936-37, had limited influence on either domestic politics or foreign policy. Certainly, in Bethnal Green, Stepney and Limehouse in the East End of London more generally, it gained some temporary working-class support in the form of Oswald Mosley’s uniformed BUF (British Union of Fascists), partly in response to the increase in the number of Jewish refugees from central Europe. But, following the well-remembered ‘Battle of Cable Street’ in 1936, the National Government banned para-military style marches and much of the appeal of Mosley’s black shirts among London’s poor evaporated. Fascism returned to being primarily an aristocratic preoccupation with continental events.

Wherever fascism was strong, as it was in East London, the opposition was also very strong and could be violent. While Limehouse had a significant fascist vote, it was still the safe seat of Labour Party leader, Clement Attlee. Source: Briggs (see below).
The End of the Baldwin-MacDonald Era & ‘effective deterrence’:

By 1937, Baldwin’s physical and mental state was worn down by these events at home and abroad. It was time for him to retire. Not enough has been made of his utter weariness in attempting to hold together a foreign policy threatened by/from Japan, India, Palestine, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Spain. Added to that the domestic difficulties over the economy and the political in-fighting at Westminster, it is hardly surprising that the veteran leader was exhausted. Many far younger leaders would no doubt have felt similarly. Baldwin looked around and decided that he had done almost everything that could have been done to prepare the country for war. In February, he delivered the Defence White Paper. MacDonald’s unilateral disarmament policy was considered to be a failed policy, and Baldwin had laid down guidelines for a new policy of deterrence because, as he told the House of Commons, ineffective ‘deterrence is worse than useless’. For the first time, money would have to be borrowed to pay for national defence. In April, the National Defence Contribution Tax was introduced. It was supposed to be revenue taken exclusively from arms manufacturers, but it proved unworkable and had to be replaced with a five per cent profits tax. The money to pay for Britain’s defences was supposed to be either in place or in the pipeline of the Treasury.

On 28 May 1937, Balwin resigned and was succeeded by Neville Chamberlain, the son of the great radical of the turn of the century, Joseph Chamberlain and half-brother of Austen, one of the Nobel-prize-winning architects of the Locarno Pact, who died later in 1937. Neville was now in his late sixties and had been a reforming Minister of Health and Local Government in the 1920s and, from 1931, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was therefore well aware of local economic and social conditions throughout Britain as well as the overall state of the economy and the industrial influences upon it. But he was a very ordinary national politician at a time when the country needed an extraordinary leader. He had no great grasp of foreign affairs, though he understood Germany better than many gave him credit for. His reputation is that of an ‘appeaser’ but it could be that he was simply aware that Britain was not yet ready for war. Nevertheless, RAF aircraft delivery rates were increasing, and those shipyards that could operate were working exclusively on military tonnage. This was to be the biggest naval programme since the Great War.

Chamberlain’s Cabinet was still a National Government. Anthony Eden was the Foreign Secretary and the only member of the government to be trusted by the Foreign Office. Chamberlain probably understood what was going on abroad even if he knew less about what Britain should do about it. The internecine warfare in Whitehall did not help in this respect. Sir Robert Vantissart, the senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, practised the most arrogant form of Whitehall. His position was clear: German ambitions must be resisted and loudly. So he dropped hints to well-known ‘rousers’ including Churchill and the editors in Fleet Street, who stirred up the debate on what Britain should do about Hitler. Whatever the spinning and leaking, only Chamberlain and his inner Cabinet carried the responsibility for going to war. For the time being, they had other matters to deal with, especially with Ireland and Palestine.

Economic Appeasement and Rearmament in Britain, 1936-40.
BRITAIN BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS.
Source: Briggs (see below).

While the interwar years saw thriving new industries in car production, electronics and chemicals, old industries such as shipbuilding, coal, steel and textiles were badly hit by the world economic slump. Unemployment and wage cuts led to protests in the form of hunger marches. It was only in late 1937 that Rearmament began to provide significant numbers of jobs in depressed areas. The only major enterprise to be located in the South Wales Special Area before that date was that of Richard Thomas & Co. Ltd., who agreed to establish blast furnaces, a steel plant and a continuous strip mill at Ebbw Vale in 1935. This employed several thousand workers at the site of the old steel works, which had closed in 1929, leading to mass migration out of the valley area, with some two thousand steel workers thrown onto the dole. The Treforest Trading Estate Company was formed in 1936, and by the end of 1938, seventy-two firms were assisted in settling in different parts of the Special Area, fifty-one of them at Treforest. Shortly before the outbreak of war, the estate was providing employment for 2,500 workers at twenty factories under the direction of refugee industrialists from Austria and Czechoslovakia. Some industrialists were sceptical that workers…

… accustomed only to heavy work would find it too difficult to adapt themselves to the more delicate work demanded in the call for high precision.

This problem was countered in two ways: Firstly, one skilled refugee worker was employed for every twenty-five local workers, and secondly, the majority of local workers were women. By the end of June 1939, there were only 914 men out of a workforce of 2,196 at Treforest. Thus, it was not until 1939 that the economy was slowly transformed and put on a war footing. In South Wales, this was aided by government rearmament through the siting of Royal Ordnance Factories at Bridgend and elsewhere. However, this initially grudging policy shift did not occur until the end of a decade of mass unemployment and migration. Appointed in 1937, the Barlow Commission On the Distribution of the Industrial Population did not complete its work until August 1939 and its report was not published until the end of the year. By then, the need for regional planning had been finally accepted in response to the threat of aerial warfare from the continent, making London and the South East region especially vulnerable to bombing:

It is not in the national interest, economically, socially, or strategically, that a quarter, or even a large proportion of Great Britain should be concentrated within twenty to thirty miles or so of Central London.

Barlow Report, pp. 152-3.

Although by 1937, a national political consensus had finally accepted that the transference of workers from the depressed areas to the new industry areas should no longer be the main response of the government to the problem of mass unemployment, this still did not bring about an immediate end to the policy or the continued exodus of workers from the ‘Special Areas’. The rearmament boom was swallowing up more and more labour. Protests were still heard, especially from Welsh Nationalists, who compared the continuing operation of the policy to Hitler’s actions against the Czechs as just another Fascist way of murdering a small defenceless nation without going to war about it. The theme was repeated in y Blaid’s 1943 pamphlet Transference Must Stop. War-time transference was, however, conducted under emergency labour controls, and by the time of the occupation of Prague in 1939, the Transference policy had ceased to occupy centre stage.

The Era of Rearmament & The Gathering Storm, 1937-38:

In seeking to balance the emphasis of traditional historiography on politics and diplomacy, more recent historians of interwar Britain have come to focus more on the nature of the British economy in the 1930s and its implications for foreign policy. However, there is a danger that every political decision can be thought to have a primary economic cause. Keith Robbins has suggested that looking for underlying prevailing attitudes in the political, financial and economic spheres makes more sense. In 1932, the National Government formally abandoned the ‘Ten Year Rule’ of 1919, whereby the armed forces were told to prepare their estimates on the assumption that there would not be a great war involving the British Empire for ten years. But there was no immediate action to increase defence expenditure due largely to a widespread though ill-defined ‘pacifism.’ These political difficulties were compounded by economic ones. In a general atmosphere of continuing economic uncertainty, ‘confidence’ would best be boosted by very modest defence expenditure. The figure for 1932 had been the lowest since 1919.

Since the British wished to avoid war, they would obviously not seek to precipitate it. The Treasury, with Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had their sights primarily set on assisting the economic recovery, which had only begun in 1933. It would jeopardise that revival to shift resources on a massive scale into ‘rearmament.’ At the time, there was a genuine fear that that would lead to a further economic crisis like that of 1931. Sir Warren Fisher, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, was acutely conscious of the need to be able to deal with ‘foreign gangsters’, but he also feared an economic ‘smash.’ In reaction to this dilemma, it was often thought that it was best to keep potential enemies guessing about Britain’s intentions, which was Eden’s position. The alternative course was to seek to create a war economy in peacetime, as Germany was doing by 1936, regardless of the broader economic and social consequences. In a democracy like Britain, although Defence expenditure was an absolute commitment, this could only be justified on the basis of economic performance or wartime requirements.

That was the dilemma, and in these circumstances, it was thought that the best solution was to keep potential enemies guessing about Britain’s intentions. The British Defence Requirements Committee advocated increased expenditure and talked of being ready for a war in early 1939. But it also drew attention to what was believed to be a massive expansion of the Luftwaffe. The Germans, they reported, might be able to inflict such damage within a matter of weeks that a collapse of civilian morale would occur on a scale which would make it impossible for Britain to continue to resist. Such observations, and many others like them over the next two years, all seemed to point to one central conclusion: appeasement must continue. Nevertheless, the first turning point in economic policy also arrived in 1936-37.

Gradually, the consensus in the House of Commons necessary to maintain the rearmament programme was being reached. The Labour Party found it difficult to vote for increased defence spending but agreed to abstain rather than vote against it, but enough Labour MPs refused to abstain for newspapers to claim that the party itself opposed rearmament. Chamberlain’s personal dilemma was that although he saw the logic of rearmament, he saw that there were too many expensive domestic issues that remained unresolved. However, this was no more than a clue to Chamberlain’s approach to Hitler during 1937-38. He saw as simple logic the fact that Germany would, if left alone, become the controlling power in Eastern Europe, given the practical politics of Europe and the undeniable power of Nazism. In truth, Chamberlain’s greatest flaw was that he appeared incapable of thinking beyond day-to-day politics and therefore came up with mundane solutions to problems. He had no vision beyond these.

The Local Industrial Economy & Rearmament – The Case Of Coventry:

Whereas immigration into the car and service industries in Oxford spiked in the late twenties and early thirties, then remained fairly even throughout the thirties, in Coventry, these peaks were highest in the late thirties, from mid-1936/37 to 1938/39, when twelve to thirteen thousand immigrants were being added every year. Between 1931 and 1938, the city’s total population increased by twenty per cent compared with an increase of three per cent for Great Britain as a whole. Much of this growth occurred between 1935 and 1939 when the total population rose from 190,000 to nearly 235,000. High wages in the ‘shadow’ factories continued to attract voluntary migration at least until the Blitz on London and other English cities in the autumn of 1940.

As early as 1936, it became obvious that if Britain were to be involved in another European war, then Coventry’s economic strengths were precisely those that would be essential to the pursuit of modern warfare. In that year, a group of the city’s industrialists, including John Black (of the Standard company), William Rootes and Alfred Herbert, became involved in planning Shadow Factories with Whitehall officials. The city was to be heavily involved in aircraft engine construction, namely the Mercury and later the Pegasus for the lightweight Blenheim bomber, and consequently, four Shadow Factories were built in and around the City boundaries between 1936 and 1937. Over the space of two years, some four thousand aircraft engines were made. Clearly insufficient to meet the RAF’s needs, especially with the introduction of the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters and the Whitley, Stirling and Lancaster bombers, increased factory space to produce new and more powerful engines was imperative and so once again Daimler, Rootes, and Standard became involved in the war effort in a major way.

Coventry’s dramatic population growth continued in the second half of the thirties due to government contracting in the aircraft industry through the abandonment of its ‘Business as Usual’ Rearmament Policy in 1938. This enabled the building of ‘shadow’ factories under the Ministry of Defence contracts next to the new car factories on the outskirts of Coventry. To begin with, the new labour requirements of these factories were substantially met by men who were ‘stood off’ from the motor industry, which was suffering from the general recession in the engineering industries of 1937-38. However, this supply was soon exhausted and a crisis meeting of the directors of Coventry firms was called in May 1939…

… to consider the question of the shortage of skilled labour in Coventry, earnings of workpeople and the housing position, in view of the proposal to extend the shadow factories in Coventry, involving the employment of five to six thousand further workpeople…

Coventry Engineering Employers’ Association (EEA) Minutes, 22 May.

At their meeting the following October, the EEA heard reports of members struggling to control the ‘poaching’ of key workers. They agreed to urge the National Government to obtain additional employees from other areas. From the mid-thirties, average earnings for engineering workers in Coventry were easily the highest in the Midlands, so much so that firms in Birmingham were complaining. In 1937, this disparity was still very much in evidence and the subject of continuing complaints against the Association from employers elsewhere, but the EEA agreed that there was very little to be done locally to rectify the situation as labour was in such short supply. In September of the following year, it was claimed that the basic rate of the labourer and earnings of the skilled worker in the district was the highest in the country. The combination of high earnings, greater job security and better conditions prompted increasing numbers of migrant workers to choose Coventry as their destination by the late thirties. Many younger men were lured to Coventry as a city of high earnings and away from other centres following the general recovery of 1933-34. Added to this was the seasonal nature of work in many car factories, even where the basic weekly wage was good. Nonetheless, the improvement in earnings during the 1930s is strikingly evident in the following extract from John Yates’ pamphlet:

1933, dole and means test; 1934 employment… as skilled machinist, found without much difficulty; 1935, “if you know a few good men, Jack, get ’em to come and work for me, I’ll see you alright for it “; 1936, “I see they’re advertising in the News Chronicle – up to seven pounds a week guaranteed”… In 1936 it was “up to nine pounds a week!”

J. A. Yates, Pioneers to Power: Story of the Ordinary People of Coventry.

However, it is important to recognise that the housing shortage and the high cost of living in the new industry towns could be a major deterrent to successful settlement there. More fundamentally, in Oxford, the delay in the conversion of the Cowley factories to war production meant that whilst Coventry was gaining workers rapidly, Oxford was losing them, many probably its fellow manufacturing ‘magnet.’ Housing was an important aspect of this; the Nuffield Survey’s war-time report on Coventry and East Warwickshire of September 1941 found that, even after the November 1940 Blitz of the city, the City’s sixty thousand houses and shops were a goodly number for the population … the great majority of houses provided accommodation superior to the average for the whole country.

By 1944, when all the Shadow Factories were fully operational, their combined output was in the region of eight hundred engines a month, quadrupling the output target originally set in 1936. Siddeley’s or Hawker Siddeley as the firm became known, had a workforce of over ten thousand strong in 1944. and had by that time turned out 550 Lancaster and 150 Stirling bombers. Other city firms contributed all kinds of war materials. Coventry Climax, for instance, built twenty-five thousand trailer pumps as well as a large number of generators. Daimler produced a series of Scout cars while Dunlop made tyres, wheels and barrage balloons, anti-gas clothing and underwater swimming suits. At the nexus of much of this was the city’s machine tool firms, all of whom increased output, modified existing and produced new tools to meet the ever-pressing demands made upon them. Between 1939 and 1944, the Alfred Herbert works produced over sixty-eight thousand machine tools.

In 1937, the Defence Chiefs had calculated that if Britain were to find itself simultaneously at war with Germany, Italy and Japan, it would lose. The military leaders, therefore, looked to foreign policy to avoid such a contest. In the meantime, a ‘steady as she goes’ rearmament programme might have seemed safer, but it might also make it more difficult to accelerate ‘when the time comes.’ With the benefit of hindsight, we may observe that the time came sooner than the politicians, diplomats and military leaders thought, and in 1939-40 it was left to industrialists and engineering workers, among others, to accelerate rearmament in order to make up for the lost time.

(to be continued… )

Sources:

Andrew J Chandler (1988), The Re-making of a Working Class: Migration from the South Wales Coalfield to the New Industry Areas of the Midlands, 1920-40. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales (Cardiff).

Keith Robbins (1988), Appeasement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Richard Brown & Christopher Daniels (1982), Documents & Debates: Twentieth-Century Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Richard Overy (1996), Historical Atlas of the Third Reich. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Andrew Roberts (2010), The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. London: Penguin Books.

Asa Briggs, et. al., (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History. London: Penguin Books.

Norman Rose (2005), Harold Nicolson. London: Pimlico (Random House).

René Cutforth (1976), Later Than We Thought: A Portrait of the Thirties. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Michael Clark & Peter Teed (eds.) (1972), Portraits & Documents: The Twentieth Century, 1906-1960. London: Hutchinson Educational.

Christopher Lee (1999/2000), This Sceptered Isle: Twentieth Century. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (BBC Worldwide).

Bill Lancaster & Tony Mason (eds.) (1987), Life and Labour in a Twentieth-Century City: The Experience of Coventry. Coventry: University of Warwick Cryfield Press.

Irene Richards, J. B. Goodson & J. A. Morris (1938), A Sketch-Map History of the Great War & After, 1914-35. London: George Harrap & Co.

Unknown author/ publisher (1938), These Tremendous Years. Printed in London & Northampton, 1938.

Previous Post:

The Jewish Festival of Hannukkah (Dedication) & thoughts following the attack at Bondi Beach

The attack on the Hannukkah Party on Bondi Beach near Sydney, Australia, has stunned the world and once again led to an outcry against anti-Semitism. However, the heartfelt sentiments expressed have so far failed to confront the deeply rooted causes of the disease, including the lack of understanding of Judaism as a worldwide religion and its adherents as the ‘biggest family on earth’, as Rabbi Ephraim Mervis, Chief Rabbi to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, has put it. Few people outside the faith have any knowledge of the nature or significance of the event beyond its place in the pantheon of religious Festivals of Light, which take place at this time in the inter-faith calendar. Those who express a desire to ‘do something’ in response to the tragedy which occurred on the first day of the event, 14th December, could do no better than educate themselves and their families about the meaning of the observance which was so cruelly interrupted on that day.

As a retired teacher of Religious Education, I am writing this post partly to refresh my own knowledge, which has faded over the forty years since I taught it as part of the RE curriculum in the first four years of my career in a Church school in Lancashire and in a more multi-cultural comprehensive school in Coventry. There, as in Birmingham, where I went to school, there was always a ‘sprinkling’ of Jewish students, though they were so well integrated that, unlike the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu students, we hardly recognised them as being of a different faith or ethnicity. The Greek Orthodox students, mainly Cypriot ‘refugees’, though Christian, were more visible, as they were generally keener to participate in activities celebrating Christmas and Easter. Endemic ‘racialism’ and anti-Semitism prevalent in Birmingham in the late sixties and early seventies meant that religious diversity was not celebrated as something to be encouraged in schools until I began teaching in the early eighties. School assemblies in the seventies were monolithically Anglican or Catholic in character or composition, often to the liturgical exclusion of nonconformist students like myself, a “blond Baptist waddling down the aisle” as the school choirmaster labelled me.

In recent decades, Religious Education seems to have been further marginalised, or absorbed by/ merged with ‘Citizenship’. Perhaps part of the current lack of mutual misunderstanding between ethnicities lies in the abandonment of interfaith and intercultural ‘training’ in schools and training colleges over the last three decades. Without this, true integration in society is made a far more difficult task. Many ‘millennials’ and ‘generation z’ students have left school with clear, if misguided, views of their human and civil rights, including ‘freedom of speech’, but without a deeper understanding of the deeper values of the Judaeo-Christian traditions which underpin society, even though it is now largely secular and post-Christian. ‘Toleration’, for example, a principle hard-fought for over eight generations or more by my ancestors in Britain, has faded into a vague idea of an attitude of ‘tolerance’, and concepts of societal ‘liberty’, balancing rights and privileges with responsibilities and obligations, have been replaced by purely personal, sometimes selfish, ‘freedoms’.

The colourful Jewish festival of Hanukkah (Chanukah), also known as the Feast of Lights, lasts for eight days from mid-December. The observance commemorates the re-dedication of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 165 BCE. The hero of the story is Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias, head of a priestly family who lived near Jerusalem. At the time, there was a war between Egypt and Syria, with the Jews caught in between, a not unfamiliar situation for twentieth-century occupants of Israel-Palestine. The Syrian king, Antiochus IV, proclaiming himself Epiphanes, meaning ‘God made manifest’, a highly objectionable claim for the followers of Yahweh, wanted to extend the kingdom to include Judaea, the Jewish homeland. Although the importation of Hellenistic culture had led to the translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek, opening up Judaism to the Greek world, a fusion between Hebrew culture and Hellenism was impossible because of the Jewish commitment to the Word of God and the Laws set down in the Torah. It was this loyalty to the Word that prevented Jewish identity from being subsumed within Hellenism.

The forces of Antiochus raided the city of Jerusalem, plundering the houses and desecrating the Holy of Holies in the Temple. He set up his own citadel overlooking the Temple, which he rededicated to Zeus, the heathen God of the Greeks. The tyrant then began a campaign to unify his empire and rid the region of all semblances of Judaism, banning the practice of circumcision. But the Jews resisted stubbornly and looked for a hero to restore their Temple and the observance of their religion. Help came from Mattathias and his five sons, in particular from Judas, who was later given the title of Maccabeus, meaning ‘The Hammer’ or ‘Extinguisher’ because of his exploits.

One of the first signs of revolt against Antiochus was an incident in the Temple, when Mattathias saw one of his own people, a Jew, preparing to take part in a service of sacrifice to Zeus. Mattathias struck him down and, turning on the Syrian guard, killed him. Mattathias and his sons fled to the hills, where they gathered around them a strong resistance movement. From there, Judas led raid after raid against the Syrians, making their occupation of Judaea more and more untenable and hazardous. In the midst of the fighting, Judas gathered his followers to observe the Jewish religious ceremonies, to watch and pray, and to read the Torah, the sacred Law.

In December 164 BCE, Judas and his followers recaptured the Temple and the priests reconsecrated the Holy Place, erecting new altars to the true God. The story goes that when the perpetual lamp of the Temple had to be re-lit, only one day’s supply of non-consecrated oil could be found, but miraculously, this oil lasted for eight days until a fresh supply could be brought. Resistance turned into open rebellion, and the Jews, led by the Maccabees, rose in revolt which established an independent Jewish state, ruled by a priestly order that lasted for almost a century, until the Romans took over from the Greeks and ruled the region as a province of the Roman Empire, with Herod the Great as their ‘puppet’ king. He rebuilt the Temple, extending its massive walls, until it became the ultimate expression of Jewish identity at the end of the first century BCE. Some, however, still clung to the Torah scrolls as the centre of their faith and left Jerusalem to continue their devotion to the Word in the rocky hills on the shores of the Dead Sea.

The story of the miraculous oil burning for eight days is why the festival now lasts for eight days and is commonly called The Feast of Lights. The day which sees the start of the festival is the twenty-fifth of Kislev (the ninth month), which can fall on any day in December and therefore falls while Christians are preparing for Christmas, sometimes coinciding with it. It is a family festival, largely observed within homes, in common with other Jewish festivals. Originally, presents of sweets or money, Hannukkah gelt, were given to children, but influenced by Christmas, there is more of an exchange of gifts, colourfully wrapped with surprises inside. The central part of the ceremony, as held at Bondi Beach, is the lighting of a candle on the eight-branched candelabra on the first day, with an additional candle lit on each of the seven successive days, recalling the eight days of light provided by the miraculous oil when the Temple was re-dedicated.

I pray that, as the Jews of Sydney and around the world light the remaining candles on their menorahs, they will feel the light of God’s countenance upon them. But those who murder in the name of the One God, the God of Abraham and Isaac, are apostates, and those who cry ‘from the river to the sea…’ and ‘death to Israel’ are anti-Semites, and must be stopped. The message of Hannukkah is one of eternal hope, that ‘out of darkness cometh light’. The Hannukkah story is emblematic of the whole, long story of the Jews, which, as Simon Schama has shown, is one of resistance, resilience and survival. Unfortunately, too many people allow the Light to pass them by, and some are too prejudiced to see it, preferring instead to stay in the darkness of intolerance and hatred of Jews and Judaism.

Sources:

Victor J Green (1983), Festivals and Saints’ Days: A Calendar of Festivals for the School and Home. Poole (Dorset): Blandford Press.

Simon Schama (2013), The Story of the Jews. BBC Video.

Entertaining Strangers as Angels – Chilean Refugees in Wales, 1974-2024

‘Forget not to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.’

Peidiwch ag anghofio llety-garwch, oherwydd trwyddo y mae rhai, heb wybod hynny, wedi rhoi llety i angylion.’

Y Llythyr at yr Hebreaid/ Letter to the Hebrews, chapter 13: 2.

Introduction – Providing Sanctuary:

In recent weeks and months, there has been much discussion in British newspapers and other media about ‘asylum seekers’, concepts of ‘sanctuary’ and processes of immigration and integration, including ‘family reunification’, a policy recently revoked by the Danish centre-left government. The new British Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is reported to have sent a ‘task force’ to Denmark to assess the success of such policies, including restrictions on residency rights for asylum seekers, with a view to introducing them in the UK. In Britain, the daily arrival of hundreds of ‘asylum seekers’ or ‘illegal immigrants’ (depending on individual political perspectives) is causing serious social and political controversy both nationally and locally. This reminded me of events I was involved in almost fifty years ago as a student leader in South Wales, which I was recently invited to recall and record as oral evidence for a book written and published a few months ago (2025) by a research colleague, Alun Burge, providing…

an impressionistic account of the Chileans who came to Wales, their long decade from 1973 to 1986, at the end of which most had returned, and relates something of the support provided by local people.

Alun has given me permission to share the personal accounts of those I knew best in their transcribed form, together with our mutual recollections and reflections on the events of the year 1979-80 in Swansea, when I was Cadeirydd (Chair) of the National Union of Students, Wales – Undeb Cenedlaethol Myfyrwyr Cymru. Therefore, what follows here is a series of extracts from Alun’s book (full details of which are given in the bibliography below), with further recollections of my own of that year when, as he remarks, a deep bond was formed between the Welsh hosts and their Chilean guests, the latter contributing to making Wales a more outward-looking and cosmopolitan place. The links between the two countries, especially those of Swansea, went back to the nineteenth century when the seaport town was a major centre of the global copper industry.

Marchers for Salvador Allende. A crowd of people marching to support the election of Salvador Allende for president in Santiago, Chile. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At the time the Chilean refugees were arriving in Wales, international causes, including Chile, were seen by the labour movement in Wales and Britain as a whole, were seen as a single fight against imperialism and for national liberation. Many of the people who were at the heart of the debate about the Welsh national movement and devolution were also centrally involved in organising solidarity with Chile and providing direct support to its political refugees. Chile was only one of the international issues supported by the people of Wales, especially its students, in the 1970s and 1980s (I was a student there from 1975 to 1983, with sojourns in Bangor, Cardiff, Swansea and Carmarthen, and obtained my PhD in History in 1989, before moving to Hungary). During my year as a sabbatical officer, UCMC was mockingly referred to by opponents as ‘NUS Chile and South Africa’. Although this labelling was generally unjustified and unjustifiable, I do remember one particular evening when, together with a Welsh MP, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, we divided our time between an Anti-Apartheid campaign meeting in Llanelli and a concert in aid of the Chile Solidarity Campaign in Swansea featuring a well-known Welsh language folk singer, Dafydd Iwan.

Santiago, 1973 (9/11):

On 11 September 1973, a military coup overthrew President Salvador Allende’s democratically elected Marxist government, bringing in the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. Left-wing political parties were banned, as was the Chilean Trades Union Congress; other political parties were declared to be ‘in recess’. Arrests of Popular Unity supporters and trade union leaders began immediately. The barbaric nature of the coup traumatised Chile and sent shockwaves around the world as news quickly emerged of activists being gaoled, tortured or killed. The National Football Stadium in Santiago was turned into a brutal concentration camp where the ‘New Song’ folk-singer Victor Jara was killed some days later, one of thousands to meet the same fate. It was estimated that over forty thousand people were illegally detained and tortured, and three thousand were murdered or simply disappeared.

A Mural depicting Victor Jara in Santiago, Chile

The National Union of Students (NUSUK) condemned the coup and pledged its support for the Chilean people at its national conference in November 1973. It undertook to take action to secure the release of political prisoners and called for an end to the transfer of arms from Britain to Chile. It also pledged to work closely with the Chile Solidarity Campaign to expose the crimes of the junta. In April 1974, a three-person clandestine delegation went to Chile under the auspices of the International Union of Students, including Chris Proctor, who was President of the Swansea Union of Students in the summer of 1973 and a member of the NUSUK Executive. Alun Burge has recorded in some detail Proctor’s ‘desperate revelation’ of his experience of the week he spent undercover in Chile, which he reported to a NUS Conference.

The National Union of Seamen in Cardiff, following a vote in the national (UK) union, instructed its members not to sail to or from Chile, an instruction its members upheld throughout the duration of the Pinochet régime. A protest march and open-air meeting in the capital was addressed by a young Welsh miner who had just returned from working in the Chilean copper mines. He spoke of the struggle the Allende government had faced and of his friends who were being murdered. A new group, The Welsh Friends of Chile, was launched to develop a broad political front with trade union sponsorship. In November 1973, the newly established Chile Solidarity Campaign (CSC) organised a national demonstration in London, and it soon became the key body in generating broad-based support for the Chilean ‘resistance’. Labour activists from across the Monmouthshire mining valleys established the South Wales Campaign for Democracy in Chile, joining together the Bedwellty, Caerffilli and Ebbw Vale constituency parties. Local South Wales MPs, led by Neil Kinnock, became involved, including Caerwyn Roderick, Leo Abse and George Thomas. The campaign also gained the support of the South Wales NUM and the TGWU Regional Committee. Will Paynter, the ex-General Secretary of the NUM, who had been a political commissar in the International Brigades in Spain in the 1930s, spoke at a rally in Ebbw Vale, when he said that the situation in Chile was the same struggle as his generation had faced in Spain and described the Heath government’s approach as the equivalent of the non-intervention policy of the National Government in 1936-39. The experience of the Basque refugee children who sailed from Bilbao and found a safe haven in Welsh families remained fresh in the collective memory of Wales in the 1970s.

Chilean Families Seeking Refuge in Swansea:

The refugees in Wales were part of an estimated two hundred thousand who were forced into exile by the Pinochet Junta, around two per cent of the country’s population. About three thousand went to Britain, with over half settling in London, and approximately 175 in Wales. The overwhelming majority of those who went to Wales were supported by WUS grants. There were 155 associated with University College, Swansea, comprising eighty-five WUS-sponsored Chilean scholars and almost as many spouses and children.

Chilean academic staff and postgraduate students began arriving in Britain in July 1974 through a voluntary initiative organised by Academics for Chile in collaboration with the World University Service (WUS), which expanded considerably when WUS received funding from the Labour government. WUS staff sought to place the student refugees in UK universities, and, once they were offered a place, WUS provided a grant. They were able to obtain a visa for them to study in the UK, and to settle with their immediate families (if necessary) in time for them to learn sufficient English to begin their courses at the beginning of the 1974-75 academic year in September. In addition to cajoling the Home Office to issue visas promptly, the local solidarity groups arranged for the reception of the refugees. WUS applied the language requirement loosely, so that most students arrived with very limited spoken English. In these early stages, funding was not available to pay for language classes, so the local groups had to arrange initial provision locally in addition to finding housing and helping to place the children in local schools. Ahead of the new academic year, the children were the priority for local supporters. In Swansea, many of those over eleven went to Bishop Gore Comprehensive School. Jane Elliot, one of the leading members of the, as yet informal, local support group, convinced the school to introduce Spanish into the school curriculum. Although there was some minor bullying, it was insignificant compared with what they had experienced in Chilean schools after the coup.

With the prospect of large numbers of Chilean refugees arriving in Britain, the Welsh Friends of Chile (affiliated to the CSC) convened a meeting in Swansea in March 1975 to consider both the immediate problem and to plan wider solidarity activity. A further meeting in Cardiff heard from the national secretary of the CSC, Mike Gatehouse, along with Gordon Hutchinson, who explained the role of the Joint Working Group for the Reception of Refugees from Chile (JWG). Those attending learned that although the Wilson Government’s policy was to provide asylum to thousands of refugees seeking sanctuary in Britain, the responsibility for helping them find accommodation and education fell to local solidarity groups. The following month, the situation changed dramatically, however, when the Junta introduced Decree 504, enabling political prisoners to have their sentences commuted to expulsion from the country without the possibility of return. This provided a much broader spectrum of people with the opportunity to leave Chile, offering a route for working-class activists to obtain a visa and ticket out. Nevertheless, arrangements for their release could take months, if not years, to come into fruition, especially for those who had been gaoled for longer terms or had been involved in internal resistance to the Junta following the coup. This was due in part to the practice of each prisoner’s security status having to be reviewed by the CIA in the USA before they were released.

At forty and thirty-nine, the Germán and Gladys Miric were the oldest members of the community of exiles in Swansea, and they already had five children. Germán Miric had been a well-known figure in Chile who had met Fidel Castro and Pablo Neruda. A member of the Communist Party, he had been elected Mayor of Antofagasta, a city in northern Chile. After being imprisoned during the coup and then sent into internal exile, he left Chile in 1977 for London and moved to Swansea in 1978. Miric’s arrival in Swansea changed the dynamic of the local campaign, mainly because he was older, very experienced and highly respected. Although not a leading activist in the town, he was very influential, mediating and moderating between the different political parties and groups among the Chileans. Over time, in Swansea and more broadly in Britain, differences dissipated, reflecting what was also happening in Chile. Yet Miric was strongly ideological. Together with other Communist parents, Miric wanted his teenage children to understand why the family had had to go into exile in Wales. They sent them to the Young Communists to learn about this, and the Miric sisters attended youth congresses. They had little or no choice in this. At the age of fourteen, Gisella was sent with two or three other young people from Britain to a camp for young people in East Germany (DDR), and at the age of thirteen, Geri travelled to Hungary with two friends from London to attend a Communist Party school, where she met many other young Chilean exiles from around Europe.

Leandro Herrera arrived in Swansea early in 1976, together with his wife, Victoria Leighton de los Ángeles Mendez, simply known as Toya and their young daughter. Both Leandro and Toya had had their studies cut short by the coup. Toya had been in her first year at university, and Leandro was a postgraduate. Both were scientists, and both were members of the Communist Party. Leandro was quite hard-line in his support of the Soviet Union, as I remember from a conversation with him in 1980 about the situation in Czechoslovakia. They had married in September 1974, at a time when Leandro was involved in poverty alleviation and housing projects in Chile. As a charismatic leader, Leandro was on a list of students accused of illegal activities, and when the security services arrived at their house asking for them by name, their neighbour informed them of the visit, and they were able to evade capture and detention by hiding in friends’ houses. They left for France in 1975 and stayed there for a short period before their friends and fellow Communists already living in Swansea suggested they join them. On arrival in Swansea in 1976, they quickly encountered the group of Chileans who provided a warm welcome. Toya, in particular, immediately felt full of life and hope again. Leandro had good English on arrival and received a WUS grant for a PhD in Biochemical Engineering. Toya completed her degree while also raising her young family before returning to Chile with the children in the early 1980s.

Adaptation, Trauma and Security:

Many of the predominantly middle-class Chileans found it difficult to adapt to a lower standard of living in exile than they had been used to in Chile before the coup. They found themselves living on council housing estates and experiencing some racism and petty discrimination in reaction to their skin colour and accents, despite Swansea’s earlier industrial and trading links. Nevertheless, the combination of WUS grants and their own common purpose, to survive and study, allowed a vibrant group to develop. The income from their grants enabled them to maintain a sufficient level of financial independence, so that most of them had a solid base from which to integrate into their neighbourhoods. Considering their comparatively small number, the Swansea Chilean exiles made a disproportionate impact on their host society, both culturally and politically.

However, when the refugees first began to arrive in Wales, they carried the trauma of their enforced exodus and were initially suspicious of everyone, not knowing who might be agents of the Pinochet Junta. Individuals continued to use the noms de guerre they had acquired in Chile, rather than revealing their real identities and family backgrounds to fellow Chileans. They did not know who their compatriots in exile were, or where they came from. In these circumstances, it was very natural for them to remain hermetically sealed after living through years of clandestinity under the dictatorship. Decades later, there was still a consciousness of the need for security, not just to hide their personal identities, but also to protect their families in Chile from persecution by the régime. Some were only prepared to speak about their Chilean families fifty years later, in their interviews with Alun Burge. But despite their initial varying states of distress at what and who they had left behind, they also brought with them their experiences of working to build a better and more just society. Clive Haswell, who was involved in the Swansea support group, felt that having been part of a passionate crusade for a better future under Allende, and then having lived through a political cyclone at the time of the coup, they found an echo in Wales and were able to build a movement around themselves.

Student Solidarity & Resistance from Exile:

Neil Caldwell, an Aberystwyth graduate who was Chair of NUS Wales (UCMC) from 1975 to 1977, based at its Swansea Office, saw the Chilean exiles as an active, vibrant and colourful community, sufficiently large to have its own critical mass. That community itself decided on what form the solidarity campaign would take and how it would be organised. Their activism had much in common with that of both local and other overseas students, so that they fitted in well. Most were of the same age, from similar backgrounds and educational levels as many of their local supporters, and they shared the same ‘broad left’ political outlook. Paul Elliott, a local trades union official who had been involved with Chile Solidarity in Bangor in 1975, moved to Swansea the following year, the same year that Jane Elliott arrived from London. The couple also married that year and their wedding was attended by some of the Chileans, as was that of Neil Caldwell.

In November 1975, Caldwell participated in a five-day international event attended by about two hundred students, including some who were smuggled out of Chile at very high risk, and spoke incognito. Concerts were held in Cardiff and Swansea by the ‘Victor Jara Group’. When Caldwell left the London Conference, he took a dossier of evidence and a statement on the situation in Chile to the International Conference on Solidarity with Chile in Athens. There, international working groups from different sectors – engineers, medics, architects, as well as students – who had escaped from the country, and were in touch with people still there, assessed the situation since the coup. Their work was subsequently referred to at the UN General Assembly.

Meanwhile, the Swansea Chileans continued to oppose the Pinochet dictatorship from exile in Wales. By 1978, there was a strong concentration of them settled in the city, with a spirited camaraderie that also drew on Chilean traditions of La Pena, ‘the party’, a social event including music, food and conversation. These parties were relatively unstructured cultural occasions which provided informal opportunities to talk politics and communicate information about what was happening in Chile, rather than using platform speakers at public meetings. The opposite of dogmatic discourse, it was an effective way to engage people with political messages. For many supporters among the hosts, used to the more formal methods of discussion and debate in the British labour movement, this was a refreshingly different way of doing politics.

The Chileans were only one of the refugee groups in South Wales. Ali Anwar was from Iraq and met the Chileans in Swansea in the late 1970s. At the time, the refugees from Saddam Hussein’s murderous Ba’athist régime had formed the Iraqi Student Society, opposed to the state-sponsored National Union of Iraqi Students, the members of which operated as Saddam’s thuggish agents on campuses across Wales and Britain, beating up the dissidents. They also shared houses and flats. Photos of Chilean social gatherings included Iraqis, Iranians and Sudanese. In return, the Iraqis welcomed the Chileans to Persian food parties at their homes in Sketty and Uplands. As a result of these associations among the various exiled groups, Ali became an elected member of the NUS Wales Executive in the autumn of 1979, with responsibility for Overseas Students’ Affairs.

I was a regular visitor to the home of Leandro Herrera and Toya Leighton in the Uplands, and they often came to see me in the house I rented from Aled Eurig’s parents, who lived in Aberystwyth during term-time and needed a ‘trustworthy tenant’ to take care of the property while they were away. It was a large Edwardian house with its original wiring and servants’ bells in every room, connected to a panel in the kitchen, although they were no longer in regular use. All the bells had the same tone, including the front door bell, and Leandro delighted in ringing the bell in the downstairs toilet, which made me go to the front door, where, of course, no one was waiting to come in. On turning around, I would meet Leandro emerging into the hallway, laughing, from the toilet! He was also a frequent visitor to my office in Walter Road, mostly to help co-ordinate the solidarity campaign with NUS Wales, but on one occasion, he needed help in recovering his vehicle, a Russian Lada, from near the hospital at Singleton Park. He had just been present at the birth of his son, their second child, and he had been in such a euphoric state that he had an accident on his way home. His car was never properly repaired, and he once had to drive at night to a meeting in Aberystwyth. As the front offside headlamp illuminated the hillside rather than the twisting Black Mountain road ahead, the front passenger had to sit holding a torch pointing in the right direction, enabling the company to make the return journey ‘safely’. After that, Leandro’s antics and slapstick sense of humour became legendary and endeared him to his friends, both British and Latin American, and provided some much-needed relief from campaigning and trauma!

From Santiago to Swansea – Hunger Strikes, 1978-79:

In 1978, momentum had built in response to a hunger strike in Santiago involving twenty to thirty relatives of the disappeared at the Central Hall of the United Nations building there, which was quickly surrounded by armed police. Five young Chilean exiles, together with Dr Sheila Cassidy, began a solidarity strike at St Aloysius Church in Euston, London. The hunger strikers called for the UN Ad Hoc Working Group on Chile to visit the country to carry out an exhaustive investigation into the disappeared. Hunger strikes were regularly deployed to draw attention to human rights abuses in Chile. In May 1978, seven Chilean refugees in Swansea undertook a seven-day hunger strike at The Friend’s Meeting House, with the support of the Quakers, to protest at the plight of the 2,500 missing prisoners in Chile. As part of an international campaign, the action was one of those undertaken in eighteen countries across Western Europe, Latin America, North America and Australia. These were undertaken in support of the 150 relatives of the disappeared who were on hunger strike in Chile. By the time the Swansea action ended, the hunger strikers had succeeded in drawing local attention to the cause. Six other Chileans then began a follow-up strike at the Catholic Chaplaincy in Cardiff, part of a wave of nineteen actions across Britain.

As momentum built, the hunger strikes brought together Welsh supporters of the Chilean refugees across Wales in a common cause for the first time. Campaign advertisements in the Western Mail and South Wales Echo involved an impressive array of individuals and organisations from different sectors of Welsh society. Among the churches and their leaders were the Annibynwyr (Congregationalists), Baptists, Catholic Justice and Peace groups, the Bishop and Dean of Llandaf. Academics, actors, artists and performers were also listed, including Dafydd Iwan, whose Welsh language song Cán Victor Jara was released in 1979, about the Chilean folk-singer who was tortured and murdered in the Chile Stadium in the days after the coup ‘in Santiago in ’73’. Other signatories included local authority leaders, Labour and Plaid Cymru MPs, Cymdeithas yr Iaith (the Welsh Language Society), together with other international solidarity campaigns, trades unions (including the NUM) and councils, the Wales TUC, and local human rights campaigners. The hunger strikes were suspended when David Owen, then Foreign Secretary, told the campaigners that the régime was allowing the UNHRC to visit Chile and the Junta promised the Chilean Church leaders an investigation into the Missing, provided their relatives and supporters called off their action. Copies of pamphlets in Welsh were distributed at the National Eisteddfod in Cardiff.

The pressure brought on the Pinochet régime by the worldwide hunger strikes meant that they were seen as an effective tool. In the late summer of 1979, when I took up the role as the full-time officer of NUS Wales (UCMC), based in Swansea, another hunger strike was organised in the city, together with the Chile Solidarity Campaign. This was held in support of one taking place in the Danish Embassy in Santiago, demanding the return of bodies found in the abandoned Lonquen mine. Although outside of term-time, fifty overseas students marched from the University College campus to the Henrietta Street Congregationalist Chapel, where they undertook the strike in forty-eight-hour shifts. Half of the strikers were Chilean, and the rest were ‘local’ supporters, including Iraqi and other overseas and British students, including myself.

The venue was the idea of Aled Eurig and his father, Rev. Dewi Eurig Davies, who was a minister in the church and a professor at its training college. He contacted the chapel, whose minister met with us, and the deaconate agreed to host the hunger strike free of charge. Trilingual coverage was heard on the local radio station, Swansea Sound, when Leandro Herrera was interviewed in Spanish, with translation directly into Welsh, and I was interviewed in Welsh. After five days, the hunger strike was called off when Chile’s High Court ruled that bodies found in the abandoned mine should be returned to their families. However, the Junta ignored their ruling, so the hunger strike strategy seemed to have run its course and had come to a somewhat abrupt ending. Leandro and others among the hunger strikers travelled to London the following weekend to take part in a national demonstration.

Cán Victor Jara – The Song of the Exiles:

Some months later, UCMC sponsored a concert in Swansea given by Dafydd Iwan, who performed Cán Victor Jara three times, including once in English, a rare ‘compromise’, for a mainly international audience. Dafydd Elis Thomas, then Plaid Cymru MP for Meirionydd, also attended with me, after speaking at an Anti-Apartheid rally in Llanelli. This was a recognition of the importance of maintaining the rhythm of solidarity work alongside a broader commitment to other international campaigns, such as the protests against the South African Barbarians’ Rugby team’s tour of Wales. When Brian Davies moved from Swansea to Cardiff in the Spring of 1979, he encountered very little activity on Chile. Alun Burge thinks this was due to disillusionment after the wave of hunger strikes had died down, but, on reflection, it was more likely to have been due to the comparative size of the Swansea exiles in relation to the neighbourhoods where they settled. Bringing with him his experiences from the Swansea CSC, Davies helped to organise a series of events at the Sherman Theatre featuring a Latin American folk group, a Welsh folk group, a male voice choir and guest speakers. This mixture of regular cultural events with political education maintained the momentum of the Chile campaign. By 1979, the Chileans were still refugees, but they were organised in resistance and no longer saw themselves as desperate victims.

Music was an important part of this achievement. The group founded in Swansea used their performances to explain life both before and during the dictatorship as well as to raise funds for the CSC and for political prisoners in Chile. Their music drew on indigenous Andean culture and musical instruments, in itself a form of resistance since, after the coup, the folk music movement was crushed and banned in Chile, along with its instruments. Reflecting first the hopes of Allende’s Popular Unity government and, from 1973, the resistance against the Pinochet régime, the Swansea music group helped to galvanise solidarity in Wales by playing the music of Victor Jara and other Chilean groups. The Chilean new song movement was part of a process of social and cultural change, and the nueva canción represented a musical revolution which gained political power. Connected to Popular Unity, committed to the poor and excluded, it demanded their rights and challenged the status quo, prevailing economic and political institutions and the ‘Western’ domination of music. In September 1976, a ‘Chile Week’ was held in Swansea to mark the third anniversary of the coup. In April 1978, the Chilean group performed for 350 people attending the Llafur (Welsh labour history) Conference in Swansea. In these informal ways and settings, the Chilean refugees soon became part of the cultural fabric of South Wales in general and of the regional labour movement in particular. In their exchanges with local people, they gave as much as they received, and were still playing in the valleys communities in the mid-1980s.

Seeking the Right of Return:

As early as the summer of 1979, calls were made for Chileans to have the right of return to their country. They had always intended this. However, the situation in Chile remained too difficult, as evidenced by the disappearance of some returnees. WUS established an office in Santiago by 1981, overseeing a programme, sponsored by the British government, to aid the return of the WUS-supported exiles. By mid-1981, significant numbers of Swansea Chileans were reported as returning, including Toya Leighton. Burge reports that by 1986, twenty had returned, with fifty remaining, of whom half were children. He estimates that by then, approximately two-thirds of Chileans had left the city. However, most of those who had been sentenced by military tribunals, although formally amnestied in 1978, were refused authorisation to return when they applied to the Chilean Embassy in London. Burge summarises the attitude of the Welsh Chileans in the mid-1980s:

Many Chileans regarded exile as temporary. They had no sense that their future was in Wales and their bags were metaphorically packed, ready to return. Some did not expect to be in exile for a prolonged period and had not prioritised learning the English language. … unwilling to accept their circumstances, after a decade, where only a return to Chile would provide a solution. For those in the political élite, whose ideals were ‘almost the sole reason for existence’, they continued living the tragedy which, in turn, limited their adaptation to Britain and led to anxiety, depression, or even suicide. For those caught between going or staying, life was constantly having to be renegotiated because, although never feeling settled, they were obliged to adjust.

(Burge, pp. 69-70)

Many of the Swansea Chilean community had children of the same age, and their families did a lot together and with host families, including beach parties. With a new generation born in Wales, or with children who were so young when they left Chile that they had little or no memory of it, Swansea’s Chilean parents ran Saturday schools to teach Chilean history, geography, language and culture to their children throughout the first half of the 1980s. Individuals’ experiences of exile varied greatly, not least between men and women. Some women discovered a new dimension to themselves in exile, living in a less patriarchal society that exposed them to feminist attitudes that challenged previous assumptions. Lila Haines had been in Swansea since October 1974, and her daughter, Miren, was born to her and Meic Haines as the first Chileans arrived. Lila got to know the Chilean women well, especially the Miric family, who were always hosting parties. Meic and Lila spoke Spanish, and Paul and Jane Elliot were their neighbours. The Miric grandmother, Dona Elba Vega, looked after Lila’s other daughter, Rhiannon, when Lila returned to her studies, and also took care of the Elliotts’ young children until she returned to Chile. The Swansea Chilean children retained their sense of extended family and have maintained a strong bond even after returning to Chile. Lila also remains in contact with Toya Leighton in Chile.

Although the situation in Chile remained difficult in the eighties, the process of return started in 1981. It could be highly dangerous, however, and friends of the Swansea exiles were known to have disappeared after returning. Nevertheless, a significant number of Swansea Chileans had returned by the mid-1980s. In 1986, twenty returned from Swansea, with fifty-three remaining, including twenty-four children. These figures suggest that, by then, two-thirds of Chileans had left the town.

In the early 1980s, America Morena was formed, the culmination of the evolution of the Chilean music groups of the 1970s in Swansea and Cardiff. Comprising younger musicians from both cities, they sometimes played with the Welsh rock singer, Geraint Jarman, and so entered the world of the Welsh cultural scene, with some of them appearing in the 1983 Welsh-language film Gaucho. By then, I had left Wales after eight years as a student and was an ‘exile’ in Lancashire, before returning to my parents’ home in Coventry in 1986. Nevertheless, through Llafur (the Welsh Labour History Society), I maintained irregular contact with former colleagues from home and abroad. After finishing my PhD thesis on Welsh exiles in the English Midlands and graduating from the University of Wales, I then moved to central Europe shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990, and the collapse of communism in Hungary and Poland. Meanwhile, a plebiscite in Chile voted to end the rule of the Junta in October 1988, and after democratic elections in December 1989, a Christian Democrat government took power in March 1990.

A Chile Without Pinochet:

In December 1980, at the age of forty-three, Germán Miric went to teach in Nicaragua. He went alone as his children were attending Swansea schools, some at secondary level. Although he had originally hoped that they would join him as a step in remigration to Chile, within eighteen months, he returned to Wales. Geri, his daughter, didn’t finish school until 1986, and even then did not want to leave. Germán eventually returned to Chile in 1991, followed by Gladys and Giordan a few years later. Geri split her time between Britain and Chile while Gisella, who remembered little of her early childhood in Chile, settled in Britain. In 1994-95, when Geri Miric finished her university studies, she decided to return to Chile. She immersed herself in Chilean life, speaking Spanish fluently, though people often asked her if she was Chilean, as she spoke very differently. From 1996, she worked for an international corporation, speaking English with Americans, Canadians, Australians and British business people. She was treated with great respect by her Chilean colleagues because, although of equal status with them, she had been educated to a much higher level in Britain, and was linguistically the equal of the company’s directors, with whom she could discuss anything. She commented that it was a different Chile from the one she had left to go into exile:

“a Chile without Pinochet, a Chile of hope, yet a very, very, very divided Chile because, although things had changed, the division was even more prominent than before.” (Burge, p. 80).

In October 1998, Pinochet was arrested in London for his crimes during the dictatorship. When Geri arrived at work that morning, the office where she worked was in uproar, and the whole staff was called into the meeting room to view the unfolding event on the big screen. Most of her Chilean colleagues were Pinochetistas, but Geri was not expected to attend, as there was ‘a silent understanding’ that she was ‘one of the exiadas… and no supporter of Pinochet.’ The Managing Director of the Company decided to hold a collection among the staff towards the campaign to bring Pinochet back to Chile, but as the bucket was passed around, it did not come to her. Other members of staff had been told that if they did not contribute, they would be fired, but no one came to her to ask. By the time Pinochet was released from house arrest and allowed to return to Chile, Geri had returned to Britain. Then, in 2004, the Chilean government announced that the 28,000 survivors of torture under the Pinochet régime, including some still living in Swansea, would receive life pensions as compensation. In the same year, the Chilean Supreme Court ruled that the dictator did not have immunity for the crimes carried out under Operation Condor, the official name of the coup. The indictments against him continued to increase until he died in 2006.

The Legacy of the Chile Solidarity in Britain:

Another reason why the decade of Welsh solidarity with Chile has had little permanent effect may lie, in part, in the organisational weakness of the British Labour Party and movement at that time in Wales. The solidarity movement in Wales reflected what was organisationally possible at that time. Only once, around the 1978-9 hunger strikes, did cross-Wales co-ordination take place through the collaboration of the solidarity groups in Cardiff and Swansea. Although primarily a movement across South Wales, major sections of the population – trade unions, church and cultural organisations – came together in a single cohesive expression of support for the call for accountability over the disappearances.

Dai was President of UC Swansea Student Union and Deputy Chair of NUS Wales/ UCMC in 1979-80

The development of a strong, independent voice for Welsh students in UCMC (NUS Wales), established in May 1974, was hampered by the defeat in the devolution debácle of 1st March 1979, and the rise in support for Young Conservatives after the Thatcher landslide in three out of the six university colleges. Support for refugees continued with the granting of a bursary to a Bolivian copper miner for studies organised through the NUM. However, his lack of English and course preparation led to his return home after a few months. UCMC was preoccupied with fighting the cuts in education in Wales, first introduced by the Callaghan government and carried out by Labour-controlled local education authorities, and the imposition of full-cost fees for overseas students by the Thatcher government. These issues affected refugee students as much as they did international students in general. A meeting with the University’s Chancellor, HRH Prince Charles, at which we presented him with a document prepared by UKCOSA (The UK Council for Overseas Student Affairs), led to an exchange of letters with both the Foreign Office and the Home Office. His main concerns were the impact of the policy on Commonwealth countries and the potential of its detrimental effect on scientific and technical courses within the University.

The labour movement failed to advance international causes, such as anti-apartheid, largely due to the continued weakness of the Wales TUC, which had only been inaugurated in April 1974. Moreover, its terms of reference had explicitly excluded its campaigning on such matters. International solidarity was no longer the ‘order of the day’ or even a secondary priority. When the journalist Donald Woods came to Swansea following his ‘escape’ from South Africa in 1980, it was the NUS which organised, together with Swansea Students’ Union, his meeting at which his Penguin book on Steve Bíkó was launched. Certainly, the Wales TUC was in no state to take on the Welsh Rugby Union over its hosting of the South African Barbarians in 1979, even if it had wanted to, and even though the campaign was consciously given the name South Wales Campaign Against Racism in Sport. It arranged for Peter Hain to come to Cardiff, where he met with local groups and the Wales TUC, an association which led to him becoming MP for Neath and a leading member of the Blair-Brown governments. For many, the perspective of the South Wales industrial valleys and their institutional legacy, of Nye Bevan and Jim Griffiths, was the determining factor in their political consciousness and remained so until the 1997 General Election, when ‘New Labour’ took charge at Westminster, and a Welsh Assembly was established the following year.

‘Old Labour’ had been wedded to taking power at Westminster and using it from the top down and from the centre to the ‘peripheries’. It was therefore a British state ‘socialist’ party, centred on London, without, as yet, an all-Wales organisational level. The Chile Solidarity Campaign and the Wales Anti-Apartheid Movement (WAAM) were indefinitely and uneasily located within the Nationalist-Labourist debate. Brian Davies, a founding member of the Niclas Society, identified the limitations of the industrial unionist tradition within the labour movement in South Wales, which he argued should define Wales as a country, not a coalfield. He saw the crux of the issue as being an internationalism that denied or dismissed its own national identity. Ironically, however, when he had designed the Chile Solidarity banner, translated into Welsh by Cymru Goch founder Meic Haines, it bore the name South Wales Chile Solidarity. Of course, at that time, this simply reflected a geographical and economic reality. Davies recognised that, apart from the NUM, the trade unions in Wales were primarily economistic. However, eleven years of ‘Thatcherism’ and the 1984/5 miners’ strike transformed the context within which international solidarity operated. The Labour movement in Wales was effectively broken and remained weak for the next decade. Support for Chile was not unified at a Wales, or even a South Wales, level, but rather took different forms in different times, and with different motivations.

In 1982/3, Margaret Thatcher made an alliance with Pinochet and prevented his extradition to France, one of the many countries that had indicted him for crimes against humanity. Those tortured by the tyrant had included the British nurse, Sheila Cassidy, and many US citizens working in Chile at the time of the coup. The role of the CIA in supporting the coup has been well documented and portrayed in the film, ‘Missing’ starring Jack Lemmon, based on the true story of a US Republican’s search for his son.

Recent Refugees & Reflections:

In 2022, people across Wales opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees, offering them accommodation after the full-scale Russian invasion in February of that year. Around 7,500 came to Wales, including over three thousand who arrived under the Welsh government scheme and over four thousand sponsored by Welsh families or relatives. In recent decades, by contrast, support for causes other than Syria and Palestine has been muted. The ‘hole in the iron curtain’ and the ‘fall of the wall’ in 1989 led to shifts in popular historical consciousness and the demise of the Communist Party of Great Britain and other extra-parliamentary socialist activism. This demise caused a vacuum in working-class education and publications in Wales, which had played a significant role since the interwar period. Within Wales, the return of the great majority of Chileans to their homeland meant that their cultural and ideological influence on their countries of exile receded. However, the impact on them of their extended sojourn in Wales remained strong, confirmed in 2019 when many who had returned from Swansea and London gathered at the home of Germán Miric in Larmahue, in central Chile, to celebrate his 82nd birthday and to recall their shared experiences of their adopted land.

In 2023, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the coup, a sell-out event at the Volcano Theatre in Swansea provided a remarkable blend of politics and culture once again. Organised by José Cifuentes, it revived the pena tradition of music, poetry, food and political conversation. Dafydd Iwan once more sang Cán Victor Jara, and Jane Hutt, Minister for Social Justice in the Welsh Government, gave a speech on refugees and asylum seekers that illustrated the then sharp divide on the subject between the devolved governments of Wales and Scotland and the UK government at Westminster. Rocio Cifuentes, who had arrived in Swansea at the age of one, was now the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, and reflected on her experiences as a Swansea Chilean. All the Chileans still in Swansea, by then only a handful of the original hundred and fifty, attended. The South Wales Chile Solidarity Campaign banner hung over the stage, together with a small Chilean flag which had been brought into exile by Germán Miric. Both can now be seen on display at the National Museum of Wales.

The solidarity campaigns in Wales from the 1970s to the 1990s, especially the CSC and WAAM, the latter organised by Hanif Bhamjee (who died in 2024). These movements brought together people from a range of backgrounds and political cultures in models of all-Wales working that would later become common, not least in the 1997 devolution campaign and made them important harbingers of a broader, more cohesive Welsh society in the way Wales now sees itself. The recent by-election in Caerfilli has shown how, in supporting Ukrainian refugees, it has become a dedicated Nation of Sanctuary within the UK, as informal cross-party working saw off the challenge of an anti-asylum candidate. During the time of Pinochet’s house arrest, some of the remaining Swansea Chileans combined with refugees from other countries and local supporters to set up a support group for the new wave of asylum seekers who had arrived in Britain and were being dispersed by the Home Office to towns and cities around the country. Twenty-five years later, Swansea Asylum Seeker Support continues to function and meet new challenges. Alun Burge concludes:

In the evolution of a national consciousness, … Wales continues to reimagine itself and its relationship with the rest of the world; its historic role in providing international solidarity is one means by which Wales should frame itself.

Burge, p. 101

A Personal Appendix – ‘When the Sun Shines Again’:

A Poem by a Visiting Chilean Student Leader, Alma Sol; January 1980.

When the sun shines

Again in my land

I will remember your winter

Your fight, due to the words,

is strange and beyond me,

today, in them, I do not understand it

but through your eyes and your wheat hair

I listen to your song which is mine also,

in the song of my country

which slowly in its silence

lives as well in your hands

Continue, unknown brother

Continue in your footsteps that I am

able to foresee

Continue in your fight, which is

the same as ours.

Alma Sol, Swansea, 13 January 1980.

Sources:

Alun Burge (2025), The Tenderness of a People: Welsh Solidarity with Chile and the Evolution of International Consciousness. Swansea: Hafan Books (The book’s title is based on the Spanish phrase, Solidarity is the tenderness of peoples: ‘Undod yw tynerwch rhwng pobl’ in Welsh.)

Related articles

Gallery:

Homage to Handsworth – Immigration & Intercultural Integration in Birmingham and the West Midlands

Preface: Prejudiced Politics & Peace Education:

Recent political events in the United Kingdom have included those surrounding the Conservative ‘shadow’ justice minister, Robert Jenrick, who has been ‘on manoeuvres’ since losing the party’s leadership contest a year ago. As part of his campaign, he has taken to ‘social media’ with a series of issue-based amateur video campaigns. In March of this year, he paid a fleeting, ninety-minute visit to the streets of Handsworth in Birmingham to film a ‘home movie’ on the issue of ‘litter’. His conclusion was that the area was a ‘slum’, which was controversial enough, but his succeeding speech to a local Conservative Association in the West Midlands, an area which received the ‘white flight’ emigrants from the ‘inner cities’ in the 1970s and 1980s, has only recently come to public attention. In this, he told the Tory faithful of his unease at not seeing ‘another white face’ and said that he would ‘not want to live’ in an area where this was the case. This negative labelling and stereotyping of mixed cultural areas in Britain by public figures and others is something I have had to confront periodically over the past fifty years, a form of racism that has plagued modern times both in my own country and others where I have made my home. My original home of Birmingham was also the place where I began my work as an advisory teacher in the field, when I took up an invitation to develop an intercultural project, jointly sponsored by West Midland Quakers and the Christian Education Movement, which also linked that project with a community-level one among inter-faith teachers in Northern Ireland, funded by the UK government’s Education for Mutual Education programme.

Beyond Multiculturalism – Intercultural Relations in Birmingham in the 1980s:

We had already hosted the Northern Irish teachers in Birmingham, where the Inter-cultural Conflict and Reconciliation Project was launched under the auspices of the CEM in 1986-7. They had visited Handsworth and met a black community worker as well as a community policeman. Walking with them along the long main road through the district, I recognised their obvious unease as being similar to the way I had felt driving a minibus full of students through the middle of Belfast and around the ‘peace line’ two years earlier. I remember asking the teachers about integrated education as a solution to overcoming the sectarian divide in education. The reply came that removing churches from secondary schools did not help bridge the divide, since before young people could reach out across that divide, they had first to feel confident in their own faith traditions. In Handsworth, they visited a Church of England primary school where three-quarters of the children were from Punjabi Sikh families. The parents told us that they had chosen to send their children to that oversubscribed school due to its religious foundation, and because they knew that their children would receive religious education and grow up understanding Christian values.

This provided me with a valuable insight which, in 1990-91, I was able to apply to my work in Hungary, where the role of religion in schools had been suppressed for so long and where RE was still outlawed from the curriculum. By 1991, I returned to Birmingham after setting up an exchange programme in East/West relations. I help train RE teachers in Birmingham, leading workshops for them to try out some of the cooperative activities we had previously developed in West Midlands schools. By that time, our case study of Handsworth, based on the press coverage of the 1981 and 1985 ‘riots’, was already out of date, so it was replaced with a case study on the stereotyping of the Muslim community in Derby. Religious traditions, be they Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, Baptist, Pentecostal, Sikh, or Muslim, are there for us to reach out from, in faith, not for us to retreat into, in fear. It is worth remembering a comment from a poet from Derry: the most divisive borders are those we draw within ourselves.

Windrush Pioneers & Population ‘Inflow’:

In Britain, postwar reconstruction, declining birth rates and labour shortages resulted in the introduction of government schemes to encourage Commonwealth workers, especially from the West Indies, to seek employment in Britain. Jamaicans and Trinidadians were recruited directly by agents to fill vacancies in the British transport network and the newly created National Health Service. Private companies also recruited labour in India and Pakistan for factories and foundries in Britain. As more and more Caribbean and South Asian people settled in Britain, patterns of chain migration developed, in which pioneer migrants aided friends and relatives to settle. Despite the influx of immigrants after the war, however, internal migration within the British Isles continued to outpace overseas immigration.

A Jamaican immigrant seeking lodgings in Birmingham in 1955

During the 1950s, the number of West Indians entering Britain reached annual rates of thirty thousand. Immigration from the Indian subcontinent began to escalate from the 1960s onwards. The census of 1951 recorded seventy-four thousand New Commonwealth immigrants; ten years later the figure had increased to 336,000, climbing to 2.2 million in 1981. Immigration from the New Commonwealth was driven by a combination of push and pull factors. Partition of the Indian subcontinent and the construction of the Mangla Dam in Pakistan had displaced large numbers of people, many of whom had close links with Britain through the colonial connection.

Although the 1962 Commonwealth and Immigration Act was intended to reduce the inflow of Caribbeans and Asians into Britain, in the short term, it had the opposite effect: fearful of losing the right of free entry, immigrants came to Britain in greater numbers. In the eighteen months before the restrictions were introduced in 1963, the volume of newcomers, 183,000, equalled the total for the previous five years. Harold Wilson was always a sincere anti-racist, but he did not try to repeal the 1962 Act with its controversial quota system. One of the new migrations that arrived to beat the 1963 quota system just before Wilson came to power came from a rural area of Pakistan threatened with flooding by the huge dam project. The poor farming villages from the Muslim north, particularly around Kashmir, were not an entrepreneurial environment. They began sending their men to earn money in the labour-starved textile mills of Bradford and the surrounding towns in Yorkshire.

Above: Caribbean families arriving in Britain in the early 1960s

Unlike the West Indians, the Pakistanis and Indians were more likely to send for their families soon after arrival in Britain. Soon there would be large, distinct Muslim communities clustered in areas of Bradford, Leicester and other manufacturing towns. Unlike the Caribbean communities, which were largely Christian, these new streams of migration were bringing people who were religiously separated from the white ‘Christians’ around them and cut off from the main forms of working-class entertainment, many of which involved the consumption of alcohol, from which they abstained. Muslim women were expected to remain in the domestic environment, and ancient traditions of arranged marriages carried over from the subcontinent meant that there was almost no intermarriage with the native population. To many of the ‘natives’, the ‘Pakis’ were less threatening than young Caribbean men, but they were also more alien.

In 1964, Harold Wilson felt strongly enough about the racist behaviour of the Tory campaign at Smethwick, to the west of Birmingham, to publicly denounce its victor, Peter Griffiths, as a ‘parliamentary leper’. Smethwick had attracted a significant number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries, the largest ethnic group being Sikhs from the Punjab in India, and there were also many Windrush Caribbeans settled in the area. There was also a background of factory closures and a growing waiting list for local council housing. Griffiths ran a campaign critical of both the opposition and the government’s immigration policies. The Conservatives were widely reported as using the slogan “if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour” but the neo-Nazi British Movement claimed that its members had produced the initial slogan as well as spread the poster and sticker campaign. However, Griffiths did not condemn the phrase and was quoted as saying, “I should think that is a manifestation of popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that.” The 1964 general election had involved a nationwide swing from the Conservatives to the Labour Party, which had resulted in the party gaining a narrow five seat majority. However, in Smethwick, as Conservative candidate, Peter Griffiths gained the seat and unseated the sitting Labour MP, Patrick Gordon Walker, an Oxford graduate who had served as Shadow Foreign Secretary for the eighteen months prior to the election. In these circumstances, the Smethwick campaign, already attracting national media coverage, and the result itself, stood out as clearly the result of racism.

Above: The local government structure within North Worcestershire and South Staffordshire
– Before the West Midlands Order 1965 reorganisation

Strictly speaking, Birmingham has never part of the Black Country, which lies just over the south-eastern boundary of the region at West Bromwich, Smethwick and Bearwood, where the old counties of Warwickshire and Worcestershire met. The boundary was literally at the end of the long back garden of our ‘manse’ in Edgbaston, the Baptist Church being in Bearwood. Yet in an economic rather than a geographical sense, Birmingham is at one end of the Black Country, with Wolverhampton is at the other. 

Birmingham was never as wholly bleak as the area to the north, though. Its southern suburbs became a dormitory for the middle and upper classes, almost devoid of factories, except for the Austin motor works at Longbridge and the Cadbury factory at Bournville which, like his predecessor J B Priestley, Geoffrey Moorhouse writes about at some length in his chapter on the Black Country.  I don’t intend to focus on it in this article. These suburbs were spacious and tree-lined, running eventually out into the ‘Shakespeare country’ of the former Forest of Arden, along the Stratford Road. Birmingham was one of the very few places in England which lived up to its motto – in this case, ‘Forward’. It was certainly going forward in the mid-sixties. Nowhere else was there more excitement in the air, and no other major British city had identified its problems, tackled them and made more progress towards solving them than ‘the second city’. Not even in London was there so much adventure in what was being done.

The danger, however, was that all this central enterprise would distract the city from looking too closely at its unfulfilled needs. Life in Sparkbrook or Balsall Heath didn’t look nearly as prosperous as it did from St Martin’s. Birmingham could have done itself more good by concentrating more on its tatty central fringes, what became known in the seventies and eighties as its inner-city areas. Something like seventy thousand families were in need of new homes and since the war it had been building houses at a rate of no more than two to three thousand a year. This compared poorly with Manchester, otherwise a poor relation, which had been building four thousand a year over the same period. However, more than any other municipality in the country, Birmingham had pressed successive ministers of Housing and Local Government to force lodging-house landlords to register with their local authorities. In 1944, it was the only place in England to take advantage of an ephemeral Act of Parliament to acquire the five housing areas it then developed twenty years later. At Ladywood, Lee Bank, Highgate, Newton and Nechells Green, 103,000 people lived in 32,000 slum houses; a mess sprawling over a thousand acres, only twenty-two acres of which were open land. More than ten thousand of these houses had been cleared by 1964, and it was estimated that by 1970 the total number of people living in these areas was expected to dwindle to fifty thousand, with their homes set in 220 acres of open ground.

The other tens of thousands of people who lived there were expected to have moved out to Worcester, Redditch and other places. The prospect of Birmingham’s excess population being deposited in large numbers on the surrounding countryside was not an attractive one for those who were on the receiving end of this migration. At the public enquiry into the proposals to establish a new town at Redditch, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) declared, with the imagery that pressure groups often resort to when their interests are threatened, that the farmers were being sacrificed on the altar of Birmingham’s ‘overspill’, which was the latest password among the planners. Birmingham needed to clear its slums before it could start talking about itself with justification as the most go-ahead city in Europe. Yet it already, in the mid-sixties, felt much more affluent than the patchwork affair among more northern towns and cities. It had more in common with the Golden Circle of London and the Home Counties than any other part of England. In 1964, forty-seven per cent of its industrial firms reported increased production compared with the national average of twenty-five per cent. Above all, Birmingham felt as if everything it set itself to was geared to an overall plan and purpose, with no piecemeal efforts going to waste at a tangent. The people living in Birmingham in the mid-sixties had a feeling, rare in English life at that time, of being part of an exciting enterprise destined to succeed. As for the city itself, it was not prepared to yield pride of place to anyone on any matter, as a quick glance at the civic guide revealed.

Immigration: The Case of Smethwick in 1964.

The Black Country outside Birmingham may have appeared to have been standing still for a century or more, but by looking at its population it was possible to see that an enormous change had come over it in the late fifties and early sixties. The pallid, indigenous people had been joined by more colourful folk from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. In some cases, the women from the subcontinent could not speak English at all, but they had already made their mark on Black Country society, queuing for chickens on Wolverhampton market on Saturday mornings. The public transport system across Birmingham and the Black Country would certainly have ground to a halt had the immigrant labour which supplied it been withdrawn. Several cinemas had been saved from closing by showing Indian and Pakistani movies, and a Nonconformist Chapel had been transformed into a Sikh Gurdwara. The whole area was ‘peppered’ with Indian and Pakistani restaurants.

The newcomers also made an immediate impact on sporting life in Birmingham. Several years before the national press discovered the West Indian cricket supporters at Lord’s in 1963, they were already plainly visible and vocal at Edgbaston Cricket Ground. The cover of ‘Punch’ from May 1957 mirrors the stereotypical image described by Sir Neville Cardus (below right). I watched many of their top-class cricketers playing for Warwickshire and Worcestershire from the late 1960s, and those of lesser abilities playing in local leagues.

The overseas immigrants had been coming into Birmingham and the Black Country in a steady trickle since the end of the war for the same reason that the region attracted migrants from all over the British Isles since the mid-twenties: comparatively high wages and full, stable, employment. The trickle became a torrent in the months before the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was enacted in 1962. By 1964, the region had one of the biggest concentrations of immigrants in the country. Their integration into the communities of Birmingham and the Black Country had proceeded without the violent reaction which led to the race riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958. But tensions had been building up in the region as they had in every mixed community in Britain. One of the first open antagonisms took place in Birmingham in 1954 over the employment of coloured migrants as drivers and conductors on the local buses. After that, little was heard of racial pressures until the end of 1963, when events in Smethwick began to make national headlines. The situation there became typical in its effects on traditional allegiances, and in its ripeness for exploitation, of that in every town in England with a mixed community.

With a population of seventy thousand, Smethwick contained an immigrant community variously estimated at between five and seven thousand. It was claimed that this was proportionately greater than in any other county borough in England. The settlement of these people in Smethwick had not been the slow process over a long period that Liverpool, Cardiff and other seaports had experienced and which had allowed time for adjustments to be made gradually. It had happened at a rush, mainly at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties. In such circumstances, the host communities learnt to behave better, but it was always likely that a deeply rooted white population would regard with suspicion the arrival of an itinerant coloured people on its home ground, and that friction would result. In Smethwick, the friction followed a familiar pattern. Most pubs in the town barred coloured people from their lounge bars. Some barbers refused to cut their hair. When a Pakistani family were allocated a new council flat after slum clearance in 1961, sixty-four of their white neighbours staged a rent strike and eventually succeeded in driving them out of, ironically enough, ‘Christ Street’.

Peter Griffiths MP, in his maiden speech to the Commons, pointed out what he believed were the real problems his constituency faced, including factory closures and over 4,000 families awaiting council accommodation. But in 1965, Wilson’s new Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, tightened the quota system, cutting down on the number of dependents allowed in, and giving the Government the power to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, it offered the first Race Relations Act as a ‘sweetener’. This outlawed the use of the ‘colour bar’ in public places and by potential landlords, and discrimination in public services, also banning incitement to racial hatred like that seen in the Smethwick campaign. At the time, it was largely seen as toothless, yet the combination of restrictions on immigration and the measures to better integrate the migrants already in Britain did form the basis for all subsequent policy.

When I went to live in Edgbaston with my family from Nottingham in 1965, Birmingham’s booming postwar economy had not only attracted its ‘West Indian’ settlers from 1948 onwards, but had also ‘welcomed’ South Asians from Gujarat and Punjab in India, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) both after the war and partition, and in increasing numbers from the early 1960s. The South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards of the city and in West Birmingham, particularly Sparkbrook and Handsworth, as well as in Sandwell (see map below; then known as Smethwick and Warley). Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in less attractive, poorly paid, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and healthcare sectors of the public services. These jobs were filled by newcomers from the Commonwealth.

But if there were clear rules about how to migrate quietly to Britain, they would have stated first, ‘be white’, and second, ‘if you can’t be white, be small in number’, and third, ‘if all else fails, feed the brutes’. The West Indian migration, at least until the mid-eighties, failed each rule. It was mainly male, young and coming not to open restaurants but to work for wages which could, in part, be sent back home. Some official organisations, including the National Health Service and London Transport, went on specific recruiting drives for drivers, conductors, nurses and cleaners, with advertisements in Jamaica. Most of the population shift, however, was driven by the migrants themselves, desperate for a better life, particularly once the popular alternative migration to the USA was closed down in 1952. The Caribbean islands, dependent on sugar or tobacco for most employment, were going through hard times. As word was passed back about job opportunities, albeit in difficult surroundings, immigration grew fast to about 36,000 people a year by the late fifties. The scale of the change was equivalent to the total non-white population of 1951 arriving in Britain every two years. The black and Asian population rose to 117,000 by 1961. Although these were still comparatively small numbers, from the first, they were concentrated in particular localities, rather than being dispersed.

The means and ways by which these people migrated to Britain had a huge impact on the later condition of post-war society and deserves special, detailed analysis. The fact that so many of the first migrants were young men who found themselves living without wives, mothers and children inevitably created a wilder atmosphere than they were accustomed to in their island homes. They were short of entertainment as well as short of the social control of ordinary family living. The chain of generational influence was broken at the same time as the male strut was liberated. Drinking dens and gambling, the use of marijuana, and ska and blues clubs were the results. Early black communities in Britain tended to cluster where the first arrivals had settled, which meant in the blighted inner cities. There, street prostitution was more open and rampant in the fifties than it was later, so that it is hardly surprising that young men away from home for the first time often formed relationships with prostitutes, and that some became pimps themselves. This was what fed the popular press’s hunger for stories to confirm their prejudices about black men stealing ‘our women’. The upbeat, unfamiliar music, illegal drinking and drugs and the sexual appetites of the young immigrants all combined to paint a lurid picture of a new underclass.

As a consequence, landlords and landladies became more reluctant to rent to ‘blacks’. Once a few houses had immigrants in them, a domino effect would clear streets as white residents sold up and shipped out. The 1957 Rent Act, initiated by Enoch Powell, in his free-market crusade, perversely made the situation worse by allowing rents to rise sharply, but only when tenants of unfurnished rooms were removed to allow for furnished lettings. Powell had intended to instigate a period during which rent rises could be cushioned, but its unintended consequence was that unscrupulous landlords such as the notorious Peter Rachman, himself an immigrant, bought up low-value properties for letting, ejecting the existing tenants and replacing them with new tenants, packed in at far higher rents. Thuggery and threats generally got rid of the old, often elderly, white tenants, to be replaced by the new black tenants who were desperate for somewhere to live and therefore prepared to pay the higher rents they were charged. The result was the creation of instant ghettos in which three generations of black British would soon be crowded together. Ironically, it was the effects of Enoch Powell’s housing policies of the fifties which led directly to the Brixton, Tottenham, Toxteth and Handsworth riots of the eighties.

Henry Gunter & the colour bar; Charles Parker & The Colony:

The archive collections at the Library of Birmingham hold material which sheds light on the experiences of those newly arrived in the UK between the 1940s and 1970s.

One Of Henry Gunter’s publications on racial inequality, A Man’s A Man, 1954.
(ref MS 2165/1/3)

Henry Gunter was born in Jamaica but moved to the UK in 1950, which was only two years after the Empire Windrush arrived. Gunter, as a campaigner against racism and injustice, was at the forefront of issues that black people making a new life in Birmingham were facing. He wrote about the colour bar in housing, whereby local people refused to give housing to black people. His campaigning activities involved writing articles to educate the white residents, as he believed that the problems with local people were mostly due to fear based on ignorance of the minority population. Gunter became President of a group called the Afro-Caribbean Organisation. 

He aimed to win influence with the Labour movement and other bodies to break down the colour bar. Although hospitals in Birmingham had welcomed workers from Commonwealth countries, the City Transport department refused to employ black workers. Gunter organised a march through Birmingham City Centre with banners with slogans including ‘No Colour Bar to housing and jobs.’ His campaigning eventually led to the employment of black people as conductors and ultimately to their full integration into the transport system. At least one of these conductors became well-known and well-loved for his singing of hymns and songs while serving his customers on the buses.

The Charles Parker Archive is another collection where the experiences of Commonwealth citizens living in Birmingham are documented. The archive holds material relating to Philip Donnellan’s documentary film The Colony. First broadcast in June 1964, the film consists of interviews with working-class black people living in Birmingham. It is notable that there is no commentary or narration. This allowed the interviewees’ experiences (in their own words) to be the focus of the programme. Charles Parker was responsible for the voice montages, one of which is quoted here:

“… a land which we felt in coming, we were proud to come and we felt that coming here we would be at home.”

He also spoke about his contrasting experiences in dealing with English people in daily interactions and when trying to procure services:

“I must say, the people in the street that you meet, the bus conductors and the working men that you meet in the street are quite friendly, they would do anything for you. The snag is when it comes to the people around where you live.”

He then went on to explain a specific encounter in Rotten Park when he was trying to find accommodation:

“There was one house in City Road that advertised accommodation for three or four working men. So I rung them up, and at the end of the line was a woman’s voice. She said “Yes, we have beds for three or four working men”, so to make sure I told her I was a West Indian, she said “Just a minute” and she came back to the ‘phone and she said “Sorry we are filled up”, and it went on like that, … all the while.”

These documentary collections show that, alongside the challenge of leaving their island homes, making a long journey and building a new life in Birmingham, Caribbean migrants had far greater challenges to face when they arrived. Many of them persevered and some, like Henry Gunter, campaigned to improve conditions. They all contributed to enriching the communities in which they came to live.

Yet ‘nativist’ prejudice and resistance were only direct causes of the racial tensions and explosions which were to follow. The others lay in the reactions of the white British, or rather the white English middle classes. Benjamin Zephaniah (see below) later argued that Welsh should be taught in English schools to show that there was more than one indigenous ‘white’ culture in Britain besides the Anglo-Saxon one. Another Caribbean writer claimed, with not a touch of tongue-in-cheek irony, that he had never met a single English person with colour prejudice. Once he had walked the entire length of a street,… 

and everyone told me that he or she ‘ad no prejudice against coloured people. It was the neighbour who was stupid. If only we could find the “neighbour”, we could solve the whole problem. But to find ‘im is the trouble. Neighbours are the worst people to live beside in this country. 

Numerous testimonies by immigrants and in surveys of the time show how hostile people were to the idea of having black or Asian neighbours. This forced the newcomers to settle further away from the ‘white’ inner-city suburbs like Edgbaston and Rotten Park to the north and west, to the more working-class districts of Handsworth and Smethwick, where there were already significant numbers of ‘Windrush’ migrants, mixing with more settled ‘white’ migrants from previous generations. It was not just in finding accommodation that the ‘newcomers’ faced discrimination, but also in finding employment. The trade unions bristled against blacks coming in to take jobs, potentially at lower rates of pay, just as they had complained about Irish or Welsh migrants a generation earlier. Union leaders who were otherwise regarded as impeccably left-wing lobbied governments to keep out black workers. For a while, it seemed that they would be successful enough by creating employment ghettos as well as housing ones, until black workers gained a foothold in the car-making and other manufacturing industries, where previous generations of immigrants had already fought battles for acceptance against the old craft unionists and won.

Only a handful of MPs campaigned openly against immigration. Even Enoch Powell would, at this stage, only raise the issue in private meetings, though he had been keen enough, as health minister, to make use of migrant labour for the National Health Service. The anti-immigrant feeling was regarded as not being respectable, not something that a decent politician was prepared to talk about. The Westminster élite talked in well-meaning but stereotypical generalities of the immigrants as being fellow subjects of the Crown. Most of the hostility was at the level of the street and popular culture, usually in the form of the thinly disguised discrimination of shunning, through to the constant humiliation of door-slamming and on to more overtly violent street attacks.

The natural rebelliousness among young, male Caribbean migrants would be partly tamed only when children and spouses began to arrive in large numbers in the sixties, and the Pentecostal churches reclaimed at least some of their own, sending out their gospel groups to entertain as well as evangelise among the previously lily-white but Welsh immigrant-led nonconformist chapels in the early seventies. Housing was another crucial part of the story. For the immigrants of the fifties, accommodation was necessarily privately rented, since access to council homes was based on a long list of existing residents. So the early black immigrants, like the earlier immigrant groups before them, were cooped up in crowded, often condemned Victorian terrace properties in Handsworth and west Birmingham.

By 1964, the West Birmingham region had one of the biggest concentrations of immigrants in the country. Their integration into the communities of Birmingham and the Black Country had proceeded without the violent reaction which led to the race riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958. But tensions had been building up in the region as they had in every mixed community in Britain. One of the first open antagonisms occurred in Birmingham in 1954 over the employment of black migrants as drivers and conductors on the local buses. After that, little was heard of racial pressures until the end of 1963, when events in Smethwick began to make national headlines. The situation there became typical in its effects on traditional allegiances and in its ripeness for exploitation, as in every town in England with a mixed community.

The Singing Stewarts– Britain’s First Gospel Group:

Attempting to counter this petty prejudice, the first black Gospel group to make an impact in Britain were ‘The Singing Stewarts’.  They were originally from Trinidad and Aruba, where the five brothers and three sisters of the Stewart family were born. They migrated to Handsworth in Birmingham in 1961, part of the second major wave of Windrush migrants who came to Britain just before the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 ended the ‘open door’ policy for British overseas nationals. This was the period when many families were settling in Britain, many rejoining ‘menfolk’ who had come on their own some years earlier (see picture below). Many people moved to Britain before the Act was passed because they thought it would be difficult to get in afterwards. Immigration doubled from fifty-eight thousand in 1960 to over 115,000 in 1961, and to nearly 120,000 in 1962. The Stewarts were all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and under the training of their strict and devoted mother, began to sing in an a cappella style songs that mixed traditional Southern gospel songs written by composers like Vep Ellis and Albert Brumley. To this material, they added a distinctly Trinidadian calypso flavour and by the mid-sixties were performing all around the Midlands. In later years, they were joined by a double bass affectionately referred to as ‘Betty’. From childhood growing up in the church, they would refuse all offers to sing ‘secular’ music.

Settling in Handsworth, they quickly made a name for themselves in West Birmingham and what is known as Sandwell today (then as Smethwick and Warley), especially among the nonconformist churches where most of the Caribbean immigrant families were to be found. They also appeared at a variety of cross-cultural events and at institutions such as hospitals, schools and prisons, as well as in other churches. They performed on local radio and TV, which brought them to the attention of a local radio producer and folk-music enthusiast Charles Parker, who heard in the group’s unlikely musical fusion of jubilee harmonies, Southern gospel songs and a Trinidadian flavour something unique. In 1964, they were the subject of a TV documentary produced by him, which brought them to national attention. Parker helped them to cultivate their talent and to become more ‘professional’, opening them up to wider audiences. They took his advice and guidance on board and reaped dividends on the back of their TV appearances and national and European tours that increased their exposure and widened their fan base. The most significant TV project was a documentary entitled ‘The Colony’, broadcast in June 1964. It was the first British television programme to give a voice to the new working-class Caribbean settlers.

For a while, in the early sixties, they were the only black Gospel group in the UK media spotlight. It was difficult to place them in a single category at the time, as they sang both ‘negro spirituals’ and traditional Gospel songs, which made them a novelty to British and European audiences. The Singing Stewarts were able to undertake a European tour where they played to crowds of white non-churchgoers. Thousands warmed to them, captivated by their natural and effortless harmonies. They possessed a remarkable ability to permeate cultural barriers that was unprecedented at the time, due to the racial tensions which existed in West Birmingham, Warley and Smethwick in the sixties and seventies, stirred up by the local and national election campaigns in Smethwick run by the National Front.

The dark experience of mid-sixties Smethwick:

With a population of seventy thousand, Smethwick contained an immigrant community variously estimated at between five and seven thousand. It was claimed that this is proportionately greater than in any other county borough in England. The settlement of these people in Smethwick had not been the slow process over a long period that Liverpool, Cardiff and other seaports had experienced and which had allowed time for adjustments to be made gradually, though Cardiff in particular had seen some of the earliest race riots in Britain. In West Birmingham, large-scale immigration had happened at a rush, mainly at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties. In such circumstances, the host communities learnt to behave better, but it was always likely that a deeply rooted white population would regard with suspicion the arrival of an itinerant coloured people on its home ground, and that friction would result. In Smethwick, the friction followed a familiar pattern. Most pubs in the town barred coloured people from their lounge bars. Some barbers refused to cut their hair. When a Pakistani family were allocated a new council flat after slum clearance in 1961, sixty-four of their white neighbours staged a rent strike and eventually succeeded in driving them out of, ironically enough, ‘Christ Street’.

Most of the usual white prejudices were keenly displayed in Smethwick, the reasons offered for hostility to the migrants being that they made too much noise, that they did not tend to their gardens with the customary English care, that they left their children unattended too long, and that their children were delaying the progress of white pupils in the schools. The correspondence columns of the local weekly newspaper, the Smethwick Telephone, provided a platform for the airing of these prejudices, as a letter quoted by a correspondent of The Times on 9 March 1964 shows:

With the advent of the pseudo-socialists’ ‘coloured friends’, the incidence of T.B. in the area has risen to become one of the highest in the country. Can it be denied that the foul practice of spitting in public is a contributory factor? Why waste the ratepayers’ money printing notices in five different languages? People who behave worse than animals will not in the least be deterred by them.

No one seems to know who originated the slogan: If you want a Nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour, which was circulating in Smethwick before the 1963 municipal elections. The Conservatives were widely reported as using the slogan but Colin Jordan, leader of the neo-Nazi British Movement, claimed that his members had produced the initial slogan as well as spread the poster and sticker campaign; Jordan’s group in the past had also campaigned before on similar but less ‘catchy’ slogans, such as: Don’t vote – a vote for Tory, Labour or Liberal is a vote for more Blacks! Griffiths denied that the slogan was racist, saying that:

I should think that is a manifestation of the popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that. I would say that is how people see the situation in Smethwick. I fully understand the feelings of the people who say it. I would say it is exasperation, not fascism.

— quoted in The Times (9 March 1964).

South Asian immigrant children giving a presentation in school in the 1980s.

The specific issue which the Labour and Conservatives debated across the Smethwick council chamber was how best to integrate immigrant children in the borough’s schools. Many of them had very little English when they arrived in Smethwick. The Conservatives wanted to segregate them from normal lessons; Labour took the view that they should be taught in separate groups for English only and that the level of integration otherwise should be left to the discretion of the individual schools. But the party division soon got far deeper as the housing shortage in Smethwick, as great as anywhere in the Black Country, exacerbated race relations. The Conservatives said that if they controlled the council, they would not necessarily re-house a householder on taking over his property for slum clearance unless he had lived in the town for ten years or more. While the local Labour party deprecated attempts to make immigration a political issue, the Conservatives actively encouraged them. Councillor Peter Griffiths, the local Tory leader, had actively supported the Christ Street Rent Strike.

Smethwick Town Hall.

At the municipal elections in 1963, the Conservatives fared disastrously over the country in general, gaining no more than five seats. Three of these were in Smethwick. In the elections for aldermen of 1964, the Conservatives gained control of the council, the ‘prize’ for having been consistently critical of the immigrant community in the area. The Smethwick constituency had been held by Labour since 1945, for most of that time by Patrick Gordon-Walker, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary. His majorities at successive general elections had dwindled from 9,727 in 1951 to 6,495 in 1955 to 3,544 in 1959. This declining majority could not, obviously, be solely attributed to Labour’s policy on immigration, either nationally or locally. It reflected a national trend since 1951, a preference for Tory economic management. But the drop in 1959 seemed to be in part, at least, a reaction to local issues. Moorhouse, writing in mid-1964, just before the general election, found few people who would bet on Gordon-Walker being returned to Westminster, however successful Labour might be in the country as a whole. His opponent in the election was Councillor Griffiths, who was so convinced of the outcome by the end of 1963 that he had already fixed himself up with a flat in London. Moorhouse wrote:

If he does become Smethwick’s next MP it will not simply be because he has attracted the floating voter to his cause. It will also be because many people who have regarded themselves as socialist through thick and thin have decided that when socialism demands the application of its principles for the benefit of a coloured migrant population as well as for themselves it is high time to look for another political creed which is personally more convenient.   

There had been resignations from the party, and a former Labour councillor was already running a club which catered only for ‘Europeans’. The Labour Club itself (not directly connected to the constituency party) had not, by the end of 1963, admitted a single coloured member. Smethwick in 1964 was not, as Moorhouse commented, a place of which many of its inhabitants could be proud, regardless of how they voted. That could be extended to ‘any of us’, he wrote:

We who live in areas where coloured people have not yet settled dare not say that what is happening in Smethwick today could not happen in our slice of England, too. For the issue is not a simple and straightforward one. There must be many men of tender social conscience who complain bitterly about the noise being imposed on them by road and air traffic while sweeping aside as intolerant the claims others about the noise imposed on them by West Indian neighbours, without ever seeing that there is an inconsistency in their attitude.

It is not much different from the inconsistency of the English parent who demands the segregation of coloured pupils whose incapacities may indeed be retarding his child’s school progress but who fails to acknowledge the fact that in the same class there are probably a number of white children having a similar effect. One issue put up by Smethwick (and the other places where social problems have already arisen) does, however, seem to be clear. The fact is that these people are here and, to put it at the lowest level of self-interest, we have got to live amicably with them if we do not want a repetition of Notting Hill and Nottingham, if we do not want a coloured ghetto steadily growing in both size and resentment. …

Smethwick is our window on the world from which we can look out and see the street sleepers of Calcutta, the shanty towns of Trinidad, the empty bellies of Bombay. And what do we make of it? Somebody at once comes up and sticks a notice in it. ‘If you want a Nigger neighbour, vote Labour.’   

The 1964 general election result involved a nationwide swing from the Conservatives to the Labour Party, which had also resulted in the party gaining a narrow five-seat majority. However, in Smethwick, the Conservative candidate, Griffiths, gained the seat and unseated the sitting Labour MP, Patrick Gordon-Walker. Griffiths did, however, poll 436 votes less in 1964 than when he had stood unsuccessfully for the Smethwick constituency in 1959. He was declared “a parliamentary leper” by Harold Wilson, the new Labour Prime Minister (pictured below).

Griffiths, in his maiden speech to the Commons, pointed out what he believed were the real problems his constituency faced, including factory closures and over 4,000 families awaiting council accommodation. The election result led to a visit by Malcolm X to Smethwick to show solidarity with the black and Asian communities. Malcolm’s visit to Smethwick was “no accident”; the Conservative-run council attempted to put in place an official policy of racial segregation in Smethwick’s housing allocation, with houses on Marshall Street in Smethwick being let only to white British residents.

The militant Black American Civil Rights leader claimed that the Black minorities were being treated like the Jews under Hitler. Later in 1964, a delegation of white residents successfully petitioned the Conservative council to compulsorily purchase vacant houses in order to prevent non-whites from buying the houses. This, however, was prevented by Labour housing minister Richard Crossman, who refused to allow the council to borrow the money in order to enact their policy. Nine days after he visited Marshall Street, Malcolm X was shot dead in New York. The Labour Party regained the seat at the 1966 general election when Andrew Faulds, a local candidate, became the new Member of Parliament.

The actions taken in Smethwick in 1964 have been characterised as ugly Tory racism, which killed rational debate about immigration. However, colour bars were then common, preventing non-whites from using facilities. The Labour movement itself also had much to learn. The Labour Club in Smethwick effectively operated its own bar, as, more overtly, did the local Sandwell Youth Club, which was run by one of the town’s Labour councillors. Moorhouse pointed out that had the community been on the economic rocks, it might have been possible to make out a case for controls on immigration. Had there been a high rate of unemployment, where the standard of living was already impoverished, there might have been a case for keeping migrants at bay so as to prevent competition for insufficient jobs becoming greater and the general sense of depression from deepening.

But that was not the case in West Birmingham and the Black Country in 1964, or for at least another decade. It may have been as ugly as sin to look at, at least in parts, but outside the Golden Circle around London, there was no wealthier area in England and no place more economically stable. When the Birmingham busmen had objected to coloured colleagues a decade earlier, it was not because these would be taking jobs which might otherwise have gone to ‘Brummies’ but because it was feared they might have an effect on wages which a shortage of labour had maintained at an artificial level. These were real fears that had led to prejudice against previous immigrants to the region, most notably from Wales in the thirties and Ireland in the forties. At root, this was not a problem about colour per se, though, in the early sixties. It was essentially about wages, but racist sentiments were never far from the surface. This is how Anthony Richmond summarised it in his book The Colour Problem:

The main objections to the employment of coloured colonials appeared to come from the trade unions, but less on the grounds of colour than because, if the number of drivers and conductors was brought up to full establishment by employing colonials, their opportunities for earning considerable sums as overtime would be reduced.

Restrictive practices kept out the new Commonwealth immigrants, who lacked access to channels of information and influence, especially as they were usually barred from pubs and clubs in any case. These practices were common throughout the industrial West Midlands. The engineering workers of the West Midlands had their hierarchies, and while many were changing districts, occupations, and factories all the time, the newly arrived immigrants were at the bottom of the tree and unlikely to topple it or undermine the benefits it provided for those near the top.

Therefore, the case of Smethwick in 1964 cannot easily be explained by reference to economic factors, though we know that the social and cultural factors surrounding the issues of housing and education did play significant roles. The main factor underpinning the 1964 Election result would appear to be political, that it was still acceptable, at that time and among local politicians of both main parties, together with public and trade union officials, for racial discrimination and segregation to be seen as instruments of public policy in response to mass immigration. In this, Smethwick was not that different from other towns and cities throughout the West Midlands, if not from those elsewhere in England. And it would take a long time for such social and industrial hierarchies to be worn down through local and national government intervention which went ahead of, and sometimes cut across the ‘privileged’ grain of indigenous populations. Smethwick represented a turning point in this process; four years later Wolverhampton and Birmingham would become the fulcrum in the fight against organised racialism.

Rivers of Babylon to Rivers of Blood – Happy Days & Darkest Nights:

By the mid-sixties, British record companies had become more alert to the commercial potential of US gospel music, and began to look around for a British-based version of that music and in 1968, the Singing Stewarts were signed to PYE Records. The following year, they were the first British gospel group to be recorded by a major record company when PYE Records released their album Oh Happy Day. Cyril Stapleton, PYE Records’ leading A&R executive and a legendary big band conductor, had invited the family to his London studio, where he produced the new classic and extremely rare album. Hardly surprisingly, the Singing Stewarts’ single of “Oh Happy Day” didn’t sell, since pop fans were already familiar with the version by the Edwin Hawkins’ Singers from the US. Nor did the album sell well, partly because it was given the clumsy, long-winded title of Oh Happy Day And Other West Indian Spirituals Sung By The Singing Stewarts. It was released on the budget line Marble Arch Records. However, in 1969, they appeared at the Edinburgh Festival, where they were exposed to a wider and more musically diverse public. Their folksy Trinidadian flavour delighted the arts festival-goers. The family went on to make more albums, which sold better, but they never wavered from their original Christian message and mission. They continued to sing at a variety of venues, including many churches, performing well into retirement age. Neither did they compromise their style of music, helping to raise awareness of spirituals and gospel songs. They were pioneers of the British Black Gospel Scene and toured all over the world, helping to put Caribbean black gospel music on the map.

My own experience of  ‘The Singing Stewarts’ came in 1971 as a fourteen-year-old at the Baptist Church in Bearwood, Warley, where my father, Rev. Arthur J. Chandler, was the first minister of the newly-built church, an offshoot of Smethwick Baptist Church (below). We had moved to Birmingham in 1965 for its opening and my father’s induction, and by that time, West Birmingham and Sandwell, as Smethwick and Warley were now known, were becoming multi-cultural areas with large numbers of Irish, Welsh, Polish, Yugoslav, Indian, Pakistani and Caribbean communities.

Smethwick Baptist Church

My grammar school, from 1968, on City Road in Edgbaston, was a two-mile walk away, and was like a microcosm of the United Nations. In the early seventies, it appointed one of the first black head boys in Birmingham, and was also a community of many faiths, including Anglicans, Nonconformists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox Cypriots, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, as well as many followers of ‘Mammon’! Our neighbourhood, which ran along the city boundary between Birmingham and the Black Country in Edgbaston (the ‘border’ was literally at the end of the Manse garden), was similarly mixed, though still mostly white. Birmingham possessed a relatively wealthy working class, due to the car industry, so the distinctions between the working class and middle-class members of our church were already blurred. There were no more than a handful of ‘West Indian’ members of the congregation at that time, from the mid-sixties to mid-seventies, though after my father retired in 1979, it shared its premises with one of the new black-led congregations. During the sixties and seventies, there were also more black children in the Sunday School, Boys’ and Girls’ Brigades and the Youth Club. These children and youths were especially popular when we played sports against other Baptist congregations in the West Birmingham area.

The Stewart Family came to our church, at my father’s invitation, in 1970. Previously, my experience of Gospel music had been limited to singing a small number of well-known spirituals, calypso and gospel songs in the school choir. I guess I must also have heard some of the renditions by Pete Seeger and popular English folk groups on the radio and TV. Most of the ‘pop’ songs performed by ‘northern soul’ singers seemed, however, massively over-produced, and even the ‘folk songs’ sung by white folk seemed to lack authenticity. I hadn’t heard a group sing a cappella before, and I felt inspired and moved by the whole experience, transformed by the deep ‘well-spring’ of joy that, as I learned later, the Welsh call ‘hwyl’ (there isn’t a single English word that does this emotion justice). At the end of the ‘service’, a ‘call’ to commitment was made, and I found myself, together with several others, standing and moving forward to receive God’s grace.

This was unlike any other experience in my Christian upbringing to that date. The following Whitsun, in 1971, I was baptised and received into church membership. In 1974, a group of us from Bearwood and south Birmingham, who had formed our own Christian folk-rock group,  attended the first Greenbelt Christian Music Festival, where Andrae Crouch and the Disciples were among the ‘headline acts’. Thus began a love affair with Gospel music of various forms, which has endured ever since. We were inspired by this event to write and perform our own musical based on the Book of James, which we toured around the Baptist churches in West and South Birmingham.

The service led by the Stewart Singers in Bearwood also began, more importantly, my own ministry of reconciliation. I have heard and read many stories about the coldness displayed by many ‘white Anglo-Saxon’ churches towards the Windrush migrants, and they make me feel shame even now that we did not do more to challenge prejudiced behaviour, at least in our own congregations, and among our fellows. However, I also feel that it is all too easy for current generations to judge the previous ones. You only have to look at what was happening in the southern United States and in ‘apartheid’ South Africa to see that this was a totally different time in the life of the Church in many parts of the world. It was not that many Christians were prejudiced against people of colour, though some were, or that they were ‘forgetful to entertain strangers’. Many still believed sincerely, though wrongly (as we now know from Science), that God had created separate races to live separately. In its extreme forms, this led to the policies of ‘separate development’ of the South African state, underpinned by the strict Calvinist theology of the Dutch Reformed Church, and the belief in, and practice of, ‘segregation’, supported by Southern Baptists and others in the United States. The Civil Rights Movement was at its height in the US, in Birmingham, Alabama, but it was still far removed in its influence on the ‘white’ churches in Birmingham, England.

To defend themselves against prejudice, immigrants to Birmingham continued to congregate in poorer inner city areas or in the western suburbs along the boundary with Smethwick, Warley, West Bromwich (now Sandwell), and Dudley, where many of them also settled. There was a small South Asian presence of about a hundred in Birmingham before the war, and this had risen to about a few thousand by the end of the war. But these were mainly workers recruited by the Ministry of Labour to work in the munitions factories, like Tangyes in Smethwick. Birmingham’s booming postwar economy had first attracted West Indian settlers from Jamaica, Barbados and St Kitts in the 1950s, and was only followed by South Asians from Gujarat and the Punjab in India, and then from Bangladesh from the mid-1960s onwards.

Many of these newcomers were refugees from post-colonial conflicts in East Africa. The 1968 Immigration Act was specifically targeted at restricting Kenyan Asians with British passports. As conditions grew worse for them in Kenya, many of them decided to seek refuge in the ‘mother country’ of the Empire, which had colonised them in the first place. Through 1967, they were coming in by plane at the rate of about a thousand per month. The newspapers began to depict the influx on their front pages, and the television news, by now watched in most homes, showed great queues waiting for British passports and flights. It was at this point that Enoch Powell, Conservative MP for Wolverhampton, in an early warning shot, said that half a million East African Asians could eventually enter, which was ‘quite monstrous’.

Enoch Powell, the influential opponent of immigration.

He called for an end to work permits and a complete ban on dependants coming to Britain. Other prominent Tories, like Ian Macleod, argued that the Kenyan Asians could not be left stateless and that the British Government had to keep its promise to them. The Labour government was also split on the issue, with the ‘liberals’, led by Roy Jenkins, believing that only Kenyatta could halt the migration by being persuaded to offer better treatment. However, the new Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, was determined to respond to the concerns of Labour voters about the unchecked migration.

By the end of 1967, the numbers arriving per month had doubled to two thousand. In February, Callaghan decided to act. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act effectively slammed the door while leaving a ‘cat flap’ open for a very small annual quota, leaving some twenty thousand people ‘stranded’ and stateless in a country, Kenya, which no longer wanted them. The bill was rushed through in the spring of 1968 and has been described as among the most divisive and controversial decisions ever taken by any British government. Some MPs viewed it as the most shameful piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament, the ultimate appeasement of racist hysteria. The government responded with a tougher anti-discrimination bill in the same year. For many others, however, the passing of the act was the moment when the political élite, in the shape of Jim Callaghan, finally woke up and listened to their working-class voters.

Edward Heath, Tory leader and PM in the Seventies.

Polls of the public showed that 72% supported the act. Never again would the idea of free access to Britain be seriously entertained by mainstream politicians. This was the backdrop to the notorious ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech made in Birmingham by Enoch Powell, in which he prophesied violent racial war if immigration continued. Powell had argued that the passport guarantee was never valid in the first place. Despite his unorthodox views, Powell was still a member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet which had just agreed to back Labour’s Race Relations Bill. But Powell had gone uncharacteristically quiet, apparently telling a local friend, 

I’m going to make a speech at the weekend and it’s going to go up “fizz” like a rocket, but whereas all rockets fall to earth, this one is going to stay up. 

The ‘friend’, Clem Jones, the editor of Powell’s local newspaper, The Wolverhampton Express and Star, had advised him to time the speech for the early evening television bulletins, and not to distribute it generally beforehand. He came to regret the advice. In a small room at the Midland Hotel on 20th April 1968, three weeks after the act had been passed and the planes carrying would-be Kenyan Asian immigrants had been turned around, Powell quoted a Wolverhampton constituent, a middle-aged working man, who told him that if he had the money, he would leave the country because, in fifteen or twenty years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. Powell continued by asking rhetorically how he dared say such a horrible thing, stirring up trouble and inflaming feelings:

The answer is I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking … ‘Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.’ We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual flow of some fifty thousand dependants, who are for the most part the material growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping its own funeral pyre. … 

… As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the river Tiber foaming with much blood”

Besides his classical allusion to Virgil, he also made various accusations, made by others among his Wolverhampton constituents, that they had been pestered and persecuted by ‘Negroes’, having excrement posted through their letter-boxes and being followed to the shops by children, charming wide-grinning pickaninnies chanting “Racialist.” If Britain did not begin a policy of voluntary repatriation, it would soon face the kind of race riots that were disfiguring America at that time. Powell claimed that he was merely restating Tory policy. But the rhetoric he used and his own careful preparation suggest it was a call to arms by a politician who believed he was fighting for white English nationhood, as well as a deliberate provocation aimed at Powell’s enemy, Heath.

After horrified consultations when he and other leading Tories had seen extracts of the speech on the television news, Heath promptly ordered Powell to phone him, and summarily sacked him. Heath announced that he found the speech racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions. As Parliament returned three days after the speech, a thousand London dockers marched to Westminster in Powell’s support, carrying ‘Enoch is right’ placards; by the following day, Heath had received twenty thousand letters, almost all in support of Powell’s speech, with tens of thousands still to come. Smithfield meat porters and Heathrow airport workers also demonstrated in his support. In addition, Powell also received death threats and needed full-time police protection for a while; numerous marches were held against him, and he found it difficult to make speeches at or near university campuses. Asked whether he was a racialist by the Daily Mail, he replied:

We are all racialists. Do I object to one coloured person in this country? No. To a hundred? No. To a million? A query. To five million? Definitely.

Did most people in 1968 agree with him, as Andrew Marr has suggested? Certainly, many people believed in a theory of racial ‘difference’ and even a policy of ‘separate development’ at that time. It’s also important to point out that, until he made this speech, Powell had been a Tory ‘insider’, though seen as something of a maverick, and a trusted member of Edward Heath’s shadow cabinet. He had rejected the consumer society growing around him in favour of what he saw as a ‘higher vision’. This was a romantic dream of an older, tougher, swashbuckling Britain, freed of continental and imperial (now ‘commonwealth’) entanglements, populated by ingenious, hard-working white people rather like himself. For this to become a reality, Britain would need to become a self-sufficient island, which ran entirely against the great economic forces of the time. His view was fundamentally nostalgic, harking back to the energetic Victorian and Edwardian protectionists. He drew sustenance from the people around him, who seemed to be excluded from mainstream politics. He argued that his Wolverhampton constituents had had immigration imposed on them without being asked and against their will.

But viewed from Fleet Street or the pulpits of broadcasting, he was seen as an irrelevance, marching off into the wilderness. In reality, although immigration was changing patches of the country, mostly in west London, west Birmingham and the Black Country, it had, by 1968, barely impinged as an issue in people’s lives. That was why, at that time, it was relatively easy for the press and media to marginalise Powell and his acolytes in the Tory Party. He was expelled from the shadow cabinet for his anti-immigration speech, not so much for its racialist content, which was mainly given in reported speech, but for suggesting that the race relations legislation, which his leader and colleagues had publicly supported, was merely throwing a match on gunpowder. This statement was a clear breach of shadow cabinet collective responsibility. Besides, the legislation controlling immigration and regulating race relations had already been passed, so it is difficult to see what Powell had hoped to gain from the speech, apart from embarrassing his nemesis, Ted Heath.

Those who knew Powell best claimed that he was not a racialist. The local newspaper editor, Clem Jones, thought that Enoch’s anti-immigration stance was not ideologically-motivated, but had simply been influenced by the anger of white Wolverhampton people who felt they were being crowded out; even in Powell’s own street of good, solid, Victorian houses, next door went sort of coloured and then another and then another house, and he saw the value of his own house go down. But, Jones added, Powell always worked hard as an MP for all his constituents, mixing with and helping them regardless of colour. Unlike his Edwardian conservative contemporary, J R R Tolkein, for example, he had no visceral antipathy to coloured skins:

We quite often used to go out for a meal, as a family, to a couple of Indian restaurants, and he was on extremely amiable terms with everybody there, ‘cos having been in India and his wife brought up in India, they liked that kind of food.

On the numbers migrating to Britain, however, Powell’s predicted figures were not totally inaccurate. Just before his 1968 speech, he had suggested that by the end of the century, the number of black and Asian immigrants and their descendants would number between five and seven million, about a tenth of the population. According to the 2001 census, 4.7 million people identified as black or Asian, equivalent to 7.9 per cent of the total population. Immigrants were and still are, of course, far more strongly represented in percentage terms in the English cities. Powell may have helped British society by speaking out on an issue which, until then, had remained taboo. However, the language of his discourse still seems quite inflammatory and provocative, even fifty years later, so much so that even historians hesitate to quote them. His words also helped to make the extreme right Nazis of the National Front more acceptable. Furthermore, his core prediction of major civil unrest was not fulfilled, despite riots and street crime linked to disaffected youths from Caribbean immigrant communities in the 1980s. So, in the end, Enoch was not right, though he may have had a point.

By 1971, the South Asian and West Indian populations were equal in size and concentrated in the inner city wards and in north-west Birmingham, especially in Handsworth, Sandwell and Sparkbrook. Labour shortages had developed in Birmingham as a result of an overall movement towards more skilled and white-collar employment among the native population, which created vacancies in the poorly paid, less attractive, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, particularly in metal foundries and factories, and in the transport and health care sectors of the public services. These jobs were filled by newcomers from the new Commonwealth. In the 1970s, poor pay and working conditions forced some of these workers to resort to strike action. Hostility to Commonwealth immigrants was pronounced in some sections of the local white population. One manifestation of this was the establishment of the Birmingham Immigration Control Association, founded in the early 1960s by a group of Tory MPs.

I remember discussing all these issues with my father, who was by no means a white supremacist, but who had fears about the ability of Birmingham and the Black Country, the area he had grown up in and where he had become a Jazz pianist and bandleader in the thirties before training for the Ministry, to integrate so many newcomers, even though they were fellow Christians. However, rather than closing down discussion on the issue, as so many did in the churches at that time, mainly to avoid embarrassment, he sought to open it up among the generations in the congregation, asking me to do a ‘Q&A’ session in the Sunday evening service in 1975. There were some very direct questions and comments fired at me, but I found common ground in believing that, whether or not God had intended the races to develop separately, first slavery and then famine and poverty, resulting from human sinfulness, had caused migration, and it was wrong to blame the migrants for the processes they had undergone.

Moreover, in the case of the Windrush migrants (we simply referred to them as ‘West Indians’ then), they had been invited to come and take jobs that were vital to the welfare and prosperity of our shared community. In the mid-seventies to eighties, I became involved in the Anti-Nazi League in Birmingham. The Singing Stewarts continued to perform to black and white audiences and even performed on the same stage as Cliff Richard.

In 1977, the group were signed to Christian label Word Records, then in the process of dropping their Sacred Records name. Their Word label album ‘Here Is A Song’ was produced by Alan Nin and was another mix of old spirituals (“Every time I Feel The Spirit”), country gospel favourites (Albert Brumley’s “I’ll Fly Away”) and hymns (“Amazing Grace”). With accompaniment consisting of little more than a double bass and an acoustic guitar, it was, in truth, a long, long way from the funkier gospel sounds that acts like Andrae Crouch were beginning to pioneer. The Singing Stewarts soldiered on for a few more years but clearly their popularity, even with the middle-of-the-road white audience, gradually receded. In his book British Black Gospel, author Steve Alexander Smith paid tribute to The Singing Stewarts as one of the first black gospel groups to make an impact in Britain and the first gospel group to be recorded by a major record company. They clearly played their part in the UK gospel music’s continuing development.

As New Commonwealth immigrants began to become established in postwar Birmingham, community infrastructures, including places of worship, ethnic groceries, halal butchers and, most significantly, restaurants, began to develop. Birmingham in general became synonymous with the phenomenal rise of the ubiquitous curry house, and Sparkbrook in particular developed unrivalled Balti restaurants. These materially changed patterns of social life in the city among the native population. In addition to these obvious cultural contributions, the multilingual setting in which English exists today became more diverse in the sixties and seventies, especially due to immigration from the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean. The largest of the community languages is Punjabi, with over half a million speakers, but there are also substantial communities of Gujarati speakers, as many as a third of a million, and up to a hundred thousand Bengali speakers.

By the end of the seventies, Caribbean and Rastafarian Reggae music, together with ‘dub poetry’ was beginning to have a broad impact on British pop culture. In Birmingham, a group of out-of-work young white men formed the band UB40, named after their benefit claim forms. The multicultural band Steel Pulse also became popular. On the other side of rock ‘politics’, there was an eruption of racist, skinhead rock, and a ‘casual’ but influential interest in the far right from among more established artists. At a concert I attended at the Birmingham Odeon in 1976, Eric Clapton, arriving on stage an hour late, either drunk or ‘stoned’ (or both), enquired as to whether there were any immigrants in the audience. He then said, to the shock and disgust of almost everyone there, that Powell is the only bloke who’s telling the truth, for the good of the country. In his recent autobiography, Clapton apologised for this comment, but it had been made at a time of Rock Against Racism, and many of us had been trying to drive the National Front out of Birmingham through nonviolent marches. Forming a broad alliance in the Anti-Nazi League, we eventually succeeded.

In the mid-1980s, while working for the Quakers in the West Midlands, I ‘facilitated’ a joint Christian Education Movement schools’ publication involving teachers from the West Midlands and Northern Ireland. Conflict and Reconciliation (1990) was partly based on examples of community cohesion in Handsworth.  The ‘riots’ there in the early 1980s, partly stage-managed by the national tabloid press, had threatened to unpick all the work done by the ‘Windrush generation’.  David Forbes, a black community worker living in Handsworth at that time and when interviewed by me, visited ‘white flight’ schools in south Birmingham and Walsall with me to talk about his work and that of others in Handsworth, contrasted with the negative stereotyping which his neighbourhood had received.

Képtalálat a következőre: „singing stewarts gospel”

Frank Stewart (one of the founding Singing Stewart brothers, pictured above) was also one of the first black people to play gospel music on a BBC radio station. Although in his later years it was Frank’s radio work, where for more than a decade, he presented The Frank Stewart Gospel Hour, for which he was best known, it was the many years he spent running The Singing Stewarts which was arguably his most significant contribution to UK Christian music history, black British music and community relations in the West Midlands.

Benjamin Zephaniah, Citizen of Handsworth – a biopic:

A more recent and better-known citizen of Handsworth, born there in 1958 and ‘raised’ there, was Benjamin Obadiah Iqbal Zephaniah was a British writer, dub poet, actor, musician and latterly professor of poetry and creative writing, pictured below. Our paths crossed very briefly when he gave a poetry workshop to students at the Quaker School where I was teaching from 1998 to 2004.

Benjamin Zephaniah in 2018

He referred to Handsworth as the “Jamaican capital of Europe”. The son of parents who had migrated from the Caribbean – Oswald Springer, a Barbadian postman, and Leneve (née Honeyghan), a Jamaican nurse who came to Britain in 1956 and worked for the National Health Service – he had a total of seven younger siblings, including his twin sister, Velda. Zephaniah later wrote that he was strongly influenced by the music and poetry of Jamaica and what he called “street politics”, and he said in a 2005 interview:

Well, for most of the early part of my life I thought poetry was an oral thing. We used to listen to tapes from Jamaica of Louise Bennett, who we think of as the queen of all dub poets. For me, it was two things: it was words wanting to say something and words creating rhythm. Written poetry was a very strange thing that white people did.

His first performance was in church when he was eleven years old, resulting in him adopting the name Zephaniah (after the biblical prophet), and by the age of fifteen, his poetry was already known among Handsworth’s Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities. He was educated at Broadway School, Birmingham, from which he was expelled aged 13, unable to read or write due to dyslexia. He was sent to Boreatton Park approved school in Baschurch, Shropshire. Zephaniah’s family was Christian, but he became a Rastafarian at a young age.

The gift, during his childhood, of an old, manual typewriter inspired him to become a writer. It is now in the collection of Birmingham Museums Trust. As a youth, he spent time in borstal and in his late teens, received a criminal record and served a prison sentence for burglary. Tired of the limitations of being a black poet communicating with black people only, he decided to expand his audience, and in 1979, at the age of 22, he headed to London, where his first book would be published the next year. While living in London, Zephaniah was assaulted during the 1981 Brixton riots and chronicled his experiences on his 1982 album Rasta. He experienced racism on a regular basis:

They happened around me. Back then, racism was very in your face. There was the National Front against black and foreign people, and the police were also very racist. I got stopped four times after I bought a BMW when I became successful with poetry. I kept getting stopped by the police, so I sold it.

In a session with John Peel on 1 February 1983 – one of two Peel sessions he recorded that year – Zephaniah’s responses were recorded in such poems as “Dis Policeman”, “The Boat”, “Riot in Progress” and “Uprising Downtown”. In 1982, Zephaniah released the album Rasta, which featured the Wailers’ first recording since the death of Bob Marley as well as a tribute to the then political prisoner (later to become South African president) Nelson Mandela. The album gained Zephaniah international prestige and topped the Yugoslavian pop charts. It was because of this recording that he was introduced to Mandela, and in 1996, Mandela requested that Zephaniah host the president’s Two Nations Concert at the Royal Albert Hall, London.

But he never forgot his Handsworth roots, and returned to Birmingham frequently, where The Birmingham Mail dubbed him “The people’s laureate”. His cousin, Michael Powell, died in police custody, at Thornhill Road police station in Birmingham, in September 2003, and Zephaniah regularly raised the matter, continuously campaigning with his brother Tippa Naphtali, who set up a national memorial fund in Powell’s name to help families affected by deaths in similar circumstances. In November 2003, Zephaniah was offered an appointment in the 2004 New Year Honours as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), for which he said he had been recommended by Tony Blair. But he publicly rejected the honour and, in a subsequent article for The Guardian, elaborated on learning about being considered for the award and his reasons for rejecting it:

“Me?” I thought, “OBE me? Up yours”, I thought. I get angry when I hear that word ’empire’; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds me of thousands of years of brutality, it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised… “Benjamin Zephaniah OBE – no way, Mr Blair, no way, Mrs Queen. I am profoundly anti-empire.”

In 2005, BBC One broadcast a television documentary about his life, A Picture of Birmingham, by Benjamin Zephaniah, which was repeated by BBC Two on 7 December 2023, following his death. To mark National Poetry Day in 2009, the BBC ran an online poll to find the nation’s favourite poet, with Zephaniah taking third place in the public vote, behind T. S. Eliot and John Donne, and was the only living poet to be named in the top ten.

Between 2013 and 2022, Zephaniah played the role of preacher Jeremiah “Jimmy” Jesus in BBC television drama Peaky Blinders, appearing in 14 episodes across the six series. On the publication of his young adult novel Windrush Child in 2020, Zephaniah was outspoken about the importance of the way black history was represented in the curriculum of schools. Zephaniah died on 7 December 2023, at the age of 65, after being diagnosed with a brain tumour eight weeks previously. His early and apparently sudden death shocked teachers, students, literary, media and public figures from the Caribbean to Eastern Europe. A friend of nearly twenty years, the singer Joan Armatrading, gave a tribute to him on Newsnight on BBC Two after hearing the news of his death. Writing on Twitter, in which she said:

“I am in shock. Benjamin Zephaniah has died at the age of 65. What a thoughtful, kind and caring man he was. The world has lost a poet, an intellectual and a cultural revolutionary. I have lost a great friend.”

An artwork featuring Zephaniah that appeared on the wall of an underpass in Hockley, Birmingham, in March 2024 was accidentally painted over by a council sub-contractor employed to remove graffiti, although Zephaniah’s family had been given assurances that the mural would be protected. Following a public backlash, an apology was issued, and new artwork was subsequently commissioned from black artists to be unveiled on 14 April at Handsworth Park. As a tribute, in April 2024, BBC Radio 4 broadcast the 2018 Book of the Week recording of Zephaniah reading his autobiography, The Life and Rhymes of Benjamin Zephaniah. In addition to his poetry and other literary works, Zephaniah released a total of seven albums of original music.

In 1991-92, during a ‘furlough’ from my work in Hungary, I returned to Birmingham (Selly Oak) to train students in Religious Education and Inter-Faith Community Relations. As part of their projects, we gave presentations on these in local churches, using the ‘Faith in the City’ report, which had just been published by the Church of England’s inter-faith group. This details the recent research done into the projects for integration and renewal undertaken in inner-city areas of Birmingham, including Handsworth. These presentations led to considerable discussion among the mostly white congregations, who were optimistic about future intercultural relations within their city.

Conclusion: The inter-cultural mosaic

My own experiences with the Windrush migrants shaped my interests and actions in opposing racism in a variety of forms over five decades, and they continue to do so today. In particular, I continue to research migration and to argue the case for channelling and integrating migrants, rather than controlling and assimilating them. Like the Singing Stewarts and the Welsh Male Voice choirs before them, working-class migrants are often able and willing to contribute much from their own cultures. Multi-cultural Britain has not been made in a ‘melting pot’ but through the interaction of cultures and identities, a mosaic of mutual respect. That is the reconciliation through integration and integration through reconciliation, which I believe that Christians and people of all faiths and beliefs must work towards. Handsworth serves as an archetype of this and deserves far better than to be labelled as a ghetto and a slum by mediocre shadow ministers. The politics of racial hatred still plagues us, when we should be paying homage to places such as Handsworth, whose model of interculturalism should be affirmed and celebrated.

Sources:

Geoffrey Moorhouse (1964), Britain in the Sixties: The Other England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Andrew Marr (2007), A History of Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

crossrhythms.co.uk/artists/16786

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Stewarts

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAqHSHOUC6bXWedFymWiMsA

British Black Gospel: The Foundations of this Vibrant UK Sound

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Zephaniah#Early_life

The Peacemakers/ Y Tangnefeddwyr

The recent confluence of several events, from Donald Trump’s announcement of the renaming of the US Department of Defence as the War Department to the Last Night of the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall, featuring the Kanneh-Mason family playing their favourite Welsh folk song, Ar Lán Y Mor (‘Along the Seashore’), also mine, prompted a reminiscence of a wartime poem by the Welsh language poet Waldo Williams. A native of Pembrokeshire, he wrote it in reference to the bombing attacks on Swansea. In my second year at the University of Wales, Bangor, I learnt his more famous poem Cofio (‘Remembering’) for the Welsh learners’ competition at the Inter-College Eisteddfod to be held in Aberystwyth in 1976. Unfortunately, a bad dose of the flu robbed me of my voice and kept me away from the event, but I continued to recite it from a poster with the poem on it, which adorned my various student rooms in Bangor, Cardiff, Swansea and Carmarthen over the next seven years. In 1978, I went on a ‘pilgrimage’ to St David’s along the Pembrokeshire coast path, completed in two stages, one along the southern coast, and the other from the north, from the Cardiganshire border, over the Preseli hills, where I found Pentre Ifan, pictured above, the Cromlech (ancient burial chamber) and the memorial stone to Waldo Williams (1904-72), pictured below. I camped on St. David’s Head, overlooking the sea, near the chapel dedicated to Non, David’s mother.

St David’s Cathedral, Pembrokeshire.

A few years later, I was inspired by Williams’ poetry and life story to become a teacher of Primary-age children in Llanelli. However, my limited Welsh convinced me that I should concentrate on teaching history and religious education in English secondary schools, and I moved to Lancashire in 1983. But I continued to be inspired by Williams, as well as by R.S. Thomas, whose work, written in English on the northern peninsula of Lleyn, also turned on the mystical theme of the brotherhood of man and the great Christian vision of the oneness of all mankind. Williams’ mastery of language gave an original force and freshness to his expression of ancient themes. In many ways, this demanded a comparison with Blake. Like him, Williams’ life was inextricably linked to his work. Imprisoned for his refusal, as a pacifist, to pay taxes for military purposes, he was nonetheless an intensely reserved and unassuming person.

The memorial stone to Waldo Williams on the Preseli Hills in North Pembrokeshire.

At the time I first read his poetry, I identified with it immediately, and still do, although my outward stance on these matters has changed somewhat with the complexities of the twenty-first-century conflicts, despite their ancient origins. His poetry was greatly loved by many Welsh-speakers, and, late in life, he received an Arts Council prize for it. His one volume of verse, Dail Pren, published in 1956, won him an enduring place in Welsh literature and made him an increasingly important influence on young Welsh poets from the seventies onwards, following his death in 1972. A selection of his poems was published in 1974, with translations into English. One of these was Y Tangnefeddwyr, quoted bilingually below:

Uwch yr eira, wybren ros,

Lle mae’r Abertawe’n fflam.

Cerddaf adref yn y nos,

Af dan gofio ‘nhad a ‘mam.

Gwyn eu byd tu hwnt i glyw,

Tangnefeddwyr, plant i Dduw.

Above the snow, a rose-red sky,

Where Swansea’s now aflame.

I walk home this night,

I walk home remembering father and mother,

Blessed are they, beyond all hearing,

Peacemakers, children of God.

The guardian-angel of poor homes

gave my father two proud pearls:

Man’s mission is to be a brother,

God’s wealth is the invisible world.

A good nation and a bad nation-

They taught that this was all fantasy,

But the light of Christ will bring

Freedom to all men who wish it.

Blessed are they, one day they will be heard,

Peacemakers, children of God.

And what tonight is their estate?

Tonight, when all their world’s in flames?

Truth still lives where my father is,

And mercy with my mother.

Blessed be the age that will listen to them,

Peacemakers, children of God.

Waldo Williams

Williams contrasts the simple faith of his parents with that of the rich and powerful who divide nations into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. For him, the role of Christian peacemakers is to bring the light of freedom to all people who strive for it. They do not covet peace ‘prizes’, or seek peace by preparing for war, through military might; they seek the paths of peace and mercy which lead to God’s invisible wealth. This child-like peace witness is one that I also learnt from my parents growing up, and later from brothers and sisters in Wales, Lancashire, the Midlands, the West Country, Northern Ireland and Hungary. We need to hear it again today, perhaps now more than ever.

Last Sunday, I was reminded of Waldo Williams’ poem when it was sung, set to music by Eric Jones, in a BBC Sunday Worship service from the historic Mynyddbach Chapel in North Swansea, home to the Calon Lán Centre, celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Morriston Orpheus Choir.

A Gallery of Images of War and Peace:

The True Spirit of Glastonbury Revived

Glastonbury in Somerset has long been associated with the legendary Arthur and Guinevere, and it came to be identified as the Isle of Avalon (Ynys yr Afal in Welsh, ‘the Isle of the Apple’) to which Arthur was borne by three black-robed queens after his last battle with Mordred, according to the romantic literature of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This association of Glastonbury with Arthur may have been why the last king of Wessex, Eadmund Ironside, was buried there, not at Winchester, in 1016, although there is no contemporary record to this effect. It later received a great boost in 1191 when a monk of the abbey, inspired by a vision, claimed to have discovered the coffin of the legendary king and queen. The coffin was said to have been inscribed with the words: Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the island of Avalon. When it was opened, it was found to contain the skeletons of the royal couple. The blonde tresses of Guinevere’s hair were said to be intact and still shining golden, though they crumbled to dust in the hand of the monk. This was clearly an invented story, not least because Arthur, the Welsh guerrilla leader, had not gained widespread fame by the early sixth century, when he was supposed to have lived and died. It was not until the middle of the twelfth century, with the writing of Geoffrey of Monmouth, based on the earlier Welsh ‘legendarium’ of The Mabinogion‘ and the earlier ‘chronicles’ of Gildas and Nennius, that the mythological and literary figure of Arthur became ‘famous’.

The media historian, Dan Snow, has given a full summary and a dramatic reading of Gildas’s Ruin of Britain, written in the sixth century, chronicling the century before, in his recent ‘History Hit’ podcast on ‘The Real King Arthur’. Gildas identified an early Romano-British leader or chieftain as ‘Ambrosius Aurielanus’. Ambrosius is referred to as the victor of several battles against the Saxon invaders, including a final victory at ‘Badon Hill’. Gildas also refers to Arthur’s parents as wearing ‘the purple’, implying that they were wealthy Romans, perhaps even members of the imperial family. However, Gildas made no reference to Glastonbury as the place of his royal hero’s burial. Nor does Gildas ever refer to Ambrosius as ‘Arthur’. The use of that name in connection with the restoration of order in Britain had to wait until the chronicle of the Welsh monk Nennius, known as the Historia Brittonum. Nennius identified Ambrosius with Artorius, or Arthur, whom he introduces as a Dux Bellorum, a warlord. Like Gildas, he refers to several victorious battles fought by Arthur, the last of which was at Badon Hill (Mons Badonis).

Nevertheless, we have to wait until after the Norman Conquest, in 1136, for a more detailed account of Arthur’s deeds by another ‘Welsh’ monk, Geoffrey of Monmouth. He added the ancient Welsh stories of Arthur, some of them found in the Mabinogion, and others in the oral traditions of the broader legendarium . According to these stories, Arthur begins his campaigns against the Saxons from his base in Somerset, where he fought a gigantic battle with them. Before this, Geoffrey records Arthur as giving a rousing speech promising his soldiers absolution for their sins if they die ‘doing God’s work’. In this, Geoffrey seems to have been influenced by the crusading spirit of his age. Geoffrey describes Arthur as wearing a leather jerkin, ‘worthy of so great a king’, and putting on a golden helmet with a crest carved in the shape of a dragon. He also carries a circular shield called ‘Prydwen’, on which there is painted a likeness of the Virgin Mary. His sword was named ‘Caliban’, (in later literature ‘Excalibur’), which was forged on the Isle of Avalon.

The television historian, Michael Wood, in his series on Heroes and Myths, began his search for the magical sword, Excalibur, not on the Isle of Avalon, but on a canalside in an industrial suburb of Oxford, amid the ruins of a twelfth-century Abbey on another island, to the south of the city. It was there, in 1129, that Geoffrey created, or reshaped, the myth of Arthur, the once and future king. There, Geoffrey fashioned all the essential elements of the myth, including Excalibur. In the Bronze Age, from about a thousand BC, and on into the early medieval period, swords were cast in bronze in a stone mould, no doubt the origin of the sword in the stone element in Arthurian mythology.

The Seal of Henry II

According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur’s last resting place was the Isle of Avalon, which the Saxons later named Glastonbury. In the late twelfth century, the first Plantagenet king of England, Henry II, heir to an extensive European ‘Angevin’ empire, decided to prove that Arthur was dead and could never again provide a rallying cry for the rebellious Welsh. He ordered a ‘dig’ at Glastonbury, which discovered, at a depth of sixteen feet, the hollowed oak coffin supposedly containing the remains of Arthur and Guinevere, bearing an inscription in Latin declaring them to be the remains of the famous King Arthur and his queen.

Of course, Arthur only became ‘famous’ in the twelfth century, as a result of the legends about him. Given a fine new tomb in Glastonbury, Arthur became a huge new ‘draw’ for pilgrims. Henry II’s French wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, hired courtly poets to write new tales about Arthur and Guinevere, and their knights, giving rise to the chivalric elements in the romantic literature, including the Round Table and the Holy Grail, the latter already connected to Glastonbury through the legends of Joseph of Arimathea. In turn, these stories renewed the spiritual values of the Glastonbury mythology.

It was in Angevin Brittany and France that romantic writers made the tales of Arthur into a focus for these spiritual values of the age of chivalry. To help them find this focus, they invented the purely mythological elements of the Grail and the Round Table. The first was an invention of Chrétien de Troyes, and developed by the poets who followed him, a symbol of a virtue which can never be possessed, but for which the faithful must still strive, a symbol of the human ‘quest’ itself. At Winchester, thought to be Arthur’s Camelot in the Middle Ages, there is a Round Table, the ultimate symbol of equality among men of power. It was made for Edward I in 1290, after he’d conquered Wales and reburied the bones of Arthur and Guinevere in a marble tomb in Glastonbury. It was repainted by Henry Tudor (VIII) two hundred years later, in 1516, to impress the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, on a visit to Britain. Henry wanted to succeed the Habsburg monarch as emperor, so Arthur was repainted at the centre of the table with the King’s likeness.

So, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s prophecy had come true. The Tudors were a Welsh family, originally from Pembroke and Gwynedd, and had therefore restored the old monarchy of Britain. The myth of Arthur became a parable of Britain, a dream of what the country had been and of what it could become once more. Thomas Malory recorded these beliefs in his poem Morte d’Arthur. But when Henry fell out with the Pope and the emperor twenty years later over his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he ordered the demolition of England’s European ‘Roman Catholic’ culture. Henry and his chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, dissolved and destroyed the monasteries, including that of Glastonbury. The supposed bones of Arthur and Guinevere were removed from their black marble tomb forever.

However, the Arthurian myth did not disappear. The British still needed their myths of identity and of state. In the nineteenth century, the Arthur story was revived once again with Pugin’s Gothic creation of the Houses of Parliament, and Queen Victoria and her Windsor successors traced their ancestry to Cymbeline and the ancient kings of Britain, whose lives had been chronicled by Geoffrey of Monmouth. As late as 1953, in preparing for the coronation of the young Queen Elizabeth II, the monarchy brushed off complaints from the Papacy about these claims. However, in any case, few of these tales had any foundation in authenticated historical events.

Dan Snow has argued that Arthur is the repeating national myth of the British. As it did in the twelfth century, it is a trope or legendarium that transcends the narrow confines of British, Welsh, Breton and English identities, both ancient and modern. Created by the geography of the Western Isles, the recurring island myth is one of how a leader emerges to fight against the invasion of massed continental forces, sometimes winning, sometimes not, as seen in the battles against the Danish and Norman conquerors. So Arthur is Caradoc, Boudicca, Ambrosius, Cerdic, Alfred the Great, Eadmund Ironside, Elizabeth Tudor, Winston Churchill… These heroes all share characteristics which are particular to the British as island people. And Arthur is not dead but sleeping on the Isle of Avalon, Glastonbury, waiting to return. Metaphorically, that may also be true. The British island story is therefore not finished, and, in a chaotic and seemingly hopeless world, it may yet produce a heroic force of resistance to the tyrannical external forces threatening conquest and subjugation. In that sense, the Glastonbury myths represent a trope of British resistance to tyrannical power, one which is continually revived throughout the histories of the peoples of the islands.

Heritage not Hate – The True Spirit of Glastonbury

The sacred site and settlement.

South Somerset, Dorset and Devon. Source: Susan Hill (see below).

Long before its relatively recent appropriation as the site of a major music festival, Glastonbury in Somerset was intimately connected with the two linked legends of Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur. Both were fully recorded in written form for the first time in the twelfth century, but they drew on oral traditions of much greater antiquity. According to the first of these, Joseph of Arimathea was sent by the Apostle Philip with a band of missionaries to Britain in AD 36. Joseph’s band was said to have brought the Christian faith with them, together with the communal cup used by Christ during the Last Supper.

Glastonbury Tor, Somerset. A natural mound carved with a spiral path of ascent around it, which some have said was a ritual path of initiation going back to the Bronze Age. Source: William Anderson and Clive Hicks (see below).

Landing in Cornwall (reportedly at St Just-in-Roseland), they travelled towards Glastonbury and first sojourned at a hill called Wearyall. There, as the legend states, Joseph, weary from his travel, stopped to rest, thrusting his hawthorn staff into the ground where it immediately took root and, in a short time, blossomed. It is known as the ‘Holy Thorn’. From ancient times, it has been referred to as a phenomenon of nature, being the only thorn tree in the world to bloom at Christmas time as well as in Spring. It endured through the centuries as a perpetual, living monument to the landing of the saintly, ‘lost disciples’ of Christ.

The Glastonbury Thorn in flower. This branch is on one of several trees descending from the original, cut down during the Interregnum, 1649-60, when it was cut down by a fanatical puritan, at a time when desecration of holy places by the bigoted was in operation.

The sacred phenomenon did not die. Its scion, already planted, lived to thrive and bloom as had the mother thorn tree, its snow-white blossoms spreading outwards like a beacon amid the winter gloom. Joseph settled on the present site of the abbey ruins of Glastonbury and built there the first Christian church in Britain, made of wattle and daub. This vetusta ecclesia, or ‘Ancient Church’, was said to have existed up to the great fire of 1184, when it was destroyed. In another version of the legend preserved amongst West Country miners, Joseph had been to Glastonbury before, with the young Jesus as his apprentice, who had built a simple shrine in honour of his mother. William Blake drew on the legend for his preface to his last poem, Milton, written in 1804, and which, a century later, became a popular national hymn, if not a second national anthem, set to Hubert Parry’s tune, Jerusalem:

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England’s mountains green?

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

And did the countenance divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here

Among those dark satanic mills?

Underneath the four verses which make up the hymn, Blake wrote ‘Would to God that all the Lord’s people were prophets’, and gave the biblical source from which the quotation comes: Numbers 11.29. But the imagery of the four verses is complex. Some of it is borrowed from the Bible, for instance, the chariots of fire, taken from 2 Kings 2: v. 11, but much is of Blake’s own invention. In suggesting that Jesus may have set foot in England, Blake was resurrecting the old legend which told of Christ’s visit as a young man with Joseph of Arimathea.

William Blake was born in London in 1757, but was familiar with the stories associated with Glastonbury and steeped in its ancient history. The story that found its way into his hymn told of Joseph as a metals merchant who took Jesus with him to Cornwall and the West Country in a time before England even existed, historically. There is also a verse from Blake’s long poem Jerusalem, which dates back to 1804, echoing the theme of the Lamb of God walking upon our meadows green. He expressed his heartfelt prayers for this, the Holiest Ground on Earth. In the poem, Jerusalem represents the ideal life of freedom and is a call to the values of social justice, which were to build a new Jerusalem in Britain following the First World War. In 1916, the Poet Laureate Robert Bridges included And did those feet in a patriotic anthology entitled The Spirit of Man.

In the traditions of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Wales, there were longstanding claims that the teenage boy Jesus accompanied Joseph of Arimathea on a visit to Britain. According to the Talmud, Joseph was the younger brother of Mary’s father and therefore a great maternal uncle to Jesus. It is obvious from the synoptic gospels that Mary’s husband, also Joseph, the Carpenter of Nazareth, died when Jesus was young, possibly still a teenager, soon after his last appearance in the gospels on the family’s visit to the Temple in Jerusalem, when Jesus was about twelve. Under Jewish Law, such a circumstance automatically called for the next male kin of the husband to be appointed legal guardian to the family.

Ancient Historical tradition reports Jesus as a boy, frequently in the company of his great-uncle at the time of subsequent religious festivals in Judea, and that he made voyages to Britain in Joseph’s ships. Cornish traditions, in particular, abound with this testimony, and numerous ancient landmarks bear Hebrew names thought to record such visits. Although it is commonly taught that Jesus’s family was from humble origins, Joseph of Arimathea was both a property owner and a wealthy merchant at the time of Jesus’ ministry. However, when he later took up his own mission, he would have likely forsaken his material wealth.

Source: Dowley (see below).

The record shows that Joseph frequently journeyed to Gaul (known as ‘Galatia’ in Paul’s letters) to confer with the disciples there, particularly with the apostle Philip, who had arrived at Marseilles ahead of Joseph, together with ‘others’ among the early followers of ‘the Way’, men and women escaping persecution in Judea and Rome. There is a wealth of testimony asserting his commission in Gaul, all of which state that he received and consecrated Joseph, prior to his appointment as Apostle to Britain and his embarkation at Marseilles. Joseph himself is thought to have had a long association with the British through his tin mining interests in Cornwall and the West. The ancient port on the Mediterranean was the chief port of call for those transporting lead and tin from Britain. It is reputed to be the oldest city in France and its oldest seaport. Consequently, the comings and goings of Joseph’s ships would have kept them up to date with happenings throughout the Mediterranean world, including Gaul. Long before Joseph arrived on his mission to Britain, the scandal of the cross was well known to them and had caused grave concerns to the Druidic faith. That faith prepared the way for the spread of primitive Christianity in both Gaul and Britain.

Source: Dowley.

The emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Diocletian made acceptance of both Druidism and Christianity a capital offence, punishable by death. The ancient ‘Cymry’ (Welsh) were bonded in the patriarchal faith even before they arrived in ‘Prydain’. Organised by Huw Gadarn, the faith took on the name of ‘Druid’, derived from the Celtic word for the oak tree. The prelates of the religion recognised the death of Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of their prophecy of vicarious atonement. The Roman persecutions bonded the older monotheistic faith to the new Judaistic religion of ‘the Way’.

‘The Way’, as the primitive Christian religion was known in its early centuries, found a natural haven in Gaul and its early apostolic missionaries, including Philip and Paul, found an even safer refuge in ‘the furthest reaches of the West’ of the known world, i.e. Prydain, from the Greek ‘Pretani’, or Britannia, in Latin, as it became following the Roman invasions. Up until the Claudian conquest (AD 43), the ‘British Isles’ were the only free territories in ‘southern’ Europe. Gaul had been subjected to the Roman Reich‘s persecution long before its Caesars turned their attention to the western offshore islands. It was the constant aid given to their Gaulish brethren by the Druidic warriors which eventually led to the successful conquest.

Source: Dowley (see below)

Julius Caesar’s expeditionary force of 55 BC, designed to punish Britons for thwarting his arms in Gaul, failed to establish a foothold in Britain beyond a trading post on the south coast, and it was not until the reign of Hadrian in AD 120 that Britannia was fully incorporated as a Roman dominion by a treaty through which the British ‘kings’ retained their ancestral lands, laws and rights, while accepting the nucleus of a Roman occupying legion for the defence of the ‘province’. Gaul, by contrast, was destined to become the continental crossroads of the empire.

Philip was referred to in the early Gallic church as the Apostle of Gaul, though it might be more correct to state that while he was in Gaul, he was accepted as the head of the Gallic Christian Church. The biblical and secular records show that he did not remain constantly in Gaul. Many of the early writers report that he was in Gaul in AD 65, the year in which he consecrated Joseph for the third time (the first was claimed to be in AD 36). The Epistle to the Galatians was addressed, as the ancient writers claimed, to the inhabitants of Gaul, and not to the small colony of Gauls in Asia Minor known at the time, at least to the early apostles, as ‘Galatia’. Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, an early twentieth-century Vicar of Glastonbury, considered the foremost church historian of his times, wrote of how Edouard de Bazelaire traced the movements of St. Paul in about AD 63 along the Aurelian Way from Rome to Arles in southern Gaul. Lewis also stated:

All this goes to prove that Gaul was known as Galatia, and their chronicling St. Paul’s and his companions’ journey does not in the least mean that they deny St Philip’s. … the Churches of Vienne and Mayence in Gaul claim Crescens as their founder. … Galatia in II Timothy iv: 10, means Gaul and not its colony in Galatia in Asia… St. Philip preached to the Gauls, and not to the Galatians in Asia.

Lewis, St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, pp. 75-76.

The Judean Mission to Glastonbury:

Biblical tradition, supported by secular records, brought Philip to Gaul, from where he sent Joseph to Britain. The Norman chronicler, William of Malmesbury, quoting Freculphus, called Joseph Philip’s “dearest friend”, suggesting that they must have been in close association. However, Philip did not die in Gaul, but in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia, where he was crucified at the advanced age of eighty-seven. Meanwhile, for Joseph, the way from Marseilles to Britannia lay up the Rhone Valley to Morlaix in Brittany and from there across the Channel to Cornwall. The route must have been well known to Joseph as one regularly taken by fellow traders, seeking ore. From Cornwall, an ancient road led to the lead mines of the Mendips, remains of which still exist, passing close to Glastonbury.

Glastonbury, South Somerset and Dorset.

To most people, Joseph of Arimathea is passingly remembered as the rich man who kindly offered his private sepulchre for the burial of Christ. Beyond that, we find references in the gospels to him as ‘Decurio’, a common term employed by the Romans to designate an official in charge of metal mines. It indicated that he held a prominent position in the Roman administration as a minister of mines. Tin was the chief metal for the making of alloys and was in great demand by the empire-building Romans. Many historians have claimed that Joseph’s wealth and influence were the result of his vast holdings in the ancient tin mines of Britain.

The bulk of the first century’s supplies of tin and lead were mined in Cornwall and Somerset. The tin was smelted into ingots and exported throughout the known ‘civilised’ world. Joseph was reported as owning one of the largest merchant shipping fleets of the time, traversing the world’s sea lanes in the transportation of the precious metal. In particular, the trade between Cornwall and Phoenicia was frequently referred to by classical writers and described at considerable length by Diodorus Siculus as well as by Julius Caesar.

The art of enamelling was identified with the Ancient Britons, just as was the production of tin. They were so skilled in this craft that relics in the British Museum and the Glastonbury Museum, such as the famous Glastonbury bowl, over two thousand years old, and the Desborough mirror, are as admirable as the day they were made. They are magnificent examples of “La Téne” art, as the Celtic design is named, their geometric beauty and excellence being beyond the ability of modern craftsmen to duplicate. The same can be said of the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, emphasising the continuity of Celtic design into the enamelling of the post-Roman and early medieval periods, also on display at the British Museum. Roman testimony states that captive Britons taught the Romans the craft of enamelling. The Anglo-Saxon enamellers also learnt the craft from the Romano-British, among whom they settled in the sixth century. Modern ethnographers and historical linguists have charted the earlier Celtic migrations from their ancient homelands in eastern Europe to their final destinations in Gaul and Britain.

Proof of British superiority in the tin industry and its affluent worldwide trade was referred to by Herodotus as early as BC 450, when the islands were known as the Cassiterides, meaning The Tin Islands. This reference was followed by several others, each of which explained the paths of transportation from Britain overland and by sea to the various Mediterranean ports. The tin that garnished the Palace of Solomon in BC 1005 was mined and smelted into ingots in Cornwall and thence shipped by the Phoenicians to Palestine, where it supplied the adornment to his temple. The association of Joseph of Arimathea with the tin industry in Cornwall has been echoed down the centuries in fragments of poems and miners’ songs making reference to Joseph, such as ‘Joseph was a tin man’ and ‘Joseph was in the tin trade.’

Nevertheless, for a Jew to have held such a high rank of Nobilis Decurio in the Roman Empire was somewhat rare. We also know that he was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council in Judea that ruled over Roman Jewry. Everything known of him suggests that he was an affluent person of importance and influence within both the Jewish and Roman hierarchies. But his story is also an important chapter in the story of Britain, since he became known as the Apostle of Britain, establishing its first church at Glastonbury. From this base, Joseph is said to have frequently journeyed to Gaul, to Marseilles and Arles, to confer with the exiled disciples there, led by Philip. As George B. Jowett wrote in his 1961 book, The Drama of the Lost Disciples, from this apostolic connection grew the seeds of organised Christianity in ‘the West’:

Thus began the epochal drama that was to change imperial destiny and lead the peoples of the world to a better way of life. Yet, before this was to be fully achieved, millions were to wade their way through unbelievable tragedy, defying tyranny in its basest and most terrifying form, wholesale massacre and fiendish torture, suffering the brutalities of the Colisseum, the horrors of the fetid prison… and the dreadful scourging wars in which the British were to make the most colossal sacrifice in blood and life known to history.

Jowett (1961), p. 62.

The Colosseum in Rome, a place of martyrdom and torture for many early Christians. Source: Dowley (see below).

Arviragus appears in the first-century legends of early British kings as a British opponent of the Romans. Geoffrey of Monmouth described him as the king of the Silures of Britain, son of King Cymbeline (Cunobel), the brother of Guiderius and cousin of the legendary warrior-patriot, Caradoc (Caractacus). According to Geoffrey, Cymbeline gave up the helm of state to Guiderius, but when he refused to keep paying the tribute demanded by the Romans, Claudius, who had been raised to the empire, invaded the island. His commander-in-chief, named Levis Hamo in the Cymric tongue, which he had learnt, tricked Guiderius and the Britons into an attack on the Roman army, which was a pyrrhic victory, because Hamo then assassinated Guiderius.

Arviragus, pretending to be his brother, cheered on the British army and defeated the Romans in a further open battle. Hamo slipped away into the forest, and Claudius fled to his ships on the south coast. Arviragus was too quick for Hamo, who was unable to board the ships and was killed. Claudius attacked Caerperis (Porchester), casting down its walls and pursuing Arviragus to Winton, besieging the royal town. Arviragus sallied out to fight, but Claudius offered a truce, which the British king was persuaded to accept by his own courtiers. By this, Claudius gave his daughter in marriage to Arviragus, and the British king agreed that Britain would become a fiefdom of the empire, a province with Gloucester as its capital.

Several centuries after Joseph’s time, St Augustine confirmed the tradition of the wattle and daub altar in a letter to Gregory, Epistolae ad Gregoriam Papam, stating that the shrine still existed on the site. Consequently, we may believe that it was also there when Joseph and his twelve companions arrived in Glastonbury to establish their mission. With the chartered gift of land to the Josephian Mission, Arviragus promised his protection. In return, the cross, as the Christian symbol of Royal heraldry, was given to Arviragus by Joseph and the cross on the shield became the special symbol of the sovereigns of Britain centuries before its associations with the Crusades, England and St. George. Arviragus carried the banner of the Cross through the most bitterly fought battles between the Britons and the Romans. However, his fame was overshadowed by Caractacus, or Caradoc. Despite this, Arviragus was the most powerful representative of the royal house of the Silures and the most famous Christian warrior in Romano-British history.

Arviragus’s reception of St. Joseph suggests a previous acquaintance, and testimony from the Early Fathers from various branches of the Church shows that Glastonbury was an early Christian site. The Magna Glastonensis Tabula was a manuscript quoted by John of Glastonbury and William of Malmesbury. It records that Philip sent Joseph, his son, and ten other disciples, and ultimately that one hundred and sixty were sent to Britain in groups at various intervals by Philip to serve Joseph in his evangelistic mission. Arviragus’s grandson, King Lucius, succeeded him and was buried at Gloucester in AD 156. He renewed and enlarged the charter with the Glastonbury Christian mission, and early in his reign, he was baptised at Winchester by his uncle, Timotheus, who also proclaimed him ‘Defender of the Faith’. Geoffrey informs us that, even before King Lucius formally accepted Christianity, a ‘Papal’ legation had returned to Britain, …

with a passing great company of others, by the teaching of whom the nation of the British was in a brief space established in the Christian faith.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Histories of the Kings of Britain, 1912 edn., Book IV, Chapter XX, p. 74.

The royal territories of the Silures were divided into two. Arviragus ruled over the southern part of what later became England, including Somerset, and Caradoc ruled over Cambria, the region which became (south) Wales. Each was king in his royal domain, but in time of war, they combined forces under a ‘Pendragon’ or Commander-in-Chief. When Caradoc was taken captive to Rome, Arviragus took over from him as Pendragon, conducting a war of resistance against the Empire for decades in Britain, as recorded by Tacitus, the Roman historian, in his Annals of the Conquest. (bk. 5, ch. 28). Another Roman writer, Juvenal, indicated how greatly the Romans feared Arviragus, and that no better news could be received at Rome than the fall of the Royal Christian Silurian. Such was the invincible spirit of the Silures that they formed a living wall around the sacred boundaries of Avalon in Arviragus’s domain. No Roman army ever pierced its perimeter, and Roman writers referred to it as ‘territory inaccessible to the Roman where Christ is taught’. Behind the living wall of warriors, Joseph and his companions were safe from persecution, free to teach and preach the Christian faith from its first planting on the Sacred Isle.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s primary source for this official dating of the conversion of Britain to ‘Roman’ Christianity was the British monk, Gildas’s sixth-century book concerning the victories over the invading Saxons of Ambrosius Aurelianus (his name for Arthur), which Geoffrey chooses not to quote extensively. Nevertheless, a “Life” of Gildas was written by Caradoc of Llancarfan, a friend of Geoffrey of Monmouth and his Anglo-Norman patrons. This is an entirely fictional account intended to associate Gildas with Glastonbury Abbey and with King Arthur. Arthur kills Gildas’s brother Hueil, which causes enmity between them for a time. Hueil’s enmity with Arthur is also mentioned in the later Welsh prose tale Culhwch and Olwen, written around 1100. Gildas is best known for his polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, written in c. 490, which recounts the sub-Roman history of Britain, and which is the only substantial source for the history of this period written by a near-contemporary Briton, although it is not intended to be an objective chronicle. At the beginning of Book V of his Histories, Geoffrey tells us more about the process of conversion:

Meanwhile, King Lucius the Glorious, when he saw how the worship of the true faith had been magnified in his kingdom, did rejoice with exceeding great joy, and converted the lands and revenues which formerly did belong unto the temples and idols unto a better use, did by grant allow them to be still held by the churches of the faithful. And for that it seemed to him he ought to show them yet greater honour, he did increase them with broader fields and fair dwelling-houses, and confirmed their liberties by privileges of all kinds.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Histories (1912), p. 75.

From a historical perspective, the suggestion that the teenage Jesus visited Glastonbury with Joseph seems no more than a myth. Still, it seems entirely possible that Glastonbury received the first Christian Mission in Britain. William of Malmesbury, a twelfth-century monk from Malmesbury Abbey in Wiltshire and author of various authoritative chronicles, wrote, from his research in the library of Glastonbury Abbey, De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae, the primary Christian source about Glastonbury. He records a second-century foundation of Christianity in Britain, but cautiously entertains the possibility that when the Bishop of Rome’s emissaries arrived at Glastonbury, they discovered an already established church, a wattle-and-daub structure, set amongst a dozen huts or cells, later a great draw for pilgrims and known as the Old Church. At about the same time, other chroniclers began to build on Glastonbury’s earlier reputation as a sacred burial ground or kingdom of the Underworld.

The Arthurian Mythology:

An illustration accompanying the ninth-century Nennius’ Annals of Wales.

Geoffrey of Monmouth first mentioned Avalon as King Arthur’s burial site in his Historia Regum Britanniae:

Arthur himself, our renowned King, was mortally wounded and was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, so that his wounds might be attended to.

By the time Geoffrey was writing, the Cambro-Norman chronicler, Giraldus Cambriensis, had already identified ‘insula Avallonia’ with Glastonbury as Arthur’s resting place. With their wholly compatible codes, Christian and Arthurian mythologies were inseparable to begin with, but when the Arthurian stories obtained greater and more widespread popularity by the end of the twelfth century and became more important than the ethics they were supposed to represent, tensions arose. Robert de Boron’s thirteenth century romance, Joseph d’Aramathie cast Joseph, the rich disciple who obtained permission from Pilate to remove Christ’s body to his own tomb, as the earliest founder of Christianity in Britain. In the context of William of Malmesbury’s work, this was an acceptable idea to the monks at Glastonbury, but de Boron also had Joseph bring with him the Cup of the Last Supper in which he had caught the blood of the crucified Christ. This identified the Glastonbury Chalice as the Holy Grail and raised the standing of the great totem of Arthurian myth to the most exalted heights. When the word spread that the Grail had been found in a stony nook beneath the waters of the Chalice Well, the stream of pilgrims became a flood. It was then, in 1190-91, that, rather than tempering the rumours, the monks declared they had turned up the bodies of Arthur and Guenevere from sixteen foot underground.

Malory’s more romantic account in Le Morte D’Arthur came more than two centuries later, but he brilliantly formalised the relationship of the myth to the landscape:

Then Sir Bedevere took the king upon his back, and so went with him to that waterside, even fast by the bank, hoved a little barge with many fair ladies in it, and among them all was a queen, and they all had black hoods, and they all had black hoods, and they all wept and shrieked when they saw King Arthur.

‘Now put me into the barge,’ said the king.

And so he did softly; and there rerceived him three queens with great mourning; and so they set them down, and in one of their laps King Arthur laid his head.

… And so then they rowed from the land and St Bedevere beheld all those ladies go from him.

Then Sir Bedevere cried, ‘Ah my lord Arthur, what shall become of me, now ye go from me and leave me here alone among mine enemies?’

‘Comfort thyself,’ said the king, ‘and do as well as thou mayest, for in me is no trust for to trust in; for I will into the vale of Avilon to heal me of my grevious wound: and if thou never hear more of me, pray for my soul… ‘

Malory leaves Sir Bedevere with the hermit ‘in a chapel beside Glastonbury’ with Arthur’s tomb ‘new graven … and so they lived in their prayers, and fastings, and great abstinence.’

In the 1580s, the intrepid Queen Elizabeth Tudor, direct descendant of Arviragus and Lucius, made the Reformation declaration, when challenging the authority of the combined forces of France, Spain and Rome, that Britain’s priority in the Christian Church stemmed not from Papal authority, but from the ancient oath of the British King Lucius. As her ancestors had done, she declared that only Christ was the Head of the Church, and ever since, on their coronation, the sovereigns of Great Britain (and sometimes Ireland) had taken this oath. In 1953, the Roman Church petitioned for this oath to be omitted from the coronation of Elizabeth II, but this was refused by ‘the establishment’ with the statement that the United Kingdom was the one true defender of the Christian cause in Britain, with Christ as its Head.

Joseph was said to have brought the Holy Grail with him to Glastonbury and to have buried it in an unknown place near his first settlement there, thus connecting it with the legend of King Arthur and his knights searching for it. It is thought to be marked by the site of the Chalice Well at the foot of the Tor. Glastonbury was therefore identified as the ancient Isle of Avalon, the island of apples (‘apple’ being ‘afal’ or ‘aval’ in Cymric) to which Arthur was borne in the legend following his last battle with Mordred. This association of Glastonbury with Arthur received a boost in 1191 when a monk at the abbey, inspired by a vision, claimed to have discovered the tomb of Arthur and Guenevere. The coffin bore on it the inscription:

‘Here lies the famous King Arthur buried in the Island of Avalon.’

When it was opened, it was found to contain the skeletons of the king and his consort. The still blonde tresses of Guenevere’s hair apparently crumbled in the hand of the monk. It is not surprising that Glastonbury should be associated with such powerful legends, located as it is on the Somerset Levels, much of which was under the Severn estuary until drained by Dutch engineers in the later seventeenth century. Dr John Dee, the Welsh mathematician and astrologer to Elizabeth I, developed the theory that the landscape was part of the immense depiction of the twelve signs of the zodiac formed by rising ground, streams, ancient roads and field boundaries. Long before the eighteenth century, when ditches, or rhynes, were dug, enclosing fields and organising better drainage. The area developed its own culture, the willows along the flowery edges of the rhynes supporting a thriving basket-making industry.

The extraordariness of Glastonbury Tor begins with its physical characteristics, its visibility for miles around, the smooth greeness and shape of the mound, which makes it suspiciously man-made, like a Norman ‘motte’, the narrow terraces that circle the summit which appear to form a convoluted maze with the ruin of St Michael’s Church at its core, and the quality of the spring that flows fom its flank down to the Chalice Well, crystal clear water trailing red as blood due to the iron ore in its course. In fact, the hill is composed of clays and limestones in horizontal strata that have gradually eroded. The phenomenon of red water is the oxidation of the naturally high iron content that occurs upon contact with air. But this does not challenge the mystical spirit of the place that has been impressive for thousands of years in a variety of cultures.

Originally surrounded by marsh and water, the four-hundred-foot Tor with Chalice Hill and the site of the abbey and town all formed a single island, Avalon, on the low, flat Somerset plain. Seen across ‘the Levels’ on a misty day or evening, they still give the appearance of insularity. The Levels stretch westwards towards Bridgwater Bay, being liable to flooding in winter from the Axe, Brue and Parrett rivers. It has been suggested that the Celtic Christian monks, known as Culdees, who first founded a settlement here were inspired to make this ancient holy place a hallowed site of the new faith. It has also suggested that the Tor itself, a strange cone now crowned by the tower of the medieval church of St Michael, was, from the Bronze Age or even earlier, a site of initiation, a three-dimensional maze traced by a spiral path around its mound.

Within a mile of the Sacred Isle of Avalon was another smaller island known as Ynys Wytren, or Glass Island, a name with a claim to be derived from the still, pure waters that once surrounded it when much of the ‘Somerset Levels’ were almost permanently under water. In Saxon times, the water receded in the Summer to reveal a ‘summer pasture’, giving the name ‘somer saete’ to the whole county. Excavations have also revealed that it was once a busy site for the glass industry, for which the ancient Britons were famous, alongside their enamelling and metalworking. Later, the Saxons named it Glastonbury, though the word ‘Glas’ in Welsh means ‘blue’, which may have been a reference to the incoming seawater from the Severn estuary. Today, the western boundary of the lowland area is known as ‘the Levels’ and the eastern flood plains as the Moors. Behind the clay banks of the Levels, tides rise many feet higher than the Moors, and even as late as 1607, after considerable engineering works first by the Romans and then throughout the Middle Ages, sea water could still come in as far as Glastonbury itself.

During Anglo-Saxon times, some of the ‘isles’ ceased to exist as the monks at Glastonbury Abbey drained much of the land around them, creating a muddy salt plain, though it is still, today, below sea level, and swampy in wet weather. Yet today, as pilgrims realise that they are standing in the centre of the twelve hallowed hides of land which the Silurian prince deeded to St. Joseph and his twelve companions, it is impossible for them not to feel moved by the beauty of the scene in what is still, for most of the year at least, the quiet little English town, encircled by verdant meadows, all part of the 1,920 acres of early Christendom. At the same time, it is difficult for them to fully comprehend that they are treading on the same holy ground where the early saints trod and communed together. There is good evidence to suggest that they may have included Aristobulus, a successor to Joseph as apostle to the Britons.

The magnificent ruins of Glastonbury Abbey are the remains of the beautiful church that was erected over the altar of the wattle-and-daub shrine, thatched with reeds from the wetlands below, as was the custom of the time. Wattle was the common building material of the ancient Britons, as well as the Saxons who followed them to the area, and they used it in the construction of their homes, halls, and churches. Therefore, Joseph and his fellow disciples did not employ unusual materials, but only those which were then of common order. A former Bishop of Bristol commented on excavations at nearby Godney Marsh, discovered by Arthur Bulleid in 1892 and excavated over the following fifteen years. Another was unearthed at Mere. Settlers were first drawn there in pre-Celtic times, and not just by the abundant stocks of fish and fowl. Ever since the discoveries, there has been speculation about the name ‘Glass Island’. Nature’s glass, quartz stone, was being used in Bronze Age tombs and as ceremonially significant pillars in stone circles, such as at Boscawen (Penrith) in Cornwall and places of ritual sacrifice.

The ‘Lake Village’ has been described as “the best preserved prehistoric village ever found in the United Kingdom”. The site covered an area of 400 feet (122 m) north to south by 300 feet (91 m) east to west. It was first constructed 250 B.C. by laying down timber and clay. Wooden houses and barns were then built on the clay base and occupied by up to two hundred people at any time until the village was abandoned around 50 B.C. Artefacts uncovered include wooden and metal objects, many of which are now on display at The Tribunal in Glastonbury High Street and in the Museum of Somerset in Taunton. Bishop Brown observed that:

Wattle work is a very perishable material, and of all things of the kind, the least likely is that we in the nineteenth century … discover at Glastonbury an almost endless amount of British wattle work. Yet this is exactly what happened. In the low ground, now occupying the place of the impenetrable marshes which gave the name of the Isle of Avalon to the higher ground, the eye of the local antiquary had long marked a mass of dome-shaped hillocks, some of them of a very considerable diameter, and about seventy in number, clustered together in what is now a large field, a mile and a quarter from Glastonbury. …

The hillocks proved to be the ramains of British houses burned by fire. They were set on ground made solid in the midst of waters, with causeways revetted with wattle work … all over. … The wattle when first uncovered is as good to all appearances as the day it was made. The houses of the Britons at Glastonbury … and their church were made of wattles.

Rev. G. F. Brown, The Church in These Islands before Augustine.

Soon after Joseph and his company had settled in Avalon, they began, painstakingly, to construct their wattle church. It was reported as being sixty feet in length and twenty-six feet wide, following the pattern of the Tabernacle in Jerusalem, still standing at the time of the Roman destruction of it in AD 70. St. Paulinus had the wattle church encased in local lead from the Mendips in AD 630 and, thus protected from dissolution, it remained intact until 1184, when the whole abbey was destroyed by fire. By then, the cross-shaped pattern of the wattle church at Glastonbury had become the model employed in the construction of all the early British churches built in Roman, Anglo-Saxon and early medieval times. But its first function was to provide sanctuary for the refugees from the persecution of the Sanhedrin and pagan Rome. Protected by the armed might of the Silures, the companions of the Apostle of Britain began to teach Christ crucified in the sunlit combes and vales of the Western islands of Britain.

Speculation that Glastonbury was a seat of the Old Religion (Druidism) or a sacred burial site was fuelled by legend. St Collen was an early Celtic Christian settler who built his cell at Glastonbury and upset the settled people there by denying that the Tor was the entrance to the Underworld, the domain of Gwyn ap Nudd. When the hermit was introduced to it, as the folk story went, a fine castle within the hill, he sprinkled holy water on it so that it disappeared. John Cowper Powys explained:

In the ethnic atmosphere about these two, as they stood there, quivered the immemorial Mystery of Glastonbury. Christians had one name for this Power, the ancient heathen inhabitants of this place had another, and a quite different one. Everyone who came to this spot seemed to draw something from it, attracted by a magnetism too powerful for anyone to resist, but as different people approached it changed its chemistry, though not its essence, by their own identity, so that upon none of them it had the same psychic effect. … Older than Christianity, older than the Druids, older than the gods of Norsemen or Romans, older than the gods of the neolithic men, this many-named Mystery had been handed down to subsequent generations…

John Cowper Powys, A Glastobury Romance.

Behind the church rose the great Tor, a Druidic centre for a Gorsedd, a High Circle of Worship, a hand-piled mound of earth with terraces that wind around the hill to its summit. On these eminences, the Druids had their astronomical observatories from which, like the sages of Persia, they studied the heavens and the movements of the stars and their relationships to ancient prophecies. The merging of the Celtic Druidic traditions with early Christianity had already become an accepted process, peacefully performed. Archaeological evidence has also demonstrated that there was no bitter opposition between the Druidic priests and the Christian apostles. Nowhere in the Celtic and Cymric records is there any mention of antagonism between the two faiths. The Archdruids recognised that the old order was fulfilled according to prophecy, and that with the advent of the Messiah, Christ, and his atonement, the new dispensation had arrived. In the light of the understanding reached between them and the Judean refugees, their common resistance to pagan Roman persecution bound the two religions together.

The Augustinian mission of AD 596, sent by the Roman prelate Gregory, later erroneously referred to as a ‘Pope’, was actually part of the first attempt to introduce Roman Christianity to Britain. Even the earliest Vatican historians referred to St. Joseph as the first Apostle of Britain and the first to introduce Christian teachings to the Islands. Subsequent popes have also substantiated this statement. St Paul was actually the first to deliver the Roman Christian message to Britain, at first through his appointed apostle, Aristobulus. St Joseph was not sent from Rome, but went directly from Palestine, via Marseilles, preceding both Aristobulus and possibly Paul himself by two decades. Theodore Martin, of Lovan, wrote at the beginning of the Reformation in continental Europe, that:

Three times the antiquity of the British Church was affirmed in ecclesiastical councils: 1. The Council of Pisa, AD 1417; 2. Council of Constance, AD 1419; 3. Council of Siena, AD 1423. It was said that the British Church took precedence over all other Churches, being founded by Joseph of Arimathea, immediately after the passion of Christ.

Disputoilis super Dignitatem Anglis it Gallioe in Councilio Constantino, AD 1517.

Alfred the Great’s erudite chief minister and chronicler, Bishop Ussher, also stated, without equivocation, in his Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates that the British National Church was founded in AD 36, a hundred and sixty years before heathen Rome confessed Christianity. The founding of a British national church by the Josephan Mission led to rapid conversion throughout the Isles. In AD 48, Conor Macnessa, King of Ulster, sent his priests to Avalon to commit Christian precepts and teachings into law, naming them ‘the Celestial Judgments’.

The Roman Pauline Mission:

About twenty years after Joseph’s arrival, there was a second Christian mission, also established under the protection and sponsorship of the Royal Silurian House, and under the commission of St. Paul. By this time, the Romans in Britain had become the implacable foe of the British Christians and sought by every means at their command to exterminate the new movement at its source. At the same time, they held the British warriors in high esteem and believed their religion was the reason for their fearlessness in battle and disdain of death. Lucanus, writing in Pharsalia in A.D. 38, argued that this indifference of the Britons to death was due to their religious beliefs, and Pomponius Mela, writing three years later, described, with astonishment, the British warriors as extraordinarily brave, which he ascribed to their religious doctrine, based on the immortality of the soul.

After his contact with the royal family of the Silures in Rome, Paul declared in his statement, I turn henceforth to the Gentiles. The family were destined to become the first martyrs to suffer for the Gentile Church, and millions more were soon to follow their example. The underground cemeteries of Rome, the Catacombs, were packed with the tortured, murdered bodies of Christian men, women and children from this period, just as British soil was saturated with the blood of martyrs, eternal testimony to their steadfast faith. Believing that Christ had died for them, they were fearless in dying for Christ.

The Romans had not previously held any special animosity towards the British, though they always despised the Jews. This hatred was now intensified by the Claudian Edict, which accused them of being responsible for the rise of the new faith, finding its converts among the people of Judea. Seeking further to inflame the citizens against both through the slander that Christians and Jews alike practised human sacrifice in their religions. However, they knew better that the burnt offerings of both Judeans and Druids were animals, chiefly sheep, goats and doves. The Romans also spread the age-old blood libel that the Jews devoured Gentile babies.

Throughout the nine-year Claudian campaign, the Irish and Pictish records tell of an ever-flowing stream of delegates from the various kingdoms, journeying to Avalon to receive at first-hand instruction from the Arimathean Culdees. Had it not been for this movement, Paul would almost certainly have been seriously handicapped in carrying out his mission to the Gentiles. The long-established, inter-generational familial associations between the Britons and the Romans in commerce, culture and social affairs had made both peoples conversant with each other on common grounds. Latin was not adopted in British ecclesiastical liturgies until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Yet, from the first to the fourth century, it was as familiar to the Cymry as was Greek or Hebrew. Through the Arimathean and Pauline missions, the Silureans eventually conquered Rome for Christ.

The first-century basilica was thought to be the centre of the Christian mission in Rome, home of Pudens. Source: Jowett (see below).

Among the earliest British hostages in Rome was Llyr Llediaith, grandfather of Caradoc. He died shortly after he arrived in Rome, and his son, Brán, became the Archdruid Silurian monarch who abdicated in favour of his son, Caractacus, who had offered himself as a hostage to replace his father, Llyr, the King Lear of Shakespeare’s play. These characters, gathering at the ‘House of Apostles’ in Rome, were to play a major role in the continuing drama of the ‘lost’ disciples under the direction of the Apostle Paul. Even though the apostle had his residence in Rome provided for him by the Christian following, the Scriptures state that he only resided there for two years during his ten years in the city. The common inference is that St Paul arrived in the city in A.D. 58, though his arrival could have been two years earlier. St Jerome wrote that Paul arrived in Rome in the second year of Nero, who succeeded Claudius as emperor.

In the year AD 58, the Pauline mission was ready to leave Rome to begin their work in Britain in the territorial section then known as Cambria, later Wales. Aristobulus was installed as the first Bishop of Llanulltid, with Brán remaining as Archdruid and High Priest of Siluria at Llandaff. In the Cymric language, Aristobulus was known as Arwistli-Hén and Arwystli-Senex in Roman-Latin. Unfortunately, the aged or ‘hén’ Aristobulus met a tragic end within a year of his return to Britain. The Pauline Mission had come directly from Rome, and the inveterate hatred of the British for all things Roman was unrelating. Brán wrote in his journals that they were hard pressed to induce the British to accept anyone or anything that came from the imperial city. It was only their love for the devout Brán and Eurgain of Old Sarum (Caer Salog; Salisbury), the Patroness of the Pauline mission among the Silures, that made them willing to receive the Roman Christian missionaries. Aristobulus was well respected among the Silures. He was a Greek Christian who had come to Britain from Jerusalem via Galicia, on the Atlantic coast in Northern Spain. He was also previously known to Joseph and the Avalon Mission.

On his missionary journeys in Britain, Aristobulus journeyed far beyond the territory of the Silures into the lands of the Ordovices, whose hatred for the Romans was even more bitter and certainly blacker than that of the Silures. The Roman missionary was also unknown to them, and they were justifiably suspicious that his appearance was yet another Roman trick and that he was really an imperial spy. According to Cardinal Alford’s Regia Fides, the Ordovices rose up and slew him in the year AD 58 or 59. He was martyred at what later became St Albans, following the Diocletian martyrdom of the saint of that name. Aristobulus, therefore, became the first Romano-British martyr and the only one to be martyred by the Celtic tribes. When the Ordovices were informed of the misunderstanding, they were remorseful. They erected a beautiful church on the site of his martyrdom.

Following the death of Aristobulus, the Princess Eurgain became the leader of the Pauline Mission. She was the first female convert in Britain and the first female Christian saint. She founded twelve colleges for Culdee initiates at Cor Eurgain. Ilid, ‘a man of Israel’, a Judean convert who had accompanied Bran and Aristobulus to Cambria, took charge of the mission until Paul arrived. He was a Judean convert from Rome and was shown to be a very capable, energetic leader. Financed by the royal Silurian family, a magnificent church and university were built, and many new schools were built throughout Cambria. The Iolo manuscript says of Ilid:

He afterwards went to Glastonbury, where he died and was buried, and Ina, King of that country, raised a large church over his grave.

King Ina’s church at Glastonbury Abbey, built in AD 700, was excavated in the 1950s. The loss of his aged friend, Aristobulus, was a great blow to Paul, who sent his salutations to his friends at Rome. The last epistle Paul sent out from prison was to his fellow apostle, Timothy, requesting him to deliver his (last) greetings or benedictions to the ones he loved dearest on earth, to his sister-in-law, Claudia, and her husband; his half-brother, Pudens; to their children and to his nieces and nephews, whom he had taught; the beloved Linus, whom he had consecrated and appointed First Bishop of Rome, Linus; to Eubulus, cousin of Claudia, and them which are of the household of Aristobulus. In only ten years, Paul had faithfully carried out his commission to go to the Gentiles. He had established the First Christian Church in Rome and undertaken a mission to Britain in collaboration with the Josephan Mission at Avalon and the members of the British royal Silurian family.

It is claimed that Paul landed at what is now a suburb of the great naval port of Portsmouth, from where ferries still arrive from Brittany and Northern Spain. It has been known over the centuries as ‘Paul’s Grove’. From there, he made his way into Cambria, to Bangor-on-Dee, where (it is claimed) he founded the famous abbey, destroyed in 613 by Aethelfrith of Northumbria after he defeated the Welsh armies at the Battle of Chester and slaughtered the monks. The doctrine and administration of the Abbey was known as Pauli Regula, ‘The Rule of Paul’. According to R. W. Morgan, author of St. Paul in Britain, the abbots all considered themselves as direct successors of Paul, although other records show it to have been founded by Dunod in the mid-sixth century. It’s doubtful that Paul stayed long enough in Britain to see the abbey completed, even as a simple construction. Certainly, it could not have been the monastery described by St Hilary and St Benedict as the ‘Mother of Monasteries’, and by Bede as having over two thousand resident monks.

A casual study of the life and works of St Paul, after his arrival in Rome, shows a ‘blank period’ of six years. Many scholars now believe that those years were spent in Gaul, and principally in Cambria. We know (from his letters) that he returned to Rome from there in AD 61, and that he was reinterned there, and that he also returned to Arles, in southern Gaul, where he was obliged to leave one of his sick companions from Rome. In Cambria, as in Gaul, the memory of Paul’s sojourn was almost entirely lost or became fabricated parts of later legend. The only enduring ‘traces’ of his visit are found in ‘Llundain’ or Londinum, where he is said to have preached from the summit of Ludgate Hill, the original site of the old St. Paul’s Cathedral. Arising from this legend, London has been referred to as the ‘Aereopagus’ of Britain, and the exact spot of his preaching may well be marked by the ancient St. Paul’s Cross. The emblem associated with him, the sword of martyrdom, was incorporated in the coat of arms of the City of London.

A common question often arises concerning the apostles’ ability to preach to the people in the various languages of Britain. Since it is unlikely that Paul could use a Cymric tongue for this, we may assume that he spoke in Latin, which was well-known among the educated Romano-British. However, we know that he wrote fluently, in Greek, the most widely comprehensible language of the first-century Mediterranean world. It was not until the time of Charlemagne that Latin became the language of church services. It was imposed by Pope Gregory I on much of Europe in AD 600, but the Celtic Church in Britain opposed this until the end of the seventh century. Bishop Ussher, chief advisor to Alfred the Great, writing in his Historia Dogmatica, claimed that:

No two causes contributed so much to the declension of Christianity… as the suppression by the Church of Rome of the vernacular scriptures, and her adoption of image worship.

Had it not been for the vigorous support of the Pauline Mission in Cambria by the Princess Eurgain and her relatives, his efforts might have failed completely. The success of his mission was undoubtedly due to its sponsorship. Following the martyrdom of Aristobulus, the Cambrian church renewed its close ties with Avalon. The common people their allegiance never deviated from Joseph or the Mother Church there, while they could not and did not accept leadership from Rome. However, Paul fulfilled his own mission, to go far hence unto the Gentiles, and the magnitude of his achievements is summed up by St. Clement, who followed Linus as Bishop of Rome at the end of the first century:

Paul,… having seven times worn chains, and being hunted and stoned, received the prize of such endurance. For he was the herald of the Gospel in the West as well as in the East, and enjoyed the illustrious reputation of the faith in teaching the whole world to be righteous. And after he had been in the extremity of the West, he suffered martyrdom before the sovereigns of mankind…

1 Clement 5: 6-7.

‘Extremity of the West’ was the term used by Romans to indicate Britain, though it was also used by Paul himself to refer to western Gaul, especially Galicia in northern Spain. In his History of the Apostles, Capellus wrote:

I know scarcely of one author from the time of the Fathers downward who does not maintain that St Paul, after his liberation, preached in every country of the West, in Europe, Britain included.

Theodoret, writing in the fourth century, claimed that St. Paul brought salvation to the Isles in the ocean, and Ventanius, the sixth-century Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote very definitely and in detail of Paul’s visit to Britain, as did many other chroniclers of early church history.

In his recent, influential ‘biography’ of Paul, the New Testament scholar Tom Wright explained why he is now inclined to give more weight than he once did to the testimony of Clement, Bishop of Rome, quoted above. In referring to the farthest limits of the west, Clement could have been simply extrapolating from Romans 15, and Wright suggests that it would have suited his purpose to give the impression of Paul’s reach across the empire. But he also points out that Clement was a central figure in the Roman Church within a generation of Paul’s day, writing at most thirty years after the apostle’s death. It is far more likely that he had more solid and reliable traditions about Paul than we can invent without first-hand sources other than those in the New Testament. “The farthest reaches of the west” could, of course, have meant Spain, but it could also have meant Britain, especially after the Claudian Conquest of AD 43 and especially by AD 63, when Paul was reported to be visiting the ‘Galatian’ churches along the Aurelian Way.

Even if Paul were killed in AD 64, there were nearly two years, time enough for a visit to Spain, and even to Britain, especially if he followed the route from Marseilles to Brittany and then to Portsmouth. There was also regular traffic between Rome and Tarraco, the Catalan town of Tarragona, the capital of Hispania Tarraconensis, which since the time of Augustus had stretched right across the Iberian Peninsula to the Atlantic coast. Paul may have had an additional motivation for choosing this latter route, as the temple to Augustus had been replaced in Paul’s day with a dramatic complex for the imperial cult. This was clearly visible from several miles out to sea, and Paul may have been eager to announce Jesus as Lord and King in places where Caesar was claiming those titles. If Tarraco was still considered to be in the province at the end of the known world in AD 63, it would have been a natural target by the missionaries.

As Tom Wright has pointed out, all of Paul’s plans carried the word ‘perhaps’ about with them, so perhaps if he did make it to Spain, he could also have gone north-west to the oceanic islands. Wright asks, might we not have had the chance of a Pauline version of Blake’s famous poem, ‘Jerusalem’? It would, of course, have had to refer to ‘Cambria’s mountains green’! It may be that the comparatively easy convergence between Paul’s letters and the narrative of Acts has lulled scholars into thinking that we know more than we do about his last years. The second letter to Timothy implies some additional activity back in the East after an initial hearing in Rome. In his letter, Paul really does believe he is facing death at last:

I am already being poured out as a drink-offering; my departure time has arrived. I have fought the good fight; I have completed the course; I have kept the faith. What do I still have to look for? The crown of righteousness! The Lord, the righteous judge, will give it to me as my reward on that day – and not only to me, but to all who have loved his appearing.

2 Timothy 4: 6-8.

If Paul was back in Rome by the time of Nero’s persecution, facing additional hearings in difficult circumstances, two years would hardly have been enough for journeys both to the west and the east. But by AD 62, the persecution would have negated the need for any hearings or legal trappings. Paul could no longer shelter in house arrest from the terror behind his Roman citizenship. The emperor had laid the blame for the fire on the Christians as a group, and that was enough for Paul to be rounded up with all his fellow believers. Paul may have been away from the city in either the west or east, but returned to Rome in AD 64, to find that the public mood had changed so much that, citizen or not, appealing to Caesar or not, he was now straightforwardly on trial as a dangerous troublemaker. However, rather than the slow, agonising deaths, often following appalling tortures that Nero inflicted on the Jewish-Christian immigrants from the southern ghetto, he was summarily convicted and swiftly executed by beheading, as a citizen, with a sword.

Paul’s world view and theology was strongly motivated by his eschatology, which, as his letter to the Romans (chapter eight) shows, was shared by many of his readers and listeners. This was undoubtedly what added an urgency to his last missions. But the main point about the end of the world was that it could occur at any time, not that it had to occur within a specific time frame. The event that was to occur within a generation was not the end of the world itself, but, according to the Gospel writers, the fall of Jerusalem. By the time of Paul’s death, this was woven into the fabric of the early Christian faith. Jerusalem itself, and the Temple specifically, had always been seen as the place where heaven and earth met. Its destruction in AD70 was therefore a pivotal point in the development of Judeo-Christian thinking and theology.

Source: Dowley

If Paul had heard of this by living just a few years longer, he might have reflected, theologically, that the One God had already built his new Temple, his new microcosmos; the Jew-plus-Gentile church was the place where the divine spirit was already living in the midst of mankind, revealing his glory as a sign of what would happen one day throughout the whole world. Sooner or later, Paul must have thought, the new movement was bound to thrive. Of course, Paul would not expect all this to happen smoothly, without suffering and struggle. He would not have expected that the small and muddled communities would be transformed into a much larger body, covering the entire known world, without further terrible persecution. The new movement in which he led was not just the accidental by-product of energetic work, a historical opportunity, but the chief product of divine will and purpose. But just as Paul would not want to give a purely naturalistic, demythologised explanation, neither would he wish instead to ascribe the whole series of events to divine or angelic power without human agency.

Probably because the diasporic Jews after the Jewish War of AD 70 were unorganised and not militant, like the British guerrilla warriors, the Roman campaign of extermination against them was not so widespread or determined. They also had a longstanding imperial exemption from making tribute to the emperor, whereas Gentiles had no such exemption. Instead, as in Rome, they were forced into ghettoes throughout the imperial cities where they settled, where their defiance could not easily be observed. The Gauls and the British, however, were warrior nations skilled in the arts of warfare on land and at sea.

The Gauls had been largely subdued, but the British were still led by independent rulers and military commanders, all of whom were steeped in invincibility of spirit, which stemmed from their Christian faith, which decreed that all men should be free. The overwhelming rise of Christianity in the densely populated cities of Gaul and Britain was therefore viewed with consternation by the authorities in Rome. Britain had become the seedbed of missions like the one at Glastonbury, where an ever-flowing stream of preachers was tutored, trained, and ordained by the apostles and disciples, and then sent out as missionaries to distant territories and foreign lands.

The Persecutions of the Early Church:

The Romans declared that this mushrooming of missionary activity had to be stopped. To them, might alone was right, but from their past experience of British military resistance, they had good reason to respect and even fear it, inspired as it was by the zeal of Christ. Yet Rome had conquered the world, or so it claimed. That unity was a top-down uniformity in which diversity was welcomed as long as it didn’t threaten the absolute sovereignty of Caesar. That diversity was always seen in strictly hierarchical terms: men over women, free over slaves, Romans over everybody else. Rebels were to be ruthlessly suppressed, as were the Druids and Cambrian Christians in the Menai bloodbath staged by Suetonius Paulinus, and the Trinovantes in the Boadicean atrocities conducted under the malignant direction of Catus Decianus in AD 60 to 62.

The Pax Britannica, ‘the great peace’ which had descended over the Island, beginning with the Treaty of Agricola in AD 86, continued for a period of two hundred years. During that time, no mention of British-Roman conflict was recorded. Yet, as the Briton Calgacus remarked, they make a wilderness, and call it peace. The Claudian Edict to crush British resistance was founded on the mistaken belief that only violent persecution would terrorise the Britons into ultimate submission. Roman chroniclers were silent, leaping the two-hundred year gap as though nothing of significance had occured in the ‘pacified’ island of Britannia. They took up the record again in the year AD 287, to recite the usurpage of the Emperor’s crown by Carausius, the Admiral of the Roman fleet, who landed in northern Britain, marching to York, where he had himself proclaimed Emperor. Since the fall of London to Queen Boudicca (Boadicea) of the Iceni, the City of York had become a popular resort for the Romans. From the ancient British city, the age-old citadel of the Brigantes, first known as Caer Evroc, several Roman emperors had chosen to rule, deeming it a safer haven for that purpose than Rome. For centuries before them and Christ, it had been the centre of the enamelling craftsmen of the La Téne art.

But we should always listen to the silences in the official records, and by doing so, we discover from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British sources that it was in AD 156 that, by the royal edict of King Lucius, proclaimed at Winchester, southern Britain became officially Christian for the first time. Carausius reigned as Emperor from York for seven years before his assassination and usurpation by his own minister, Allectus, in AD 294. The usurper reigned for two years before falling in battle against the forces of Constantius Chlorus, who then succeeded him and also ruled the Empire from York for the next ten years. With him began one of the most momentous chapters in early Christian history, beginning first in the city of Colchester, or Camulodunum, once capital of the Iceni under Boudicca, and the royal seat of King Coel, whose castle was at Lexdon, now a suburb of the modern city.

Source: Dowley

In AD 265, Coel had a daughter named Elén, who later became known as Empress Helen of the Cross. Raised in a Christian household, her natural talents were developed to a higher degree by the best scholars and administrators in the land. While her regal husband and son stood out eminently in the art of diplomacy, her capacity for political administration played a prominent part in their imperial destiny. The Christianising of the Roman Empire would undoubtedly have been delayed centuries but for her energy and devotional support. Roman history merely describes her in her role as Empress. No mention is made of her British ancestry and heritage, including her royal Romano-British predecessors, Princess Eurgain and Claudia Pudens. She was made to appear simply as a native of Rome, wife of a Roman and mother of an illustrious Roman son. Later, however, the Protestant reformer, Philip Melanchthon, sought to set the Roman record straight when he wrote in his Epistola that Helen was unquestionably a British Princess.

Even before Constantius defeated Allectus at York, he was recognised as Emperor of Britain, Spain and Gaul, the boundaries of which extended far across western and southern Europe, including Germany. He was proclaimed as Emperor of Rome at York and was the first to be recognised as monarch by the people of the four domains. Only he and his extraordinary son, Constantine the Great, were ever to attain imperial rule over the whole of the vast empire at its height. In the pre-Christian era, as Caer Evroc, York was one of the Druidic centres, continuing so at the time of the Josephan Mission until King Lucius established London, York and Caerleon on Usk as the three great Archbishoprics of Britain. Six years before he became Roman Emperor, in AD 290, Constantius renewed and enlarged the Archbishopric of York, making it the most outstanding royal and religious city in Britain. Later, Caerleon was replaced by Canterbury as the third archbishopric, with the latter then replacing London as the chief ecclesiastical seat ahead of York.

Before the ascent of Constantius to the throne of the Roman Empire, revolution and assassination had been disposing of one emperor after another. There was a confusing array of predatory Roman nobles who raised their armies, laying claim to the throne of the Caesars. The notorious Diocletian held the reins in Rome, and on his orders began what is often described as the worst persecution of Christians in the year AD 290. Besides the attacks on people, churches and scriptures, libraries, schools of learning and private homes were destroyed. The lions roared again in the Colosseum, the prisons were filled, and the streets ran with the blood of many martyrs. No Christian was spared, nor were their families, even babes-in-arms. This persecution was described as the tenth since the Claudian Edict of AD 42. Like previous emperors, Diocletian scapegoated the Christians for the series of disasters over the years that had decimated the Roman armies to such an extent that they were no longer able to defend their frontiers successfully, let alone conquer as before. Rome was on the decline, and her glory was fast fading. Diocletian sought to evade national disaster by ordering the extermination of the Christians, their churches, and other possessions.

This bestial cruelty lasted for eighteen years, and it flamed across Europe for several years before it struck Britain. Again, the Romans were frustrated by the incredible zeal of the martyrs who died with prayer on their lips, watching the common people being destroyed, showing the same disdain for death as had their Christian forbears. This infuriated Diocletian, so that he adopted ever more fiendish practices, in which he was later aided by Maximian, who became co-ruler with him over the continental empire. His ferocity and atrocities were claimed to be beyond description; he was blind with maniacal hatred of Christians.

The Diocletan savagery, which began in Britain in about 300 AD, showed how barbaric the imperial extermination of British independence and all that was Christian had become. On the orders of Maximian, co-ruler with Diocletian, the Christian Gaulish veterans, the finest warrior battalions in the Roman army, were slaughtered to a man in cold blood, such was his absolute hatred of Christianity. Meanwhile, the Emperor poured a huge army into Britain. But Constantius Chlorus had already been proclaimed Emperor at York, and the British kingdoms were more united. Previously, they had fought for years in deciding each conflict with the Romans, with victory swinging from one side to the other. Yet, within a year, Constantius had terminated the Diocletian persecution in Britain, driving the Romans back to the continent in AD 302. However, the Romans had succeeded in inflicting huge losses on the British armies, and had levelled churches, universities and libraries, besides sacking towns. The slaughter was terrific, and included a list of British martyrs that far exceeded the total by all the former persecutions combined. This was not so much the total from the field of battle, but in the slaughter of the priesthood and their defenceless flocks.

Following King Lucius’s death and the raising of Asclepiodotus, Duke of Cornwall, to be king, the persecution of the Emperor Diocletian resulted in the near blotting out of official Christianity across the whole island. Maximianus Herculius, chief of the Roman armies in Britain, reconquered the whole country, tore down the churches and burnt all copies of the sacred scriptures that could be found in the marketplaces. Priests were put to death, along with the faithful committed to their charge, …

and the thronging fellowship of Christians did hasten to vie with one another which should first reach the kingdom of Heaven and delight thereof, as though it had been their abiding place.

Geoffrey’s Histories, p. 79.

Among those men and women martyred was Alban of Verulamium, his confessor and protector, Amphibalus, and Julius and Aaron of the City of Legions, Chester, who were torn limb from limb. The prelates killed included Socrates of York, Stephen of London and his successor, Nicholas of Penrhyn (Glasgow), and Melior of Carlisle. Gildas also estimated that the number of communicants killed was as many as ten thousand.

After Constantius had married Elén, she bore him a son whom she called Constantine. The Emperor and his Queen Empress began to restore the churches destroyed under Diocletian’s Edict. It was a titanic task into which the royal family poured their fortune. During these eleven years of restoration, Constantius died at York in AD 306 and was succeeded as King of Britain by his son, Constantine, with his mother acting as protector. For the next six years, the young Emperor remained in Britain, building many new churches and institutions of learning.

The Constantinian Conquest of Rome:

Having restored peace to his British kingdom, expelling the armies of Diocletian, Constantine prepared to cross the seas to the continent. During this time of the protectorate, Diocletian and Maximianian continued their destruction of Christian lives there. Meanwhile, many Roman refugees, fleeing Maxentius’s tyranny in Rome and other imperial cities across Gaul, began to arrive in York, where Constantine received them with honour. As their numbers grew, they stirred him up into hatred of the tyrant who had deprived them of their homes, estates, and families. They made speeches imploring him to act on their behalf:

“How long, O Constantine, wilt thou endure this our calamity and exile? Wherefore delayest thou to restore us to our native land? Thou art the only one of our blood strong enough to give us back that which we have lost and to drive Maxentius forth. For what prince is there who may be compared unto the King of Britain, whether it be in the valour of his hardy soldiers or the plenty of his gold and silver? We do adjure thee, give us back our possessions, our wives and children, by emprising an expedition to Rome with thine army and ourselves.”

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Histories, V, Chapter VII (1912 edn.)

Geoffrey wrote that, provoked by these words and others, Constantine massed a powerful army in Britain and went via Gaul (southern Germany today) to Rome, taking with him the three uncles of Helena. The two armies clashed on the banks of the Tiber, where the Romano-Britons won an overwhelming victory under his generalship. Maximian was completely routed, and the persecution was brought to an immediate end. After deposing Maximian and becoming emperor, he raised his uncles to the rank of Senators.

Officially acclaimed by the Senate and the citizens of Rome, he also became Emperor of Gaul and Spain by hereditary right. Including Britain, this was the greatest territorial dominion ruled over by one emperor. His first act as Emperor of Rome was to declare it Christian in religion, ending persecution within the Empire (c. 312).

Christ was depicted in association with the Sun god by Constantine. Source: Dowley.

So, just when it seemed as though Christianity on the Continent had been crushed by the Diocletian persecution, it was a Romano-British consul, Constantine, who, with an army of Christian British warriors, crossed the seas and smashed the imperial armies with a defeat so catastrophic that they never rose again. That Western victory ended the persecution of Christianity within the empire. The Roman Empire became nominally tolerant of Christianity under Constantine in c. 350 AD, but it was not until the later seventh century that Papal supremacy was recognised across Western Europe.

On the continent, the Empress Helen is also given credit for the founding of the first cathedral at Tréves (Trier), then the capital of Belgic Gaul. Due to this association, the city had closer contact with the early British monarchs than any other on the continent before the Norman Conquest. The practice of making church dedications to women, other than to Mary, the mother of Jesus, did not begin until the twelfth century. But the church of St Helen was erected to her glory several hundred years before that practice, when she was also proclaimed as a saint. After the death of her husband at York in AD 306, Helen continued to reign as Empress together with her son before she died in AD 336, aged seventy-one, in Constantinople.

Source: Dowley

Later in the fourth century, the Emperor Maximus Magnus (the legendary ‘Macsen Wledig’ of the Mabinogion, the eleven Old Welsh stories written down in circa 1300-25) overran the continental empire in AD 387 from Galicia with his British army before withdrawing into Gaul, where they settled in Brittany. According to Hewin’s Royal Saints of Britain

The Emperor Maximus Magnus or ‘Maxen Wledig’ was a Roman-Spaniard related to the Emperor Theodosius, and of the family of Constantine the Great, and British royal descent on his mother’s side.

Although Macsen was Spanish-born (in Celtic-speaking Galicia), he served with Theodosius in the British wars and rose to high military command in Britain. In 383, he invaded Gaul to oust Gratian, the Roman emperor of that time, and after Gratian’s assassination and the flight of Valentinian, became master of Italy, but was himself put to death in 388 by Theodosius. The excursion of Elén’s brothers to Rome is historically inaccurate, but the story shows a strong, nostalgic interest in the old Roman grandeur, and the (exaggerated) contribution to it of British fighting men.

The Age of Christian Expansion:

Source: Dowley (ed.)

It was not until the beginning of the fifth century that native Christianity in the British Isles, having recovered sufficiently from the Roman persecutions, re-established itself to the extent that the Patriarch of Constantinople was able to remark:

The British Isles have received the virtue of the Word. Churches are there found and altars erected. … Though thou shouldst go to the ocean, to the British Isles, there thou shouldst hear all men everywhere discoursing matters out of Scriptures, with another voice indeed, but not another faith, with a different tongue, but the same judgment.

Chrysostom, Sermo De Utilitate, AD 402.

The renowned Cymric bard, Taliesin, writing in AD 500-540, one of post-Roman Britain’s greatest scholars and an archdruid, declared that though the gospel teaching was new to India and Asia, it had always, from the beginning, been known in Celtic Britain. He wrote:

Christ, the Word from the beginning, was from the first our teacher, and we never lost His teachings. Christianity was a new thing in Asia, but there never was a time when the Druids of Britain did not hold its Doctrines.

Söurce: Dowley

As we have seen, Christianity in Britain, in its first three centuries at least, was a flower planted and flourishing in the soil laid by the Druids. This could be seen in both the practice and the basic principles of the new religion. The Druidic economic law of the law of righteousness and distributive justice, based on the practice of tithing. The Druidic natural law was exactly the same as the Judao-Christian law of righteousness, enabling the merging of Druidic and Christian principles of faith. For its first millennium, this practice was so embedded in the minds of the faithful that it was normally carried on throughout the Golden Era of the church in Britain. The magnificent gifts of the British kings to the church were simply an enlargement of the tithe on their part. The Queen Empress Helen and her son, Constantine the Great, were probably the greatest contributors to the Roman-British church. For their subjects, the Harvest Festival or Thanksgiving was the time when they brought their gifts from the field to the church. Following the Golden Era, circa AD 600, the time of the conversions of the Anglo-Saxons, the tithe began to lose some of its original substance, a development which was intensified by the effect of the Viking raids and incursions of the eighth and ninth centuries. In 854, King Aethelwulf issued a Royal Charter which recognised the tithe as a national institution, representing:

The tenth part of the land of the Kingdom to God’s praise and His eternal welfare.”

The deed was written at Winchester, and the Charter was placed on the Cathedral altar in the presence of Archbishop Swithun and the Witangamot (The Council of Aeldermen), where it was consecrated to the service of Christ. This effectively established the church as the national church of England. The apostolic claim of the Church of Rome is unsupported in historical terms. Peter was never addressed as Bishop of Rome by St Paul, any of the Apostles or the early Bishops of the Church. Neither did he make any claim to the title, that of Archbishop or Pope. Clement was the first to be named as Bishop of Rome. In the British succession, Gregory the Great, who sent Augustine to England, rejected the title of Pope, and it was only ascribed to him posthumously by various church chroniclers. Gregory simply claimed to be ‘first among equals’.

The earthly leader of the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth centuries was known as the Bishop of Rome. It was only in the year AD 610 that the title of Pope, meaning universal pontiff, was created by the Emperor Phocas because the Bishop of Constantinople had excommunicated him for having plotted the execution of his predecessor. Even then, the title was not universally recognised until the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, under the leadership of the Emperor of Germany, Otto I. Although the bishops of the Kingdom of Northumbria accepted the Roman rites and calendar at the Synod of Whitby in 664, the Kingdom of England did not come into being until the reign of Eadgar in the second half of the tenth century, and the English Church was not fully subject to Rome until the Norman Conquest, a century later.

The Return to Glastonbury:

The View of the Tor from across the Levels, from along the drainage rhines. Source: Susan Hill (see below).

Returning to Glastonbury, many are still intrigued by the mystery of the original cup used at the Last Supper, which, according to some ancient records, was preserved. The answer may lie in the ancient British tradition, which associates the original cup with Joseph of Arimathea at Avalon. With the Edicts of Tiberius and Claudius making it a capital offence for anyone to embrace the teachings of The Way, and calling for the destruction of anything related to the Christian cause, the Apostles would have wished to place any sacred object where it could be kept safe. The ancient British tradition was that the sacred Cup was in Joseph’s possession when he first arrived at Avalon with the Judean refugees, and when the first persecution of Christians in Britain began after the Claudian conquest of AD 43. The tradition was that Joseph buried it secretly, though perhaps after consulting with a few other members of the group. If there is any merit in this persistent age-old tradition, the original Cup was buried on or near what is now known as Chalice Hill.

Source: Dowley.

Few of the widespread ruins brought about by Henry VIII’s Dissolution of the Monasteries of 1539 produce such a pang as do those of Glastonbury, whether because the surviving parts of the Lady Chapel and St Joseph’s Chapel help us to realise what a great work of art was destroyed, or because the whole site is associated with the dreadful narrative of its brutal destruction, the martyrdom of its abbot and the expulsion of its monks. Excavations have revealed traces of the original Celtic monastic settlement, first documented in 658. Tradition maintains that St. Patrick, St. Brigid, and St. David all visited the monastery. Refounded by Æthelwulf of Wessex, the abbey began its great period in 940 under the energetic abbot Dunstan, later Archbishop of Canterbury. None of the Celtic or Anglo-Saxon remains are visible, though we know that Eadmund Ironside, the last King of Wessex, and last legitimate Saxon king of England, was buried there in 1016. What we see now, however, are the remains of the great church built after the fire of 1181, largely in the Transitional and Early English styles. There is the Abbot’s kitchen, and a descendant of Joseph’s original hawthorn, seeming to confirm the legend that it blooms at Christmastide.

The Chalice Well, a spring of great antiquity, had its modern cover design influenced by the Celtic revival. Source: Anderson & Hicks.

A typical pattern for pilgrims and visitors is to visit the abbey ruins first, then proceed to the Chalice Well, in the terraced garden at the foot of the Tor, before climbing up. The Well is lined with ancient stonework worked in a way which prompted the suggestion that it was built by Egyptian traders. From the earliest Christian times, the hill and the well have been known by the particular name they still bear, though the well is also often referred to as the Holy Well, like others surviving from Celtic Christian times (in Wales, there is a well-known site of pilgrimage in the town of Holywell). Reputedly, the waters of the well were used to baptise King Lucius and countless other notable early converts to the faith. The water flows out from springs on the hill to form the well, and it is supposed that this was where Joseph buried the Cup. This tradition was firmly believed for over a thousand years, and formed the basis for the thirteenth-century Arthurian tales of the search of the Knights of the Round Table for the Holy Grail. The many poems, songs and stories that have abounded from medieval to modern times were immortalised by Tennyson in the following verse:

‘The Cup, the cup itself from which our Lord

drank at the last sad supper with His own;

This from the blessed land of Amamat,

After the day of darkness, when the dead

went wandering over Moriah – the good Saint,

Arimathean Joseph, brought to Glastonbury.

Source: Dowley

A ‘grail’ in Old English is a serving dish, a ‘cruet’, more like a small jar (‘egg-cup size’) than a large ‘chalice’, and ancient records describe two of them being brought to Glastonbury and being buried with Joseph in a niche carved into his stone coffin. They contained the blood and sweat of Jesus, presumably collected by Joseph during the burial of Jesus, and were held in highest reverence by the Abbey throughout its existence. The Grail story was made famous by Chrétien de Troyes, and was also recorded in a thirteenth-century Shropshire legend and resurfaces with a Victorian antiquarian, Thomas Wright, who left clues as to the whereabouts of the Grail in the west window of a village church. In the base of one of the statues removed from the church, a small jar was discovered, which the British Museum decided was a first-century Roman scent jar.

As Tom Holland (in his popular book, The Rest is History, 2023) has pointed out, the support for Arthur’s actual existence is flimsy. ‘Y Gododdin’, an Old Welsh poem composed around AD 600, praises the feats of a Welsh-speaking, Roman-fort-bashing, Edinburgh-dwelling warlord, while admitting that ‘he was not Arthur’. However, this poem was written down in the ninth century, and the earliest surviving manuscript comes from the thirteenth century. Slightly more promisingly, Nennius, a ninth-century Welsh monk, gave a list of twelve battles supposedly won by Arthur, culminating in the Battle of Badon Hill (a hill outside Bath). However, Gildas, the sixth-century monk, mentioned the same battle against the Saxons, but didn’t associate it with Arthur. However, he could still have been a mythical figure, and while no one has proved his existence, neither has anyone comprehensively disproved it, thus ‘busting’ the myth by destroying the legend. Intriguingly, Arthur’s story also runs contrary to euhemerism, the way that mortal kings from the distant past often become elevated over time to the status of gods. Arthur, by contrast, is a folklore figure who has become attached to a specific historical narrative.

We know that the pagan Anglo-Saxons became dominant over the lowlands of the former province of Britannia, while the Romanised, Christian Welsh were pushed into the upland fringes. Arthur, therefore, became a Welsh folk hero, his status magnified by a prophecy that he would come again to reverse their humiliation. Arthur rapidly became a hero of all things to all kings. He provided a useful ‘template’ to the Normans and Angevins wanting to subdue the outlying regions of their empire. During the reign of Edward I (1272-1307), the conqueror of Wales as well as the hammer of the Scots, Arthur’s tomb was conveniently discovered in Glastonbury, evidence that he would not rise again, any more than would the Scots’ warrior-hero by the name of ‘Walleas’. By the time of the Tudors, the Arthurian myth had become an international brand, even after Henry VII’s elder son, Arthur, Prince of Wales, died in 1502, aged fifteen.

The story of the search for the Holy Grail by the Knights of the Round Table carries a double meaning, blending the narratives of Joseph of Arimathea and Arthur. It is generally believed that the ‘Quest for the Grail’ was for the cup of the Last Supper, which Joseph is claimed to have concealed on Chalice Hill. On the other hand, the word ‘Grail’ in Old English means ‘elements’, which some writers indicate meant the lost ‘cruets’ or ‘vials’. These were placed within Joseph’s sarcophagus of Joseph at his death and buried with him. The word ‘Grail’ was also employed to mean a container, a chalice or a cup, which might better indicate that the search of King Arthur’s knights was directed to find the Cup or Chalice used by Jesus in the Upper Room on the night before the crucifixion, and not the vials used for his burial. Mention of the Cup was naturally shrouded in secrecy following the record of its concealment at Glastonbury, but the cruets persist so strongly through the rituals of the early church, and their association with Joseph, that there is no doubt that they represent an important memorial of Josephan mission at Glastonbury.

A sixteenth-century poem, The Lyfe of Joseph of Arimathea, probably written by a monk from Glastonbury, began to tone down the stories about Joseph and the Grail. The poet does seek to confirm, however, that Joseph had brought Christianity to Britain:

Then hyther into britayne Ioseph did come,

And this was by kyng Averagus dayes;

So dyd Ioseph and also Iosephas his sonne,

With many one mo, as the old bloke says.

This kynge was hethen and lyved on fals layes,

And yet he gave to Ioseph av(i)lonye,

There Ioseph lyved with other hermyttes twelfe,

That were the chyfe of all the company,

But Ioseph was the chefe hym-selfe;

There led they an holy lyfe and gostely.

Quoted by Susan Hill.

Joseph had come with the blood of Jesus from the wound in Christ’s side, contained in the vials he concealed at Glastonbury; thys blode in two cruettes Joseph did take. Significantly, there was no mention of a Holy Grail in the form of a Chalice. If the stories had run away with themselves, this did nothing to diminish the power of the place to inspire its pilgrims, whatever their denomination. In John Cowper Powys’ story, A Glastonbury Romance, three local ‘worthies’ discuss the legacy of Glastonbury:

“Well, of course, to our old-fashioned Protestant ancestors, Glastonbury must have reeked with what you call ‘superstition’ Three famous Saxon kings are buried here. … All the Holy Grail legends gather to a head here. The Druids played a great part here, and long before the Druids, there was a Lake Village… whose mounds you can still see in the fields. Ancient Britons who probably was… But I expect the deepest-rooted suspicion here, if you could compel Glastonbury Tor to speak, would turn out to be the religion of the people who lived before the Ancient Britons… At any rate, we have some excuse for being ‘superstitious’ in these parts. Don’t you think so, Miss Drew?”

“I think you are very kind, dear Vicar, to answer Mr Crow’s question at all,” said the old lady severely. “For myself, I would answer it rather differently. I would assure him that what he calls superstition, WE call the Only True Faith.”

Quoted by Susan Hill.

Ascending to the summit of the Tor, we come to the place of execution of Richard Whiting, the last abbot of Glastonbury, declared to be a traitor in 1539 by Henry VIII. There is a sense of being taken up above the world, above the intense blue colours of the Somerset levels. It seems mystically connected with the dedication of the church to the Archangel Michael, the vanquisher of evil. Another Arthurian site visible from the Tor is the hillfort of South Cadbury, traditionally said to be the site of King Arthur’s Camelot. He and the legends surrounding his knights and his court are seen through the screen of later medieval chivalric society. However, it was at Winchester that the Round Table was ‘discovered’, repainted and restored by Henry VIII, placing himself at the ‘top’ of it to impress Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, whom he hoped to succeed.

The view across Somerset from South Cadbury hillfort. Source: Anderson & Hicks.

The Arthur of South Cadbury defeated the Saxons at the great battle of Mons Badonicus (Badon Hill, near Bath) in circa 494-516, possibly on the site of Liddington Castle in modern-day Wiltshire. The ‘real’ Arthur must have been far more provincial than the later hero, but he would seem to have led the resistance to the Anglo-Saxon advance and thereby helped to save Christian Romano-British culture from extinction. The Romano-British, holding a line stretching from Cornwall to Strathclyde from the fifth to the mid-sixth century, a period that became known as the Age of the Saints.

The real, authentic ‘Glastonbury’, then, is a La Téne period lake village site. The remains of the abbey, the Tor, and the Chalice Well, with their early Christian and Arthurian associations, place Glastonbury in prime position among the holy sites of Britain. Over centuries, it has provided a place of refuge and a source of spiritual refreshment to people of many different backgrounds and, therefore, a place that is synonymous with diversity, toleration and inclusiveness. It’s therefore a great shame that the so-called ‘Glastonbury Festival’ held on a field near the town in July every year, decided this year to allow one of its stages to be occupied by a group broadcasting (with the help of the BBC) ‘Jew-hate’ and encouraging violence. But then, as Holland notes, the monks of Glastonbury weren’t the last ‘company’ to discover that Arthur sells tickets. Part of the allure of the current Festival is that it takes place at a site which may have been linked to the Isle of Avalon, and still has the mud to prove it. Let’s hope that the true ‘Spirit of Glastonbury’ will return next year. After all, its essence is the story of Arthur, according to Malory, Rex quondam rexque futurus – ‘the once and future king’ who will return to restore peace and justice to his kingdom.

Sources:

George F. Jowett (1961), The Drama of the Lost Disciples. London: Covenant Publishing.

Tim Dowley (ed.) (1977), The History of Christianity. Berkhamsted: Lion Publishing.

William Anderson, Clive Hicks (1983), Holy Places of the British Isles: A Guide to the Legendary and Sacred Sites of the British Isles. London: Ebury Press.

Susan Hill (1994), The Spirit of Britain: An Illustrated Guide to Literary Britain. London: Headline Book Publishing (Hodder).

Tom Wright (2018), Paul: A Biography. London: SPCK.

Appendix: Aidan & The Venerable Bede:

Source: Dowley
Source: Dowley

The Bloodied Sword, the Precious Pearl and the Black Cross; Chronicles of the Royal House of Wessex – VI

Episode Six: End of Dynasty – Exit the Cerdicingas, Enter the Angevins:

Scene Sixty-four; October 1173 – The Battle of Fornham, Bury St Edmunds and the Revolt of 1173-74:

By the early 1170s, the king had already decided that, after his death, his dominions should be partitioned between his three eldest sons. Young Henry was to have Anjou, Normandy and England; Richard was to have Aquitaine, and Geoffrey was to have Brittany. However, in April 1173, a revolt began against King Henry’s efforts to find lands for his youngest legitimate son, Prince John. The Revolt occurred as a result, in part at least, of Henry II’s decision to offer three castles to John as part of an inheritance to secure his son’s marriage to the daughter of the Count of Maurienne. This undermined the claim of Henry the Young, the king’s eldest legitimate son, as the three castles chosen were on land that would have formed part of his inheritance. The fallout of this decision led to Henry’s three elder sons, Henry, Richard, and Geoffrey, withdrawing to the court of the French king and raising a rebellion against their father. Louis was Henry the Young’s father-in-law, and he encouraged the rebellion along with other nobles who would profit from a transfer of power to the would-be usurper. The brothers were also aided by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry II’s estranged wife, who joined the cause along with many others who had been horrified by the King’s possible complicity in the martyrdom of Archbishop Becket in 1170.

The rebellious sons and King Louis secured several allies and invaded Normandy, and the Scottish king invaded England. The invasions failed, and negotiations between the rebels and King Henry were started, but they did not result in peace until William the Lion agreed to a truce, which enabled Richard de Lucy and Humphrey de Bohun to hurry south to confront the invaders from Flanders. Robert de Beaumont (Blanchmains, ‘Whitehands’), third Earl of Leicester, had raised an army of three thousand Flemings against King Henry in support of his elder sons. After landing at Walton in Suffolk in late September and a failed attack on Dunwich, he marched his troops to Framlingham Castle, where Hugh Bigod welcomed them. After some inconclusive skirmishing, Robert decided to lead his men to his base at Leicester, but was prevented from doing so by royalist forces. His base came under attack from them, and needed reinforcement, but there was also some friction between de Beaumont and Bigod.

Mustering more troops and fortified by the sacking of Haughley Castle, they marched on to Bury. They were met at the village of Fornham All Saints by the King’s forces, soldiers who were bloodied and victorious over the Scots, led by Humphrey de Bohun, Lord High Constable, and Richard de Lucy, the Chief Justiciar. These forces also included three hundred mounted knights led by Roger Bigod, the son of the Earl of Norfolk, who, in opposition to his father, had remained loyal to the king. Along with those knights, the royal forces also had local levies and military retinues of the Earls of Gloucester, Arundel and Cornwall. They were also joined by the knights of the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds.  

The battle was fought on 17th October 1173, the rebel forces of three thousand being led by Robert de Beaumont. They were caught fording the River Lark near the three neighbouring villages of Fornham St Genevieve, All Saints and St Martin, four miles north of Bury St Edmunds. The royalist barons intercepted Leicester’s army and brought out their forces in array against his troops. The Abbot’s forces were led by the banner of St Edmund the Martyr, carried by Roger Bigod. The Justiciar’s forces were already outside Bury St Edmunds, preventing Leicester’s further progress into England. The battle was sited in the valley of the River Lark near the church of St Genevieve, on the eastern side of the river. The Rebel Army, leaving Bury St Edmunds behind them, sought a river crossing, a causeway between the Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Genevieve. The King’s troops surprised Whitehands’ mercenaries, forcing them back to Fornham St Genevieve. Leicester, who reported that he could turn neither left nor right,

“saw the armed people approaching them … hauberks and helmets against the sun glinting,”

… and decided to accept battle. Many of the rebel troops were situated on marshy ground near the river, close by the church of St Genevieve. With his forces split, Leicester’s cavalry was captured, and his mercenaries were driven into nearby swamps, where the local peasants killed most of them. The river and the marshy ground accounted for many of the casualties, of whom…

“ …the greater part were killed, a certain number were drowned, a very few were taken away to undergo captivity… The prisoners of distinction were sent to the king in Normandy… but nearly the whole of the foot soldiers were killed, and many of the others were taken prisoner and put to death. … The prisoners of the low valley, King Henry disposed of according to his discretion. Many of the Flemings were killed, and many of the others taken prisoner (were) put to death.”

The battle itself was soon over, resulting in a decisive victory for the royalists. Probably over three thousand rebels were killed either in the battle or in the rout which followed along the banks of the River Lark. Thus, Whitehands’ entire force was either killed or taken prisoner, including Leicester himself and his wife, the Countess Petronilla de Grandmesnil, who had herself put on male armour. She was the great-granddaughter and heiress of Hugh de Grandmesnil, one of the proven companions of William the Conqueror, who fought at the Battle of Hastings. Jordan Fantsome, a chronicler, wrote that she fled the field, only to be found in a ditch. He credited her with dismissive remarks about the English who were fighting for the king:

“The English are great boasters, but poor fighters; they are better at quaffing great tankards and guzzling.”

She accompanied Earl Robert throughout his military campaign against the English troops under the command of the Earl of Arundel and Humphrey III de Bohun. During the final battle, Simon of Odell pulled her out of the ditch, where he claimed she was trying to drown herself, telling her:

“My lady, come away from this place, and abandon your design! War is all a question of losing and winning.”

She was reported as wearing male armour when captured, with a mail hauberk, a sword, and a shield. Earl Robert was also captured, and his holdings were confiscated. Countess Petronilla was released, but Leicester joined the other rebel leaders incarcerated at Falaise in Normandy, where he remained in captivity until 1177, when he was reinstated to his earldom and some of his lands were returned to him. He died in 1190 when returning from the crusades. Petronilla had married him in the mid-1150s and bore at least seven children, one of whom, Amice, was the mother of Simon de Montfort, the fifth Earl of Leicester.

The revolt did not end until 1174 with the capture of the King of Scots, William ‘the Lion’, at Alnwick in Cumbria. Henry II forced William to recognise his overlordship by the Treaty of Falaise (1174), and a century later, Edward I based his claim to interfere in Scottish affairs on this treaty. The Anglo-Scottish treaty was followed by the capitulation of Hugh Bigod and a general surrender at Northampton by the Earl of Derby and the remaining rebels, but the royalist victory at Fornham ended any serious threat to the security and stability of the realm.

Evidence of the Flemings’ brave final stand in St Genevieve’s church was found in the eighteenth century, when the bones of about forty of them were discovered lying head-to-head in a mound near the now ruined church. Its tower is fourteenth century, and so post-dates the battle. Despite many subsequent attempts to drain the land, the northern bank of the river shows extensive ponds and marshy stretches, indicating exactly the difficulties the fleeing Flemings would have faced.

Sixty-five, Canterbury, 1174 – The Advent of Gothic:

Despite his protestations of innocence concerning Becket’s murder, Henry made public penances. In 1174, he came to Canterbury to show his grief and to be lashed by bishops and monks present at Becket’s tomb. Later the same year, a great fire destroyed the choir of the cathedral, which had been built earlier in the century. The cathedral coffers were full enough from the offerings given to the shrine of St Thomas that the rebuilding of the choir could start almost immediately.

Canterbury Cathedral. The view westwards of the choir shows the high altar, and in the foreground, the opus alexandrinum mosaic work őn which the shrine of St Thomas stood.

The style of architecture chosen for the new choir at Canterbury, Gothic, was as important for the development of civilisation in Britain as the martyrdom of Becket was in its political and spiritual development. The style had made its first appearance in France at St-Denis, Chartres and Sens, where the first cathedral to be built wholly in the new style was begun in the 1130s. All the constructional elements – the ribbed vault, the pointed arch in the vault and the flying buttress, all of which were necessary for the development of the style, had been brought together in the high vaults in Durham, where the buttresses are nevertheless hidden by the aisle roofs.

Durham Cathedral: The interior of the nave, showing the alternation of round and shafted piers. The lozenge and chevron patterns on the round piers are both designs of great antiquity.

Durham: The Galilee or Lady Chapel of the cathedral, built in the Transitional style c. 1170, contains (right) the tomb of the Venerable Bede.

The Cistercians seized on the style for their later churches: For example, Kirkstall outside Leeds, containing many Gothic features from about 1150. The prestige of Canterbury as the primatial see of England and the shrine of a recent martyr ensured that the Gothic would, in the various stages of its development, be the style of church architecture for the next four hundred years in the British Isles, not just for great cathedrals and abbey churches, but also for the humbler parish churches. In the sculpture of the Gothic artists, there seemed to be a new visual presentation of the Christian idea of the worth of the individual soul. Stained-glass windows were made possible by the high vaulting and flying buttresses, employing sunlight and glass to depict Bible stories and the miracles of the saints, including St Thomas in one of the new windows in Canterbury Cathedral.

Canterbury: A miracle performed by St Thomas Becket is portrayed in one of the thirteenth-century stained-glass windows.

Scotland’s greatest surviving Gothic building was the cathedral of St Mungo in Glasgow. It was founded by David I in 1136 on the site of a cemetery that two hundred years earlier had been consecrated by St Ninian. The building was destroyed by fire and rebuilt in 1197. At St David’s in Wales, the interior of the nave was built under Bishop Leia between 1180 and 1198, and the building is an anthology of all the styles of all the styles from the Romanesque and Transitional to Tudor. The stone is a violet coloured sandstone quarried locally. Though built after the choir in Canterbury, it is still strongly Romanesque in style, but with pointed arches in the Gothic style. In the Middle Ages, two pilgrimages to St David’s were considered the equal of one to Rome.       

Sixty-six: Chinon, July 1189; End of Reign – The Death and Legacy of Henry Plantagenet:

By the time of Becket’s martyrdom, the king had already decided that, after his death, his dominions should be partitioned between his three eldest sons. Young Henry was to have Anjou, Normandy and England; Richard was to have Aquitaine, and Geoffrey was to have Brittany. Later, in 1185, John was granted his father’s other major acquisition, Ireland. The death of young King Henry in 1183 and Geoffrey in 1186 should have eased Henry’s dynastic difficulties, but Richard was alarmed by his father’s obvious favouritism towards John. An alliance between Richard and King Philip II led to Henry’s defeat, and he died at Chinon in July 1189. Although his interest in rational reform has led to him being regarded as the founder of the English common law and a great, creative king, in his own eyes, these were matters of secondary importance. To him, personally, what mattered most were dynastic politics, and he died believing that in this, he had failed despite the successes of the previous thirty years.  

But following his act of penance at the cathedral, Henry II ruled England for another fifteen years, long enough to see his embryonic legal system grow into a network of courts. Up and down the land, these new courts were to settle not just the usual disputes of blood and mayhem, but all manner of painful rows over inheritances, estates and property. Most importantly, Henry II revived and reorganised his grandfather’s Curia Regis and developed the justice system by sending itinerant justices around the country. These judges followed the laws which applied to the whole country instead of local customs, and so improved on the old methods of trying a case. They invited witnesses to help settle disputes, and tried criminals presented to them by local groups of men who were responsible for finding offenders. Justice in the King’s Court was better than that of the baron’s court or the shire court; the use of trial by jury was an improvement on the Saxon method of trial by ordeal or the Norman method of trial by battle. By the end of his reign, England was so well organised as a kingdom that even in the absence of Richard I (1189-99) on the Crusades, order was maintained. 

The death of young King Henry, officially the next king of England, in 1183, and Geoffrey in 1186, should have eased Henry’s dynastic difficulties, but Richard, Coeur de Lion, the Lionheart, physically brave, chivalrous and brutally ambitious, was alarmed by his father’s obvious favouritism towards John. He was the youngest, vindictive, self-serving, but undoubtedly clever. Henry saw in him the only one capable of governing well. Eleanor pinned her hopes on Richard and encouraged an alliance between Richard and her husband’s bitterest enemy, the French King, Philip II, which led to Henry’s defeat in battle, and he died at Chinon in July 1189. Although Henry’s interest in rational reform has led to him being regarded as the founder of the English common law and a great, creative king, in his own eyes, these were matters of secondary importance. To him, personally, what mattered most were dynastic politics, and he died believing that in this, and through all the quarrels that beset his family, he had ultimately failed despite the successes of the first thirty years of his reign in England.

Henry II was certainly one of the outstanding rulers of the Middle Ages in Europe. He not only possessed vast lands in France, but he also pacified the principalities and marches of Wales, and drove mercenary soldiers from England, as well as pulling down the castles unlawfully built by over-mighty barons in Stephen’s reign. He also became lord of part of Ireland, which, in 1185, he granted to Prince John. He was determined to make the king’s power so strong that the barons could no longer disturb the peace of the land. By his system of scutage, he allowed the barons to give money instead of military service, a plan which enabled the king to hire soldiers on whom he could depend, and at the same time weakened the barons, who no longer trained so many knights. He also reorganised the Saxon fyrds and prevented the barons from becoming sheriffs in the counties in which they held their lands.

Epilogue I – The Green Tree and the Holy Rood:

The Green Tree of Edward the Confessor’s deathbed dream was seen by contemporary chroniclers as a prophetic vision of the kingdom traumatised by the Conquest. Its restoration should have come by the 1170s, but the tree had not been fully restored to its former self and much of it was barely recognisable, for a wholly new stock had been grafted onto the severed trunk. England’s aristocracy, its attitudes and its architecture had all been transformed by the coming of the Normans. The body of the tree, too, had been twisted into new forms. The laws of the kingdom, its language, its customs, and institutions were clearly not the same as they had been before. Even so, anyone looking at these new forms could see in a second that their origins were English. By the 1170s, English had clearly become the language spoken by all classes in England, whatever their ancestry. Intermarriage had blurred the lines of national identity. Yet it was still clear that the unfree peasants were English and that the upper echelons of the aristocracy who still held lands in Normandy were French. But although the English landscape was studded with Norman castles, it was still a land of shires, hundreds, hides, and boroughs. The branches were new, but the roots remained ancient. The tree had survived the trauma by becoming a hybrid. Against all expectations, its sap was once again rising.   

When Edward I invaded Scotland in 1297-98, he seized Agatha’s black cross, falsely claiming it as one of the English crown jewels and took it into England. Robert the Bruce so vehemently demanded its restoration that Queen Isabella yielded it up on the pacification during her regency in 1327. The following year, Edward III signed the Treaty of Northampton, recognising Robert Bruce as the King of an independent Scotland. But the symbols of the House of Wessex were to play one further role in the formation of the medieval kingdoms of England and Scotland. David I (1124-53) established Norman barons on both sides of the border and introduced Norman feudal customs to Scotland, besides building abbeys and castles. When the House of Dunkeld died out following the death of Alexander III (1249-86), Edward declared that he had the right to decide on the successor.

Edward ‘Longshanks’ (as he was known to the Scots) chose John Balliol, whom he expected to obey him as if he were an English baron. When Balliol refused this, Edward invaded and defeated him at Dunbar in 1296. He then dethroned Balliol and governed Scotland as if it were a vassal state of England. Under William Wallace, the Scots fought back, taking Stirling Castle in 1297. However, after his victory at Falkirk the following year, Edward seized on Ágota’s black cross, falsely claiming it as one of the English crown jewels, and took it into England. The Scots regained their independence in 1314 following the Battle of Bannockburn, and Robert the Bruce, their new leader, so vehemently demanded the restoration of the Black Cross that Queen Isabella yielded it up on the pacification during her regency in 1327. The following year, Edward III signed the Treaty of Northampton, recognising Robert Bruce as the King of an independent Scotland.

Rievaulx, North Yorkshire. A view from the north aisle of the thirteenth-century choir, looking towards the south transept.

According to Bishop Turgot, drawing on the Bollandists (vol. xxi, p. 335), the seventeenth-century Jesuit order that collected objects and information relating to the lives of the saints, the Black Cross was enclosed in a black case, whence it was called the Black Cross. The cross itself was of gold and set with large diamonds. Aelred of Riveaux described it as about an ell long (= a cubit, the combined length of the forearm from the ‘elbow’ to the middle finger-tip of the extended hand, the Scottish ‘ell’ being 37 ins or 94 cm),

‘… manufactured in pure gold, of most wonderful workmanship, and may be shut and opened like a chest. Inside is seen a portion of our Lord’s Cross (as has often been proved by convincing miracles), having a figure of our Saviour sculptured out of massive ivory, and marvellously adorned with gold. Queen Margaret had brought this with her to Scotland, and handed it down as an heirloom to her sons; and the youngest of them, David, when he became king, built a magnificent church for it near the city, called Holy-Rood.’  

A section of Gisela’s black cross, brought to Britain by Ágota, wife of Edward the Exile and mother of St Margaret of Scotland.

All this was the result of David’s continued development of the Norman methods begun by his parents, together with those he had learnt at the court of Henry I of England and Matilda of Scotland. Besides the new monastic foundations, his appointment of Anglo-French bishops further strengthened Scotland’s independent links with the continent. Above all, the Norman military machine of knights and castles, the use of sheriffs and the expansion of trade served as the basis for the expansion of royal power and a strong Scottish economy in the thirteenth century.

In the early modern period, lowland Scots tended to trace the origins of their culture to the marriage of Malcolm II to Margaret of Wessex. David left a Scotland which, though more ethnically diverse than England and Wales, was more united, with a series of able monarchs who continued to improve its administrative and military mechanisms. Following David’s example, they relied on the support of the Church in the formation of states, rather than on ethnic homogeneity. Though the authority of kings over much of their kingdom, especially Galloway, the Highlands and the Isles, was limited, the fertile central belt was under secure control.

Epilogue II: Romancing the British Monarchies – An Empire from the Pennines to the Pyrenees:

William I, William II, Henry I (bottom left) and Stephen (right) – the Norman dynasty; from a fourteenth-century manuscript.

The actual empire of Henry I had consisted mainly of England, Normandy, Wales and Brittany. The actual empire of Henry II extended, in a contemporary yet historic phrase, from the Pennines to the Pyrenees. When he came to the throne of England, adding the dominions held by Stephen, Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine, it seemed that the dynastic dream could be accomplished within his reign. The dominant idea of the Plantagenet Henry II’s reign was to gradually extend the frontiers of the Anglo-Cymric-Norman-Breton empire until the descendants of the Conqueror of England would become the emperors of Christendom. It was the lack of cohesion between the various constituent parts of the empire which was the greatest peril to that dream. Lucy Allen Paton wrote in her 1911 introduction to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Histories of the Kings of Britain,

If only Norman and Englishman, Welshman and Breton, could be induced to work together in the common interest of the Empire, there was no limit to the potentialities of its future greatness. The restoration of an Empire mightier and broader than that of Charlemagne, nay, even that of Augustus, was no impossibility, but a practical aim, towards the attainment of which all the resources known to the statecraft of the time should be directed.

… Geoffrey… was inspired by Henry… Henry, indeed, was no Augustus, and Geoffrey was far enough from being a Virgil, but in this respect the relations between the Roman emperor and the Mantuan poet were strictly analogous to those existing between the Norman king and the Welsh romancer.

To Sebastian Evans, as translator, Geoffrey’s book was an epic that failed, for it was to have been the national epic of an empire that failed. When, in the next generation, King John lost Normandy and most of France in the early years of the thirteenth century, the Angevin empire came to an abrupt end in western Europe. Arthur, the romantic creation of Geoffrey, who was set to have been the traditional hero of the Anglo-Norman-British nucleus of that western empire, became a detached national hero, a purely literary, mythological figure to the early modern British who had forgotten the short-lived empire that had created him.                

For Lucy Allen-Paton as well, the Historia is not a chronicle or a history, but a romance based on early British histories, combining his historical, legendary and mythological material with interest and ingenuity. Geoffrey raised a national hero, Arthur of the Britons, already the centre of myth and legend, to the rank of an imperial monarch, substituting for early British stories and customs those of Anglo-Norman England. In doing so, he provided a model of knightly and kingly custom and practice and a dignified place in literature to popular national narrative, determining the form of the romantic chronicle for many centuries to come.

Glastonbury: The ruins of the thirteenth-century crossing of the abbey church, with, on the left, part of the nave.

Glastonbury in Somerset had long been associated with the legendary Arthur and Guinevere, and it came to be identified as the Isle of Avalon (Ynys yr Afal in Welsh, ‘the Isle of the Apple’) to which Arthur was borne by three black-robed queens after his last battle with Mordred. This association of Glastonbury with Arthur may have been why Eadmund Ironside was buried there, not at Winchester, in 1016. It later received a great boost in 1191 when a monk of the abbey, inspired by a vision, claimed to have discovered the coffin of the legendary king and queen. The coffin was said to have been inscribed with the words: Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the island of Avalon. When it was opened, it was found to contain the skeletons of the royal couple. The blonde tresses of Guinevere’s hair were said to be intact and still shining golden, though they crumbled to dust in the hand of the monk. This was clearly an invented story, not least because Arthur, the Welsh guerilla leader, had not gained widespread fame by the early sixth century, when he was supposed to have lived and died.

Glastonbury Tor, Somerset. A natural mound carved with a spiritual path of ascent around it, which some have said was a ritual path of initiation going back to the Bronze Age. On top of the mound is the fifteenth-century tower of St Michael’s Church.

Another ‘Arthurian’ site visible from the ‘Tor’ at Glastonbury is the hillfort of South Cadbury, traditionally associated with Arthur’s Camelot. It is an Iron Age fort reoccupied and fortified not only in the Brythonic period but also in later Anglo-Saxon times. The sites associated with the legendary Arthur range from Tintagel in Cornwall, an important Celtic monastery, to Arthur’s Seat in Edinburgh. Whatever we may make of such stories and associations, their attractiveness in the late twelfth century is testimony to the continuing popularity of the Arthurian literature and legendarium of the time. They derive from traditions and beliefs going far back into the pre-Christian era, seen through the screen of medieval chivalric society. The Arthur of South Cadbury, who defeated the advancing pagan Saxons at the great battle of Mons Badonicus sometime between 494 and 515, fought somewhere between Bath and Swindon, must, by nature of the topographical and archaeological evidence, have been more parochial and provincial in his outlook. Nevertheless, by the beginning of the Plantagenet period, he would seem to have become a figure symbolising the defence of Christian civilisation and the establishment of kingly rule based on justice and compassion.  

South Cadbury, Somerset. A view showing a rampart of the Iron Age hillfort, a site containing a Celtic temple with ritual pits. Traditionally the site of Arthur’s Camelot, South Cadbury was refortified in late Roman times and at the start of the Dark Ages.

Despite these heroic allusions, however, the down-to-earth chronicler William of Newburgh, writing in about 1200, after the king died in 1189, noted of Henry II that he was unpopular with almost all men in his days. This may have had something to do with his infamous early conflict with the Church, but it may also have been because, although he was king for thirty-four years, he was also Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou; he therefore spent only thirteen of them in England. He held more lands in France than its king, while England’s wealth enabled him to outshine the German emperor. Through marriage, inheritance, diplomacy, and occasionally war, Henry II built up a huge domain, and he extended his sovereignty to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to much of Wales.

The seal of Henry II as Duke of Normandy and Count of Aquitaine. The Angevins ruled their French lands not as kings of England but as vassals of the kings of France. Seals were attached to documents as evidence of authenticity.

His marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine brought him control over most of southwest France. Combined with the Norman and Angevin inheritance, this made him the most powerful ruler in France, more so than his suzerain (feudal lord) for these French territories, Louis VII, king of France. In Britain, the Scottish frontier was settled in 1157, making Cumbria and Northumbria definitively part of England. Besides campaigning actively in Wales, making the whole of it a vassal state, Henry intervened in Ireland in 1171. Following a papal bull of 1155 from the English pope, Adrian IV, he established the new lordship of Ireland, based on Dublin, creating a large royal demesne for himself, which became known as ‘the Pale’. From this, he bound the Anglo-Norman barons and most of the native Irish kings to him.

Henry spent twenty-one years on the continent. For both him and Eleanor, England was a social and cultural backwater compared with the French parts of the Angevin dominion. The prosperous communities in the valleys of the Seine, Loire and Garonne river systems were centres of learning, art, architecture, poetry and music. Aquitaine and Anjou produced two essential commodities of medieval commerce: wine and salt. These could be exchanged for English cloth, and this trade must have brought great profit to Henry as the prince who ruled over both producers and consumers of these products. As duke of Normandy, duke of Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, Henry had inherited the claims of his predecessors to lordship over neighbouring territories. These claims led to the occupation of Brittany after 1166 and the installation of his son Geoffrey as duke. However, he failed to give his short-lived empire any institutional unity. It therefore collapsed under his sons, Richard and John. At the time of his death, in 1216, John had lost all of the Angevin lands on the continent except Gascony.

The population of north-western Europe had expanded to a point unsurpassed since the Celtic migrations of the fourth century BCE. The revival and spread of the Arthurian legends in the eleventh century, when legends, myths, and symbols from the Celtic and Romano-British past were revived and transfigured in the Renaissance of the ancient Bear God as Arthur, the Godly Christian prince, led to a growth in the self-confidence of Plantagenet England and Wales. The entire iconography of the House of Wessex, from the story of Offa’s bloodied sword to Agatha’s black cross and Edward’s Green Tree, is a forgotten thread, not just of a romantic royal chronicle, but of the British national narrative.

Whitby Abbey, North Yorkshire, at sunset.

Appendix – The Gesta Hungarorum and Central Europe in the Twelfth Century:

Across Europe, in the birthplace of the children of the House of Wessex, Hungary, the memory of the English exiles and their influence at court had faded by the mid-twelfth century, in the wake of the Crusades and the movement of the Germans, Rus and other Slavs to the East. The marauding raids of the Hungarians had ended more than a century before. But continual internal instability increased the danger of Pecheneg invasions, and the Hungarians had changed from thieves into gendarmes. Géza I (1074-77) finally reconciled the parties by accepting the Pechenegs into the country, boosting his military power against the ousted but still unsubdued former King Solomon.

The use of written documents spread in governance and administration as slowly as in ordinary legal affairs. Verbal agreements witnessed and administered by the bailiff in common lawsuits or contracts, and political decisions sanctioned by the memory of courtly memory alone, rather than by officially sealed documents, survived well into the twelfth century. A few official documents were irregularly issued by the priests of the court chapel until, in 1181, King Béla III emphasised the indispensable use of writing, leading to the rise of the chancellery. Following this example, from about 1200 private individuals soon began to have their transactions, agreements recorded at the ‘place of authentication’ –  hiteleshely – an office with notarial functions, usually at chapter houses or abbeys.

This change in the political and legal culture would have been inconceivable without increasing familiarity with Western learning through diplomatic and commercial ties, in addition to academic links. Luke, Archbishop of Esztergom after 1158, attended the studium generále in Paris as early as 1150. The rediscovery of Roman law in the twelfth century in Europe not only supplied a framework in which the complex realities of vassalage, the manorial system or urban liberties could be lucidly expressed, but also facilitated the modernisation of primitive early medieval monarchies by re-introducing abstract notions of state and subject, and of mutual rights and obligations between them.

Many of these notions appeared in some shape or form in contemporary Hungary, but there were fundamental differences in how they arose in Western Europe and Hungary. In the West, from Germany to Britain, these resulted from successive stages in a more or less organic development that lasted several centuries. In Hungary, these structures resulted to a large degree from an organised response to historical challenges; initially from legislative and political action which, due to the powerful monarchs of the House of Árpád, especially István, Ladislas I and Coloman, compelled a semi-nomadic society to observe property relations and Christian values.

In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, the fundamental class distinction in Hungarian society was still not that between the titled nobleman and the peasant serf, but between the freeman (‘liber’) and the ‘servant’ (‘szervus’). Neither of these had a legally defined, hereditary status. The ruling class was undoubtedly the aristocracy of ‘the great’ (maiores), the king’s retinue who comprised his council or ‘senate’ and were of very varied origins. Descendants of Stephen’s conforming chieftains, as well as those of foreign courtiers arriving with the rulers’ consorts – Bavarians under István, Kyívans under András, Poles under Béla, Swabians under Ladislas, Sicilian Normans under Coloman – all belonged to this most prestigious, but still non-hereditary caste. Beneath them were the jobbágy warriors of the king’s court and castles, his retinue of ecclesiastical and secular lords, and the civil ministers. However, while these strata were liber in an economic sense, their freedom of movement was restricted; the requirement of loyalty bound them to the estate of their overlord. The peasant cultivators were relegated to a servile status, though their obligations varied greatly between locations and estates of differing types (ecclesiastical, secular and royal).

In 1083, Ladislas began a campaign of canonisation, having several Polish and Hungarian divines elevated to sainthood, including Bishop Gerald (Gellért), who was martyred during the pagan uprising of 1046, and King István (Stephen) I. In this way, he also certified Hungary’s integral presence as a European Christian nation, issuing a warning to the remaining followers of pagan rites. He later gained for himself the glory he obtained for others, though he did little deserving of it. His daughter, Piroska (Irene), also became a saint of the Eastern Church. But the tenacity of pagan traditions remained firm throughout the Middle Ages and even into modern times. Making room for several waves of Pechenegs and Cumans meant that, although the pagan population underwent baptism, it did not become truly Christian for many generations. Ladislas I’s successor was his nephew, Coloman Beauclerc, whose first wife was a Sicilian Norman princess. In the first year of his reign, 1096, the challenges of the Crusaders’ armies reached Hungary one after the other, and were either defeated or sent on their way. The ten-year reign of Béla II (1131-1141) was threatened from Poland by a pretender to the Hungarian throne, Boris, who was thought to be the illegitimate son of Coloman’s second wife, Euphemia, from the new Rus principality of Suzdal.

Germany, 1179 – Emerging Dynasties.

The eighteen-year reign of Ladislas I began in 1077 after Solomon fled to a group who had taken the place of the Pechenegs, the Cumans, and perished in one of their incursory campaigns. For Ladislas, the Germans formed a more immediate threat than Rome; for this reason, he sided with the pope, although he did not submit to the feudal authority of the papacy in place of that of the Emperor, Henry IV, the brother-in-law of Solomon. The laws of Ladislas attest to both the continuity and change in Hungarian society. The legal system that evolved was very different from that of the Conquest period, based on entirely different views of private property and the value of life. The Conquerors were probably more steadfast in their morality in the ninth and tenth centuries than their eleventh-century descendants, based on the completely different values and customs they had brought with them from the steppes. The relationship between slaves and freemen in the early Middle Ages in Hungary was different among the semi-nomadic peoples of the steppes from that in post-imperial Rome. Similarly, when the feudal system appeared and gathered strength in Hungary, through the laws of Ladislas and his successors, the kind of feudalism that came into being was not the same as that established in Western Europe, nor was it like that which became institutionalised in the east.    

1180: Crusader Europe – Central and Eastern Europe.

Throughout the period as a whole, German peasant settlement expanded eastward, especially in Saxony and Brandenburg, putting pressure on the Slavic peoples. The centre of Rus activity continued to move towards the forest belt. A new principality, Suzdal, developed in this area, while further east, in 1126, Novgorod became a republic and soon extended its territory to the White Sea. In 1169, Kyív was sacked by Suzdal and the title of Grand Prince was transferred to its ruler, the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Suzdal’s capital.

Across Europe and the Near East, the Crusades demonstrated that Christendom could take the initiative: they were as important for relations with Eastern Europe, especially Byzantium, as for those with the Islamic world. Crusading activity played a crucial role at the margins of Europe, and activity against pagan peoples in the Baltic was seen in the context of Crusading. In 1147, the Wends, a Slavic people in north-west Germany, were attacked by the Danes, Saxons and Poles. But these campaigns were as much spurred on by demographic pressures as by religious zeal. In 1144, most of the County of Edessa, captured by the crusaders in 1098, was lost to the Turks. This inspired the Second Crusade, but that led only to an unsuccessful attack on Damascus in 1148. Then, in 1187, Jerusalem and most of the Crusading states were lost by the Christians after Saladin’s crushing victory at Hattin. The Crusades also inspired a novel form of monastic organisation that had political overtones: the Military Orders. The Templars and Hospitallers had troops and castles and were entrusted with defending large tracts of territory across Palestine.

The Gesta Hungarorum (c.1210) was a chivalric romance of the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin in which the adoption of Christianity was an undercurrent comparable to the knightly exploits of the chiefs from whom the contemporary noble houses were supposed to have descended. Of the orders of knighthood, the Hospitallers and the Knights Templar appeared in Hungary before the mid-twelfth century, while the Teutonic Order was invited by Andrew II in 1211 for purposes of defence and to convert the pagan Cumans. Despite the chivalric awakening, the outlook of literature and culture in general was predominantly ecclesiastic. Codices recording legends of saints, rites and monastery annuals of Benedictine abbeys constitute the bulk of this heritage. Besides the Benedictines, the representatives of the reform movement within traditional monasticism, the Cistercians and the Premonstratensians, first arrived in Hungary in the 1140s. Education was a monopoly of the Church. There were no seats of higher learning in the country, and even secondary education was only available in schools maintained by the more important chapter houses and monasteries. It was only at the most prestigious school in Veszprém that law was taught beside the liberal arts.

King Coloman’s son, the restless István II (1116-1131), fought a war in almost every year of his fifteen-year reign. During that time, Dalmatia was lost to Venice, then recovered and lost again; unsuccessful wars against neighbours, including Bohemia, Russia and Byzantium made a group of barons attempt to depose him, which he survived, but leaving no heir, he was succeeded by the blinded son of Prince Álmos, Béla II (1131-1141). The chief events of this reign were the ruthless showdown with those held responsible for his and his father’s suffering, and the defeat of the pretender Boris, who was the son of Coloman’s Russian wife expelled because of adultery, and invited to the country by the remnants of the opposition to Béla’s rule. Géza II (1141-62) was certainly powerful enough to afford, in the early 1150s, the pursuit of an aggressive foreign policy and waging a two-front war against Byzantium and Russia, while also being on hostile terms with the Holy Roman Empire. The reign of Géza’s son, Stephen III (1162-72) was a decade of conflict over the succession between him and his uncles, also crowned as Ladislas II (1162-63) and Stephen IV (1163-65) and, after both of them died, against Manuel, who had supported them. In 1169, however, Manuel’s son was born, and he supported the Hungarian prince in obtaining the throne of the country when it became vacant in 1172.

King Béla III (1172-96) overcame the resistance of the Church, whose head, Archbishop Luke, a Hungarian counterpart of Thomas Becket, took a strongly papalist stance in the renewed debate between secular and spiritual power. The Archbishop was also afraid of an Orthodox influence upon the accession of a prince brought up in Byzantium. Béla ruled over the Kingdom of Hungary at the height of its power during the Árpád period. Nevertheless, the Church jealously preserved a considerable degree of autonomy, to the extent that it became one of the chief vehicles of the development towards a system of estates.

But chroniclers were not only concerned with great powers and principalities, but also with the life history of peoples. It was hardly coincidental, though, that the youngest nation in Europe came into being and survived under Árpád’s descendants. A sweeping economic and social transformation took place in Hungary, resulting in part from the conscious intervention of the rulers and their councillors, and partly from the automatism of accommodation within Europe. With the new circumstances of ownership, rank and social strata following the disintegration of the system based on joint families and clans, the new leading classes, the ispáns and other officials, were soon dissatisfied with the privileges. Instead, because the separate and private possession of land was so important to royal supremacy, they also aimed at acquiring landed estates that would be under their permanent control. At the same time, the Hungarian serfs were still a privileged group compared to the servant class; they inherited much from the position they enjoyed as auxiliary troops in the age of the Conquest. During domestic conflicts, they supported an independent kingship, opposing foreign feudal dependency and the foreign knights on whom the claimants to the throne relied.

For a long time, the larger animals – horses and cattle – served as the most valuable resource and even as a standard of wealth among Hungarians. The minting of the coinage, which began by István I’s reign, transformed the economy and gave new impetus to the extraction of precious metals, and the role of various monopolies became stronger; commerce in salt and horses, mining, the ownership of customs stations, and income from fish ponds. The two major cities, Esztergom and Székesfehérvár, developed significantly, though the royal court itself continued to travel not just between the two capitals, but also from place to place to consume produce gathered in at some of the larger market towns. The export of horses was the sole state monopoly as regards agricultural products. The horse was also an important weapon of war at this time, and the subject of cattle export can also be found in the laws.

By the mid-twelfth century, the development of one basis for the envied wealth of medieval Hungary had begun in Transylvania and Upper Hungary: the extensive and highly profitable panning and mining of gold, silver and copper was continually re-regulated as to ownership and economic rights. At times, the nearly monopolistic position in the production and export of copper brought about enormous economic advantages for the nation, the king and the producers themselves, who were in a privileged position. It was not only the domestic growth that increased the size of the population, but also the settlers of varying ranks and orders streaming into Hungary from every direction to take advantage of its relative safety and even-handed treatment. For example, there was a large Ishmaelite Muslim population,  who were able to practice their religion in comparative freedom and were obligated to serve the king only in case of war and only then against a non-Mohammedan enemy. Though often at war over Dalmatia, Venice and Hungary concluded an agreement allowing the free movement of merchants between them, and within Hungary, only the king dared collect taxes, arousing admiration from other European rulers.

The growth of urban communities with self-government in Hungary was largely a matter of the second half of the second half of the thirteenth century. Before 1150, it was only a few French and Walloon communities, and after that date, Flemish and Saxon settlers or hospites (guests) who moved into the cities of  Székesfehérvár and Esztergom, or established their own towns that were endowed with privileges, thus becoming liberae villae, constituting the first type of western-style urban development. The Romanians were employed as frontier guards by the Hungarian kings and contributed to the increasingly multi-cultural nature of the kingdom.

Hungarian society at this time, amorphous and ethnically mixed as it was, seems to have lived in relatively prosperous conditions, according to the contemporaneous accounts of foreign authors. Otto, Bishop of Freising, and Abu-Hamid, a Muslim traveller from Grenada, visited the country around 1150, and in roughly the same period, the court geographer of King Roger II of Sicily also reported on it in his well-known description of the world, drawing on the first-hand reports of Italian merchants. Whether sympathetic or hostile towards the land and its people, it is described by all of them as one of plenty and prosperity with cheap corn, rich gold mines, busy fairs and affluent inhabitants.

While it was an exaggerated and stereotypical image, it may not have been entirely separated from reality. Then, as later, the country suffered relatively little from famine, which regularly afflicted the populations of Western Europe. Besides having a comparatively sparse population and abundant natural resources, the Hungarians’ far greater reliance on stockbreeding and fishing meant that they were also far less dependent on the vicissitudes of the weather and the cultivation of crops. In the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, the traditional distinction between freedom and serfdom depended on birth, but by the mid-century, status in the emerging manorial system became the decisive criterion, without the relations that arose within this new framework being consolidated into hereditary terms. In both temporal and spatial contexts, this was a transitory stage, to which the ambivalent nature of political institutions corresponded.

In the six decades following the reign of Béla the Blind, certain motifs returned: disputes around the throne, military campaigns with mixed success, and crusaders marching across the land. But on balance, there was much to be positive about in the reign of Béla III. His first wife was Anne de Chátillon (of Antioch), who, though of French descent, actually arrived at court via Byzantium. His second was Margaret Capet of the Capetian monarchy in France. These two women introduced the French style at the court, where Frederick Barbarossa was received in a manner worthy of his rank. With the king as their example, the barons increasingly followed the fashion trends of Western Europe, which to no small extent contributed to Hungary’s participation in world commerce.       

The tomb of Béla III and his wife, Anne Chátillon (of Antioch), in the Matthias Church in Buda.
Although of French descent, Béla brought Anne with him from Byzantium. They shared a tomb in Székesfehérvár, but the royal tombs there were ransacked, and most were destroyed beyond recognition. However, the well-preserved remains of Béla and Anne were moved to Buda in 1848.

The majority of landed property in the Kingdom of Hungary throughout the twelfth century remained in the possession of the king, whose authority was still preponderant. According to the testimony of a Paris manuscript of around 1185, the king’s revenues from the monopolies on precious metals, on the minting of coinage and salt, from customs on fairs and river tolls, and taxes from the counties, equalled and perhaps surpassed those in France and England. The patrimonial basis of the Western countries’ economic power was far from that of the King of Hungary. When considered in isolation, the Paris document indicates the efficient functioning of the system of royal counties, the chief units of administration of levying taxes and of raising troops in the country. The military force from the countries alone might have amounted to thirty thousand.

Major decisions were made by the king upon consultation with the royal council, consisting of prelates, court office holders and the ispans of the counties, a body of considerable and indefinite size, which, however, hardly ever convened in full number because of the constant movement of the royal household from manor to manor. Increasing familiarity with Western learning through diplomatic, commercial, and academic ties gradually spread to governance, legal affairs, and administration. Luke, Archbishop of Esztergom after 1158, attended the stadium generale in Paris as early as 1150. In 1177, the Abbot of St Genevieve there reported to Béla III the death of a Hungarian student called Bethlehem, who studied at the university there in the company of three of his countrymen. We also know of a Nicholas of Hungary, a student at Oxford in the early 1190s; together with many other clerics who studied in Paris, Padova and Bologna, which were also popular among Hungarian students into the early modern period. These clerics, as well as the knights arriving in the retinues of queens from western dynasties, were also instrumental in introducing courtly and chivalric culture in Hungary.

The Provencále troubadour Peire Vidal and the German Tannhauser were welcomed at the court of King Imre. The virtues of the knights of the Holy Grail, the valour of the Nibelungs, the blending of gallantry and devotion displayed by troubadours thus became models for young Hungarian nobles, and some of them adopted celebrated the names of Frankish heroes such as Roland and Oliver as well as Alexander or Philip of Macedon who also became idolised in the chivalric ethos.

Against this background of the social and cultural conditions of Hungary in the twelfth century, the political situation in the country began to change dramatically by the end of the century. The system created by István I was gradually replaced by an era in which periods of powerful central government alternated with those of unstable royal authority, caused either by continuing dynastic conflict over succession or by internecine aristocratic strife. In the early decades of the twelfth century, the country faced Byzantine or German interference in its affairs because of conflict within the House of Árpád, which supplied the pretext and opportunity for two great emperors, Manuel Komnenos and Frederick Barbarossa, to attempt to bring the nascent country within their spheres of influence.    

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY

The growth in the power of Hungary was the most important development to the north of the Byzantine Empire in the twelfth century. After having fended off the attempts of Emperor Manuel I to conquer the Kingdom, Hungary counter-attacked following his death in 1180. The Hungarians gained not only southern Croatia and Bosnia but also seized a frontier zone in the vicinity of Belgrade. This consolidation during Béla’s reign was largely due to the increase of royal revenues and the growth of the chancellery. Also, the rise of the chivalric culture in this time in Hungary certainly owed a great deal to the way that the knightly code of honour was adopted from the West in the court of the innovative Manuel where Béla had been educated, and that his second wife was the French Princess Margaret, daughter of King Louis VII.

Béla’s Hungarian knights recovered Dalmatia and Syrmia from Byzantium and the fact that he assumed the role of mediator in the conflict between the German and Byzantine emperors occasioned by the march of the crusaders of Frederick Barbarossa across the East Roman Empire in 1190, together with the dynastic links established with Byzantium, France, Germany and Aragon during his reign, demonstrate the international importance of Hungary at the end of the twelfth century. The late twelfth century was also a period of fermentation in architectural styles, based on the late eleventh-century high Romanesque of Lombard extraction. The most splendid accomplishments of this in Hungary were the Cathedral of Pécs and the Basilica of Székesfehérvár. In 1190, French master builders arrived in Esztergom and launched the first Gothic workshop in Central Europe.

Conclusion: The Westernisation of Hungary

During the time of its earliest kings, the Europeanisation of the House of Árpád, Eastern in its origin, was, in addition to its adoption of occidental Roman Christianity, represented by the invitation extended to illustrious foreigners and their acceptance into the royal court. In the eleventh century, this was best exemplified by the presence of the exiled royal family of the ancient line of Cerdicingas from Wessex. In the twelfth century, the later members of the House of Árpád increasingly mingled their bloodline through inter-dynastic marriages, and also took over many customs and ways of thought prevailing at the courts of the ruling houses of Western Europe.

THE HOUSE OF ÁRPÁD AND DYNASTIC INTERMARRIAGE IN THE TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES.
The map above shows the places of origin of Hungarian queens in the period of the Árpád Dynasty.
(After Alán Kralovánszky).

Thus, the concepts and material accessories of the Age of Chivalry appeared, mirroring Western Europe, at the Hungarian courts. Though posterity called (Saint) Ladislas the chivalric king, that process began earlier and lasted at least until the Angevin period of the fourteenth century. The advent of the House of Anjou to Hungary represented a further stage in the Hungarians’ incorporation into Europe. European influence grew so much stronger in Hungary that the spirit of the chivalric age flowed into it. In exchange, Hungarian influence extended to every point of the compass, including the furthest reaches of the West, in the successive centuries of the High Middle Ages.  

Published Primary/ Main Secondary Sources:

Sándor Fest (Czigány & Korompay, eds., 2000), Skóciai Szent Margittól a Walesi Bárdokig: Anglo-Hungarian Historical and Literary Contacts. Budapest: Universitas Kiado.

Christian Raffensperger, Ties of Kinship: Genealogy and Dynastic Marriage in Kyivan Rus. (Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press for the Ukrainian Research Institute, 2016. 

Christian Raffensperger, Conflict, Bargaining, and Kinship Networks in Medieval Eastern Europe. (Byzantium: A European Empire and Its Legacy 2.) New York and London: Lexington Books, 2018.

András Bereznay, et. al. (2003), The Times History of Europe: Three Thousand Years of History in Maps. London, Times Books: (Harper Collins).

Simon Keyes, Seán Duffy, and Andrew Jotischky (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. London, Penguin Books.

István Bart (1999), Hungary and the Hungarians: The Keywords. Budapest: Corvina Books.

David Smurthwaite (1984), The Ordnance Survey Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain. Exeter, Webb and Bower.

Peter Rex (2013), Hereward. Stroud, Glos; Amberley Books.

Charles Hopkinson, Martin Speight (2002, 2009), The Mortimers, Lords of the March. Herefordshire: Logaston Press.  

István Lázár (1989), An Illustrated History of Hungary. Budapest, Corvina Books.

László Kontler (2009), A History of Hungary. Budapest, Atlantisz Publishing House.

Tom Holland (2009), Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom. London: Abacus Books.

Simon Schama (2003), A History of Britain, Series One. London: BBC.

William Anderson (1983), Holy Places of the British Isles. A guide to the legendary and sacred sites. London: Ebury Press.

Internet Publications by the author:

The Bloodied Sword, the Precious Pearl and the Black Cross; Chronicles of the Royal House of Wessex – V

Episode Five – The King’s Peace and Justice; 1153-93:

When Henry Plantagenet returned to England again at the start of 1153, bringing only a small army of mercenaries financed with borrowed money, he relied on the forces of Hugh Bigod and Ranulf of Chester. The churchmen who met him on the Hampshire coast also emphasised that while they supported Stephen as king, they sought a negotiated peace.

Henry besieged Stephen’s castle at Malmesbury and successfully evaded his larger army along the River Avon, preventing him from forcing a decisive battle. In the face of the increasingly wintry weather, the two men agreed to a temporary truce, leaving Henry to travel north through the Midlands, where the Earl of Leicester announced his support for his cause. Stephen amassed troops over the following summer to renew the siege of Wallingford Castle, which controlled the important crossing over the upper Thames, in a final attempt to take the stronghold. The two armies confronted each other across the Thames in July. By this point, the barons on both sides were eager to avoid open battle, so members of the clergy brokered a peace, to the annoyance of both Stephen and Henry.

Now there was only Prince Eustace between Stephen and Henry in the succession to the throne. On 18th August 1153, Eustace died, and Stephen was persuaded to adopt Henry as his son and heir to the crown of England. On 7th November, the two leaders ratified the terms of a permanent peace and Stephen announced the Treaty of Winchester in the cathedral. Stephen recognised Henry as his adopted son and heir, in return for Henry paying homage to him; Stephen promised to listen to Henry’s advice but retained all his royal powers. Henry and Stephen sealed the treaty with a kiss of peace in the cathedral.

In 1154, Stephen became more proactive, attempting to exert his authority and starting to demolish unauthorised castles. The peace remained precarious, and Stephen’s son William remained a potential future rival to Henry. Rumours of a plot to kill Henry were circulating and, possibly as a consequence, Henry returned to Normandy for a period. But Stephen fell ill with a stomach disorder and died on 25th October 1154, allowing Henry to inherit the throne sooner than had been expected. He was buried by the side of his wife and elder son at the monastery they had founded at Faversham. Stephen must take some responsibility for the troubles of his reign. He was a competent army commander and a brave knight, but perhaps too gallant for his own good. True, he was faced by a disputed succession, but so were all his predecessors going back to Edward the Confessor, if not to Eadmund Ironside; disputed successions in most of Europe were the norm. Stephen of Blois was, arguably, a more attractive character than any of the Norman kings, but he lacked the masterfulness of Henry I. Without it, he was unable to dominate either his court or his kingdom. Moreover, he spent very little time in Normandy; only one visit, in 1137, during his entire reign. This stands in marked contrast to the itineraries of his predecessors, especially William I, and given the cross-Channel structure of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, it was certainly a mistake. In this sense, the ruler from the house of Blois can be said to have failed because he was too English a king to realise that the Kingdom was only a part of a greater whole. When Henry of Anjou was crowned Henry II on 19th December 1154, the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen’s brother, fled the country. The long nineteen years of anarchy and weary waiting were over.

Englishmen were now free to ponder afresh the question of national identity. But when they did so, some of them felt that a page had been turned. In 1161, Edward the Confessor was recognised as a saint and two years later, the king’s body was translated to a new tomb in Westminster Abbey. A new account of the Confessor’s life was commissioned from Aelred of Rievaulx, who elegantly reworked the earlier version from the 1130s, which had sought to legitimise the pre-Conquest Norman inheritance from Edward. Aelred concluded that when Henry had chosen Eadyth (Matilda) as his Queen, their daughter had produced a new king, Henry II, our Henry, as Aelred called him, joining both peoples. He went on:

Now, without doubt, England has a king of the race of the English.

Despite the fact that, in reality, Henry Plantagenet was only one-eighth English and that he was born and brought up in French-speaking Anjou, there seems little doubt that he was able to heal the breach of the Conquest. It was during this period that England’s ancient laws, distorted by the Norman preoccupation with land tenure, were finally codified and recorded, becoming The Common Law. At the same time, the power of the old English Shire courts was strengthened.

Scene Fifty – Westminster, 1154; ‘Our Henry’… an Arthurian Romance:

When Henry Plantagenet succeeded to the English throne in 1154, he could fairly claim to be the most powerful ruler in Western Europe. His lands stretched from the Pennines to the Pyrenees, their focal point being Anjou. We don’t know whether Henry ever met ‘his great relative’, King David of Scotland, who died in 1153, the year that the Plantagenet returned to England to prepare to become King, but Aelred of Rievaulx Abbey addressed a letter to him which he enclosed in his Genalogia Regum Anglorum, in which the abbot encouraged the young Henry (about fifteen at the time of his succession) to be worthy of King David, whose last hours and death he recounted.

Meanwhile, the real solution to the transnational problems of noble family fortunes lay in the reunification of England and Normandy. This was achieved in 1154 when Henry Plantagenet, who had become Duke of Normandy in 1150, was crowned King of England due to the agreement reached between them.

In England, Henry took over the throne without difficulty; it was the first undisputed succession for over a hundred years. His first task in the Kingdom was to make good the losses suffered during Stephen’s reign. By 1158 he had achieved this. In 1157 he used diplomatic pressure to force the young king of Scotland, Malcolm IV, to restore Cumberland, Westmorland, and Northumberland to the English Crown.

As lord of an empire stretching from the Scottish border to the Pyrenees, he was potentially the most powerful ruler in Europe, richer even than the German emperor and completely overshadowing the king of France, the nominal suzerain of his continental possessions. Although England provided him with great wealth as well as a royal title, the heart of the empire lay elsewhere, in Anjou, the land of his French ancestors. Socially and culturally, England was something of a backwater compared with the French parts of the Angevin dominion. The prosperous communities of the Seine and Loire and Garonne river systems and valleys were centres of learning, art, architecture, poetry and music. Aquitaine and Anjou produced two of the essential commodities of Medieval commerce: wine and salt. These could be exchanged for English cloth, and this trade must have brought great profit to the prince who ruled over both producers and consumers. Henry had also inherited the claims of his predecessors to lordship over neighbouring territories. These claims led to intervention in Nantes (1156), an expedition to Toulouse (1159) and finally, the occupation of Brittany after 1166 and the installation of his son Geoffrey as duke.

In England, Henry’s accession ended years of political anarchy and the breakdown of royal authority during which warlords had…

… filled the country full of castles. They oppressed the wretched people of the country severely with castle-building. When the castles were built, they filled them with devils and wicked men.

Henry was determined that royal castles, which in one way or another had fallen into the hands of various barons, were to be surrendered to the Crown, and unlicensed castles, the adulterine castles which had been built in such profusion, must be dismantled. His order was openly defied by several magnates, among them Hugh Mortimer, who refused to give up the former royal castle of Brug (Bridgnorth). It had been surrendered to Henry I by the earl of Shrewsbury during his rebellion of 1102. Following the confiscation of the third earl’s lands, Ralph Mortimer may have had some responsibility for the royal estates in Shropshire, renewed by Henry I or Stephen. Hugh Mortimer (II)’s stance over Brug was a direct challenge to the authority of the recently crowned Henry II. Accustomed to belligerent independence during many years of civil war, Hugh underestimated Henry’s determination.

William, count of Aumerle, was the first of the rebellious barons to submit to the king when he surrendered Scarborough Castle, and early in 1155 Roger, earl of Hereford, who had earlier declined to relinquish Gloucester and Hereford Castles, made his peace with the king. The King then advanced with an army into the borderlands to recover Brug and discipline Hugh Mortimer who was by then more or less isolated in his defiance. The king’s army wasted Hugh’s estates and besieged his castles at Wigmore, Cleobury and Brug, whilst Hugh’s forces in turn pillaged lands in the region. William of Newburgh described the outcome:

When this man was ordered to rest content with his own lands and to surrender those which he occupied belonging to the Crown, he obstinately refused to do so and prepared to resist with all its might. But subsequent events showed that this arrogance and indignation were greater than his courage … the king obtained Brug’s surrender and granted pardon to the earl … who now became a humble suppliant.

Fifty-one – Bridgnorth, 1154; Restoring the Crown’s authority in Wales and the Marches:

Hugh was forced to submit to the king before a gathering of magnates at Brug. He surrendered the castle, but retained Wigmore, Cleobury, and his other honours, and does not seem to have been otherwise penalised. With his eye on the restoration of the Crown’s authority in Wales, he needed baronial support, particularly from those lords with lands in Wales and the Marches. There was little to be gained in alienating a baron as important in the region as Hugh Mortimer as well as antagonising the baronage in general by over-zealous punishment of one of their number.

Pride, antipathy to the house of Anjou and a possible claim to Brug Castle all played their part in what appears to have been Hugh Mortimer’s reckless opposition to the king. That he participated in his defiance in virtual isolation was perhaps an example of folie de grandeur, stemming from the status that the Mortimers had attained by the middle of the twelfth century.

To William of Newburgh, Hugh was a man of powerful of noble birth; to Geraldus Cambriensis he was an excellent knight; to the chronicler of Wigmore Abbey he was …

worthy, brave and bold … of fine bearing, courageous in arms, judicious in speech, wise of counsel … renowned and feared above all those who were living in England at that time … the most generous and liberal in his gifts of all those known anywhere in his lifetime.

This last description of this paragon of knightly virtue may safely be disregarded as a hagiography of the Abbey’s founder. Hugh lived on for a further quarter century after these events of 1155, during which his relationship with Henry II seems to have remained an uneasy one; in 1167 he repeated his defiance of twelve years earlier when he refused the king’s command to surrender cattle he had seized from one of the king’s knights. He was fined a hundred pounds, which he refused to pay, and in 1184, after he died, it was charged against his heir, though there is no record of it ever being paid.

Meanwhile, the Welsh exploded into self-expression and self-assertion. Adopting the methods of the intruder and adapting their own, they carved out a distinctive polity, entered European politics and at one stage began to create their own feudal state around Gwynedd. In Wales, Henry found in Owain Gwynedd and Rhys of Deheubarth two well-established princes whom it was impossible to browbeat. The Welsh princes turned their native oral culture, the Bardic tradition, into a brilliant literary one, retaining its Celtic core but glossing and enriching it from the new world which had been opened to them. Through the Norman March, they gave Europe the initial form of what became one of its more brilliant and abundant literary-historical traditions, that of Arthurian romance. They transmitted it through the March, the Cymro-Norman frontier between two different communities, developed into two divergent societies with distinct laws and loyalties, customs, memories and traditions. These societies were as much Welsh as they were Norman; families on both sides of the all but invisible frontier became inextricably intermeshed; the French language inserted itself between Welsh and Latin, making important sectors of society trilingual.

In 1157, and again in 1165, English armies marched into North Wales; and though Owain Gwynedd survived both invasions, he had to pay homage and put a check on his territorial ambitions. Welsh expansionism now had to deal with England’s strength as a limiting factor: the princes, the Lord Rhys of the south and then the two Llywelyns in Gwynedd, could no longer see themselves as autonomous, purely Welsh rulers, but rather feudal underlords of the English Crown. This was a discernible break with the past. Centralisation within Wales was the only way of securing relative independence for the Welsh princes from their sovereign liege, the English king. In 1163, during another major military expedition into south Wales, Henry II had asked an old Welshman of Pencader who had joined his retinue what chances he had of victory. The old man replied:

My Lord King, this nation may now be harassed, weakened and decimated by your soldiery, as it has so often been in former times, but it will never be destroyed by the wrath of man. … Whatever else may come to pass, I do not think that on the Day of Direct Judgement any race other than the Welsh, or any other language, will give answer to the Supreme Judge of all for this small corner of the earth.

It was Gerald the Welshman who reported the old man’s speech as the climax and conclusion to his celebrated Description of Wales (Descriptio Kambriae). He had accompanied the king on his expedition, perhaps translating for Henry, hence his verbatim record. Gerald was a distinguished and archetypal member of the new establishment, descended from a Norman lord and a Welsh princess. As a churchman, he had called for the independence of the Church of Dewi Sant (St David). 

Any further ambitions Hugh Mortimer had in Wales were circumscribed by the ascendancy of the formidable prince, Rhys ap Gruffydd, and he appears to have played little part in the politics of either England or Normandy. In the 1160s, with Henry immersed in the Becket struggle and troubles on the continent, Rhys’s sorties from his base in Dinefwr in the south grew into a war when Owain Gwynedd joined in, moving to lead what had become a Welsh national coalition. They regained much territory from the Marcher lords. In response, Henry mobilised a massive expedition in 1165 to destroy all Welshmen, but it collapsed in the face of bad weather, torrential summer rain, and guerrilla resistance on the Berwyn Mountains. After 1165, Henry’s attitude to the Welsh princes was far more accommodating. As early as 1155, he had toyed with the idea of conquering Ireland. But the move into Ireland did not take place until 1169-70; at first by lords from the Welsh march and then (in 1171-2) by Henry himself. As the long delay made plain, in the king’s eyes, there were matters much more important than the conquest of Ireland.

Wales remained self-governing for over a century after 1165, but there was never any real security since English troops were liable to appear anywhere in the country, and, ultimately, there was nothing to stop them from attacking except for the politics of brinkmanship or the chance of seizing independence by force of arms. In addition, the law of gavelkind in Wales meant that when Madog ap Maredydd, lord of Powys, died in 1160, his lands were divided among his sons, and Powys was never again a united country. Ten years later, Owain Gwynedd himself died, and the same thing happened in Gwynedd. Hywel ab Owain, the poet, was killed by his half-brothers, who then split up the principality between them. Hywel, perhaps because of his high birth, has been seen as the poet of feudalism, close to ideals of the princes of Gwynedd. After that, the clouds seemed to gather for princes and poets alike.     

However, in the early 1170s, with Owain dead and his sons slipping back into civil war, Rhys agreed to a quasi-feudal relationship with Henry II, who had finally given up hope of a conquest of the principality. Instead, an atmosphere of mutual trust developed between the king and the prince, the latter being seen as the head and the shield of all the South and all Wales and the defence of all of the race of the Britons. Henry, sensing the moment in 1170, went for settlement. Rhys was formally confirmed in his possessions and was made Justiciar of South Wales. At what looks like the first recorded eisteddfod, all the Welsh rulers from north and south took the oath of fealty and homage to the king and by the end of the century, the frontier which had emerged over two generations had been settled.

The old kingdom of Morgannwg-Gwent had vanished, and was replaced by Monmouth and Glamorgan, the strongest bastions of Norman power in Wales. The diminished lordship of Powys faced a struggle to survive, torn three ways between Gwynedd, the English Crown and the rump of the once great kingdom. In the end, this also split in two, the southern Powys Wentwynwyn remaining loyal to the Crown and the northern Powys Fadog to the royal Welsh territory of Aberffraw, eventually becoming part of Gwynedd, whose ‘prince’ controlled most of the north, as far east as Conwy. Under Owain and some of his successors, it grew into a major force, the strongest power in Pura Wallia (Welsh Wales).

A core of the old Deheubarth was re-established, ringed by Norman lordships with a strong base in Pembroke and a royal estate centred on Carmarthen. Everywhere in Wales, kings had disappeared to be replaced by lords owing allegiance to the English king and his Welsh overlord, Yr Arglwydd Rhys, of Dinefwr. To the east and the south, stretched the Marcher lordships in a great arc from the pivot of Chester; the powerful families of Montgomery, Mortimer, Bohun and Clare continued to stamp their imprint from Shrewsbury to Montgomery and from Hereford deep into mid-Wales at Brecon. Under the Clares, Glamorgan became immensely powerful, and, heading west along the fertile coast, the beautiful Princess Nest of Deheubarth could precipitate wars over her person like Helen of Troy.

There was a permanently disputed ‘shadow land’ and endless border raiding, but in this tension, there was also some equilibrium and stability, maintained by intermarriage and changing tactical alliances. In 1188, Archbishop Baldwin preached the Crusade and imposed the Papal authority on the new cathedral churches on his grand tour through both the March and Pura Wallia, a tour chronicled by Gerald the Welshman. He was the grandson of Nest and her Norman husband, Gerald of Windsor, son of Nest’s daughter, Angharad, and the Norman knight William de Barri. Gwyn A. Williams has written of the creative tension between Cymric and Norman cultures, which produced Gerald’s work:

… the most startling and… unexpected consequence of this confrontation was the entry into history of a brilliant new literary culture, simultaneously Welsh and European, and itself without doubt the product of of a new civilisation in Wales.

Gwyn A. Williams (1984), When Was Wales? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Once again, the Welsh had to define themselves in response to an outside challenge to produce this. The consequence was a literary renaissance in several languages. The new Latin monasteries, especially among the Welsh Cistercians, also helped to marry the traditions of European cloisters and old Welsh monastic traditions to produce the largest single body of medieval Welsh ecclesiastical manuscripts at Llantony Abbey. Along the communication networks of abbeys, Welsh friars filtered into the scholastic houses of western Europe, and European ideas filtered back into Wales. Adam of Wales and Philip Wallensis, who found their way to the University of Paris in the twelfth century, initiated a tradition. Young Welsh scholars made their way there and, in greater numbers, to its offshoot in Oxford, where they established a permanent and highly visible presence. Cambro-Normans like Gerald found a niche in the closely controlled episcopate; no fewer than three bishops were descendants of Nest of Deheubarth.

The native Welsh were admitted to much of the rapidly developing learning of Europe. Most particularly in its Welshness, the secular work of the poets enjoyed a revival, and the bardic order seems to have been reorganised. This was the age of the gogynfeirdd, the court poets, in which every court and many a sub-court had its official master-poet, and its bardd teulu, its household poet. The poets had official functions as ‘remembrancers’ to a dynasty and its people. They evolved a complex, difficult and powerful tradition which was, like the cathedrals, architectural in structure, leaving little room for individual creativity. Mostly it was a poetry of praise, morality, exhortation and legitimation, addressed to a strictly traditional concept of the prince and the lord, not much liked by the church. It is clearly derived from the pagan, druidic traditions of the old Welsh, adjusted to a world of lords and princes. What we hear is what they call the Old Song of Taliesin. It is a mutation of the British Arthurian tradition, the longest tradition in the writing of the Welsh.

It was at its strongest among the lower-order cyfarwyddion, the storytellers. It was with the arrival of the Normans that an unknown scribe wrote down his version of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi; the others followed directly into Europe via the remembrancers and the translators: Bretons, Normans, Flemings, English, and Welsh. The rough Arthur of the British moved in and out of the Celtic mythology into the realm of Arthur of Camelot and his Round Table Knights with their French accents. This renaissance was not stopped by any frontier: Norman lords soon succumbed to the charms of court poets, harpists and singers. With the Bretons strongly represented, the Cambro-Norman lords created whole schools of translators, particularly in Glamorgan and Monmouth. Flemings were among the earliest to transmit stories of Arthur and Myrddin (Merlin) into Europe through clerics. Out of this milieu came the remarkable History of the Kings of Britain written by a Breton based in Gwent, Geoffrey of Monmouth.

But the uneasy peace which then existed for the two decades from 1165 between the marcher lords and the Welsh princes came to an end with Henry’s death, since Rhys considered that his relationship with Henry had been a personal one and did not bind him to the king’s successor, Richard I, who showed none of the ‘subtelty’ of his father’s handling of Welsh affairs.

Fifty-Four; 1162-1170 – The Becket Controversy & The Murder in Canterbury Cathedral:

In 1169, the question of the coronation of the heir to the throne, Prince Henry, led to the interminable negotiations between the king, the Pope and the archbishop being treated as a matter of urgency, preoccupying the king’s attention. In 1170, Becket returned to England, determined to punish those who had taken part in the young king’s coronation. His enemies lost no time in telling Henry of the archbishop’s behaviour, to which Henry spoke the notorious words, Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? These words were taken literally by four of his knights who, anxious to win the king’s favour, rushed off to Canterbury, where on 29th December, they murdered Becket in his own cathedral.

The deed shocked Christendom and secured Becket’s canonization in record time. In popular memory, the archbishop came to personify resistance to the oppressive authority of the State, but in reality, he was championing the privileges and indemnities of the clergy over all other considerations. At the time, everyone was better off with him out of the way. Once the storm of protest had died down, it became apparent that Henry’s hold on his vast empire had in no way been shaken by the Becket controversy. Whatever the legacy of the violent murder, in the early 1170s, Henry II stood at the height of his power.

By this time, the king had already decided that, after his death, his dominions should be partitioned between his three eldest sons. Young Henry was to have Anjou, Normandy and England; Richard was to have Aquitaine, and Geoffrey was to have Brittany. Later, in 1185, John was granted his father’s other major acquisition, Ireland. The death of young King Henry in 1183 and Geoffrey in 1186 should have eased Henry’s dynastic difficulties, but Richard was alarmed by his father’s obvious favouritism towards John. An alliance between Richard and King Philip II led to Henry’s defeat, and he died at Chinon in July 1189. Although his interest in rational reform has led to him being regarded as the founder of the English common law and a great, creative king, in his own eyes these were matters of secondary importance. To him, personally, what mattered most were dynastic politics, and he died believing that in this, he had failed despite the successes of the previous thirty years.   

In 1169, the question of the coronation of the heir to the throne, Prince Henry, led to the interminable negotiations between the king, pope and archbishop being treated as a matter of urgency. In 1170, Becket returned to England, determined to punish those who had taken part in the young king’s coronation. His enemies lost no time in telling Henry of the archbishop’s behaviour, to which Henry spoke the notorious words, Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? These words were taken literally by four of his knights who, anxious to win the king’s favour, rushed off to Canterbury, where on 29th December, they murdered Becket in his own cathedral.

The deed shocked Christendom and secured Becket’s canonisation in record time. In popular memory, the archbishop came to personify resistance to the oppressive authority of the State, but in reality, he was championing the privileges and indemnities of the clergy over all other considerations. At the time, everyone was better off with him out of the way. Once the storm of protest had died down, it became apparent that Henry’s hold on his vast empire had in no way been shaken by the Becket controversy. Whatever the legacy of the violent murder, in the early 1170s, Henry II stood at the height of his power.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Histories (Everyman’s edn.) are appended by a Translator’s Epilogue. He detailed the background to Geoffrey’s work and the transition from Stephen’s reign to that of Henry Plantagenet. Geoffrey and his world was growing old, and he was therefore offered the see of St Asaph. No alternative was available, and so he was consecrated to St Asaph in 1152, but there was no absolute obligation on him to retire immediately to the wilds of Wales.

Earl Robert had died, but his cause was rapidly rising into the ascendant. The Empress Matilda still lived, and her son Henry was growing up to manhood. His father, Geoffrey of Anjou, had died in 1151, and at his death, Henry became Earl of Anjou and Duke of Normandy. The same eventful year also saw the young Duke marry Eleanor of Aquitaine, the divorced wife of Louis VII of France. Stephen read the omens and proposed that his son, Eustace, should be crowned joint King of England with himself. But Archbishop Theobold and the rest of the prelates refused to crown him.

The seal of Henry of Anjou as Duke of Normandy and Count of Aquitaine. The Angevins ruled their French lands not as kings of England but as vassals of the King of France.

Writing in about 1200, after King Henry died in 1189, William of Newburgh noted of Henry II that he was unpopular with almost all men in his own days. Henry II’s apparent unpopularity with his subjects may have had something to do, for some, with his infamous early conflict with the Church, but it may also have been because, although he was king for thirty-four years he was also Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, he spent only thirteen of them in England. He held more lands in France than its king, while England’s wealth enabled him to outshine the German emperor. Through marriage, inheritance, diplomacy, and occasionally war, Henry II built up a huge domain, and he extended his sovereignty to Scotland and Ireland.However, he failed to give his empire any institutional unity. It therefore collapsed under his sons, Richard and John. By the time he died in 1216, John had lost all of the Angevin lands on the continent except Gascony, and England had once more been invaded by the French. Yet Newburgh also noted Henry’s other domestic achievements:

“In his laws, he displayed great care for orphans, widows and the poor; and in many places, he bestowed noble alms with an open hand… He never imposed any heavy tax on the realms of England, or on his possessions beyond the sea, … ”

But the desire of his sons for a taste of real power produced a family rebellion in 1173 in league with the Capetian king of France, Louis VII, and these events were exacerbated by an opportunistic invasion of England by the King of Scotland, William the Lion. Although Henry II eventually put down the rebellion, imposing humiliating terms on the captured Scots king, his plans continued to be frustrated by his rebellious sons, especially when Philip II Augustus ascended to the French throne in 1180 and started to exploit the differences in the Angevin family. Even after the death of the young Henry, who had been crowned king while his father was still alive, in 1183, problems remained, as Richard knew that ‘old’ Henry favoured John, so he allied with the French against his father. Henry II eventually died in 1189, a defeated man.

However, he left a great legacy in England. Having inherited a kingdom devastated by civil war, he quickly restored the stable government it had known under his grandfather, Henry I, while simultaneously ruling over two-thirds of France. He extended royal power in England by reforming both civil and criminal law. The Assizes of Clarendon (1166) and Northampton (1176) established the grand jury system, whereby royal justices and sheriffs tried those suspected of serious offences, while civil writs obtainable from the royal courts, secured the speedy restoration of those dispossessed without due process. Henry’s reign ranks as a milestone in the development of the English Common Law.

Yet ironically it is not for his successes that Henry is best remembered, but for his dubious role in the murder of Thomas Becket. In June 1162, Becket was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. In the eyes of respectable churchmen Becket, who had been chancellor since 1155, did not deserve the highest ecclesiastical post in the land. He set out to prove that he was the best of all possible archbishops. Right from the start, he went out of his way to oppose the king who, chiefly out of his friendship, had promoted him. But it was not long before the king began to react like a man betrayed. In the mid-twelfth century, Church-State relations were beset with problems which were normally solved or shelved by men of goodwill, but which could provide a field day for men who were determined to quarrel. Henry resented the way that clerics who committed felonies could escape capital punishment by claiming the right to be tried in an ecclesiastical court.

At a council held at Westminster in October 1163, Henry demanded that criminous clerks should be unfrocked by the Church and handed over to the lay courts for punishment. At a council held at Westminster in October 1163, Henry demanded that these clerics be defrocked by the Church and handed over to the lay courts for punishment. Becket and his bishops opposed this, but when Pope Alexander III asked him to adopt a more conciliatory line, Henry summoned a council to Clarendon in January 1164. He presented the bishops with the Constitutions of Clarendon, a clear statement of the king’s customary rights over the Church, and required them to observe these customs in good faith. Taken by surprise, Becket argued for two days before giving way. But no sooner had the rest of the bishops followed his example, than he repented of his weakness in giving way. Exasperated, Henry decided to destroy Becket, summoning him to appear before a royal court to answer trumped-up charges. Becket was found guilty and sentenced to forfeiture of his estates. Becket fled to the Continent and appealed to the pope, leaving behind an English Church in confusion due to his vacillation.

In 1169, the question of the coronation of the heir to the throne, Prince Henry, led to the interminable negotiations between the king, the pope and the archbishop being treated as a matter of urgency. In 1170, Becket returned to England, determined to punish those who had taken part in the young king’s coronation. His enemies lost no time in telling Henry of the archbishop’s behaviour, to which Henry spoke the notorious words, Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? These words were taken literally by four of his knights who, anxious to win the king’s favour, rushed off to Canterbury, where on 29th December, they murdered Becket in his own cathedral.

The deed shocked Christendom and secured Becket’s canonization in record time. In popular memory, the archbishop came to personify resistance to the oppressive authority of the State, but in reality, he was championing the privileges and indemnities of the clergy over all other considerations. At the time, everyone was better off with him out of the way. Once the storm of protest had died down, it became apparent that Henry’s hold on his vast empire had in no way been shaken by the Becket controversy. Whatever the legacy of the violent murder, in the early 1170s, Henry II stood at the height of his power.

By this time, the king had already decided that, after his death, his dominions should be partitioned between his three eldest sons. Young Henry was to have Anjou, Normandy and England; Richard was to have Aquitaine, and Geoffrey was to have Brittany. Later, in 1185, John was granted his father’s other major acquisition, Ireland. The death of young king Henry in 1183 and Geoffrey in 1186 should have eased Henry’s dynastic difficulties, but Richard was alarmed by his father’s obvious favouritism towards John. An alliance between Richard and King Philip II led to Henry’s defeat, and he died at Chinon in July 1189. Only in the last weeks of his life had the task of ruling his immense territories been too much for Henry. He rode ceaselessly from one corner of his empire to another, almost giving an impression of being omnipresent, an impression that helped to keep his knights loyal. Although the central government offices, chamber, chancery, and military household, travelled around with him, the sheer size of the empire inevitably stimulated the further development of localised administrations which could deal with routine matters of justice and finance in his absence. Thus, in England, as on the Continent, government became increasingly complex and bureaucratic.

Although his interest in rational reform has led to him being regarded as the founder of the English common law and a great, creative king, in Henry’s own eyes these were matters of secondary importance. To him, personally, what mattered most were dynastic politics, and he died believing that in this, he had failed despite the successes of the previous thirty years.   

Llandaff, 1152-4; The Welsh Chronicler and Kingship:

Historia Brittonum, or a History of the Britons, was purportedly written in the 8th-9th Century by a Welsh monk called Nennius. It is one of the earliest histories of the British Isles. Nennius’ work influenced later histories, such as that written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and remained influential for centuries. Many myths and legends about the origins of Britain first appeared in Historia Brittonum. It contains ‘accounts’ of Arthur’s twelve battles, ending with the ‘Battle of Badon’ (c. 490-9), fought on a hillsite in southern England, possibly near Bath.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Welsh chronicler of the mid-twelfth century, was born in about 1100 and his life was therefore contemporaneous with the reign of Henry I, as he died in 1154. He studied at Oxford and became a Benedictine monk. He was Archdeacon of Llandaff, c. 1140 and was Bishop of St. Asaph from 1152 to 1154, though he remained at Llandaff and never visited his bishopric before he died. His most famous work was Histories of the Kings of Britain, written in Latin, Historia Regum Britanniae. He dedicated this to Robert, Earl of Gloucester. In her 1911 introduction to the work, for The Everyman’s Library edition (577) Lucy Allen Paton wrote (from Massachusetts) of Geoffrey that:

Geoffrey of Monmouth has been called again and again the father of Arthurian romance … before the beginning of the twelfth century to the name of the historic Arthur … there had already become attached much legendary and even mythological material, that his people … wistfully looked for his return to earth. Such was the general attitude of the Britons toward Arthur at the time when his story began to occupy the attention of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

About Geoffrey’s life, however, we have scant information. We know that he was a Welshman from Monmouth, giving himself the title Monumetensis, either because he was born there or because he was educated at the Benedictine monastery there. We also know that his father appears to have been named Arthur. He was probably appointed Archdeacon of Llandaff in 1140, when his uncle Uchtryd, who had been archdeacon, was made Bishop of Llandaff. The rest of his ecclesiastical career appears to have been unremarkable, even for himself, since postponed his own ordination to the priesthood until a few days before he was consecrated as Bishop of St Asaph, which was a small and impecunious see at that time.

He lived at a time when Britain was responding to the intellectual stimulus that had come to the country with the Norman Conquest. Its literary life, which had been lying dormant, began to enjoy a renaissance under the influence of scholars and chroniclers brought by the Normans. Henry I showed his appreciation for men of letters and surrounded himself with minstrels, balladeers and bards at court. After half a century of occupation, the Normans were beginning to take a keen interest in the past history of their newly-acquired domain and to turn to the traditions of early Britain. But, as Paton wrote, …

the tastes of the Norman noble demanded something less mysterious, less fantastic, and less remote from his own world than Celtic myth afforded him, and also something more polished and entertaining than the bare chronicles at his disposal.

She claimed that it was practically certain that Geoffrey began to write his Historia Regum Britanniae as early as 1139. He dedicated the book to Robert, Earl of Gloucester, one of the most distinguished patrons of literature of the time, who rewarded him by advancing him to the archdeaconry at Llandaff. Geoffrey gathered his material from episodes in the chronicles of his contemporaries, especially William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, in addition to the material from ancient Celtic records, myths and legends.

In their introduction to their 1948 translation of The Mabinogion, Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones wrote that the eleven stories it contained were among the finest flowerings of the Celtic genius and, taken together, a masterpiece of our medieval European literature. The stories were preserved in two Welsh collections, the White Book of Rhydderch (Llyfr Gwyn Rhydderch), written down in about 1300-25, and the Red Book of Hergest (Llyfr Coch Hergest), of the period 1375-1425. But they must have been known long before the time of these earliest manuscripts, the likeliest date being early in the second half of the eleventh century. Much of the subject matter of these stories takes us back, in the oral tradition to early post-Roman, Brythonic times. These Four Branches of the Mabinogi – Pwyll, Branwen, Manawyden and Math – include the earliest Arthurian tale in Welsh, Culhwch and Olwen, and The Dream of Rhonabwy, a romantic and sometimes humorously appreciative recalling of the heroic age of Britain, as well as three later Arthurian romances, The Lady of the Fountain, Peredur, and Gereint Son of Erbin, revealing abundant Norman-French influences.

That Wales had its bards was well known across twelfth-century Europe. These bards were storytellers whose media were both prose and verse. The poetic chronicling of the eighth/ninth-century monk Nennius as well as that of Geoffrey of Monmouth, three centuries later, suggest that, by their times, these various bards had transmitted an amplitude of material in oral form, and that centuries passed before they were committed to writing in the White Book and the Red. When Culhwch first goes to Arthur’s court, the narrator supplies a list of people, which is an index to cycles of a lost story. Arthur’s warriors are a mytho-heroic assembly, set against a vast rolling panorama of lost Celtic mythology. They are the oddest retinue of any court in the world, but they form part of…

a native saga hardly touched by alien influences, exciting and evocative, opening windows on great vistas of the oldest stuff of folklore and legend.

Without discussing the historical references to Arthur in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum, Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones were at pains to stress that Culhwch and Olwen is a document of first importance for the study of the sources of the Arthurian legendarium. The Arthur it portrays is remarkably unlike the gracious, glorious emperor of later tradition, exemplified in the later tradition of French, German and English literatures, but when we recall that Arthur of these original legends was not of any of these nationalities, but a British king, it is not unreasonable to emphasise the significance of Cymric material material relating him. This original material was uncontaminated by the Cycles of Romance, though affected by a vast complex of Celtic myth and legend, consisting for the most part of Culhwch and Olwen itself, in addition to various poems.

One of these poems, the so-called Preideu Annwfyn from the thirteenth-century Book of Taliesin, tells of Arthur’s raids in his ship Prydwen upon eight caers (fortresses) of the Otherworld. This original Arthur is a folk hero, a beneficent giant, who rids the land of other giants; he undertakes journeys to rescue prisoners and carry off treasures; he is at once savage, heroic and protective. He is therefore at the heart of the British story, both for his fame as dux bellorum (warlord) and protector of Roman Britain against all invaders, and for his increasingly dominating role in Celtic folklore and legend. It is remarkable how much of this British Arthur had survived in the twelfth-century Historia of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

By the twelfth century, Celtic influences in literature were fashionable across Europe, especially those from the Arthurian legendarium. Arthur’s position in the British story; the twofold advantage to the Normans and Angevins of Arthur as a British, not Anglo-Saxon, hero; the skill of the Welsh and Bretons as storytellers, and the excellence of the stories they told: all these were key elements of the supremacy. Furthermore, the professional men of letters of the twelfth century knew their business well. They wrote of courtly love, religion, society and morality, mysticism and poetry. A place for all of these elements was found in the Matter of Britain.

The Arthurian legendarium also became a priceless European inheritance, but in this transmission, the three Welsh prose romances under discussion were a modest matter. Their interest lies in their evidence of Welsh tradition underlying the continental expansion, with Norman-French characteristics imposed on the visceral old Welsh tales, appealing to their more sophisticated audiences. But Geoffrey created the classical form of what was passed down the centuries as the British History, rooting the Britons in a history started by Brutus the Trojan, already outlined by Nennius in the early ninth century, giving them their great hero Arthur, who now bestrides Europe, broadcasting a wealth largely mythical but compulsive history and a prophecy of redemption when an Arthur would once again sit on the throne of Britain.  

The Matter of Britain swept through French-speaking Europe and across the continent from Flanders to Scandinavia to the Bosphorus and the Levant. It became a European best-seller, even as other versions of the Arthurian traditions entered the discourse of Christendom to be transmuted at the hands of Chrétien de Troyes and others into something rich and very different. By 1180, Arthur was a hero in the Crusader states of Antioch and Palestine:

The Eastern peoples speak of him as do the Western, though separated by the breadth of the whole earth. Egypt speaks of him, nor is the Bosphorus silent…   

Even as ‘history’, Geoffrey’s Arthur lived long, powering a new and highly effective British national mythology. This dramatic creation of a British-European culture mirrored the growth of a hybrid society along the Welsh Marches. In his writing, Geoffrey surrounded Arthur with a court that mirrors the British-Norman life in the early twelfth century. When he is established on the throne, Arthur distributes lands, repairs the damages of war and conducts himself in general after the fashion of a Norman king of England. Geoffrey’s description of Britain at the time of Arthur’s coronation, which he modelled on a Norman festival, is often cited as a striking example of his introduction of chivalric customs into the Arthurian legendarium:

For at that time was Britain exalted unto so high a pitch of dignity as that it did surpass all other kingdoms in plenty of riches, in luxury of adornment, and in the courteous wit of them that dwelt therein. Whatever knight in the land was of renown for his prowess did wear his clothes and his arms all one same colour. And the dames, no less witty, would apparel themselves in the same manner in a single colour, nor would they deign have the love of none save he had thrice approved him in the wars. Wherefore at that time did dames wax chaste and knights the nobler for their love.

Never before had the ideals of courtly life been connected with Arthur. They had blossomed in their richest form in Southern France and did not take firm root in England until the second half of the twelfth century when they were introduced by Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen of Henry II, and by Provencal poets who sojourned in England, but Geoffrey’s descriptions are evidence that they were present in England even before that, in his day.

Geoffrey’s Arthur embodies all the virtues of the chivalric hero: Courtesy, valour, youth, glad energy, and liberality; these were all the graces cultivated in twelfth-century France. After he had established peace in the realm, Arthur is said to have held…

… such courtly fashion in his household as begat rivalry amongst peoples at a distance.

Yet Arthur was not a chivalric hero par excellence. In the Middle Ages, highway robbery provided a means for a knight to enrich his followers if he had been too generous and had impoverished himself. Arthur is described as resorting to the sword to satisfy his thirst for riches:

Wherefore did Arthur, for that in him did keep with largesse, make resolve to harry the Saxons, to the end that with their treasure he might make rich the retainers that were of his own household. And herein was he nourished of his own lawful right, seeing that of right ought he to hold the sovereignty of the whole island in virtue of his claim hereditary.

Geoffrey’s Arthur knows nothing of the virtues of mésure (moderation) and of love, without which, according to the chivalric code, no knight could possibly be of gentle heart, possibly because these qualities are incompatible with some traces of barbarism that survive in him. He is tinged with the chivalric ideals of a Norman court, but he does not perfectly represent the laws of courtly behaviour which were illustrated in later French Arthurian romance.

The contemporary chroniclers, Geraldus Cambrensis (Gerallt Cymro/Gerald the Welshman) and William of Newburgh, were both contemptuous of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Histories of the Kings of Britain. However, for Sebastian Evans, its translator, Geoffrey’s book is:

not a history, nor even … a historical romance, but a romance of a distinct and peculiar stampa romance in the sense of a national epos.

A true national epos, I say, but of what nation? It is not English, not Norman, nor even Breton or Welsh. Yet all have their heroes allotted to them … In simple fact, we can never read Geoffrey aright until we realise what nation it was of which he aspired to be the national writer of the national epic.  In a word, it was the national empire of his time …

Conclusion: Romancing Medieval Monarchy – An Empire from the Pennines to the Pyrenees:

In the end, Henry took over his kingdom without difficulty; it was the first undisputed succession to the English throne for over a hundred years. As lord of an empire stretching from the Scottish border to the Pyrenees he was potentially the most powerful ruler in Europe, richer even than the emperor and completely overshadowing the king of France. Out of the thirty-four years of his reign, Henry spent twenty-one on the Continent.

The Angevin Empire, c.1150-1200, showing the lands inherited by Henry II by 1154 (in yellow), those acquired through marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine (in red), those acknowledging his overlordship or acquired by conquest/diplomacy (in pink/mauve), and those claimed by Henry II (in brown). The cross-hatches show French territory retained by John in 1214.

The actual empire of Henry I consisted mainly of England, Normandy, Wales and Brittany. At its height, the actual empire of Henry II extended, in a contemporary yet historic phrase, from the Orkneys to the Pyrenees. The dominant idea of the Plantagenet Henry II’s reign was to gradually extend the frontiers of the Anglo-Cymric-Norman-Breton empire until the descendants of the Conqueror of England would become the emperors of Christendom.

When Henry II came to the throne of England, adding the dominions held by Stephen, Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine, it seemed that his dynastic dream could be accomplished within his reign. It was the lack of cohesion between the various constituent parts of the empire which was the greatest peril to that dream. As Paton wrote,

If only Norman and Englishman, Welshman and Breton, could be induced to work together in the common interest of the Empire there was no limit to the the potentialities of its future greatness. The restoration of an Empire mightier and broader than that of Charlemagne, nay, even that of Augustus, was no impossibility, but a practical aim, towards the attainment of which all the resources known to the statecraft of the time should be directed.

… Geoffrey… was inspired by Henry… Henry, indeed was no Augustus, and Geoffrey was far enough from being a Virgil, but in this respect the relations between the Roman emperor and the Mantuan poet were strictly analogous to those existing between the Norman king and the Welsh romancer.

Right to left: The tombs of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122-1204), Henry II (1133-89) and Richard I (1157-99) in Fontevrault Abbey, Anjou. Their choice of burial site reflects the French identity of all three.

To Sebastian Evans, as a translator, Geoffrey’s book was an epic that failed, for it was to have been the national epic of an empire that failed. When, in the next generation, King John lost Normandy and most of France in the early years of the thirteenth century, the Angevin empire came to an abrupt end in Western Europe. Arthur, the romantic creation of Geoffrey, who was set to have been the traditional hero of the Anglo-Norman-British nucleus of that Western empire, became a detached national hero, a purely literary, mythological figure to the early modern British who had forgotten the short-lived empire that had created him.                

For Lucy Allen-Paton, too, the Historia is not a chronicle or a history, but a romance based on early British histories, combining historical, legendary and mythological material with interest and ingenuity. Geoffrey raised a national hero, Arthur of the Britons, already the centre of myth and legend, to the rank of an imperial monarch, substituting for early British stories and customs those of Anglo-Norman England. In doing so, he provided a model of knightly and kingly custom and practice and a dignified place in literature and the popular national narrative, determining the form of the romantic chronicle for many centuries to come. By extension, the entire iconography of the House of Wessex, from the story of Offa’s bloodied sword to Agatha’s black cross and the Confessor’s Green Tree, is a forgotten thread, not just of a romantic royal chronicle, but of the British national narrative. 

Main Secondary Sources:

András Bereznay, et. al. (2003), The Times History of Europe: Three Thousand Years of History in Maps. London, Times Books: (Harper Collins).

Simon Keyes, Seán Duffy, Andrew Jotischky (2001), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History. London, Penguin Books.

Marc Morris (2014), The Norman Conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England. London, Pegasus Books.

Marc Morris (2021), The Anglo-Saxons: The Making of England: 410-1066. London, Simon & Schuster.

David Smurthwaite (1984), The Ordnance Survey Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain. Exeter, Webb and Bower.

Peter Rex (2013), Hereward. Stroud, Glos; Amberley Books.

Kenneth O. Morgan (1984), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. London: Guild Publishing.

István Lázár (1989), An Illustrated History of Hungary. Budapest, Corvina Books.

László Kontler (2009), A History of Hungary. Budapest, Atlantisz Publishing House.

The Bloodied Sword, the Precious Pearl and the Black Cross; Chronicles of the Royal House of Wessex – IV.

Episode Four: Scotland & England, 1093-1153

The Gizelakreuz – A Section of Gizela’s Black Holy Cross
Scene Thirty-Nine – Dunfermline and Edinburgh, 1093; The Deaths of Malcolm and Margaret:

In 1092, the peace agreement between Rufus and Malcolm signed five years earlier, broke down due to the building of another new castle by the Normans at Carlisle, even though the Scots claimed and controlled most of Cumbria. But the immediate cause of the outbreak of hostilities concerned Malcolm’s personal estates in England, granted to him by William in 1072 to enable him to visit his English relatives, including his sister-in-law Cristina and his daughter Eadyth. Both were interned at Wilton Abbey. After King William died in 1087, Eadgar continued to support his eldest son, Robert Curthose, who succeeded him as Duke of Normandy, against his second son, William Rufus, who received the English throne as William II. Eadgar was one of Robert’s three principal advisors at this time. The war waged by Robert and his allies to overthrow William ended in defeat in 1091. As part of the settlement, Eadgar was deprived of the lands in Normandy confiscated from William’s supporters and granted to him by Robert. They were restored to their previous owners by the terms of the peace treaty. The disgruntled Eadgar travelled once more to Scotland, where Malcolm was preparing for war with William Rufus.

When William Rufus had marched north to be confronted by Malcolm’s army, the two kings opted to talk rather than fight. The negotiations were conducted by Eadgar on Malcom’s behalf and by the newly-reconciled Robert Curthose on behalf of his brother. The resulting agreement resulted in a reconciliation between William and Eadgar. Still, within months Robert left England, unhappy with William’s failure to fulfil the the truce, and Eadgar went to Normandy with him.

A party among the Scots hated the rule of Malcolm, seeing him as a favourer of Sassenaghs and foreigners. They may have included, in their view, his Kyíván and Hungarian nobles. Soon after his death was announced, a party was already in arms preparing to besiege the Castle of Edinburgh. Having returned to England, Eadgar went to Scotland again in 1093, on his diplomatic mission for Willam Rufus.

William Rufus wanted the lands to be returned to the Crown, but the two men agreed to a meeting to discuss this. Malcolm travelled south to Gloucester, stopping at the Abbey to visit Cristina and Eadyth, but Rufus refused to negotiate, insisting that the dispute should instead be judged by the English barons. Malcolm was insulted by this and immediately returned to Dunfermline, where (according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), …

he gathered his army and came harrowing into England with more hostility than behoved him.  

Queen Margaret had tried to moderate her husband’s fury. She is known to have interceded with him for the release of  English prisoners from the border wars of the previous decades. Although a reforming Catholic from her time growing to womanhood at Andrew’s court in Hungary, she was also respectful of the Scottish Church’s Celtic roots, instigating the restoration of Columba’s Abbey on Iona. Besides the great Romanesque and Gothic abbeys of the eleventh century, there were also smaller monuments of the Reform movement in Scotland, like the tiny chapel she built, now standing on a rampart of Edinburgh Castle.

The stained glass window in St Margaret’s Chapel at Edinburgh Castle

But she had been ill for six months when Malcolm returned from his visit to Wilton Abbey and Gloucester, where he had an angry, confrontational meeting with William Rufus concerning his lands.  Perhaps Queen Margaret, who was already too weak to ride out or rise from her bed, recognised the almost uncontrollable rage of her husband before he left with his army, and she had a premonition four days before she died. A priest who was with her during these last days reported that she told him,

Perhaps on this very day, such a heavy calamity may befall this realm of Scotland as has not been for many ages past.”

The priest paid little attention to these words at the time, but a few days later a messenger arrived with the news that Malcolm had been slain on the very day that the Queen had spoken the ominous words. Before Malcolm left, she had been most urgent with him not to go with the army, but on that occasion, he had not followed her advice. Malcolm was accompanied by Edward, his eldest son by her and the heir-designate or Tánaiste, and by Edgar, her younger son.

Even by the standards of the time, the ravaging of Northumbria by the Scots was regarded as harsh. While besieging Alnwick Castle on 13th November, they were ambushed by Robert de Mowbray, Earl of Northumbria, whose lands Malcolm had devastated. In what became known as the Battle of the River Aln, Malcolm was killed by Arkil Morel, steward of Bamburgh Castle, and Edward was mortally wounded. Margaret was said to have died nine days later, having received the news of their deaths from Edgar. On the eve of the fourth day following his as yet unheralded death,

her weakness having somewhat abated, Margaret went to her oratory to hear Mass, and… there she took care to provide herself beforehand for her departure, which was now so near, with the holy Viaticum of the Body and Blood of our Lord. After partaking of this health-giving food, she returned to her bed, her former pains having assailed her with redoubled severity. The disease gained ground, and death was imminent. … Her face was already covered with a deadly pallor when she directed that I, and the other ministers of the sacred Altar along with me, should stand near her and commend her soul to Christ by our psalms.

Moreover, she asked that a cross, called the Black Cross, which she always held in the greatest veneration, should be brought to her. There was some delay in opening the chest in which it was kept, during which the Queen, sighing deeply, exclaimed, ’O unhappy that we are! O guilty that we are! Shall we not be permitted once more to look upon the Holy Cross?!’ When at last it was got out of the chest and brought to her, she received it with reverance, and did her best to embrace it and kiss it, and several times she signed herself with it. Although every part of her body was now growing cold, still as long as the warmth of life throbbed at her heart she continued steadfast in prayer. She repeated the whole of the Fiftieth Psalm, and placing the cross before her eyes, she held it there with both her hands.      

The Black Cross was first given by Gizela to Agatha in c.1045 when Gizela left Hungary to return to Bavaria (Niedenburg), where she lived out her life as a nun and died in c.1060. From Agatha, it passed to Margaret, presumably when Agatha returned to Bavaria in or after 1070. The cross isn’t described in detail, but it was gold set, encrusted with dark stones. It was at this point that her son, Edgar, returning from the army, entered the queen’s bedroom:

Conceive his distress at such a moment! Imagine to yourself how his heart was racked! He stood there in strait; everything was against him, and whither to turn himself he knew not. He had come to announce to his mother that his father and brother were both slain, and he found that mother, most dearly beloved by him, at the point of death. He knew not whom first to lament. Yet the loss of his dearest mother, when he saw her nearly dead before his eyes, stung him to his heart with the keenest pang. Besides all this, the condition of the realm occasioned him the deepest anxiety, for he was fully aware that the death of his father would be followed by an insurrection. Sadness and trouble beset him on every side. …

The queen, who seemed to the bystanders to be rapt in agony, suddenly rallied and spoke to her son. She asked him about his father and his brother. He was unwilling to tell the truth, and fearing that if she heard it she would immediately die, he replied that they were well. But with a deep sigh, she exclaimed,

I know it, my son, I know it. By this holy cross, by the bond of our blood, I adjure you to tell me the truth.”

Thus pressed, he told her exactly all that had happened. … At that same moment, she had lost her husband and son, and disease was bringing her to a cruel death.

 … Raising her eyes and hands towards heaven, she glorified God, saying…

All praise to thee… who hast been pleased that I should endure such deep sorrow at my departing… and I trust that by means of this suffering… I should be cleansed from some of the stains of my sins. … Lord Jesus Christ, … deliver me.”

Her body was carried to the Church of the Holy Trinity at Edinburgh Castle, which she had built, and buried opposite the altar, and thus her body at length rests in that place in which, when alive, she used to humble herself with vigils, prayers and tears. Her place of death is not mentioned in Turgot’s Life of Margaret, but Fordun states that Margaret died in Edinburgh in Castro puellarum on 16 November1093, according to the Chronicle of Mailros. Wynton also related this in his verse form Orygynale Cronikil.

Malcolm’s body was taken to Tynemouth Priory for immediate burial but then was sent north-west for re-burial in the reign of his son, Alexander, at either Dunfermline Abbey or Iona (during the Scottish Reformation the bones of both Malcolm and Margaret were reinterred in Catholic Spain).

Forty; The Later Adventures of the Aetheling, Scotland and the Crusades, 1093-1126:

On his return from Flanders, Eadgar the Aetheling had been forced to pay homage to William, and a chronicler tells us that he dragged on a sluggish and contended life as the friend and pensioner of Norman patrons. Disappointed with the level of recompense and respect shown to him by William, however, in 1086 he renounced his allegiance to the Conqueror and moved with his retinue to Norman Apulia in Italy. The Domesday Book, compiled that year, records Eadgar’s possession of only two small estates in Hertfordshire. Clearly, he left for Italy not intending to return, but the venture in the Mediterranean was unsuccessful and within a year or so he had returned to England. But in 1093, following the death of his sister Margaret, Eadgar decided to go on his travels again, this time returning to his birthplace, Hungary, and from thence to the Eastern Mediterranean and Byzantium.

When the First Crusade was proclaimed in England in 1095, William Golafre (de Goulafriére), Suffolk sub-tenant, was one of the first Anglo-Norman knights to join the contingent of Robert of Normandy; in general, cross-channel family connections must have been how most crusaders from Britain were recruited.

The Norman army which had invaded England in 1066 was by no means exclusively Norman, nor were the new tenants-in-chief or barons of the thirty years following. They included men from many parts of France, who traced their ancestry to Flanders, Aquitaine, Anjou and Brittany, in addition to Normandy. The Golafre family were one noble family who really did come over with the Conqueror from St Evreux in Normandy where they were Lords of Mesnil Bernard. There is still a small town, or large village, called La Goulafriere.

Guillaume Goullafre can still be found in the archives of Bayeux Cathedral for the eleventh century (Chronology of the Ancient Nobility of the Duchy of Normandy, 1087-1096) where he appears on a list of lords who accompanied Robert Duke of Normandy on the first crusade in 1096. He is also listed as one of the Knights Templar. Leland also refers to a Guillaume Goulaffre (Dives Roll) and a Roger Gulafre, who claimed property from St. Evroult, where a great abbey still stands. He is referred to specifically as Lord of Mesnil Bernard. William Gulafre, as he later seems to have been known in England, held great estates in Suffolk at the time of Domesday (1086) and gave tithes to Eye Abbey.

William’s son, Roger Gulafre, was also of Suffolk, according to the Pipe Rolls of 1130, and Philip Gulafre held four fees in barony in the same county later in the twelfth century, as well as manors in Essex. They also seem to have inter-married with both French and Breton noble families who arrived in Suffolk during the Conquest. There was also increasing intermarriage between Normans and Saxons, but more often for land rather than love on the part of Norman nobles.

Malcolm’s successor, his brother Donald Bán, drove out the English and French soldiers who had risen high in Malcolm’s service and had aroused the jealousy of the existing Scottish aristocracy. This purge brought him into conflict with the Anglo-Norman monarchy, whose influence in Scotland had diminished following the Conqueror’s death. William helped Malcolm’s eldest son, Duncan, who had spent many years as a hostage at William I’s court and remained there when set free by William II, to overthrow his uncle, but Donald soon regained the throne and Duncan was killed.

In the forty years from 1093 to 1133, Jerusalem was taken for Christianity and north-western Europe’s population and settlements developed to a point not seen since the Celtic migrations of the fourth century BC.

The military and religious movement known as the Crusades began in 1095, with the call of Pope Urban II for a campaign to free the holy places of the Middle East from Muslim domination. Britain’s involvement with crusading was at first modest. A twelfth-century English chronicler wrote that of the events in Asia (’Minor’), only a faint murmur crossed the channel. When Pope Urban summoned the chivalry of Christendom to the Crusade, he also released in the masses across Europe hopes and hatreds which were to express themselves in ways quite alien to the aims of the papal policy.

The main object of Urban’s famous appeal was to provide Byzantium with the reinforcements it needed to drive the Seljuk Turks from Asia Minor; for he hoped that in return the Eastern (Orthodox) Church would acknowledge the supremacy of Rome so that the unity of Christendom would be restored.

In addition, he was concerned to indicate to the nobility an alternative outlet for martial energies which were still constantly bringing devastation to continental lands. The Church had, for half a century, been concerned with limiting feudal warfare by what it referred to as the Truce of God. Accordingly, in addition to the clerics, a large number of lesser nobles had come to Clermont to hear the Pope address the Council.

To those who would take part in the Crusade, Urban offered impressive rewards. A knight who took the Cross would earn a remission from temporal penalties for all his sins; if he died in battle, he would earn remission of sins. And there were to be material as well as spiritual rewards.

The great nobles of Western Europe set off in 1096 by different routes to Constantinople, crossing the Bosphorus and overrunning Asia Minor. However, Eadgar’s invasion of Scotland late in 1097 would have made it impossible for him to have been commander of the English fleet which arrived off the Syrian coast in March 1098, as claimed by Orderic. Another effort to restore the Anglo-Norman influence in Scotland through sponsorship of Malcolm’s sons was launched in 1097, and Eadgar made yet another journey north, this time in command of an invading army. Donald was ousted, and Eadgar installed his nephew and namesake, Malcolm and Margaret’s son Edgar, on the Scottish throne.

Moreover, Eadgar’s niece Eadyth, daughter of Malcolm and Margaret, married Henry I on 11th November 1100, becoming Queen Matilda, three months into Henry’s reign. While we have no record of the wedding guests, it is unlikely that Eadgar would have gone abroad before so auspicious a royal wedding. Finally, the English had an English Queen, a daughter of Wessex, of the true royal family of England, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle pointedly put it.

After the ceremony, Eadgar travelled overland to join the fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean. No doubt, he took the route along the Danube through the land of his birth, Hungary, opened up to pilgrims by King István. He would then have sailed from Byzantium through the Dardanelles to the Levant and Syria, though there is no record of his journey.

In dealing with the variety of crusader armies reaching the western borders of Hungary, King Koloman had forged good relations with the French-led forces, defeated those of the prophetae and did not permit both those of William the Carpenter, Viscount of Melun and those of Count Emich of Leiningen to cross the country. In addition, the marriage of King Ladislas’s fabulously beautiful daughter, Piroska, had earned Hungary the goodwill of Constantinople.

The reigns of both Ladislas and Koloman brought about a fundamental change in Hungary’s international standing. Whereas throughout the eleventh century, the nascent kingdom had to defend itself against German expansionism, in the next three centuries it was emboldened by the conquest of Dalmatia and Croatia, and it was able to pursue expansionist policies of its own. Koloman’s economic policies continued the work of Ladislas, imposing higher taxes on commerce, which was refreshed by the influx of Jews who had been expelled from Bohemia by the Crusaders. However, there is little evidence of a renewal of direct relations between the English and Hungarian monarchies until the end of the fifteenth century.

The crusaders entered Jerusalem in 1099 and the group led by Eadgar distinguished itself in the service of the Byzantine emperor on the Crusade of 1101-2. William of Malmesbury recorded that Eadgar made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1102 so that Orderic’s report is probably the result of his conflation of the English fleet’s expedition with Eadgar’s later journey.

On his way back from Jerusalem, Eadgar was given rich gifts by both the Byzantine and German emperors, each of whom offered him an honoured place at court, but he insisted on returning home, whether that was to be England or Scotland. Some historians, however, have suggested that at some point in these years he served in the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire, in a unit that was composed primarily of English exiles under the leadership of Siward Barn, released from captivity by William at the end of his reign, whom Eadgar had known from his time in exile at the court of King Malcolm. Siward was reported as being in the company of Eadgar at Wearmouth after the failure of the northern rising and the Harrying of the North, and to have accompanied him to Scotland. He was then arrested by William’s troops at the siege of Ely in 1072 and imprisoned until 1087. From there, he went to Byzantium where he became the Sigurd Jarl commanding the other Anglo-Danish exiles in the Emperor’s service.  

Forty-one – 1100; Godfric and Godiva – the Anglophile Norman Monarch and his Wessex Wife:

A temporary truce between the royal brothers, William and Robert, had prevailed from 1096 when Robert left to fight in the First Crusade, but four years later Rufus was killed while hunting in the New Forest, leaving either Robert or the youngest son, Henry to be crowned as England’s new king. Robert hurriedly returned from the East, and the struggle for supremacy resumed.

Back in Europe, Eadgar again took the side of Robert Curthose in the internal struggles of the Norman dynasty, firstly against William Rufus and then against Henry Beauclerc. But when he was taken prisoner at the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 and sent back to England, he was pardoned and released by King Henry, who was by then his nephew through his marriage to Matilda (Eadyth). The dynastic struggle ended when Henry captured Robert, who spent the rest of his life in prison, dying in 1134, a year before Henry’s own death.

Henry’s victory at Tinchebrai over Duke Robert was the culminating point in the struggle for Normandy and after nineteen years, the King of England was once more Duke of Normandy; like Hastings, the battle was a touchstone of prestige among the Normans, a battle with which the aristocracy wished to be associated if they possibly could be.

Cristina of Wessex

Born in England, married in England to an Anglo-Scottish princess and buried in England, William’s youngest son, Henry, appears to have been the first royal Norman anglophile. His marriage was a major factor in this and came about because Margaret of Scotland’s sister Cristina (pictured above) became a nun in southern England and became acquainted with Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033/4-1109). Margaret’s daughter, Eadyth, was placed in the care of Cristina, who took her first to Romsey Abbey and later to Wilton Abbey in Wiltshire, not far from Winchester. However, although Cristina made her niece wear a nun’s veil to protect her from the lust of the Normans, she never took holy orders and fought to maintain her status as a marriageable woman. Her father, Malcolm, is said to have torn her headdress from her when he first visited her at Wilton. The Abbey was a place of education for other royal children during the early medieval period.

While there, she met Henry at William Rufus’s Court following the death of her parents in 1093, and on the couple’s marriage, William of Malmesbury wrote that Henry had long been attached to her. Orderic Vitalis also wrote that Henry had long adored her character and capacity. He also wrote that she was not bad-looking, despite her excessive face painting which, he claimed, didn’t improve her appearance. She testified to Anselm at Lambeth Palace that she had not become a nun, and he held a council at which he ruled that she was eligible to marry the King and become his Queen Consort. At her coronation, she took the regnal name of her Great Aunt Matilda in order to appease the Norman noblemen at court, and became known to the people as Good Queen Maud.   

He and his Eadyth christened their daughter Matilda, for the benefit of their Norman baronage, but privately called her by the Anglo-Saxon title ‘Aethelic,’ while their son William was given the title ‘Aetheling’, like his great uncle, Eadgar. During the English investiture crisis of 1103-1107, Queen Matilda acted as an intercessor between Henry and Anselm. England and Scotland also grew closer during Henry and Matilda’s reign, especially after Margaret’s youngest son David’s accession to the Scottish throne.

Henry ‘Beauclerc’ (1100-1135) helped Normans and Saxons to live side by side in peace and granted a charter upholding the best of the English laws. He set up a King’s Court (Curia Regis), where disputes and crimes were dealt with by trained lawyers. As a result, the chroniclers recorded, the people learned the value of the King’s Peace. Some of his plans to systematise this means of justice were carried out by Henry II. 

Towards the end of his reign, in a sign of his commitment to compromise within the English Church, Henry appointed a Saxon priest, Aethelwolf to the newly created Bishopric of Carlisle. In addition to teaching her husband English, Matilda was responsible for encouraging William of Malmesbury to write his History of the English Kings. The chronicler had written of England after the Conquest as:

… the habitation of strangers and the dominion of foreigners. There is today no Englishman who is either earl, bishop or abbot. The newcomers devour the riches and entrails of England, and there is no hope of the misery coming to an end.

Clearly, Henry set out to effect a reconciliation between the Normans and the English. According to William of Malmesbury however, none of this went down well with the Normans at Henry’s court who openly mocked the king and queen, calling them Godric and Godgifu (Godiva), but it did play well with the majority of the king’s English subjects across the country as a whole. No doubt, this was Henry’s intention.

King Henry also reached out to the Scots by giving the hand of Matilda of Huntingdon, daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria, to David I of Scotland. The marriage brought with it The Honour of Huntingdon, a lordship scattered through the shires of Northampton, Huntingdon and Bedford. These new territories increased David’s status not just as the undisputed king north of the border, but as one of the most powerful magnates in the Kingdom of the English. In addition, he acquired the former lordship of Waltheof, covering the far north of England including Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland, as well as the overlordship of the bishopric of Durham. He was, effectively, ‘King in the North’. Despite his sister Eadyth’s death in 1118, David retained the favour of King Henry and was the first to take the oath to uphold the succession of his niece, Matilda, to the English throne.

Forty-two; 1113 – Scotland & the Borders to the reign of David:

The Normans faced an even less well-developed border with their northern neighbours than with the Welsh. There were no clear geographical boundaries capable of preventing political expansion, and ethnicity by itself could not serve as the basis for states. Nor could language, so that what eventually became Scotland, and, to a lesser extent, Cumberland and Northumberland, were ethnically, linguistically, culturally diverse territories which often ovelapped each other, including Scots, Picts, Gaels, Britons, Angles and Saxons.

Until the mid-twelfth century, it was unclear whether much of what eventually became lowland Scotland and northern England, in particular Cumbria and Northumbria, would be part of the Kingdom of England or the Kingdom of Scotland. The mixture of populations in Cumbria and Lothian ensured that there was no obvious border. William II’s conquest of Cumbria in 1092 played a major role in fixing the frontier with England, but many of the northern and western isles still remained in the possession of Norway, a continuing, complicating factor for the Plantagenet kings.

The Scottish King David I had been Prince of the Cumbrians (1113-24) before becoming King of Scotland. He spent most of his childhood in Scotland but was exiled to England in 1093, after being orphaned by the deaths of Malcolm and Margaret. As their second youngest son, he became a dependant of his aunt and uncle, Henry I and Queen Matilda. The three royal brothers, David, Alexander and Edgar, had been in their mother’s room when she died.

According to The Melrose Chronicle, the three brothers were then besieged in Edinburgh Castle by their paternal uncle, Donald III, who had made himself king and forced his three nephews into exile. John of Fordun later wrote that Eadgar Aetheling arranged an escort for them into England. From Westminster, King William II opposed Donald’s succession and sent the exiled boys’ half-brother, Duncan, into Scotland with an army, but he was killed within a year. When William was accidentally killed, his younger brother Henry became king and married David’s sister, Eadyth, making David his brother-in-law and an important figure at the English court. Despite his Gaelic upbringing, by the end of his time at court, David was a fully Anglo-Norman prince. When King Edgar died, he was succeeded by Alexander, and David became Prince of the Cumbrians in 1113. In the same year, Henry returned from Normandy and David founded Selkirk Abbey. This and King Henry’s backing seems to have been enough to force Alexander to recognise his younger brother’s claims to southern Scotland.

When his brother, Alexander I died in 1124, David took over the Kingdom of Alba but had to engage in dynastic warfare against his nephew, Máel Coluim mac Alexandair, a struggle that lasted a full decade. In 1134, Máel Coluim was captured and imprisoned in Roxburgh Castle. By the time King Henry died in December 1135, David had more of Scotland under his control than any Scottish king before, but his plans for the north began to encounter problems in the 1150s when the King of Norway gained fealty over Orkney. 

Eadgar Aetheling travelled to Scotland once more late in life, around the year 1120 and was still alive in 1125, according to William of Malmesbury, growing old in the country in privacy and quiet. Having finally given up his claim to the English throne, the ‘Aetheling’ died in 1126, not long after his niece, Eadyth (Queen Matilda) in 1121. Before her death, Queen Matilda honoured her mother by founding the house of Holy Trinity in Aldgate, London.

The founding order, the Premonstratensians, had also been particularly important in Scotland, founding the house at Dryburgh on the border and reviving the holy site of St Ninian’s white church at Whithorn. But the most enduring of the new orders were the Cistercians. From their first foundation at Waverley in Surrey (1128) by William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, the order quickly spread throughout Britain. They founded the abbeys of Rievaulx, Fountains and Byland in North Yorkshire, Tintern in Wales, Thame in Oxfordshire, and Coombe Abbey in Warwickshire.

The Cistercians exploited their far-flung estates through granges, model farms operated by lay brothers who supervised paid labourers. Most of these were established in the twelfth century, the great era of Cistercian expansion. By then, Yorkshire had forty-six granges. The size of a grange depended on the type of land, so that in North Wales, where it was mostly mountainous and barren, Aberconwy’s grange covered twelve thousand acres, whereas the average size of the granges in east Yorkshire was less than five hundred acres. In rural districts, where parishes might be far apart and ill-equipped, monasteries had always provided a pastoral ministry.

Scottish Cistercian monasteries such as Sweetheart and Glenluce operated a mission field covering much of southwest Scotland. The Augustinian canons, founded at the beginning of the twelfth century, supplemented the work of parish priests by combining extra-mural ministry with cloistered life. The main purpose of the monastery, however, remained the contemplation and worship of God within the abbey walls. Most monasteries, like Waverley, were slenderly endowed and remained poor throughout their first century. The building of the magnificent abbey church of Rievaulx, together with the equally impressive complex of cloisters, refectories, kitchens, infirmaries and dormitories, left the monastery deep in debt. 

Forty-three; The White Ship Disaster and Succession Crisis, 1120-35:

The death of Henry I of England in 1135 left another disputed succession in England. Prince William, King Henry’s only legitimate son and heir, had perished in the wreck of the White Ship in 1120 and Henry’s second marriage, following the death of Matilda of Scotland, to Adeliza, the daughter of Geoffrey of Louvain, failed to produce a new male heir. In an attempt to secure the succession of his daughter, Empress Matilda (so-titled because she had inherited the German Empire from her first husband), Henry extracted an oath of allegiance to her from the Anglo-Norman barons in December 1126.

But Stephen, younger brother of Theobold II, Count of Blois, laid claim to the Crown on the pretext that Matilda’s mother had taken holy orders as a nun, and therefore that her marriage to Henry was null and void, meaning that Matilda was also illegitimate. This was despite Archbishop Anselm’s ruling before her marriage and coronation. Henry did little to ensure her succession apart from the oath, but her uncle, David I of Scotland, was among the first to take the oath.

Empress Matilda remained a popular choice in Wessex and West Mercia, acquiring the epithet, Lady of the English, an echo of the title given by the Mercians to Aethelflaeda two centuries previously. But her popularity did not extend to the Anglo-Norman barons and élite of London. Although the Saxons might support the concept of a female monarch, Stephen’s Norman supporters would not. Moreover, Matilda’s second marriage to Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, a traditional and much-hated enemy of the Norman aristocracy, provoked criticism from them, so that the question of the succession was, in reality, far from settled. There were alternative candidates but Stephen of Blois, Henry’s nephew, emerged as a favourite and seized the throne in the confusion that followed the king’s death.

One of the nobles who played a major role in this seizure of the English Crown was Hugh Bigod, who had succeeded to his brother’s estates in East Anglia after the latter had been drowned in the White Ship disaster of 1120. Bigod had plenty of scope for self-aggrandisement and coat-turning during the era of the Anarchy after 1135. Hurrying back from Rouen, where he had been attending the dying King, Hugh convinced the Archbishop of Canterbury that, on his deathbed, Henry had nominated Stephen as his heir. He did this not out of respect for Henry’s dying wishes, but because he saw Stephen as a weak man whom the barons could easily manipulate. As soon as these expectations proved unfounded, Bigod raised the standard of revolt at Norwich. There he was besieged by Stephen and forced to surrender. However, Stephen pardoned the troublesome baron with more charity than wisdom.

Stephen acted quickly, and took ship to London, where he was received by many as king, and hurried on to Winchester to secure the reins of government and the royal treasury. The result was a prolonged civil war in England, from 1139 to 1153, which extended into Scotland and Wales. Although many of the barons immediately declared for Stephen, there was opposition from the start in England, Wales and Scotland.

Forty-four – Durham, 1135-39; King in the North – The Anarchy.

At first, Stephen reigned securely throughout the entire Anglo-Norman realm, but then the Welsh, subdued under Henry I, revolted, while David seized Northumbria.

David had continued to support the claim of his niece to the English throne, bringing him into conflict with Stephen of Blois, and when Stephen was crowned on 22 December 1135, David declared war on him. Though some contemporary chroniclers claimed that he acted opportunistically, to protect his lands in northern England, dynastic hostility towards Stephen was also part of his effort to uphold the legacy of Henry I and the inheritance of House of Wessex. David carried out his wars in Matilda’s name, sometimes risking his own throne in the process.

Before December 1136 was over, David had marched into northern England, and by the end of January, he had occupied the castles of Carlisle, Wark, Alnwick, Northam and Newcastle. Stephen was forced to march north, arriving there with a large army at the beginning of February, which halted the Scottish advance. David was at Durham, where he was met by Stephen’s army. Rather than fight a pitched battle, a treaty was agreed by which David would retain Carlisle while his son, Henry, was re-granted half the lands of the earldom of Huntingdon, territory which had been confiscated.

Stephen would regain the other captured castles; and while David would do no homage for the re-granted lands, Stephen would receive his son, Henry’s homage both for Carlisle and the other English territories regained. These over-generous concessions in subsequent negotiations encouraged David to doubt the new English king’s resolution in pursuing affairs of state. The issue of Matilda’s succession was not mentioned; however, this first Durham treaty quickly broke down after David took insult at the treatment of Henry at Stephen’s court.

When the winter of 1136-37 was over, David prepared to invade England again. The King of the Scots massed an army on the Northumberland border, to which the English responded by gathering their forces at Newcastle. Once more, they avoided a pitched battle, and a truce was agreed upon until December when David demanded that Stephen hand over the whole of the old earldom of Northumbria. Stephen’s refusal led to a third Scottish invasion, this time in January 1138, when Stephen was forced to march north again.

Stephen’s army disintegrated through maladministration and betrayal in a brief campaign during which the Lowlands were due to be ravaged as an object lesson to the rest of Scotland. The ferocity with which the Scots army then invaded that January and February shocked the English ‘chroniclers’. Richard of Hexham called the Scottish force:

an execrable army, savager than any race of heathen yielding honour to neither God nor man, (that) harried the whole province and slaughtered everywhere folk of either sex, of every age and condition, destroying, pillaging and burning the villes, churches and houses.

The same chroniclers (‘propagandists’ might be a more appropriate epithet) painted a lurid picture of routine enslavements, killings of churchmen, women and infants, and even cannibalism. In February, King Stephen marched north, but the two armies avoided each other and he was soon on the road south again. In the summer, David decided to split his army, sending a column into Lancashire, under his nephew William, while he harried Furness and Craven in advancing to Newcastle. On 10 June, William Fitz Duncan met a force of knights and men-at-arms near Clitheroe, and a pitched battle took place in which the English army was routed.

Later that summer, the influential English baron Eustace Fitz John went over to David, taking with him his castles at Alnwick and Malton. This encouraged the Scots to launch yet another and even greater offensive, with their army bolstered by reinforcements from the north and west. Stephen’s attention was fully occupied with rebellions in the south, and the defence of the north was left to Archbishop Thurstan of York. But in allowing his Galloway troops to plunder the countryside, David had overplayed his hand and the northern English barons united against him to put an end to the repeated Scottish forays.

Responding to Bishop Thurstan’s appeal for a crusade against the Scots to gather at Thirsk, the armed strength of the North mustered at York, preceded by the banners of St Peter of York, St John of Beverley and St Wilfred of Ripon, flying from a mast mounted on a carriage. The English army then moved north on the road through Northallerton to Darlington.

By late July 1138, two Scottish armies had reunited in St Cuthbert’s land, in the lands controlled by the Bishop of Durham, on the north side of the River Tyne. Another English army had mustered to meet the Scots, led by William, Earl of Aumerle. The Scots refused an offer of negotiations and the northern English army advanced to intercept them at Northallerton. Inspired by his victory at Clitheroe, David decided to risk battle. David’s force, apparently 26,000 strong, was far larger than the English army when the two forces met on Cowdon Moor near Northallerton (North Yorks).

Despite their strength in numbers, The Battle of the Standard, as it came to be known, was a defeat for the Scots. Early in the morning of 22 August, the Anglo-Normans occupied the southernmost of the two hillocks standing six hundred yards (550 metres) apart, to the east of the Darlington road. The carriage supporting the sacred standards was positioned on the southern summit and the English troops deployed in their defence. They formed in three groups with a front rank comprising dismounted men-at-arms and archers, a solid body of knights around the standards, and shire levies deployed at the rear and on each flank. At some distance to the south of the hill, a small number of mounted troops stood guard over the army’s horses.

The Scots drew up on the northern hillock with men-at-arms and archers to the fore and the poorly-equipped Gallwegians and Highlanders in the rear. The men of Galloway were incensed by their deployment and demanded to be repositioned in their customary place at the front of the battle line. Unwisely, for once, David gave his assent to their demand and the unarmoured Gallwegians formed the highly vulnerable spearhead of the attack. The troops from Strathclyde and the eastern lowlands formed on the right under David’s son Prince Henry, who also commanded a body of mounted knights. The left was predominantly West Highlanders and to the rear stood a small reserve under the Scots’ King with men from Moray and the East Highlands.

The men of Galloway opened the attack, charging through a hail of defensive fire from the Norman archers with such impetuosity that they temporarily broke the Norman front rank. The depth of the Anglo-Norman formation, however, made further penetration impossible and the Gallwegians were gradually pushed back. Despite repeated assaults, they were unable to make a decisive lodgement in the English ranks and Prince Henry attempted to break the stalemate with a mounted charge. Despite heavy losses of knights, his thrust was so successful that his cavalry crashed straight through the English lines and carried their charge in the direction of the tethered horses and Northallerton.

Before the Scottish infantry could take advantage of the passage created by their cavalry, the English had closed ranks and the Scots met a solid shield war. Prince Henry was marooned to the rear of the English army and unable to break away to the north. The Scottish left and the King’s reserve were unwilling to renew the offensive and many of their infantry began to leave the field.

Admitting defeat, David and his bodyguard joined the retreat leaving only a small company of knights to cover his army’s retreat. The Anglo-Norman deployment did not lend itself to the rapid exploitation of the Scots’ retreat and there seems to have been no attempt to harry or pursue them.

David retired to Carlisle, with his surviving notables, and having retained the bulk of his army, and therefore the power to go on the offensive again. He marched north to join the Scottish troops who had been attempting to reduce the castle at Wark. The siege, which had begun in January, continued until it was captured in November, and David continued to occupy Cumberland as well as much of Northumberland.

Satisfied that the Scottish threat had been successfully parried, Stephen’s army had temporarily dispersed, leaving only a baronial contingent in the field to besiege Eustace Fitz John’s castle at Malton. The ease with which the Scots were able to roam the northern counties demonstrated that the border country needed further fortification. Therefore, despite the defeat at Northallerton, David I was able to hold the frontier of his domain at the rivers Tees and Eden.

On 26th September 1138, David called together his kingdom’s notables, bishops and abbots. Cardinal Alberic, Bishop of Ostia, was also there and played the role of peace broker, and David agreed to a six-week truce which excluded the siege of Wark. A settlement was agreed in April, in Durham. David’s son Henry was restored to all his northern English lands and the earldom of Huntingdon, while David kept Carlisle and Cumberland. Stephen was to keep control of the castles of Bamburgh and Newcastle. This effectively delivered all of David’s official war aims and he attained dominion over all of England’s north-west along the River Ribble and the Pennines, and the north-east as far as the Tyne.

Forty-five – May 1139; Westminster & Winchester – Matilda’s Return:

By 1139, Robert of Gloucester, Henry I’s illegitimate son, had joined his half-sister, providing Matilda with a base in the west of England to accompany the lands held on her behalf in the North, Midlands and Wales. He then stood by her when she landed in England in 1139. The arrival in England of Empress Matilda allowed David to renew the conflict with Stephen. In May or June, David travelled to the south of England and entered Matilda’s company, and he was present for her expected coronation at Westminster Abbey. However, this never took place due to the hostility of the Norman élite in the capital. David therefore remained at Winchester until September when the Empress found herself surrounded there.

Now there were two rival courts in England, and a stalemate ensued. However, David’s control of northern England was confirmed. The castles at Bamburgh and Newcastle were again brought under his control, while his son brought all the senior barons of Northumberland into his entourage. David took over and rebuilt the English fortress at Carlisle, which quickly replaced Roxburgh as his favourite residence. His acquisition of the mines at Alston on the south Tyne enabled him to begin minting the Kingdom of Scotland’s first silver coinage.

Stephen became the hated usurper, especially in the North of England, where the conflict reopened many of the unhealed sores of the Conquest and the hatred between Norman and Anglo-Danish noble families. Stephen spent the rest of his reign in England struggling with Matilda’s supporters. For the best part of two decades, most of England and parts of Wales were embroiled in a deeply divisive civil war, a period when, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Men said openly that Christ and his saints slept. There, and in other chronicles, the record told of war and waste, pestilence and famine, castle-building, oppression and torture. After the long peace of Henry I’s reign, the vocabulary of the Conquest had returned.

In 1140, Stephen granted Herefordshire and its earldom, to Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester, but excluded the lands and obligations of Hugh Mortimer and two other barons from Robert’s jurisdiction. The Wigmore Chronicler tells of Hugh’s continual feuds with Miles, Matilda’s nominee as Earl of Hereford. Whether or not the account of a private war is accurate, it vividly portrays the anarchic state of the Marcher lordships during the 1140s.

In addition, the Marcher lords became disillusioned with Stephen’s weak policy towards Wales and his inability to sustain his barons there. Many of them went over to Matilda as prospective queen in the civil war, but Hugh Mortimer appears to have been an exception, since the problem for many Norman magnates was that Matilda had married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. The counts had for generations been rivals of the dukes of Normandy and many Norman barons in England with lands in Normandy now feared that, as by Norman law Matilda’s rights and property would pass to her husband, the Duchy would fall under the control of Geoffrey of Anjou. They therefore supported Stephen’s claim to Normandy and by extension to the Kingdom of England.

Nonetheless, Hugh Mortimer seems to have played little or no part in supporting Stephen on the national stage; his priorities were rather his interests in the March and the Anglo-Welsh border counties where he succeeded in reconquering Maelienydd in 1144 and was able to rebuild his castle of Cymaron. The Welsh chroniclers relate that in 1145-8 he captured the Welsh prince Rhys ap Hywel and later had him blinded.

Forty-six; The Siege of Lincoln, February 1141:

Stephen’s treaty concessions to the Scots, particularly the ceding of Northumbria, drove Ranulf Earl of Chester to rebellion as he considered the lordship of Carlisle and Cumberland to be part of his inheritance. Ranulf seized the castle of Lincoln and the town’s citizens appealed to the King for aid. Stephen and his army arrived at Lincoln on 6 January 1141 and although the speed with which the King had acted took the defenders by surprise, he was not able to prevent the Earl slipping away to Cheshire to raise troops. Ranulf also appealed to his father-in-law, Robert Earl of Gloucester, and promised loyalty to the Empress. Eager to exploit both the opportunity and the resources of his new ally, Robert quickly mustered his forces for a march on Lincoln. Earl Ranulf, with an army of his Cheshire tenants and Welsh mercenaries, joined Robert in Leicestershire and despite the restrictions on mobility imposed by the winter season, they were before Lincoln by 1 February.

Their immediate problem, as ever, was the crossing of the waterways, the Fossdyke and the River Witham, which lay between the rebel army and the castle. It appears most likely that the rebels marched some way to the west of the city walls and stormed across a ford on the Fossdyke which was inadequately guarded by Stephen’s troops. Once over on the Lincoln side of the dyke, the Earl’s army deployed for battle.

The Council of War summoned by Stephen to discuss the rebel threat was divided, the older nobles advising the king to garrison the city and withdraw to raise a larger army, the younger barons urging immediate battle. Stephen chose the latter course and deployed his army from the West Gate on the slope down to the Fossdyke. He formed his army in three divisions, with cavalry on both flanks and infantry in the centre. On the right-hand side were the followers, among others, of William de Warenne and Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. On the left, Stephen’s mercenary captain, William of Ypres deployed a contingent of Flemish and Breton troops alongside the troops of William of Aumerle. In the centre were elements of the shire-levy of the citizens of Lincoln.

The rebel army also deployed in three divisions, with disinherited nobles on the left, infantry levies and dismounted knights in the centre under Earl Ranulf, and cavalry under Earl Robert on the right. The lightly-armed Welsh were deployed in front of Robert’s cavalry. The rebels were the first to advance, moving forward with swords drawn, intent on close-quarter combat. On Stephen’s right, the Earls’ men fled the field rather than face butchery or capture, while on his left, Ypres and Aumerle rode down the Welsh and crashed into Earl Robert’s cavalry. At this crucial moment, the infantry of the rebel centre was able to intervene and the remaining cavalry under Stephen recoiled in panic which gave way to rout.

Though surrounded, the King and his guard fought their way out of their isolation, with Stephen himself prominent in the savage hand-to-hand combat that followed. Wielding his sword, and then a battle-axe, Stephen became the focus of resistance until struck down by a stone and captured by William de Cahaignes. The latter’s cry of Here, everyone, here! I’ve got the King! brought the fighting to an end. It was a total defeat for Stephen followed by the burning and pillage of Lincoln, whose citizens were slaughtered indiscriminately by the victorious rebels.

Stephen was conveyed to Bristol as a prisoner but although Matilda’s coronation as Queen now appeared only a matter of time, her assumption of the prerogatives of state alienated the citizens of London, causing many of them to confirm their allegiance to Stephen by joining an army raised by Stephen’s queen which routed Matilda’s forces at Winchester. By November 1141, Stephen had been freed.           

David’s many successes in battle were in many ways balanced by his failures off the battlefield. His greatest disappointment was his failure to gain control of the Bishopric of Durham and the Archbishopric of York. He had attempted to appoint his chancellor, William Comyn to Durham, which had been empty since the death of Geoffrey Rufus. However, he was unlikely to secure the support of the Papal legate, Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen. Despite obtaining the support of Matilda, David was unsuccessful in securing Comyn’s election to the see.

David also failed in his attempt to secure the succession to the Archbishopric of York. William Fitzherbert, King Stephen’s nephew, found his position undermined by the collapsing political fortunes of Stephen in the north of England and was deposed by the Pope. David used his Cistercian connections to build a bond with Henry Murdac, the new archbishop. Despite the support of Pope Eugene III, advocates for King Stephen and Fitz Herbert prevented Murdac from taking up the post at York.

Forty-seven – 1143; The Advent of the Angevins:

By 1143, Geoffrey of Anjou had won control of Normandy south of the Seine and the next year he subdued the remainder of the Duchy. Geoffrey Plantagenet’s victory in Normandy and his assumption of the title of duke placed the Anglo-Norman barons in a dilemma. Lords with interests in both England and Normandy who continued to support Stephen could hardly expect to retain their honours in Normandy. Those lords whose interests in Normandy were more important than those in England, and whoever therefore did homage to Geoffrey and by inference to Matilda, jeopardised their English interests in the parts of the kingdom where Stephen’s writ ran. Some withdrew from the quandary by joining the Second Crusade, but others like Hugh Mortimer reconciled their divided loyalties and preserved their family’s status in both dominions.  

Meanwhile, Matilda’s husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, having overrun Normandy, was proclaimed its duke in 1144, winning papal and French support for the Duchy to pass to their son Henry in 1151. It looked as if the Anglo-Norman realms would be split permanently between the two camps, even after Henry invaded England in 1152.

It took the death of Eustace, Stephen’s heir, to break the stalemate: by the Treaty of Winchester (December 1153), Stephen acknowledged Henry Plantagenet as his heir and died within a year, bringing the protracted civil war to an agreed end, and securing for Henry the first undisputed succession to the English throne for more than a century.

In 1149, Henry Murdac had again sought the support of David, who seized on the opportunity to bring the City and Archdiocese of York under his control, and duly marched on the city. However, Stephen’s supporters became aware of David’s intentions and informed Stephen, who himself marched to the city and installed a new garrison. David decided not to risk such an engagement and withdrew. If his intention, as some have suggested, was to bring the whole of ancient Northumbria into his dominions, this event turned the tide against him, and…

the chance to radically redraw the political map of the British Isles was lost forever.    

Nevertheless, David had expanded his control across Northern England, despite defeat at the Battle of the Standard in 1138. He was an independence-loving king trying to build a Scot-Northumbrian realm by seizing the most northerly parts of the English Kingdom. David’s support for Matilda can therefore be seen not so much as a pretext for land-grabbing but as the result of his own descent from the House of Wessex. His son’s descent from the Earls of Northumberland encouraged him in this project which came to an end when his successor was ordered by Henry II of England to hand back the most important of his northern English gains.

Forty-eight – Spring, 1153, Rievaulx & Carlisle; the Scottish Church, David’s Death and the Black Cross:

The Scottish church historians usually acknowledge David’s role as the defender of its independence from claims of overlordship by the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. Aelred of Rievaulx wrote in David’s eulogy that when he became king, …

he found three or four bishoprics in the whole Scottish kingdom (north of the Firth of Forth), and the others wavering without a pastor due to the loss of both morals and property; when he died, he left nine, both of ancient bishoprics which he himself restored and new ones which he erected.

However, although he moved the bishopric of Mortlach east to Old Aberdeen and arranged for the creation of the Diocese of Caithness, no other bishopric can truly be called David’s creation. The bishopric of Glasgow was restored, with David appointing his reform-minded French chaplain to it, and assigning all the lands of his principality except those in the east already governed by the Bishop of St Andrews. David was also partly responsible for forcing semi-monastic bishoprics like Mortlach (Aberdeen), Brechin, Dunkeld and Dunblane to become fully episcopal and firmly integrated into a national diocesan system.  

In addition, some of these changes to ancient monastic foundations were sometimes made at the expense of the original Celtic settlements. Bishop Robert of St Andrews, with the agreement of David, dispossessed the Celtic monks or Culdees in order to place the most sacred relics of Scotland in the care of Augustinian canons. Robert built a church dedicated to the Syrian monk St Regulus, who had reputedly brought the bones of St Andrew to the site in the fourth century. In northern England, the abbeys of Rievaulx, Fountains and Byland in North Yorkshire were all built at this time, and among the daughter houses of Rivaulx was Melrose, established by David I on the place where Aidan had founded his first monastery in Scotland, on the Tweed.

David was one of medieval Scotland’s greatest monastic patrons. He founded more than a dozen new monasteries during his reign as King of Scotland, patronising various new monastic orders. Not only were such monasteries an expression of David’s undoubted piety, they also helped to transform Scottish society. Monasteries became centres of foreign influence and provided sources of literate men, able to serve the crown’s growing administrative needs. The Cistercian monasteries in particular helped to introduce new agricultural practices. They transformed southern Scotland into one of northern Europe’s most important sources of sheep wool.

As for the development of the parochial system, Scotland already had an ancient system of parish churches dating from the early Middle Ages. The kind of system introduced by David’s Normanising reforms was concerned with making the Scottish church as a whole more like that of France and Norman England in a piecemeal fashion, rather than carrying out more radical restructuring.

From the beginning of his reign, David had to deal with the problem of the archepiscopal status of St Andrews, which since the eleventh century had acted as a de facto archbishopric, but never made de jure by the Pope. This opened the way for the aggressively assertive Archbishop of York, Thurstan, to claim overlordship over the entire Scottish church. Added to this, the bishopric of Glasgow was south of the river Firth and neither regarded as part of the Kingdom of Scotland nor in the jurisdiction of St Andrews.

In 1125, the Pope had written to the Bishop of Glasgow urging him to submit to York. David ordered Bishop John to travel to Rome to secure a pallium which would elevate St Andrews to an archbishopric with jurisdiction over Glasgow. In the end, David gained the support of Henry I, and York’s claim over the bishops north of the Firth was quietly dropped for the rest of David’s reign, although York maintained its claims over Glasgow.

The greatest blow to David’s ecclesiastical and secular plans came on 12 July 1152 when Henry, Earl of Northumberland, his heir, died, after suffering from a long-term illness. David must have known that he had not long to live, as he arranged for his grandson, Malcolm IV, to be made his successor, and for his younger grandson, William, to be made Earl of Northumberland. While the eleven-year-old Malcolm was taken on a tour of the kingdom by the senior magnate and future rector (regent) Donnchad I, David’s health deteriorated rapidly in the spring of 1153, and he died at Carlisle Castle on 24th May.

On his deathbed, David asked for his mother’s black cross, which had originally belonged to Gizela, István’s Queen in Hungary, showing once again the importance of the Árpád dynasty heritage. In his obituary, he is called Dabid mac Mail Colaim rí Alban, Saxan (David, son of Malcolm, King of Scotland and England). The title not only acknowledged his English lands, but also his ancient Wessex heritage. He is recognised as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church but was never formally canonised, unlike his mother, Saint Margaret of Scotland, who was canonised in 1249. Aelred of Rivaulx, his courtier, praised David for his justice and piety, urging Henry Plantagenet, his Anglo-Angevin nephew to follow his example in kingship.

(to be continued…)