The Historian 2015

The Historian 2015

The Historian Anniversaries in 2015

Founder’s Day 2015

Contents.

Editorial…………………………………………………………………… p.2

1066 and All That Jonathan Wolstenholme…………………………………………………… p.4

2100 th Anniversary of the birth of Sallust: the Great Historiographer. Ed Olsen…………………………………………………………………… p.7

800 th Anniversary of the Magna Carta: Should it be so highly esteemed? Barnaby Cullen…………………………………………………………… p.11

200 th Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Tom Gardner……………………………………………………………… p.15

70 th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War: Why is it commemorated? Rollo Collins……………………………………………………………….. p.22

50 th Anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill’s death. Tohid Ismail………………………………………………………………. p.26

50 th Anniversary of Selma, 1965: Defining Democracy. Marcus K ö ttering…………………………………………………………. p.29

1

Anniversaries in 2015

Editorial

This edition of The Historian explores the plethora of anniversaries

commemorated this year, and probes the question: why do we still remember

them? Jonathan Wolstenholme begins with a lighthearted look at the infamous,

misspelt work “1066 and All That”, published for the first time 85 years ago. Ed Olsen delves into the life of the ancient historiographer Sallust, in the 2100 th year

since his birth. Barnaby Cullen examines the significance of Magna Carta, and

asks whether it should be so highly esteemed, looking at its impact at the time

and not just its legacy. Tom Gardner , in conjunction with his trip to the battlefield of Waterloo on 20 th June to participate in the 200 th Anniversary

commemorations, examines the famous battle in detail and gives his own

personal reflections on its significance. Rollo Collins , who also travelled to

Waterloo last week end, writes about another interest of his: the end of Second

World War, 70 years ago. Investigating the impact of Allied victory in 1945,

Rollo makes a case for why it ought to be commemorated for years to come.

Tohid Ismail analyses the life and post-war career of Sir Winston Churchill, who

2

died 50 years ago. Finally, Marcus Köttering explains the momentous events

that took place in Selma, Alabama, under Martin Luther King Jr.’s stewardship

of an important campaign in the USA’s Civil Rights Movement.

2015 has not only been a year for the History Society to reflect upon important

anniversaries, it has also seen several distinguished speakers visit the College.

The Society’s first visit came from Dunstan Rodrigues, OA , an undergraduate

at Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he is studying History in his final year. He

delivered a fascinating talk on intellectual thought during the French Revolution,

which had the boys enthralled. Next, a Fellow at Peterhouse, Scott Mandelbrote ,

visited the Wodehouse Library to study the Fellows’ Library collection held

upstairs. He later presented his findings to the boys, showing a selection of texts that shed light on religious tensions in 17 th Century England. Boys were

captivated by this glimpse into an academic historian’s world and many will

hopefully be inspired to explore our wonderful archives for themselves in future.

Nicholas Wapshott was next, talking on his latest book “The Sphinx”, which

explores how President Roosevelt outfoxed his opponents on the road to the

Second World War. Dr. Matthew Seligmann visited from Brunel University and

thrilled the boys with his explanation of the dynamics of the Anglo-German naval

race. Finally, the Society was

privileged to welcome Dominic

Sandbrook , who spoke about his

personal selection of 10 events that

shaped post-war Britain.

A memorable year indeed.

Scott Mandelbrote presenting his chosen

Miss V Trevelyan.

texts from the Fellows’ Library.

3

Anniversaries in 2015: 1066 and All That.

Jonathan Wolstenholme

You may be thinking, as you read this title, ‘what’s he on about? Why would anyone write an article about the 949 th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings?

That's not a real anniversary!!’. Well you’d be right to do so.

Of course, the real anniversary is the 85 th Anniversary of the publication of

the book by that same title. W C Sellar

and R J Yeatman published their

unique, timeless classic in 1930, and it

has remained loved ever since. The

title page reads ‘1066 and All That: A

Memorable History of England,

comprising all the parts you can

remember, including 103 Good

Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine

Dates’. These two dates include the

title date itself, 1066, which was the

year of ‘ The Battle of Hastings, and

was when William I (1066) conquered

England at the Battle of Senelac ( Ten

Sixty-six)’. We are told that ‘The Norman Conquest was a Good Thing, as from Peter Svinhufvud

this time onwards England stopped being conquered and thus was able to become

top nation.’ This is one of the many examples in the book of the authors’ poking

fun at the previously prevalent Whig view of history, which presents the past as

an inevitable progression towards even greater liberty and enlightenment.

4

The only other real date in history is apparently 55 BC (2069 years ago, ‘owing

to the peculiar Roman method of counting’ which omits a year 0), ‘in which year

Julius Ceasar (the memorable Roman Emperor) landed, like all other successful

invaders of these islands, at Thanet’. This date too is not an anniversary generally

considered worth celebrating, but the book does also cover events whose

anniversaries are indeed celebrated in 2015. On the subject of the Magna Carter of 15 th June 1215 (which of course is not a ‘genuine’ date, owing to not being

sufficiently memorable) on this we are told:

There also happened in this reign the memorable Charta, known as Magna Charter in account of the Latin Magna (great) and Charter (a Charter); this was the first of the famous Chartas and Gartas of the Realm and was invented by the Barons on a desert island in the Thames called Ganymede. By congregating there, armed to the teeth, the Barons compelled John to sign the Magna Charter, which said:

1. That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason – (except the Common People).

2. That everyone should be free – (except the Common People).

3. That everyone should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm – (except the Common People).

4. That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King’s Person all over the country.

5. That ‘no person should be fined to his utter ruin’ – (except the King’s Person).

6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand

Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).

5

Another major event whose anniversary is celebrated this year is the Battle of

Waterloo:

After losing this war (the ‘Gorilla War in Spain’) Napoleon was

sent away by the French, since he had not succeeded in making

them top nation; but he soon escaped and returned just in time to

fight on the French side at the battle of Waterloo. This utterly

memorable battle was fought at the end of a dance, on the Playing

Fields of Eton, and resulted in the English definitely becoming top

nation. It was thus a very Good a Thing. During the engagement

the French came on in their usual creeping and crawling method

and were defeated by Wellington’s memorable order, ‘Up Jenkins

and Smashems’.

This timed Napoleon was sent right away for ever by everybody,

and stood on the deck of a ship in white breeches with his arms

like that.

I hope that, if nothing else, I have inspired you to read this magnificent (and very

slim) volume, and that in doing so you may learn nothing more about history

whatsoever, and in doing so laugh very hard. And in this year of important

anniversaries, remember that it doesn't really matter when something happened,

as long as you remember it.

6

2100 th Anniversary of the birth of the Great Historiographer: Sallust

By Ed Olsen

Gaius Sallustius Crispus was born in 86BC in the traditional Sabine settlement of

Amiternum in Central Italy to a local aristocratic family. His early career is

undocumented but it has been

suggested that he engaged in

some form of military service

between 70-60BC in the Eastern

Empire, before entering into the

Roman political arena. As there

is no evidence to suggest that

any of Sallust’s family had

undertaken political office, it is

likely that he was a ‘novus

homo’ or new man and therefore

the first of his family to be

appointed as senator, a factor

that influenced his political

views and, by extension, his

later historical writing.

The first major political incident involving Sallust occurred in 53BC when

Peter Svinhufvud

Clodius Pulcher, one of the candidates for the role of praetor (the second most

senior position in Roman society at this time behind consul), was killed by a mob

led by the consul candidate Titus Annius Milo. When the trial commenced,

Sallust was amongst a number of other tribunes who attacked Milo’s

representative, the great orator and his fellow ‘novus homo’ Marcus Tullius

Cicero. Although Sallust’s involvement did not have a major effect on the

7

successful prosecution, this incident contributed to a year of political turmoil that

would prove to be a major theme in his literary work.

After being expelled from the

senate by Marcus Appius Pulcher,

the ‘censor’ in charge of public

morality, for alleged immorality

in 50BC, Sallust sought help from

Gaius Julius Caesar who

reinstated him the following year.

As a result of this he was

appointed as a commander of a

legion in the Roman Civil War

between Caesar and Pompey

between 49-45BC, where he

made a largely unsuccessful impact in quelling mutinous troops in 47BC and

fighting in Caesar’s African campaign. Despite a lack of obvious success Sallust

was appointed as the first governor of the new territory of Africa Nova (modern

day Algeria), a role he would keep until late 45BC.

Disaster awaited him upon his return to Rome as claims were made that he had

personally profited from his time as governor of Africa Novo through extortion

and it required the personal intervention of Caesar to prevent any form of legal

action against him. This new wealth was the source of funding for the lavish ‘horti

Sallustiani’ (Sallustian gardens) in northwestern Rome that would eventually

become imperial property. Sallust retired shortly after his return to the capital; he

later claimed that this was a personal choice but it has also been suggested that

he was forced into this position by losing the support of Caesar or possibly due

to the latter’s assassination in 44BC.

8

It is as a historian that Sallust’s reputation has survived and his works ‘Bellum

Catiline’ (the war of Catilinae) and ‘Bellum Iugurthinum’ (the Jugurthinian war)

have survived in their entirety with fragments of his larger ‘historiae’ (histories)

also remaining intact. Stylistically he marked a direct contrast to the work of his

rival Cicero as he intentionally

used a variety of archaic words and

unusual forms as opposed to

conversational Latin. His main

inspiration was the Greek historian

Thucydides and his writing was

similar to that of the Athenian in

terms of his stylistic brevity and

his impartiality. The main aspect

of his histories that was unusual

was the format as he wrote in

monographs instead of the

traditional

linear

histories,

allowing him to explore large

themes through close and detailed

The Bellum Iugurthinum

examination of smaller events.

Sallust’s historical work was based on politics and political morality. In ‘Bellum

Catilinae’ (42-43BC) he explored the roots of corruption in Roman politics

through the example of the patrician Catiline who had attempted to elevate

himself into a position of power in 63BC using the support of those in the upper

classes who would benefit financially or politically from his command. This is

presented as a great disaster for the Roman Republic and Sallust indicates that

Caesar and the politician and poet Cato the Elder were responsible for the victory

9

over Catiline through their oratory without any mention of Cicero who had

assumed a major role in the resolution of this crisis in his role as consul. The

overall conclusion that was presented from this work was that the failure of the

Roman Republic was due to the effect of opposition parties within the senate

acting against each other. In ‘Bellum Iugurthinum’ (41-40BC) the rivalry

between factions is explored at the time of the war against the Numidian King

Jugurtha. Sallust introduced the theme of animosity between the Senate and the

common people in his work, blaming the powerful elite in power at the start of

the war for initial failures and then presenting the rise of the ‘novum homo’ Gaius

Marius as a victory for the people against the political elite but an action that

caused conflict and disaster for the city.

Sallust’s legacy is undoubtedly longstanding and his work has influenced history

by providing inspiration for other academics. In terms of antiquity, criticism by

commentators such as the biographer Livy has been outweighed by praise from

important classical scholars like the great historian Tacitus, the rhetorician

Quintilian and the poet Martial who referred to him in his ‘Epigrams’ as “the

prince of Roman historiographers”. Sallust also remained popular in later times,

especially in the Middle Ages, and was praised by figures such as Thomas More

and Friedrich Nietzsche with the latter attributing his style in his book ‘Twilight

of the Idols’ to the Roman historian.

10

What exactly was the 1215 Magna Carta? Should it be so highly esteemed?

Barnaby Cullen

2015 is the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta, which was, contrary to popular myth, sealed not signed, by King John at Runnymede on 15 th June 1215. In

response to this momentous anniversary, there have been a plethora of various

activities arranged throughout the year in England, from the exhibition at the

British Library, in which the four existing copies of the manuscript were brought

together, to the unveiling of an embroidered representation of the charter, to the

minting of a commemorative £2 coin, among many others. It has been praised as

the Foundation of Liberty, and has achieved iconic status as a symbol of

democracy and the freedom and rights of the individual. However, the story

behind the Magna Carta is more complicated and less heroic than is often

imagined. Should it still be remembered as fondly?

The 1215 Magna Carta

11

King John is not remembered as one of the

worst monarchs in England’s history for

nothing. Nicknamed ‘Softsword’ and

‘Lackland’, he lost most of the Angevin

territories in France to the Capetian King

Philip II, otherwise known as Philip

Augustus, and disastrously alienated

baronial support through a mixture of

harsh taxation and the exhibition of his

immorality – not an appealing quality to

the barons, who would have preferred to

owe feudal services to a man who might at

least appear to have been appointed by

God. Following John’s disastrous defeat

King John

at Bouvines in 1214, and the campaign’s

failure to retake Normandy, the coffers were empty, and the barons had had

enough of John. Baronial resentment culminated in a rebellion against John in

1215, and they soon captured London. With the loss of his capital, John was

forced to the negotiating table at Runnymede. The resultant charter is perhaps

the most well-known version of the document, but it in fact had the least impact.

The 1215 Magna Carta was in many senses an extremely radical document, acting

to preserve the rights of free men from arbitrary abuse of power, including that

justice should not be obstructed for any free man, and limitations should be put

on feudal payments to the Crown. However, the most radical clause was that

which set up a council of twenty-five barons, who could resort to force in order

to pacify John if ever he disobeyed the laws of the charter. However, this

document was declared null and void within a number of months, as John

appealed to Pope Innocent III, and firmly repudiated the document, as he was

under duress when he signed it.

12

The practical effects of the Magna Carta

would only come later, in the reign of John’s

son Henry III. In 1216, precariously facing

opposition from both the rebel barons and

Philip Augustus’ son Prince Louis, Henry

III’s government, in an attempt to win over

the barons, issued another version of the

Magna Carta, which, although it maintained

the general message of the previous

incarnation, had removed the radical clause

setting up the council of barons. It was

reissued again in 1217, with some additional

clauses to protect the barons’ rights, and to

reduce somewhat the King’s ability to levy

taxes. The Magna Carta was reissued once

The 1225 Magna Carta

more in 1225, in return for baronial consent

to taxation for the fight against Louis, now

King Louis VIII, which, by including explicit statements that it was of the King’s

own free will, also eliminated the objection that since the King had been forced

to consent to the document; he need not abide by it. It was not until 1297 under

Edward I that the version remaining in statute today was issued, essentially a

reissuing of the 1225 charter, in return for a new tax.

As is apparent, the 1215 Magna Carta, which is glorified by so many, whilst

potent in the ideas it espoused, was a failure in practice, and it was not until the

reigns of Henry III and Edward I that it would have any lasting influence. Nor

was the charter an outstanding triumph of the values of liberty and democracy,

but rather was a watered-down version, issued only because the English King

wished to raise taxation, or placate the barons. Nonetheless, the Magna Carta

13

remains one of the most celebrated documents in English history, and is

considered the origin of the rule of law in England and the uncodified constitution

of the United Kingdom. However, strangely enough, it is in America that the

Magna Carta is esteemed most highly. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights

owes much to the Magna Carta, and it was considered an antecedent to the values

of freedom and liberty that the American colonists espoused. In fact, the Magna

Carta Memorial at Runnymede was

erected in 1957 by the American

Bar Association, and an original

copy was borrowed in 1976 by the

Americans for use in their

bicentenary. The reason for this

exaltation is that it the Magna Carta

is thought of in the United States as

the foundation of justice and law in

England, and by extension America

The memorial at Runnymede

also.

Thus, the 1215 Magna Carta, despite being in practice a failure, has nevertheless

had a long-lasting effect on English constitutional history, through the reissues later in the 13 th Century, and has a particular resonance in America, due to its

association with justice and democracy. Regardless of misinterpretations of it,

and its practical failures, the principles espoused in the document still have a powerful legacy today, and its 800 th Anniversary is doubtlessly a worthy

commemoration.

14

Commemorating the 200 th Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo: 18 th

June, 1815.

Tom Gardner

“What pen can describe the scene? Horses’ hooves sinking in men’s breasts, breaking bones

and pressing out their bowels. Riders’ swords streaming in blood, waving over their heads and

descending in deadly vengeance…It was a scene of vehement destruction, yells and shrieks,

wounds and death; and the bodies of the dead served as pillows for the dying”.

The words of Sergeant Anton of the 42 nd describing the charge of the Scots Greys .

The famous charge of the Scots Greys heavy cavalry in one of the first stages of the battle which broke the backs of the first advancing French columns but were almost obliterated by a counter-charge from enemy French lancers.

In a sodden, water-logged valley, pretty and yet unremarkable in almost every

respect, a battle was fought the significance of which has resonated across Europe to this very day. Waterloo. The slaughter wrought on 18 th June 1815 was brutal.

Over 55,000 men had died or been wounded in an area of land just over 3 miles

squared and the sheer concentration of the carnage is one of the features that make

Waterloo such a remarkably bloody battle.

15

Now, it may come across as tiresome and a tad patronising, when yet another

anniversary comes along which is apparently of tremendous importance in some

way or another. Once again, you feel obliged to mask anniversary fatigue with an

expression of utmost humility, engaging yourself in an unofficial competition

with your neighbours over who can appear the most respectful, like siblings in a

battle of evening etiquette. However, Waterloo is special. In less than a day, a

Duke was glorified and the almost ethereal image of an Emperor shattered. The

fruits of a French fiefdom were reaped, the seeds of a German Reich sown.

According to the late Professor Richard Holmes, Waterloo “ended the most

powerful European Empire since the Romans” and made possible almost a

century of peace in Europe, while Professor Jeremy Black summarises the

Napoleonic Wars as “the struggle against the unreason of tyranny” with Waterloo

the keystone to a century of peace and liberal capitalism to Europe. To what

extent one agrees with this analysis is up for debate, but the broad consensus on

Waterloo from both sides of the Channel is that its geopolitical significance

provided relatively long-term stability on the continent. Britain emerged from the

morning mist of the battlefield the next day once again as the dominant power,

This oil painting by William Sadler effectively captures how concentrated and brutal the fighting was in the valley .

16

its world hegemony secure until the resurgent unified Germany of the early 20 th

century.

Of course the most significant short-term consequence of Waterloo was the

demise of Napoleon. Despite fighting a surprisingly effective and brilliant

defensive campaign in the latter stages of 1815 against the cumbersome advance

of the Prussian Marshal Blucher into France following the defeat at Waterloo, the

Allied armies eventually reached Paris and against Napoleon’s will an armistice

was signed. The Napoleonic Wars were finally ended and Napoleon surrendered to the British frigate HMS Bellerophon on 15 th July 1815. He died on the solitary

island colony of St Helena in the South Atlantic in 1821.

However, the critical long-term legacy of the battle was the establishment of the

Concert of Europe, an agreement by all of the major European powers in the

‘Quadruple Alliance’ ratified at the same time as the Treaty of Paris in November

1815 to find diplomatic and collective solutions rather than use violence or

coercion to resolve potential major disputes. Comparable to the purpose of the

United Nations 130 years later, the Concert of Europe’s primary goal was to avoid

another catastrophic war similar to the Napoleonic Wars which had decimated

continental Europe, unlike any previous conflict with a staggering 9 million

people estimated to have died between 1792 and 1815. Masterminded by the

British foreign secretary Viscount Castlereagh, this laid the foundations for

international cooperation being used as a blueprint for later international treaties,

and helped maintain relative peace in Europe for almost the next century.

One of the fiercest controversies surrounding the “Clash of the Titans” on 18 th

June 1815 is who is responsible for victory. It is always amusing to stand on the

touchline of the debate and observe increasingly nationalistic points being scored

between the French and the Brits, or between the Brits and the Germans as to who

17

deserves the bigger share of the pie at Waterloo. To summarise, the

Germanophiles declare that Marshal Blucher was the kingmaker and that

Wellington was the cannon fodder, while the Anglophiles proclaim that the

Prussians were late to the party and missed their slice of the cake. The

Francophiles then wade into the debate declaring, in a characteristically

conclusive fashion, that the battle was unfair or a conspiracy with some secret

agenda and that Napoleon was the true victor. If you haven’t noticed, I say this

all with slight ‘tongue-in-cheek’. Many sound historians and academics have

debated the topic using perfectly reasonable arguments and as much as I’d like it

to be, this article will not cover the age old question of who should claim the

credit in extensive detail.

A battalion of the King’s German Legion fighting to defend the farmhouse La Haye Saint from the French

Succinctly, I would put it this way: the British Army successfully held its own

against Napoleon’s forces (almost evenly matched in infantry but heavily

18

outnumbered in artillery and cavalry regiments 1 ) for long enough so that the

Prussians could arrive and ensure victory was inevitable (please do forgive me

for my Whiggishness). Wellington could at the very best have won a pyrrhic

victory had he not had the delayed support of the Prussians. This is supported by

the Duke of Wellington’s own personal report of proceedings to the Prime

Minister where he acknowledges that the battle was won so decisively due to the

“cordial and timely assistance…[he]…received from [the Prussians]”. This is

because the sheer number of men lost would have been astronomically greater

with the addition of Marshal Grouchy’s 30,000 troops to the battle which had

successfully been tied down by Prussian Lieutenant General von Thielmann

following the previous Prussian defeat at Ligny the day before. In fact, even with belated Prussian support, British losses were devastating 2 .

However, one also must recognise the multinational composition of the British

Army at Waterloo when considering which player should be given most credit

for victory. Just forty-nine per cent of

Wellington’s troops were from the British

Army of which 8 battalions were from the

King’s German Legion, infantry largely

recruited from the German State of Hanover.

Other Hanoverian troops accounted for a

sizeable twenty-one per cent of the infantry

with Dutch, Belgian, Brunswick, and Nassau

troops accounting for the rest. Overall, the

majority of Wellington’s Anglo-Allied army

spoke languages other than English,

Duke of Wellington

1 Napoleon had 90 more pieces of ordnance and roughly 2,350 more cavalrymen. 2 Of the 53,800 men Wellington had available at the start of the battle, over 15,000 ended up as casualties.

19

(predominantly German) and so in this context, the victory at Waterloo was a

victory won by superior British generalship and discipline which effectively

harnessed the courage and enthusiasm of mostly inexperienced German and

Dutch-Belgian troops. This breakwater held on long enough against the tide of

French blue until sufficient Prussian support arrived to extinguish Napoleon’s fire

for renewed European conquest.

For me, Waterloo perches rather awkwardly on my imaginary shelf of key

historical battles. In many ways, it certainly was a glorious finale to the arguably

18 year long war against French territorial aggression. In my nostalgic, and

probably archaic eyes, the most admirable element of the battle was that it was

the last major battle to be fought for glory. Yes, Napoleon had hoped to be

victorious. Yes, he did want to re-establish French dominion over Europe. Yes,

he wanted to regain influence

over his many political enemies

in Paris through a decisive

military victory. But ultimately,

even he must have recognised

how dire his situation was before

crossing the Belgian border. Had

he crushed the Prussians

(130,000 troops), and mauled

the British (112,000 troops), he

still would have faced a vengeful

200,000 strong Russian Army,

and a 210,000 strong Austrian

Army advancing from the East.

Bearing in mind that Napoleon’s

Napoleon

Army of the North numbered

20

just 128,000, having to defeat every single one of those armies united or separated

would have been practically impossible and ultimate defeat was (to again coin

that hated word) inevitable. But that to me is what makes Waterloo so glorious.

Napoleon and his Marshals were aware of this predicament and yet still went into

battle committed and proud. This was a mighty showdown between an undefeated

British Field Marshal and a small Corsican ex-artillery sergeant who had cowed

the major powers of Europe.

But this is where my disappointment comes in. In what should have been his

finest display of brilliance, Napoleon’s strategic decisions were generic and

predictable. Wellington expressed a similar sense of regret in a letter to a comrade

following the battle saying “Napoleon did not manoeuvre at all. He just moved

forward in the old style.” There was none of the energy and spirit of a Napoleon

which had outwitted and obliterated two Emperors at Austerlitz (1805), or the

Napoleon who had steamrolled over the Austrians in the Italian Campaign (1794).

As much as I love Napoleon for the great historical and military figure he is, at

Waterloo he disappointed me. Wellington defeated him in the same way he had

beaten back all his other marshals – through the steady clockwork volleys of

redcoats. Nevertheless, let’s celebrate a British victory and let’s celebrate a

German victory, but let’s also not forget to pay tribute to a small Corsican artillery

sergeant who went down fighting and proud after his crusade to spread the liberal values of Revolutionary France across Europe at this year’s 200 th anniversary of

the Battle of Waterloo.

Note: I am greatly indebted to the fantastic Osprey book “Waterloo: The Decisive Victory – 200 th Anniversary Edition” edited by Colonel Nick Lipscombe but is a collaborative effort by

all the leading Napoleonic experts to establish what truly occurred at Waterloo. If any of you

are interested, a copy is available in the Wodehouse Library.

21

1945: The End of the Second World War

Rollo Collins

The Second World War, the Pacific War or the Great Patriotic War inflicted the

highest human, economic and political costs of any war to date. The Second

World War is remembered because the six yearlong conflict eventually spanned

the globe, due to Hitler’s excessive expansionism and Prime Minister Tojo’s

opportunistic territorial seizure. Thus, this conflict is of global concern and still

holds significance, 70 years on. Moreover, the year 1945 is one to be remembered

as it not only brought a formal end to this conflict but also contained some of the

war's bloodiest battles, from the Battle of Berlin to the Battle of Luzon and the

Battle of Okinawa. From January to September of 1945, there were 298,714

causalities covering various different campaigns in certain different areas of the

world.

Battle of Okinawa (1st April, 1945)

22

The year 1945 and the end of the Second World War also brought about major

global change, for instance, the formation of the United Nations. The creation of

the UN was a direct consequence of the end of the war, as the “Big Three” wanted

to prevent another global, disastrous conflict through creating a new, revised

intergovernmental organisation out of the shell of the old League of Nations. The

formation of the UN is an incredibly crucial part of today’s world as it has

developed women's rights, cracked down on global hunger and has prevent major

conflicts from spreading into another worldwide ordeal. Therefore, the end of the

Second World War must be commemorated for this.

Announcement of V-E Day - Times Square/NYC (May 8th, 1945)

23

The need for the UN was

debated during the Yalta

Conference (in February

1945), prior to the end of

the Second World War.

This conference, coupled

with

the

Potsdam

Conference in July, 1945,

reshaped not only the

world’s borders but also

The signing of the UN Charter, 26 th June, 1945

the alliances within them.

This is because Germany, post-liberation, was to be split into four zones, later

establishing East and West Germany. Furthermore, the Potsdam Conference saw

division within the Big Three for the first time throughout the war and thus set in

motion the Cold War, officially spanning from 1946 to 1991. Therefore, the end

of the Second World War has had an incredible impact on today's way of life as

it fundamentally changed the societies and cultures of those living in post-war

Europe and the world. Along with this, it led to various other brutal, ideologically

driven conflicts such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Victory in 1945 changed the way conventional wars were to be fought through

the introduction of nuclear weapons. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

remain the only use of nuclear weapons against any enemy force or nation.

Between 60,000 and 80,000 people died instantly and a further 55,000 people

died between August 6 and December 1945 due to radiation. This act of merciless

aggression is incredibly significant as it not only prevented further American

casualties but also ended the war. The ‘Dawn of the Atomic Age’ not only

changed the way in which conflicts were to be fought, but it also threw the world

into a state of constant fear of the unknown. Despite only being used twice in

24

human history, the atomic bomb has shaped societies of the modern world beyond

belief and therefore the year 1945 and consequently the end of the Second World

War should be commemorated.

Finally, the end of the Second World War and the year 1945 saw the beginning

of the end for both the French and British Empires. Primarily due to the rise in

national pride amongst the colonies and increasing debt across the Empire, the

process of decolonisation was a direct consequence of the end of the Second

World War as the once high and mighty European empires lay in tatters. This is

incredibly significant as it saw the replacement of the two main superpowers

since the early 18th century, Britain and France being replaced by the U.S. and

the USSR.

Therefore, although 70 years on, the victory over the Axis Powers in 1945 should

be celebrated and commemorated because it brought about great social and

political change, as well as years of further oppression and censorship under the

Eastern Bloc. Along with this, the year 1945 itself should always be remembered

as it not only brought about social change throughout the world but also that of a

political nature. From the formation of the UN in 1945 to the election of Clement

Attlee in Britain. Additionally, the Second World War led to the redevelopment

and cultural rebranding of various European countries due to the sheer destruction

of cultural institutions and ways of life. Thus, it is ever more important as the

commemoration of such an event may help prevent another such atrocity from

happening again.

25

The 50th Anniversary of the death of Sir Winston Churchill.

Tohid Ismail

On the night of his 1945 election loss, Churchill’s doctor Lord Moran

commiserated with him on the “ingratitude” of the British public, to which

Churchill replied “I wouldn't call it that. They have had a very hard time.”

Winston Churchill was born in 1874 in the aristocratic household of the Dukes of

Marlborough, part of the Spencer Family; his father, Lord Randolph Churchill

had served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having attended Harrow School,

where Churchill was known for being mischievous and troublesome, he joined

Sandhurst Royal Military College, after finding education was not ‘his cup of

tea’. He was eventually posted in British India and often wrote for newspapers

back home in Britain, portraying his love for the English language and

journalism, which he had developed since his lonely days at Harrow, where he

tirelessly sent letters to his mother, who seldom replied and starved him of

maternal love. Indeed, he felt that because his father had died young, so would

he, and thus wanted to waste little time in making an impact on the world.

Sir Winston Churchill

26

There are many theories as to why Churchill lost the general election of 1945.

Something that shocked me greatly, however, was the fact that, despite no major

parties contesting his constituency in Essex out of a sense of respect for their war-

time Prime Minister, an independent candidate managed to reduce by thousands

Churchill’s unassailable majority. The election as a whole was a huge loss for the

Conservatives, losing 190 seats, with Labour’s Clement Attlee leading the Labour

Party to victory, gaining more than 239 seats and, thereafter, fundamentally

changing the face of modern Britain.

This loss was a personal blow for Churchill;

he had expected to win and he had expected

to win without a fight; but it was Attlee’s

promise of a welfare state that the voters

found attractive and voted for in large

numbers. Many historians believe that as the

voters ticked Labour on the ballot papers,

very few expected that the outcome would

really result in what looked like a great

betrayal against a hero. Perhaps it was as if

they wanted the policies promised by Labour,

Clement Attlee

but retain the leadership of their great Prime

Minister Churchill.

However, Churchill did not hand over power of the party to his deputy, Eden, but

rather carried on as leader of the Conservative Party after the election – and

nobody dared to challenge him. He made the famous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech in the

USA in 1946 and despite losing yet another election in 1950, he continued as

leader of the opposition until 1951, when he began his final term in office,

eventually retiring in 1955 due to a series of strokes. He also suffered from

27

depression, his ‘Black

Dog’, and spent his later

years at his home in

Chartwell,

Kent,

declining an offer of a

Dukedom from the Queen

due to his son not wanting

to inherit the title (out of

deference to the wishes of

his son, who harboured

Chartwell

dreams, never to be

realised, of carrying on

the family mantle, and following his father into the Commons). It was here that

in his final years, Churchill did what he most loved, painting, and suffered at the age of 90 a stroke from which he never recovered. His funeral on 30 th January

1965 was the largest state funeral in history at the time and was attended, contrary

to custom, by the monarch Queen Elizabeth II.

Churchill was one of the very few people that we can truly say, along with figures

such as Wellington, Disraeli, Gladstone and Lady Thatcher, shaped the Britain as

we know it today. He saved us from the evils of Nazism and raised the morale of

British people with his oratory and courage during the darkest periods of our

history. He was a person who gave Britain a glimmer of light when there was

only darkness, the British Bulldog who came to represent the resilience and

determination of the British people and British identity itself. One could argue

that Churchill, despite being a politician, was one of the few that was beyond

politics; an icon and hero whose smile, cigar and memory should be and is,

entrenched in British history.

28

Selma, 1965: Defining Democracy

Marcus Köttering

2015 saw the release of a stirring new film entitled ‘ Selma’, recounting the

greatest campaign of Martin Luther King’s career, which had taken place fifty

years previously. It is a film I would highly recommend, not only as it remains

faithful to historical fact, but also because it captures the struggle which so many

activists endured on their journey as followers of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. An

important question which historians must tackle is why King and his organisation,

the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), decided to choose the

small Southern town of Selma, Alabama, to host one of the most crucial

campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement.

To begin with, for King, Selma was the

“symbol of white resistance”, situated at

the heart of the Southern United States

where the Movement had been

experiencing its strongest opposition.

This tension had existed in America

since the end of the Civil War and the

Emancipation Proclamation in 1863

which freed the vast majority of the

enslaved African-American population

of the United States. For many living in

the Southern States at the time, racial

segregation had formed a vital part of

the Southern ‘way of life’, and was legal

permitted under the Jim Crow laws, enforced since the 1890s. As the Civil Rights

Movement had been developing across the late 1950s and early 1960s with

29

success, Southern America had reacted through a hard-line opposition. This was

exercised through organisations such as the White Citizens’ Council which came

to represent what King called the “Southern white power structure”, as well as

the Southern Manifesto which was signed by 101 politicians in 1956, outlining

arguments against racial integration.

Furthermore, the Sheriff of Selma, Jim Clark, was well-known for his intolerant

and aggressive policing tactics, much like Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor who led the

shocking police aggression against activists in Birmingham in 1963. In that case,

the media images of innocent African-American children being targeted by fire

hoses and police dogs had struck a chord with many American voters and had

encouraged much support for the Movement. King hoped that similar tactics

would also work in his favour with Jim Clark in Selma. Additionally, the Student

Non-violent Co-ordinating Committee (SNCC) had been losing funds on a voting

rights campaign which they had tested in Selma. Since the Civil Rights Act of

1964 had earned the Movement its greatest legislative victory for the issue of

segregation, many of the Movement’s leaders turned to voting rights as the next

greatest issue.

The situation in Selma in 1965 in terms of racial inequality was also staggering.

A white man living in Selma would earn on average four times that of his African-

American counterpart. Despite an African-American population making up 57%

of the total, only 335 out of more than 15,000 African-Americans were registered

to vote, and from them, a mere 23 had voted in the previous election as a result

of threats from the white community against African-American voting. The town

even had a separate newspaper for African-Americans.

So having arrived in Selma, what did King and the SCLC do to eventually change

the nature structure of American political participation forever? The first thing

30

King did was to deliver a speech on 2 nd January at the Brown Chapel A.M.E.

Church outlining his concerns for the people of Selma and his desire to being

campaigning for voting rights. Following this, King began to organise protest

marches headed for the courthouse where African-Americans would be

encouraged to register to vote. They were often met with considerable opposition

force, especially by Jim Clark, who would ensure inconvenient opening hours of

the registrar’s offices and personally guarded the entrances to the building. At

one point, as depicted in the film, Jim Clark physically assaulted an elderly lady

named Annie Lee Cooper who retaliated by knocking him to his knees. This

helped bring media attention to the campaign from across the nation, whilst King

also attempted to draw the attention of the federal government as well. He called

the recently elected President Lyndon B. Johnson and they agreed that voting

rights would be the next course of action for the Movement. However, in his

inaugural address, Johnson did not mention voting rights.

King kicks off a voter registration drive at the Dallas County

Courthouse in Selma, Alabama, on 18 th January, 1965.

King continued his campaign and was soon arrested by authorities and jailed for

refusing to pay bond charges. This sparked a reaction by the leader of the Black

Nationalist Movement, Malcolm X, who returned to Selma to confront the white

31

segregationist population with aggression. Soon King was released by payment

from his wife, and the marches began to spread to nearby town. In one such town,

called Marion, a march had taken place following the trial of an activist named

James Orange. The march was met with resistance by Alabama state troopers.

One activist, Jimmy Lee Jackson, fled alongside many others, including his own

mother. They found refuge at a nearby café, but were chased by troopers and

Jackson was shot a point-blank range to eventually die in the arms of his mother.

With emotions running high, the SCLC and SNCC decided to hold a meeting at

the Zion United Methodist Church, where they decided the best course of action

would be to march 54 miles from Selma to Montgomery, the capital of Alabama,

where they would directly demand action from Alabama’s Governor George

Wallace; a notorious segregationist. On hearing news that a march of such kind

was due to take place, Governor Wallace denounced its legality and ordered

police to prevent its occurrence, taking “whatever measures are necessary.”

Martin Luther King Jr. arrives in Montgomery on 25 th March, 1965

32

On 7 th March, 600 marchers were led by John Lewis of SNCC onto the Edmund

Pettus Bridge in Selma. There they were met by a line of state troopers carrying

barbed wire, police batons and sitting on horseback. After refusing requests made

by the leaders to the march to engage in peaceful discussion, the police began to

attack the participants and release cans of tear-gas, in an event which became

known as “Bloody Sunday” and was broadcasted on television across the entire

country.

Clouds of tear gas fill the air as state troopers, ordered by Governor George

Wallace, break up a demonstration march in Selma on what became known as

"Bloody Sunday.”

The SCLC’s next move was to ask for a court order from the Federal District

Court that would prohibit police intervention into the march; however, the Court

reacted instead by issuing a restraining order which prevented the march from legally taking place until a hearing could take place. By 9 th March, many activists

were becoming impatient with the lack of actions, so a second march was called.

In what became known as “Turnaround Tuesday”, King led about 2,500 marchers

33