Winstanley College

History Magazine February 2014 Edition

Page 3.Editorial

Page 4.I Could Have Been King

Page 7.Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur?

Page 10.William Wilberforce: One Voice that Spoke for Millions

Page 13.Partisans: The Unsung Heroes of World War Two

Page 17.Edward Heath: Wrong Place, Wrong Time

Page 21The History of Solitary Confinement in the USA

Page 23..The History of Faberge Eggs

Page 25.The Role of Fidel Castro in the Cold War

Page 27..Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King Carolus Rex So Successful?

Page 30.Should We Be Proud of the First World War?

Page 34.Tutankhamun (COMPETITION WINNER!)

Page 37..Yet Another Quirk of Fate (COMPETITION WINNER!)

Page 39..Rwandan Genocide: Inequality Breeds Inequality (COMPETITION WINNER!)

Page 42.Why Was the American Civil Rights Movement So Successful?

Page 45.Frederick Barbarossa: The Man Who Drowned in a Puddle?

Page 48..What Makes History So Interesting

Page 49Jonathan Phillips Visits Winstanley College

Page 51...EXCLUSIVE Interview with Jonathan Phillips

Page 53..Winstanley Colleges Historical Drama

Page 55..Meet the History Society

Page 56...History Society Events

Contents:

Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of

the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its

History Society

2014 is set to be an interesting year for

historians, marking in particular the

centenary of the beginning of the First

World War. This year will also mark one

thousand years since Pope Benedict

VIII recognized and crowned Henry of

Bavaria as King of Germany. Seven

hundred and fifty years since the Sec-

ond Barons' War (an English Civil War)

broke out. One thousand two hundred

years since the Bulgarians laid siege

before Constantinople. Ten years since

the launch of Facebook. Five years

since the Treaty of Lisbon came into

force. As John Gardner so rightly point-

ed out, history never looks like history

when you are living through it.

This edition of the Winstanley College

History Magazine provides a fascinat-

ing selection of articles, ranging from

an analysis of the trials and tribulations

faced by British prime minister Edward

Heath (see page 17), to a thought-

provoking insight into whether Britain

should be proud of its achievements in

the First World War (see page 30).

We are also delighted that this edition

contains three competition winning ar-

ticles written by students from Standish

Community High School. Students en-

tered a competition to have their arti-

cles published, and the standard of the

articles we received was incredible! The

winning articles were: Tutankhamun

by Eoin Bowden (page 34); Just Anoth-

er Quirk of Fate by Rose Mennell,

(page 37); and The Rwandan Geno-

cide: Inequality Breeds Inequality by

Nathaniel Wood, (page 39). Many

thanks to Standish Community High

School for their fantastic contributions,

and congratulations to our competi-

tion winners!

Also in this edition is an EXCLUSIVE in-

terview with historian Jonathan Phillips

(see page 51).

As ever, articles for publication in the

Winstanley History Magazine are al-

ways welcomed and can be on any his-

tory related topic - email your article to

the History Society or speak to a mem-

ber of the editorial team. Many thanks

to those who have written for this edi-

tion.

Enjoy!

Phoebe McGibbon (Editor)

Editorial

History, that excitable and unreliable old lady. - Guy de Maupassant

I Could Have

Been King... By Harry Griffiths

If only he hadnt died so early, I could be King of

England Edward The Black Prince, son of King

Edward III of England, is a very distant relative of

mine, and despite his heroic name, has gone under

the radar of many historians. Had he not died a

year before his father, you may not have known

me as a Winstanley College student...

Born at Woodstock Palace in Oxfordshire in June

1330, Edward was Earl of Chester aged 3, Duke of

Cornwall aged 7 (the first English duke), and Prince

of Wales by the time he was 13. He even acted as a

symbolic regent for a spell whilst his father was on

campaign. Whats more, in 1337 he acted as a

prime negotiator with the papacy about the Ed-

wardian War.

In 1361, he married his cousin, Joan The Fair Maid

of Kent, having gained permission from Pope Inno-

cent VI to marry a blood relative. A controversial

marriage, many deemed this a missed opportunity:

marriage to an Englishwoman wasted a chance to

form an alliance with a foreign power. Moreover,

this would be Joans third marriage, having married

Thomas Holland (1st Earl of Kent) & William Mon-

tacute (2nd Earl of Salisbury) previously, and so

such marital history saw many raise concerns about

Edward marrying her.

Edward represented his father in Aquitaine, France,

holding a court with Joan which itself was held in

high esteem, dubbed one of the best at the time.

Having been exiled from the Castile throne by his

brother, Pedro of Castile offered Edward the lord-

ship of Biscay in return for Edwards help in recover-

ing the Castile throne. Edward was successful in the

Battle of Njera, outclassing the combined French

and Castilian forces led by Bertrand du Guesclin,

although Pedro did not pay fully and excused to

yield Biscay alleging lack of consent of its states. In

the same year, 1367, Joan had given birth to a son,

Richard, who was therefore second-in-line to the

English throne.

Edward returned to Aquitaine, where he made him-

self unpopular with the nobility by levying taxes to

pay for his Spanish expedition. They rose in revolt

against him and in 1370 Edward besieged the city of

Limoges. When it fell, 3,000 of its inhabitants were

massacred. A year later, Edward returned to Eng-

land due to ill health.

His death came to him a week before his 46th birth-

day, on 8th June 1376 at Westminster Palace. De-

spite requesting to be buried in the crypt of Canter-

bury Cathedral rather than next to the shrine, Ed-

ward was buried on the south side of the shrine of

Thomas Becket behind the quire. His tomb consists

of a bronze effigy beneath a tester depicting the Ho-

ly Trinity, with his heraldic achievements hung over

the tester. Though the achievements have since

been replaced by replicas, the originals remain

nearby. The tester was restored in 2006. A

chapel had been prepared at Canterbury Cathedral

as a chantry for him and his wife Joan, Countess of

Kent. However, this is now the French Protestant

Chapel, but still contains ceiling bosses of her face

and of their coats of arms.

His death meant that he never lay claim to the Eng-

lish throne, as his death preceded that of his father,

King Edward III by a year, and so the Black Princes

son, Richard, became Richard II of England in 1377.

The Black Princes claim to fame was his remarka-

ble military leadership, seeing victory in many a

battle, including his victories over the French at the

Battles of Crcy (aged just 16) and Poitiers. Both of

these enhanced his reputation, and in 1348 he be-

came the first Knight of the Garter, of whose Order

he was one of the founders.

As regards his distinguished title as The Black

Prince, it is believed to have only come into exist-

ence over 150 years after his death. There are two

main reasons for such a title being branded which

are: 1) due to his black armour/shield that he often

sported in battle, or; 2) due to his brutal reputation

as a military warrior. According to Wikipedia, there

is no sound evidence that Edward ever wore black

armour, although John Harvey (without citing a

source) refers to "some rather shadowy evidence

that he was described in French as clad at the battle

of Crecy "en armure noire en fer bruni" in black

armour of burnished steel". Wikipedia further ap-

pears to favour the brutality association, claiming

Edward's brutality in France is also well document-

ed, and David Green believes that this is where the

title has its origins. The French soldier Philippe de

Mzires refers to Edward as the greatest of the

"black boars" those aggressors who had done so

much to disrupt relations within Christendom.

Often associated to The Black Prince is his shield for

peace, (below left), of three ostrich feathers, which

has since inspired the heraldic badge of the Prince

of Wales (below right).

In terms of my relation to Edward, The Black Prince,

my family traced back our family tree to as long ago

as 1500, where a relative of ours, John Owen is

found. His ancestry can be further traced to The

Black Prince via Joans children from her first mar-

riage to Thomas Holland: a marriage existed be-

tween the Holland family and the Owen family of

whom I am related to, and therefore (though far-

fetched and an entire parallel universe away) should

history have fallen in my favour (entirely), I could be

King of England now - I stress, EXTREMELY far-

fetched. Members of my family, including my moth-

er, have visited the tomb of The Black Prince, as

well as found the grave of the relative of whom pro-

vides the link to the Prince himself.

To finish with, the Epitaph on his effigy reads:

Such as thou art, sometime was I.

Such as I am, such shalt thou be.

I thought little on th'our of Death

So long as I enjoyed breath.

But now a wretched captive am I,

Deep in the ground, lo here I lie.

My beauty great, is all quite gone,

My flesh is wasted to the bone.

Ab

ove

: a

tim

elin

e o

f th

e lif

e o

f th

e B

lack

Pri

nce

By

By Megan Anderton

King Arthur is one of the most famous British

kings in history, despite almost certainly being at

least partially fictional. The legend of the heroic

king of Britain is also mirrored in folklore in

France, Iceland, Hungary, Norway and Italy,

showing just how powerful the legend is. Though

King Arthur himself may be just a legend, can any

truth be found in the legend?

He is said to have lived in the late 5th and early

6th Century, led the British in the defence of Brit-

ain against invading Saxons.

One of the most famous aspects of the legend is

the Knights of the Round Table, where Arthurs

most trusted knights such as Sir Lancelot and Sir

Galahad sat as equals. The round table first ap-

peared in 1155 in the work of the French poet

Maistre Wace. Many places have claimed the

round table as their own, including the round ta-

ble at Winchester Castle. Tree ring analysis of the

round table at Winchester show that it was proba-

bly made around 1290 for a tournament near

Winchester, but although the credibility of the

legend linked to this particular table has been lost,

the legend still remains. In 2010, historians re-

searching the legend of King Arthur announced

that they believed they had found Camelot on the

site of a Roman amphitheatre in Chester. The site

contained what they believed to be the round

table. Rather than being a wooden piece of furni-

ture for the 24 knights, it is a vast, circular stone

structure and would also have had wooden instal-

lations, which would have allowed over 1,000 of

his followers to gather. It is believed that regional

noblemen would have sat in the front row, with

the lower ranks sat on stone benches around the

outside. The most compelling piece of evidence is

the discovery of an execution stone and a possible

wooden memorial to Christian martyrs. In the 6th

Century a Welsh monk called Gildas referred to

the City of Legions with a shrine within. One of

Arthurs main battles is said to have been fought

at the City of Legions, and it is known that there

were two places with this name. One is St Albans,

but the other has remained a mystery. Research-

ers concluded that the discovery of the shrine in

the amphitheatre proved that the second City of

Legions was Chester.

Peter Ackroyd, in the introduction to his retelling

Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur?

By Harry Griffiths

of Sir Thomas Malorys Le Morte dArthur sug-

gests that there is other truth behind the legend.

Malorys collection of tales was first published in

1485. He was born, therefore, into a time of mass

violence and uncertainty after Richard II was over-

thrown in 1399. The disorder during the reign of

his successor, Henry IV, sets Sir Thomas writing

into a context of a time of suspicion and almost

continual violence which is mirrored in the leg-

ends of King Arthur, most particularly in the con-

flict between King Arthur and his traitorous neph-

ew Mordred. It is interesting that Malory, like

many other writers of the Arthurian legends, plac-

es Arthur within his own time.

King Arthur is not mentioned in early English

chronicles, but is referenced in Welsh chronicles.

This is good evidence for the original King Arthur

being a leader of the Britons. Between the years

500-550AD, the Britons appeared to successfully

hold back the Saxon advance, but were later

pushed back in to Wales and Cornwall. The land

taken by the Saxons eventually became known as

England, and they referred to the people in Wales

as Welsh, which comes from the Saxon word

weala meaning foreigner. This could be an ex-

planation as why Arthur as King of the Britons is

not mentioned in early English chronicles, as the

Saxons were unlikely to record the exploits of a

king who was successful at holding them back.

Indeed, the earliest reliable reference to King Ar-

thur in the Historia Brittonum, written by a

Welsh monk called Nennius around 830AD, refers

to Arthur not as a King but as a warrior, making it

possible that the legend has a factual basis on a

warrior leader the Britons defence.

Other theories of the origins of the legend of the

once and future King have been explored by his-

torians through the use of archaeology. It is little

to find much hard evidence during the supposed

era of King Arthur (367-734 AD), particularly after

Britain was Christianised in the 4th and 5th Centu-

ries and therefore grave goods were no longer

used. It was also uncommon for a tombstone to

be used, and it therefore becomes difficult for ar-

chaeologists to verify sites like Cadbury Hill-fort,

Glastonbury Abbey and Tintagelas the grave or

living place of Arthur, however, combined with

the literature surrounding King Arthur it is possi-

ble to track down plausible origins for the legend.

One man who has been associated with the leg-

end of King Arthur is Riothamus, the King of the

Britons. The name Riothamus can be roughly

translated as Supreme King, which leaves room

for speculation that Arthur or Artorius could have

been given as his British name, as it was common

at the time for people to have two names. There

are many similarities between the recorded life of

Rigothamus and Geoffrey of Monmouths account

of Arthurs life in History of the Kings of Britain ,

for example;

Riothamus led an army of Britons in to Gaul, and

like Arthur, was the only British King to do so.

Riothamus was betrayed by one of his deputies,

who cooperated with their barbarian enemies,

much like Arthur, who is betrayed by his nephew

Mordred.

Riothamus disappears from history after a fatal

battle, and has no recorded death. His last known

position was near the Burgundian town of Avallon,

which is very possibly the inspiration for the island

of Avalon, where Arthur was taken after he was

mortally wounded by Mordred in their final battle.

However, the fact remains that this is largely spec-

ulation, and there are many flaws in the theory,

for example, Riothamus died in 470AD, placing

him outside the timeframe of the late 5th Century

as in Nennius writings. Also, in Geoffrey of Mon-

mouths writings Arthur leads his armies against

Rome, but Riothamus and the Romans were allies.

However it is not uncommon for heroic stories to

change the enemies to suit changing political and

social attitudes, and also Geoffrey of Monmouth

was writing much later, in 1136.

In conclusion, it still remains likely that the stories

of King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the

By Harry Griffiths

Round Table are mostly fiction; however histori-

ans do seem to have found a very plausible inspi-

ration for the legend in Riothamus. It is likely that

there are many elements of truth hidden within

the stories of chivalry and honour, of epic battles

and of magic. Perhaps Riothamus, despite proba-

bly not having a magician for a guardian or a drag-

on for a pet, perhaps Riothamus was so inspira-

tional himself that people down the ages felt the

need to honour him in their epic tales and leg-

ends. King Arthur continued to inspire a nation, so

much so that future kings of England would claim

that their ancestry could be traced back to Arthur

in order to show their legitimacy. The continued

influence of the legend shows just how powerful a

figure Arthur was, whether he was real or not.

William Wilberforce: One Voice That Spoke for Millions

By Phoebe McGibbon

At four oclock am on February 24th 1807, the Sec-

retary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Howick,

was asked by the speaker to move the second

reading of the Slave Trade Abolition Bill. For twen-

ty years, the slave trade had been debated by the

commons, and bills in favour of its abolition had

been abandoned and defeated time and again. But

this night, something was different. The Slave

Trade Abolition Bill was passed in the Commons by

a majority of 283 Ayes to just 16 Noes, having al-

ready been passed by the House of Lords. This Bill

would change the practises of the British Empire:

the capture, transportation and sale of enslaved

Africans was from this moment illegal. The House

of Commons rose to its feet in applause that night,

as it has done on few occasions in history. The

members cheered, saluted, and paid tributes to a

small, hunched figure, who sat, overcome with

emotion. His name was William Wilberforce.

Wilberforce was born in Hull, in 1759, the son of a

wealthy merchant who traded with Russia and the

Baltic States. Following his fathers death in 1768,

Wilberforce was sent by his struggling mother to

live with an aunt and uncle for three years. Re-

turning in 1771, he was discovered to be of excep-

tional intelligence; intellectual beyond his years. In

October 1776, Wilberforce earned a place to study

at St John's College, Cambridge. Following the

deaths of his grandfather and uncle in 1776 and

1777, he inherited a considerable wealth, and thus

had little need or incentive to devote himself fully

to his studies. He became absorbed in the Univer-

sitys social life, enjoying activities such as gam-

bling, cards and drinking. Entertaining, compas-

sionate, and a charming conversationalist, Wilber-

force soon became popular. He befriended in par-

ticular the studious William Pitt the Younger, who

was to become an outstanding Prime Minister in

his later life. In spite of engaging rather enthusias-

tically in some of the less academic aspects of stu-

dent life, Wilberforce achieved a Batchelor of Arts

Degree in 1781. He embarked upon a career in

politics, becoming MP for Yorkshire in 1784.

However, in 1784, Wilberforces life changed ra-

ther dramatically. He was travelling on the conti-

nent when he met with an old school tutor, a de-

vout Christian. The influence of his old tutor drew

Wilberforces interest to the Christian faith. He

read A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life by

William Law.

The book made him question his own lack of faith,

and stirred a deep change within him. Wilberforce

found himself being drawn to the Christian faith

but was unsure as to whether he could serve both

God, and his country in parliament. He sought the

advice of a dear friend, John Newton, a retired

slave ship captain who by this point recognised the

horrors of the slave trade. Newton advised Wilber-

force that God had intended him to go into poli-

tics, and had work for him there; that his life had

purpose and his task now was to discover that pur-

pose. Newton inspired Wilberforce to pursue both

a political career and a devotion to God, believing

that the two were intertwineable. This marked a

turning point in Wilberforces political career. John

Newton is best known for his famous hymn,

Amazing Grace, the lyrics of which reflect his de-

votion to God, and remorse at his own involve-

ment in the slave trade:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found;

Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fears relieved;

How precious did that grace appear

The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,

I have already come;

'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,

And grace will lead me home.

Wilberforce had to this point, proved himself to be

an intellectual, dynamic character. It was clear to

many that he and his close friend Pitt were to be

the celebrities of British politics in the years to

come. Witty, young, and passionate, Wilberforces

eloquence and zeal made him one of the most

commanding debaters in the House of Commons,

even in its greatest age of eloquence. The Quak-

ers, a Christian movement of long-standing aboli-

tionists, formed an Abolition Committee in 1787,

along with other anti-Slave Trade campaigners.

However, they needed a figurehead within the

House of Commons, to bring about an "Inquiry in-

to the Slave Trade". It seemed that Newton had

not been incorrect in telling Wilberforce that God

had a purpose for him. The Quakers believed that

Wilberforce was the man they needed. Wilber-

force had found his cause. He and his friend Pitt,

who was by this point Prime Minister, shared a

famous conversation under an oak tree on his

country estate, in which Pitt advised Wilberforce

to take up the cause.

A young man named Thomas Clarkson, a founding

member of the Abolition Committee set about

travelling the United Kingdom, gathering infor-

mation on the Slave Trade. Wilberforce presented

the horrors that Clarkson had discovered, in his

first ardent and deeply moving speech to Parlia-

ment. Having exposed the realities of the trade,

Wilberforce famously declared to the law-makers

Having heard all of this you may choose to look

the other way but you can never again say that

you did not know.

Within three days of Wilberforces speech, parlia-

ment resolved that it would eventually ensure the

abolition of the Slave Trade. However, the opposi-

tion was fierce: much of Britains wealth was de-

pendent on the continuation of the trade, and its

defenders were every bit as zealous as the aboli-

tionists. Wilberforce was physically assaulted, and

at times had to travel with personal security. The

promise of gradual abolition began to look more

and more like empty words. But Wilberforces be-

lief in his cause was unshakeable.

The Abolitionists were a dynamic movement, and

consistently brought their cause to public atten-

tion. Appealing to the humanity and compassion

of the public, Wilberforce and his movement orga-

nized sugar boycotts, petitions, and at one point a

march on the prime minister's office. Wilberforces

battle for the abolition of the slave trade marked a

new era of public pressure campaigns. The public

response was positive; it seemed that a large pro-

portion of the population now recognised the bar-

barity of the trade. Petitions were signed by mil-

lions, and by 1796 the Abolitionists believed they

had sufficient support in Parliament to succeed.

However, the internal politics of the House of

Commons complicated matters. The Abolitionists

parliamentary opponents gave free opera tickets

to some of those who were intending to vote in

support of the bill, for the night of the vote. The

result was that the Bill was defeated in the Com-

mons by 4 votes.

Wilberforce was, for the time being, defeated. He

suffered a nervous breakdown and a collapse of

his health.

His old friend John Newton, however, offered in-

spiration and spiritual reinvigoration when Wilber-

force needed it most. Comparing Wilberforces

situation to the Biblical tale of Daniel in the Lions

Den, Newton explained to Wilberforce that "the

God whom you serve continually is able to pre-

serve and deliver you, he will see you through."

It seemed that this reinvigoration was precisely

what Wilberforce needed. Refreshed, he returned

to the political battlefield.

From this point on, Wilberforces proposed Aboli-

tion Bill was brought before the Commons each

year. Failed bill after failed bill did not deter his

passion, or utter devotion to his cause.

On the 23rd February 1807, the Abolition of the

Slave Trade Bill was once again debated in Parlia-

ment. After years of resilience and efforts, when

Wilberforce saw that the most of the speeches

given in the debate were in favour of the Bill, he

realised that the Bill was going to be passed. Wil-

berforce, by this point in ill health and a mere

shadow of the young man who first adopted the

cause, bowed his head and wept.

Wilberforces battle had taken twenty long years.

His dear friend Pitt had passed away in 1806, leav-

ing Wilberforce more determined than ever to

fight for the cause in which they had so fervently

believed together.

William Wilberforce passed away on 29th July

1933, poignantly just two days after hearing that a

second Bill which would abolish slavery through-

out the rest of Britains colonies would be passed

through parliament. Wilberforce is buried in West-

minster Abbey, close to William Pitt the Younger.

His legacy is cherished, and he is remembered as a

man whose ability, faith, humanity and determi-

nation changed the lives of millions across the

globe, and brought about the end of the Slave

Trade throughout the British Empire. Respected in

the end even by those who strongly disagreed

with him; Wilberforces achievements are perhaps

best reflected in his own words: We are too

young to realize that certain things are impossi-

ble... So we will do them anyway.

Partisans: The Unsung

Heroes of World War Two

By Daniel Foster

When we think of those involved in World

War 2, we immediately think about the

leaders, soldiers and civilians on the home

front, yet there is a 4th group who has

members from all these groups and in my

opinion had one of the most pivotal contri-

bution. In this article I will be explaining

how ordinary plain clothed people were

able to deal serve blows to the most of ad-

vanced and powerful army at the time.

A partisan is a member of an irregular mili-

tary force formed to oppose control of an

area by a foreign power or by an army of oc-

cupation by some kind of insurgent activity.

Unlike the other movements such as the

Free French Forces they did not have as

strong a structure as a normal army and op-

erated on much more on a local level and

would only receive resources by raiding

stockpiles, and air drops from other coun-

tries. Partisans were a communal effort and

almost any kind of resistance weather its

the shopkeeper tampering with restrictions

to get more food to the people or taking to

the street barricades in armed resistance

and whilst all occupied nations had partisan

groups there are some main.

The French resistance or as known in some

rural areas the Marquis, Its suggested

there were 300,000 members with most be-

ing members of left wing politics there were

members from all walks of social class and

professions but also, Women, Jews escaping

persecution as well as volunteers who fled

from Poland, Spain and Italy. Initially there

was little resistance in France as the South-

ern part (Vichy France) was left as a Nazi

puppet and seen to be safe to live in howev-

er soon the persecution and brutality began

after being made to pay taxes for the upkeep

of 300,000 German soldiers resistance began

at first it was passive. Coal miners going on

strike and similar protests shortly it lead to

arm conflict with many hit and run raids

crippling enemy supply lines. Through the

war the resistance was greatly helped by the

British Secret executive orders (SOE) that al-

most nightly were conducted high risk air

drops containing supplies and agents to help

train and co-ordinate attacks. By 1943 their

threat was so serve that not only had re-

serve German forces been sent but the Vichy

government created the Milice (Militia loyal

to the Nazis) because these men were re-

cruited from the same areas some partisans

came from, many knew where their hideouts

were and ultimately betrayed their country-

men. However their finest hour came in

1944 when months prior to D-Day they be-

gan destroying enemy locations and

transport routes but also mapped out the

remaining concentrations to be sent to allied

aircraft for bombing raids. Finally in 1944 the

citizens of Paris who had been preparing for

4 years had finally sensed their moment to

strike and launched a full uprising in Paris,

after the support of the 2nd Free French ar-

moured division and the loss of 1,000 opera-

tives Paris was liberated and respect for the

partisans cemented.

Similarly is perhaps the best organized

Group yet unfortunately due to Politics the

most ignored , The Polish Home army, set up

almost immediately after the surrender of

Poland.The original members were experi-

enced soldiers and officers who refused to

surrender and went into hiding, yet soon like

the French, all members of society had

joined the ranks. The poles went for a differ-

ent approach in their actions as all though

they did carry out some missions in the

countryside the concentrated on gathering

resources for an eventual uprising centred in

the capital, Warsaw the Poles quickly learnt

they could not rely on air drops and cap-

tured enemy supplies and so by using the

vast amount of skilled engineers they began

producing their own weapons including an

Armoured car called Kubu. The Warsaw ar-

my was referred to as the underground state

as in the sewers and cellars entire settle-

ments began complete with markets, hospi-

tals workshops and schools to educate chil-

dren whose education was disrupted by the

war. In a way Polands Home army has an el-

ement of Romance, amongst its ranks who

fought were many, writers, artists and other

leading cultural figures, yet it was full of

young teenagers determined to after the

war rebuild their democratic capitalist state

and experience a time of peace and prosper-

ity that they had never known. For years

they too had waited but in August 1944 they

saw their chance, soviet offensives had

pushed the Germans back in Poland and

they had reached the banks of the Vistula

river by Warsaw, citizens could hear the

sound of battle and felt the time was now.

A broadcast was made on the Underground

radio and the uprising began on August 1st

Initially the 20,000 insurgent met great suc-

cess and one unit captured a German tank

which then supported a liberation of a con-

centration camp resulting in hundreds of

Jews to immediately join the struggle. Unfor-

tunately Due to historic tensions Russian aid

never came and Stalin forbid the allies drop-

ping in supplies saying the Home army was

full of Capitalist nationalists that would be

just as bad as the Nazis. The home army

fought on against impossible odds showing

the true resilience of Partisans and after Two

months the Germans had recaptured War-

saw with 85% of the city destroyed and

150,000-200,000 civilians killed in reprisals.

The Final Group is without question the larg-

est with some estimates suggesting half a

million members but also proves a point that

one of the Germans greatest strengths was

also a crucial weakness, When Blitzkrieg had

swept through Russia vast amounts of sol-

diers and civilians had managed to escape

and settle in the vast woodlands of Soviet

republics, especially Belorussia. The soviet

High command thought partisans could be

an effective weapon and began to send in

political commissars to act as leaders for

units however they received little training,

no radios and no co-ordination between oth-

er units, as a result in 1941 2,800 units were

created but in 1942 only 270 survived. In

1942 a Partisan headquarters was set up

which started to send in experts in Guerrilla

warfare who also supplied radios, a final

measure was to include trained medical and

craftsman to support the partisan settle-

ments. However due to the mass refugees

when the Germans found the locations the

partisans were often unable to evacuate and

have to fight to the death. However it was

sabotage they excelled in one incident a sin-

gle saboteur was able to destroy an entire

rail junction filled with 120 supply wagons

and 8 tanks. Further proof is during the

battle of Kursk, many German reinforce-

ments being brought in by rail were being

delayed due to sabotage, further delays oc-

curred when repairing the lines would often

lead to ambushes meaning many German

units suffered casualties hundreds of miles

behind the front.

Perhaps more importantly if you look at the

battle of Kursk which was a major a turning

point on the Eastern front at some point

there was real deadlocks which if all the Ger-

mans had been able to gather all reinforce-

ments un-delayed could have been

breached. The Germans tried to destroy a

large enclave in Belorussia, they deployed

60,000 men, 137 tanks, 236 guns, 70 aircraft

and 2 armoured trains, the partisans who

numbered 60,000 caught word and 2,000

local partisans were ordered to help build a

1,000 meter airstrip in hilly marsh made out

of logs. The completion aloud many wound-

ed and vulnerable civilians to flee. The survi-

vors remained behind to fight and only

15,000 survived. When the areas were liber-

ated by the Russian army many partisans

simply signed up to be regular soldiers.

At first glance its easy to ignore the parti-

sans achievement as many of the mission

were petty sabotage resulting in some sup-

plies destroyed and a handful of enemy sol-

diers killed yet when you take into consider-

ation these missions were repeated 1,000s

of times throughout Europe then it becomes

easy to understand how the Germans

suffered 500,000casualties In Belorussia

alone through to Partisan activities.

Secondly the Passive resistance from forced

labourers is perhaps the most important on

paper workers tampering with weapons and

munitions in a discreet manner wouldnt

cause the overseer to pay much attention

but when a soldier receives a rifle on the

front line that doesnt fire properly hes not

likely to last long.

In conclusion Partisans may not have won

major battles and the Leaders arent as well

known as men like Montgomery and Rom-

mel but they caused Psychological harm on

the soldiers stationed in their areas con-

stantly fearing an ambush. The Germans cre-

ated an SS division (normally seen as the

most elite and fanatical German soldiers) 4th

SS Polizei Panzergrenadier Division compris-

ing of 10, 00-15,000 soldiers supported by

tanks and artillery just to fight civilians

armed with rifles in the machine guns.

On the other hand some partisan forces

such as the Yugoslavian became virtual ar-

mies as they were the only ones to have an

air force and a navy in which small patrol

boats raided German and Italian ports.

In conclusion whilst partisans are not a part

of our culture and heritage, it is important

their stories be remembered, as without

them Mussolini may have been able to es-

cape. Above all, partisans demonstrate

throughout history that there will always be

those who are prepared to stand up to evil.

Edward Heath: Wrong Place,

Wrong Time.

Edward Heath is too often criticised by not

just the left of the political spectrum, but

by his own party for his supposed failings

during his premiership between June 1970

and February 1974. When studying history,

it is too easy to criticise individuals for their

actions and choices without taking in to ac-

count the full impact of the context and

conditions in which these decisions were

taken. The Conservative loss of the 1974

election is a prime example of where our

often unforgiving judgement clouds reality

and ensures that in this case, we forget the

circumstances in which Labours Harold

Wilson had left Heath, as well as the poor

foreign and domestic affairs in the light of

which, Heaths reputation as a leader and a

politician would be torn to pieces.

Wilson's government of 1964 to 1970 left

an array of issues, mainly with the trade

unions, which meant that Edward Heath's

time as Prime Minister would be plagued

with troubles. It is true also that these is-

sues overshadowed the personal failings of

Heath between 1970 and 1974. However,

the difficult legacy on its own was not

enough to topple Heath's government in

1974. In fact, external circumstances which

then provoked the trade unionists to cause

further problems had just as much impact

as the difficult legacy of Wilson's time in

power. Heath's government therefore

would be remembered as a victim of poor

industrial relations caused by the previous

government as well as of the external cir-

cumstances in which these problems would

then amplify.

The difficult legacy left behind by the La-

bour government of 1964 to 1970 was

caused to a large extent by Wilson himself.

In creating the Department for Economic

Affairs, or DEA, in 1966, he had set up two

By Tom Davies

long-term rivals against each other. George

Brown would oversee the new depart-

ment's running, which would in turn relieve

the Treasury, run by the chancellor James

Callaghan, of around half of their responsi-

bilities. Wilson argued that this would im-

prove the economic situation in Britain; it

would turn out to be a bitter failure, largely

due to infighting between Brown and Calla-

ghan. This resulted in poor management of

Britain's economy, which would be charac-

terised by rising unemployment, growing

inflation and harsh wage controls. Unem-

ployment by 1970 had reached 628,000 -

and this would continue to rise until it

reached 1 million during Heath's term as

Prime Minister. This milestone of 1 million

is key to why Heath lost the 1974 election

because it symbolised the first time since

the war that Britain was not running full

employment. It is therefore very important

to understand that Wilson's difficult eco-

nomic legacy placed Heath's government in

a troublesome situation, which would be

nearly impossible to shake before the elec-

tion of 1974.

However, the Heath administration was tar-

nished from the beginning by a much more

pressing issue, which would affect the elec-

torate much more than unemployment fig-

ures did at the time. This problem was that

of poor industrial relations left by the Wil-

son government. Unemployment, of

course, would catalyse this issue of bad re-

lations with the trade unions, but therefore

isn't the most important reason why Heath

would lose the 1974 election. The major

event of the Wilson government which

would put relations with the Unions at risk

was the White Paper 'In Place of Strife' in

1969. The imposition of such legislation

would mean that trade unions would be

required to hold a ballot and a 28-day con-

ciliatory, or 'cooling-off', period before any

strike action could take place, else it would

be deemed illegal. The proposition proved

most unpopular with the unions, who be-

lieved that their power would diminish as a

result of the legislation. The policy was

abandoned when 50 Labour MPs threat-

ened to rebel. Labour's failure to deal with

the growing power of the unions when the

problems were still in their first stages

meant that Heath's government would be

condemned upon their introduction of the

Industrial Relations in 1971, which was fol-

lowed by a wave of strikes and was a major

factor in the outcome of the 1974 election.

It is true that Heath did not possess all the

qualities that were expected of a Prime

Minister, especially in the lack of charisma

he seemed to have compared with Harold

Wilson. By 1974, it seemed as though

Heath was losing touch with the voting

public; his campaign for the election had

the tag-line "Who Governs?" - which was a

reference to the chaos that the trade un-

ions were causing as a result of their ri-

oting. However, it seemed that he was mis-

taken, and the electorate would remind

him that it was they who governed the

country, by voting the Tories out. As Antho-

ny Seldon argues, "had he been a better

more inspiring communicator to the coun-

try and to his own party, Heath might have

made more headway in the unpropitious

circumstances". Though this statement ap-

pears to support the argument that Heath's

personal failings were the main reason for

the 1974 election loss, it is important not to

underestimate the significance of the

"unpropitious circumstances" in which

Heath found himself in. Therefore, Heath's

personal failings certainly had much less of

an impact in the general election of 1974

than external circumstances or the poor in-

dustrial relations.

In terms of external circumstances, Heath is

often thought of as the least lucky Prime

Minister in modern British history. Just as

the problems with the trade unions intensi-

fied, the third Arab-Israeli war erupted in

the Middle East. The Arabian members of

OPEC halted exports to Western countries,

whom they believed were in support of Is-

rael. The impact on Britain was devastating.

The balance of payments deficit rose to

1bn, the value of sterling dropped from $2

to $1.57 and interest rates hit 15%. The

electorate saw a Prime Minister who failed

to deal with these problems and the NUM

took full advantage of this by demanding a

pay rise in November 1973. With the impo-

sition of the three-day week, many argue

that Heath sealed his fate in the forthcom-

ing election, but the unions were holding

the country to ransom, and Heath faced a

tough decision; he would either lose credi-

bility and give in to the miners' demands,

or try to face them down. With hindsight, it

is easy to say that he made the wrong deci-

sion, but at the time, the choice was not so

clear cut. Moreover, the devaluation of the

pound in 1967 had a knock-on effect when

the currency was again lowered in value as

a result of the oil crisis; a weak pound

makes imports more expensive, so the im-

pact was doubled because Wilson's govern-

ment had left it too late to devalue the

pound in the first place. Had Wilson deval-

ued the pound earlier, the benefits of this

action would have been much more devel-

oped by the time that the oil crisis came

about, and it would have had much less of

an impact on Britain's economy. The dra-

matic ramifications of the Yom Kippur war

on Britain's economy made worse the al-

ready poor outlook of Heath's government.

Thus it was external circumstances, com-

bined with the sorry economic inheritance

from Wilson's time in power and the period

of poor industrial relations, which were

predominantly to blame for the result of

the 1974 election.

Troubles in Northern Ireland are another

problem which Heath faced over which he

had little control. After 'Bloody Sunday',

Heath suspended the Parliament of North-

ern Ireland and imposed direct rule from

Westminster. Heath was unable to do much

more; after the events of the aforemen-

tioned Sunday, the British public were

shocked and embarrassed that such an

event could occur on their soil, so close to

home. The crisis had a big impact on

Heath's image, as many saw him as incapa-

ble of bringing about a sensible democratic

solution to the sectarian violence. In fact,

he did offer a sensible conclusion - but it

was one which involved a certain, unthinka-

ble (at the time) level of co-operation be-

tween unionists and Catholic politicians. As

Heath himself later stated, "Ultimately it

was the people of Northern Ireland them-

selves who threw away the best chance of

peace in the blood-stained history of the

six counties." Yet again, it appears to be the

external circumstances in which Heath's

government found itself in that would en-

sure its fate in the general election of 1974.

There is a recurring theme throughout

Heath's time as Prime Minister, and it is

that external events, that is to say those

over which he had no control, would pre-

sent themselves at unfortunate times, and

that they would be amplified by the diffi-

cult legacy which Wilson left, most im-

portantly with regards to industrial rela-

tions. The legacy of Wilson's problems with

the unions served as a catalyst for the is-

sues Heath faced after the Industrial Rela-

tions Act of 1971 and in the latter part of

1973. Quite simply, Heath was, as Marr

puts it, "ruling at a time when public sym-

pathy was more with the unions than with

the government". Heath's time in power

was stained by conflict with the trade un-

ions which stemmed from Wilson's initial

poor handling and was worsened by exter-

nal circumstances. This combination ulti-

mately led to the downfall of the Conserva-

tive government in 1974. Of course, it must

be noted that Heath's personal failings did

nothing to aid his chances, but they were

by no means enough to secure a defeat in

the 1974 election as a standalone factor.

We make judgements about the past to

best reflect our views in the present, and to

learn from the mistakes that others have

made in order that we do not make them

again. But it is important not to make

judgements about people and events with-

out fully understanding the complexities

surrounding them, otherwise we risk advo-

cating beliefs that are not our own and we

remain ignorant of the truth.

Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing.

The practice of solitary confinement first found its

place in medieval monasteries, where it was used

to punish disobedient monks. But made its way

over to the US after the Revolution with its most

prominent advocate being Benjamin Rush of Phila-

delphia who also happened to be a signatory on

the Declaration of Independence and was widely

regarded as Americas foremost physician. During

this time there was a push from many social critics

to develop a fairer criminal justice system, more fit

for a democratic republic. Rush objected to capital

punishment, corporal punishment and unruly jails

and published and essay in 1787 titled An Enquiry

Into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Crimi-

nals, and Upon Society. In the essay he sought to

criticise punishments that did little to rehabilitate

the criminal, and endorsed the creation of a new

kind of prison; one that would be grounded on the

Quaker principle of inner light. It was thought that

if prisoners were isolated with only a Bible to keep

them company, they would soon see the error of

their ways, pray for forgiveness and become

changed men. "A whipping post, nay even a gibbet

are all light punishments compared with letting a

man's conscience loose upon him in solitude,"

Rush wrote.

Each prisoner would be forced to remain in his cell

at all times, however they would be allowed a

brief daily exercise period held in an individual pen

adjoining each cell. Meals were eaten in cells and

when the prisoners were allowed to leave their

cells they werent allowed to interact with other

prisoners and had to wear hoods to protect their

anonymity. Numbers were used instead of names

to identify prisoners and silence was maintained at

all times. On average, inmates spend two to four

years along in their cells, underneath a single

round skylight, known in the prison as the eye of

God. All of this was to finally be put into practice

in 1821 when reformers convinced the Pennsylva-

nia legislature to approve funding for Eastern

State Penitentiary.

Despite their well-intentioned ideas, however,

many of the men placed in these new prisons

went insane. A Supreme Court opinion on the

effects of solitary confinement on inmates housed

in Philadelphia Justice Samuel Freeman Miller

found, "A considerable number of the prisoners

fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-

The History of

Solitary Confinement

in the USA

By Georgia Sampson

-fatuous condition, from which it was next to im-

possible to arouse them, and others became vio-

lently insane; others still, committed suicide; while

those who stood the ordeal better were not gen-

erally reformed, and in most cases did not recover

sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent

service to the community."

Upon travelling to Philadelphia in 1810, Charles

Dickens visited the famed Philadelphian Peniten-

tiary. During this time, he wrote of his experience.

The system here is rigid, strict, and hopeless soli-

tary confinement. I believe it, in its effects, to be

cruel and wrong. In its intention, I am well con-

vinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for

reformation; but I am persuaded that those who

devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those

benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution,

do not know what it is that they are doing. I be-

lieve that very few men are capable of estimating

the immense amount of torture and agony which

this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, in-

flicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it my-

self, and in reasoning from what I have seen

written upon their faces, and what to my certain

knowledge they feel within, I am only the more

convinced that there is a depth of terrible endur-

ance in it which none but the sufferers themselves

can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict

upon his fellow-creature. I hold this slow and daily

tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be

immeasurably worse than any torture of the body:

and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so

palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars

upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon

the surface, and it extorts few cries that human

ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as

a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is

not roused up to stay. I hesitated once, debating

with myself, whether, if I had the power of saying

'Yes' or 'No,' I would allow it to be tried in certain

cases, where the terms of imprisonment were

short; but now, I solemnly declare, that with no

rewards or honours could I walk a happy man be-

neath the open sky by day, or lie me down upon

my bed at night, with the consciousness that one

human creature, for any length of time, no matter

what, lay suffering this unknown punishment in his

silent cell, and I the cause, or I consenting to it in

the least degree. (Dickens, 1842, p. 81)

In 1913, the solitary system in Philadelphia peni-

tentiary was officially abandoned although it had

been declining in use before that point. Instead,

solitary confinement became a short-term punish-

ment for misbehaving prisoners rather than the

prison's standard operating procedure.

Still, the use of solitary confinement goes on

worldwide as well as US prisons thanks to the rise

in the famed Supermax prison. Despite having

been abandoned the practice is back up and run-

ning in these prisons. The famed Supermax Pelican

Bay is one institution that uses the practice as part

and parcel of its everyday procedure, with the SHU

(Special Housing Unit) or the Hole as it is re-

ferred to by inmates the hub of the practice. Dr.

Stuart Grassian, a Harvard Medical School psychia-

trist concluded that the SHU drives prisoners in-

sane, and estimates that one-third of all SHU in-

mates are psychotic. He writes of what he calls

"the SHU syndrome," the symptoms of which in-

clude self-mutilation and throwing excrement.

Estimates on the number of prisoners placed in

solitary confinement are hard to come by due to

the fact that many prisons simply choose not to

make the data available and some decide to not

even keep records of the data altogether.

Attempts to reach any figure are therefore imper-

fect based on both the lack of consensus on defini-

tions well as counting procedures in the different

States.

But one thing for certain is that this awful practice

is unfortunately not confined to the past yet.

By Heather Nelson

In the 18th century, for Russian Orthodox

Christians, Easter was the most important

event of the year, especially for Russian

royalty.

In 1842, Gustav Faberge established a firm

that produced exquisite pieces of art; the

most famous was the Faberge Egg.

Five years later, Gustav Faberge retired at

only 46, and took his family to Dresden

where his son Carl Faberge, would learn

how to become the perfect craftsman to

continue the Faberge legacy.

In 1872, when Carl was just 26, he took

over his Fathers business in St Petersburg

injecting his creativity into the company. He

claimed that expensive things interest me

little if the value is merely in so many dia-

monds of pearls.

In 1882, Carl gained the attention of the

Imperial Family, and was invited to an exhi-

bition in Moscow, where he was given per-

mission to incorporate the jewellery at the

exhibition into modern objects this is

when he came up with the idea of the

Faberge Egg.

The Tsar at the time was Alexander III, who

had taken the throne after his father Alex-

ander II was assassinated in March 1881.

His fathers death authenticated that the

autocracy was not popular with Russia;

when the Tsar was on his way back from a

ceremony, a bomb was thrown under his

carriage, but did not harm him. Thus, a sec-

ond bomb was thrown, ripping his stomach

open. Miraculously, he was able to make it

to the palace to die there, with his family

around his deathbed.

Alexander III was now Tsar and his new re-

History Of Faberge Eggs

forms centred all power on himself, iso-

lating him from the people. After his fa-

thers assassination, his moved his family to

Gatchina Palace, a few miles away from St

Petersburg. Despite the palace having over

900 rooms, the palace itself was like a pris-

on it was permanently surrounding by

guards.

When Easter arrived, the royal family

would receive eggs as gifts but shockingly,

the eggs were from terrorists threatening

to blow up the palace by embedding

bombs into the eggs. This is when the first

Faberge Egg was made.

They first became a symbol of royalty when

in 1885 Tsar Alexander III gave his Tsarina,

Marie Federovona, a white enamelled egg,

about two and a half inches high to cele-

brate the Holy Week, distracting his wife

away from the threat of the revolutionar-

ies.

The gift was, of course, a Faberge Egg, and

cost 4, 151 roubles (about 28,000 now)

which surprisingly was not that expensive

compared to the Tsars nine million roubles

income (70 million).

It is unsurprising that two decades later

there would be an uprising which would

dismantle the Tsarist autocracy forever

the Russian Revolution of 1905.

Referring back to my earlier point, the

Faberge Egg that the Tsarina received es-

tablished Faberge as the court supplier. The

Egg itself opened to reveal a golden yolk,

and within it contained a golden hen a

diamond miniature of the Imperial crown

with a ruby pendant on it.

Faberge Eggs would be required each year

for the Tsar to give to his Tsarina the Rus-

sian Orthodox Easter Festival. It became a

tradition each egg was specially made,

the first Hen egg reminded Maria of her

childhood, and therefore, each egg pro-

duced after that would be personal to the

Tsarina.

However, after the Revolution of 1905, the

Faberge Egg family left Russia. Today, a to-

tal of 50 eggs have been produced but only

42 have survived. 2 were lost during the

Revolution. The Faberge trademark has

been sold several times, recreating the fa-

mous Eggs.

Malcolm Forbes, the son of the creator of

Forbes Magazine, holds twelve of the Eggs.

The others are placed in Museums world-

wide, such as in St Petersburg and Mary-

land, America.

Faberge Eggs gained their popularity and

prestige through the autocracy of Russia.

The last egg was made in 1916, when the

war began and marked the end of Faberge

productions, but led to a lasting legacy, and

even today the Eggs are considered exquis-

ite pieces of art that represent the downfall

of the autocracy.

By Sally Dickens

Fidel Castro, born in 1929 in Cuba, was a success-

ful ambitious student who studied Law at the Uni-

versity of Havana. He had a powerful mind-set and

had intended to run for election which was sched-

uled for 1952. However, with General Fulgencio

Batista overthrowing the government and creating

a right-wing state with himself as the dictator, Cu-

ba was then ultimately fascist-inspired; with the

poor being treated terribly and Americas rich us-

ing Cuba as their playground- they would go to

Cuba to gamble and live the good life.

Castros beliefs were opposite to that of Batistas

Castro rejected democracy and had strong com-

munist beliefs this opposition to Batista led to

Castro and his brother Ral leading a rising against

Batista in 1953. However, this was unsuccessful

and Castro was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

He was released and fled to Mexico, where he met

with the (some say) icon that is Che Guevara. In

1956, Castro and Guevara started the 26th of July

movement, in which they used guerrilla warfare

against the government. Two years later in 1958,

Castro launched a full scale attack in which Batista

was forced to flee Cuba. In 1959 Castro became

Prime Minister of Cuba and announced it Com-

munist the poor were thankful, however most

Cubans fled, primarily to the US). The US went

from having good relations with Cuba to becoming

hostile to the point where they imposed eco-

nomic sanctions on Cuba in 1960. The US opposed

Cuba as they had become what they most feared

Communist!

The US feared the domino theory they believed

that once one country became communist, every-

one else would follow. Their greatest fear was that

communist Russia would ultimately take over the

world. This opposition of Communism versus the

rest of the world stated the 46 year long Cold War

between the US and Russia. Although these pow-

ers were never in direct physical conflict, they did

oppose each other in ways such as the Vietnam

War and through others, such as Fidel Castro.The

Vietnam War was also a conflict between Com-

munism and democracy, with the communist

countries such as Russia and Cuba supporting

communist North Vietnam. Cuban airmen went to

North Vietnam and trained two sets of North Viet-

Fidel Castro in the Cold War

namese airmen to attack US navy ships. The US

was supporting Southern Vietnam which was dem-

ocratic the sending of troops to Vietnam was

very controversial in the USA at the time of

peace (if youre not sure what time this is, watch

Forrest Gump). The US and Russia were both de-

termined to destroy one another.

The opposition between the US and Cuba became

very apparent in the 1960s. Firstly, with the Bay

Of Pigs Invasion; Cuban exiles invading Cuba in

April, 1961. This invasion was supported by the

CIA, but nonetheless it failed, rising the already

high tensions between the US and Cuba. Perhaps

Castros most vital role in the Cold War was his

permission for the Russians to secretly build sites

for nuclear missiles in Cuba. This permission ena-

bled Russia to create and develop their nuclear

weapons, and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of

1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the nearest

that world ever came to nuclear war. Tensions

arose as the US feared they would be under a nu-

clear attack and President Kennedy demanded

that the Soviet missiles had to be removed from

Cuba. The public revealing of this nuclear weapon

finding created more tension on both sides of the

conflict; this conflict was eased (only slightly!) by

Russias Khrushchev sending a passionate letter in

which he proposed removing the Soviet missiles

and personnel, however only if the US guaranteed

that they would not attack Cuba- Russia wanted to

protect their communist ally. Tensions between

the US and Russia eased on October 28th, 1962 as

Khrushchev announced that he would dismantle

the missiles and return to Russia. The US then as-

sured that they would not invade their neighbour,

Cuba.

Castro was supported by Russia for many years

after Cubas input in the Missile Crisis, and Cuba

hugely benefited economically from this support.

This is because the Cuban Missile Crisis was ena-

bled by Fidel Castro allowing the missiles to be

placed in Cuba. He did this to aid Communist Rus-

sia and also for the security of Cuba; he knew that

the US would attack again after the Bay of Pigs In-

vasion of 1961!

Although the Cold War was never a physical com-

bat as such, and although it was a long war 46

years! I believe that Fidel Castros role may seem

vital to the Cold War as he provided Russia with a

base to hold their nuclear weapons, which ulti-

mately enabled the Cuban Missile Crisis to hap-

pen. This shows that Castro did seem to play a vi-

tal part in the confrontation that was the nearest

that the world ever came to Nuclear War.

However

Would two of the greatest powers in the world,

Russia and the US, not have gone to some sort of

war without the input of the tiny little island of

Cuba anyway?

By George Pearson

"Never have I seen such a combination of

uncontrollable dash and perfectly con-

trolled discipline, such soldiers and such

subjects are not to be found the wide world

over except in Sweden"

General Stenbock, Gadebusch 1712

Charles XII, known by his latinised name

Carolus Rex was one of the most famous

kings in Swedish history as it was his ex-

ploits which brought Swedish empire back

into power before crumbling after his

death. Known for his military prowess with

his elite soldiers, the Caroleans; he was a

devout Christian who abstained from alco-

hol and women. He was rumoured to have

a supernatural tolerance to pain, an utter

lack of emotions and felt most comfortable

when leading his armies into battle; earn-

ing himself the title the last of the Vi-

kings.

When the Great Northern war commenced

in 1700, the Swedish army decisively won

pitched battles against multiple foes under

the leadership of Carolus Rex, who ensured

that the Caroleans never lost a battle that

he was in direct control of. Though ulti-

mately he lost the war, his defiance against

impossible odds led to the survival of Swe-

den as an independent and successful

country today.

On 5th April 1697, Charles reign began at

the age of 15. For the first 3 years the

peace remained, until the neighbouring

countries of Denmark, ruled by his cousin

Fredrik IV, Russia and its Tsar Peter the

Great and the Polish-Lithuanian common-

wealth with the Polish king Augustus II de-

clared war on Sweden and initiated the

Great Northern war. With a young king on

Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King

Carolus Rex So Successful?

the throne they saw this as an opportunity

to dismember Sweden which back then

controlled areas such as Finland, part of

Norway, Livonia (modern day Latvia/

Estonia), Estonia and Ingria (territory

around modern day St. Petersburg).

Charles XII proved quickly that he was an

exceptional military commander; defeating

the Danes first at Holstein and within

months had the Danes pull out of the war.

His next target was the Commonwealth and

Russia, the latter of which had begun

storming through Livonia and Estonia on

the same day Denmark was subdued.

Charles engaged the Russian forces on No-

vember 19th 1700 at Narva. The weather

conditions were winter blizzards and the

Russian army numbered 4:1 to the Swedes.

In the cover of the blizzard the Caroleans

split the Russian forces and decimated

them, with many of them fleeing the battle

and subsequently drowning in the Narva

river- Swedish losses totalled 667 whereas

the Russians lost 9,000 men and had

20,000 captured.

This was the battle that cemented tactical

genius of Charles XII and the expertise of

the Caroleans. It also highlights the Swe-

dish armys very aggressive tactical doc-

trine which they used to vicious efficiency-

a tactic known as the GP (Go-On). This

tactic involved marching (or a quick run) to

within 20m of the enemy lines, firing a sal-

vo, then engaging the enemy in melee

combat with bayonets, pikes and rapiers.

This severely demoralized any facing the

Caroleans due to the ferocity of the attack

and the lack of fear they showed faced with

enemy fire. This required enormous

amounts of discipline and organization

within the ranks of the Caroleans which

was maintained by a strict set of rules, an

absolute faith in God, and high amounts of

Camaraderie amongst the Swedish forces.

Charles then fought the Commonwealth,

again achieving victories in battles pitched

against him. After Poland surrendered,

Charles XII dethroned Augustus II and put a

puppet on the throne. As he was still in

control of his native Saxony Augustus

attempted to retake the throne with the

help of Russian forces and challenged the

garrison at the Battle of Fraustadt in 1706.

Augustus was 120km away from the main

contingent with additional forces, but be-

fore Augustus could meet with his general,

Schulenberg, the army was wiped out by

the Carolean army half their size due to

their expert usage of cavalry resulting in

15,000 casualties against the Swedes 1,400.

Augustus gave up his claim to the Polish

throne and remained in Saxony leaving Rus-

sia as the last power. Fraustadt highlighted

the Caroleans use of encirclement and their

Cavalry variant of the GP, which took

the aggressive tactics and altered them to

make devastating, highly mobile Cavalry

charges using tight formations to maximize

damage.

1707. Peter had since taken Swedish Ingria

and as Charles advanced into Russian terri-

tory he was buffeted by one of the coldest

recorded winters in history and the Russian

scorched earth tactics were taking their toll

on Swedish forces. The last great victory for

Carolus Rex came in July 1708 at Holowczyn

(near modern day Minsk, Belarus) where

they surprised the Russian army across the

Vabich River. The Russian forces however

were able to retreat and regroup and the

end of the Caroleans March came at Polta-

va, June 1709 in modern day Ukraine.

By this point Charles forces were heavily

depleted, as the expected re-enforcements

were ambushed by the Russians. He took

the fort at Poltava, but during the siege

Charles was wounded and in a coma due to

cold and blood loss. Command was handed

over to his two generals, whose communi-

cations and battle strategies were poorly

relayed and disputed, causing a breakdown

of strategy and order within the Swedish

ranks. The outnumbered Caroleans were

losing the battle and while watching the

battle from a stretcher after regaining con-

sciousness during the battle, Charles XII or-

dered a retreat. They were pursued by Rus-

sian cavalry and forced to surrender.

This was the beginning of the end for the

Swedish empire and Charles spent 14 years

in exile with the Ottomans in Constantino-

ple and on returning to Sweden found his

country under attack from all sides. He led

multiple campaigns into Norway, but in

1718 and at the siege of Fredriksten he was

struck in the head whilst inspecting the

trenches near the front line, killing the king.

The siege was broken and Charles body

brought back to Sweden where it remains

today.

The legacy of Carolus Rex pertains today

was seen as the last great king of Sweden

before the empires collapse. He was

revered by people, inspired songs, and

holds his legacy of being one of the great-

est military tacticians of his time.

Should We Be Proud of the

First World War?

By Cameron Fleming

Recently education minister Michael Gove

showed his disgust to the message that the

Blackadder series Blackadder goes forth

gives and its portrayal of the First World

War as being disastrous and said disasters

being caused by allied high command and

subsequently banned the series from being

shown in schools. So, should this social

control be justified by its wrong message or

is the portrayal in Blackadder accurate (if

comedic in nature) and should we be proud

about Britains part in the First World War?

And which parts should we be proud of?

It seems all too often the poets view of

the war is all that is portrayed in the media.

The mud, wire and drama of such films as

the warhorse and the portrayal of trench

warfare in period dramas such as Downton

abbey have done nothing to support the

view that the war was worth winning and

the fact that the great war claimed the

lives of 702,410 service personnel (not in-

cluding those captured or wounded which

takes the figure to over 2 million) com-

pared to the 264,443 killed in the second

world war shows the high death toll

suffered by British forces in the first war hit

the 43 million population hard.

However the high death toll in the First

World War may also be the reason for the

lower in the second. That is that British

losses and the reaction to the bloodbath of

the First World War saw a more cautious

approach to warfare proved by the actions

of Winston Churchill swapping from risky

expeditionary forces in the Dardanelles to

the looking for a soft underbelly of fascist

Europe. In short it could be viewed that the

losses shocked the public and military alike

to put for a possibly isolationist or passive

view of international relations which in

part led to the rise of fascism with Hitler

gaining appeasement due in some part to

allied fear of German retaliation. Neverthe-

less, this also led to an outlook of greater

involvement in international affairs with

the League of Nations being set up with

Britain as a prime leader. This mixed reac-

tion to the war shows some sort of change

in British foreign affairs in Europe at least.

However, maybe the moral judgement of

the war should not be its results and reac-

tions but the reason for joining in the be-

ginning. Traditionally the poets view stated

that another Balkan war became a western

European affair through alliance groups

(triple entente and the central powers be-

ing the most prominent) with Britain join-

ing after the attack on brave little Bel-

gium and this influencing British troop

placement around Belgium, Luxemburg

and north eastern France. However, many

socialist or communist writers on the sub-

ject viewed the whole war as a plot to in-

crease nationalism, reduce class awareness

and produce goods for the arms industry

thus all benefitting the bourgeoisie but this

view has little empirical evidence for moti-

vation to join and the fact that the 40% in-

heritance tax and the high death toll

among officers shows that the

capitalist class was too hit hard by the war.

It seems more of a foreign relations break-

down of sorts rather than an international

plot!

Nevertheless, the opposing view put for-

ward by Historians such as Hastings is that

the war was necessary to stop German im-

perialism and to halt its growth militarily

and recent revelations of colonial death

camps in German colonies in Africa seem

to back this up however the British empires

record as colonial masters and expansion-

ists does not fare much better like the Boer

war and Afghanistan showed. Also, our

closest allies in the war France, Belgium

and Russia could be horrific masters with

tsarist Russia leading to revolution in 1917.

However, even if German aggression was a

valid reason for counter aggression it is lu-

dicrous, when looking on a map of any-

where in the world in 1914, to suggest that

the entente could be threatened by Ger-

many and the central powers as the British

Empire alone covered a third of the earth

and added on to that was all of the French

possessions in west Africa, north Africa and

Indochina as well as the Russian swathe

that covered the northern hemisphere. Al-

so, the minor belligerents in the war and

their possessions; Portugal, Italy, the USA,

Serbia and japan to name a few compared

to a collection of the Germans (with only a

few possessions in west and east Africa to

lay claim to) who could be brought to the

ground through lack of trade and blockade,

the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg empire

and their Balkan allies and the sick man of

Europe, the ottoman empire.

To put on top of that, the fact that their al-

ly, Italy joined the opposing side rather

than join the central powers (although

this may have more to do with longstand-

ing friendship with France since Cavour and

a hatred of the lack of irridentian lands)

shows at least that the central powers just

couldnt be strong enough to fend off the

numerically and economically superior en-

emies it faced.

Finally, in support of the new View of the

war, it is notable that the medias portrayal

may not always be so accurate. For the

years 1915-17 on the western front warfare

was that which is portrayed, that of wire,

mud and shelling but at the beginning, like

at Mons and at the end of the war when

the western allies were supported by

American troops the war was more fluid

and less stagnant with the start seeming

more like the wars of the previous century

with horse artillery, cavalry charges and

volley firing in the Brits famous mad mi-

nute bringing more memories of Napole-

on than Hindenburg. Then, at the end of

the war when tanks could break some of

the deadlock more shock troops or storm

troops were used. The armies make up was

closer structurally and equipment wise to

the start of the Second World War. On

many other fronts the war was similar; in

the east, it was as if the Russians were re-

fighting their 1812 campaigns in many

ways and in the south, in Mesopotamia

(modern day Iraq) the fighting too was

reminiscent of more of the Zulu and Boer

campaigns in many ways.

Yet, again the poets view prevails because

of the sheer fact that the amount of casual-

ties in any part of the war were simply hor-

rific and the setting in the middle of the

war simply made things worse. In any place

during the war the modern technology

twinned with old ideas meant that ordinary

people went through and sometimes did

extraordinary and horrific things.

Overall, it seems, the poets view of the

war is largely accurate (if raw and emotion-

al) and their view should not be cast off as

easily as is it has been done lately. But sur-

prisingly there is also merit in the

officers view (if you like) war may have

been necessary to save Belgium and the

wars effect was often social progress like

the fact that after the war women got

suffrage due to The Representation of the

People Act 1928 and the death toll lead to

major revisions of foreign policy and how

the army was to be ran.

However, it seems that the idea of a good

or just war hasnt been placed upon the

shoulders of the First World War like it has

upon the second. The fear of Fascism is

seen today as more of a motivator than

German imperialism and the result left em-

pires in ruins and victors mutilated but

most importantly the way we view any war

should take into consideration everyone

who took part and the way that the war

effected them and for the first time in the

great war, normal people at home were

effected on both sides. The rise of Zeppe-

lins and aircraft led to total war and the

technology left horrific scars upon the

world.

In conclusion, I think it is necessary to be

proud of those who took part in the war as

much as we can, the ordinary soldiers who

did extraordinary things; going over the

top, dogfights and ferocious charges show

the bravery in the war but often the true

heroes are the faceless medics, the people

of occupied territories and for Britain the

empire for that is how we survived the war.

But still the foreign policy in the war is

nothing to be proud of and even less so the

tactics of trench warfare.

In the end, the true legacy of the war and

the thing we can be proud of is that it gave

us a chance to re-evaluate the status of or-

dinary people in the world and it made

sure that the brutal tactics of the war were

not repeated and it is therefore unjustifia-

ble to control only one viewpoint of the

war as Mr Gove is doing currently.

Tutankhamun

By Eoin Bowden

(Standish Community High School)

Tutankhamun is a pharaoh from the time of

ancient Egypt and is possibly the most fa-

mous of them all as his mask is used to

symbolize the entire of ancient Egypt. This

mask is currently located at the Cairo muse-

um and is a popular tourist attraction in

Egypt.

Tutankhamun was discovered in 1922 by

Howard Carter and George Herbert, but

was avoided soon after his discovery be-

cause many believed that his tomb was

cursed. There were several reasons why

these thoughts occurred. The first of these

reasons was that some of Howards team

and some visitors in the tomb died in mys-

terious conditions. Lord Carnarvon was the

first of these mysterious deaths. He was

bitten by a mosquito and accidently

scratched the bite he got off it with a razor.

This caused the bite to get infected and he

died of blood poisoning. Six months after

Lord Carnarvon was buried, Dr Derry car-

ried out the first autopsy on Tutankhamuns

body and noticed that a healed patch was

on his left cheek. Since Lord Carnarvon was

already buried, no one could know where

the mosquito bite was located. This caused

many people to believe that the tomb as

cursed even though they didnt know

where the bite was. Another reason why

people believed that the tomb was cursed

was because of Sir Bruce Ingham. Bruce re-

ceived a gift from Howard Carter that had a

mummified hand with a bracelet on it.

Writing on the bracelet said, "Cursed be he

who moves my body. To him shall come

fire, water and pestilence." Shortly after re-

ceiving this gift, Bruce Inghams house

burned down and was later destroyed by a

flood, after the reconstruction of his house.

More reasons to why people believed the

curse existed and caused the media to go

crazy over the tomb, making it well known.

After the rumour of this and other tombs

being cursed were proven false, Egyptolo-

gists came to the tomb and analysed it. In-

side, they found things such as a wooden

bust of Tutankhamun that allowed them to

know what he looked like and that he was a

young boy. Through research of the tomb,

Egyptologists found that Tutankhamun rose

to the throne at the age of nine a