Timeline - Issue 2

TIMELINEISSUE 2 LENT 2015ABINGDON SCHOOL'S HISTORY PUBLICATION

TIMELINEISSUE 2 LENT 2015ISSUE 2 LENT 2015ABINGDON SCHOOL'S HISTORY PUBLICATIONISSUE 2 LENT 2015

TIMELINE

HISTORICAL CONTERFACTUALS

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE 10 MOST ICONIC PHOTOGRAPHS

OF HISTORY

THE FORGOTTEN FRONTS OF WWI

HAVE WE SEEN IS BEFORE?

ALSO FEATURING:

Timeline Magazine Issue 1 | 1

WELCOME

TIMELINEMAGAZINE

EDITORIAL head editor Adam Pearson

ART & DESIGN creative/design director Asten Yeo senior designer Blake Jones

STAFF WRITERS Jamie Blackwell Archie Williams William Sheffield Nicholas Lockett Stepan Khovanov Blake Jones Jack Dawson Max Finch Andrey Ogarev Alasdair Czaplewski

Design by Asten YeoPrinted by Cambrian Printerswww.cambrian-printers.co.uk

Since the previous edition of Timeline, the world’s political situation has changed dramatically. Although Ukraine is still never far from the news, the Middle East has come to dominate the headlines. Chilling images of beheadings have become almost commonplace, as the group

that seems incapable of deciding on a name rampage through Syria and Iraq. IS, Isis, or Isil, usually seen flying menacing black flags and carelessly firing AK-47s pointed at the sky, actually have a very historic aim; namely, they wish to reestablish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

Fittingly therefore our cover article in this edition provides a historical perspective on the issue. We contrast the current involvement of British volunteers for IS in the Syrian Civil War with British vol-unteers 70 years earlier, in the Spanish Civil War. This technique of comparative history aims to offer an insight that penetrates through the layers of stirring, hatred-inciting media coverage into what really motivates a volunteer to devote themselves to a cause that does not directly affect them. This is a question of paramount significance to Britain at the present moment.

As well as offering a historical dimension to the current conflict in Syria and Iraq, we also explore other equally fascinating topics. In line with the ongoing centennial commemorations of the First World War, we investigate the war’s forgotten fronts. Additionally, we weigh up the method of coun-terfactual history, hunt for a historical reason to explain why the English alphabet lost five letters, and recount recent US African-American history with a rather unique approach.

This edition is sure to provide variety; we hope you enjoy it.

Welcome to Timeline

2 | Timeline Magazine Issue 2

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTSFEATURES

The 10 Most Iconic Photographs of History 6Images that have defined modern history

What If? 4Should we consider counterfactuals in history?


INTRODUCTION

BRITAINWe Won't Remember Them 12The Missing Five Letters of the English Alphabet 15

EUROPEStalin: Rise to Power 18The Battle of Arnhem 20

THE AMERICASHistory through Hip-Hop 22

ASIABhutan: Lost in the Past 24

AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EASTBrits, Beliefs and Brutality: Have we seen IS before? 28

The Sleepwalkers: A Review 32Among the Sans-Culotte (Part 2) 33Monty: A Biography 34

REGIONS


FEATURE

WHAT IF?

Should we consider alternate realities in history? Jamie Blackwell examines counterfactuals


FEATURE

What if the South had defeated the North in the battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War? Or even, what if the Austrian Archduke Franz

Ferdinand had not been shot dead on the 28th June 1914? Could the First World War have been avoided? Most will agree that these counterfactuals, known colloquially as 'what ifs?', despite being entertaining topics of discussion, serve no serious purpose in the study of history. Perhaps this explains why the second example was Simon Schama's contribution in 1999 to 'Talk' magazine and not to a scholarly publication. Until recent years, historians have simply dismissed these studies. Indeed the Marxist historian E.P.Thompson described 'counterfactual fictions' as 'Geschicbtswissenschlopff' or 'unhistorical sh*t'.

One would think that, after their scholarly battering, counterfactuals would have been discarded as useless, purely fictional hypothesising. If so we might agree that a discussion concerning of the American War of Independence, pondering the outcome if George III had not been king of England at the time, is frivolous. Perhaps counterfactuals are no more beneficial to historical study than the popular US sitcom Big Band Theory's argument that Uganda would have triumphed in the Second World War if “rhinoceroses were employed as domesticated pets”. It seems therefore on the face of it that there is no place for counterfactuals outside historical fiction, and yet on closer scrutiny they have rightly earned a valid place in modern historical investigation and are of great use to historians.

Of the infinity many possible counterfactual examples, the one used in the introduction seems no worse than any other. In fact one of the most famous historians of the 20th century, Nobel Prize laureate, Winston Churchill concluded that the Battle of Gettysburg was the real turning point in the Civil War, and envisaged the outcome of the war had the South triumphed in this battle. Assisted by an in depth knowledge of the period , Churchill depicts how the outcome could have very easily gone in the South's favour if the actions of the Southern cavalry officer, Jeb Stuart, had been different. Churchill goes further and considers a post-Civil War America, still split in two. He resolves that if this had been the case, the First World War would not have occurred. Surely this seems far fetched, to link the actions of one man and his cavalry charge to a war which broke out over 50 years later? It is clear to see why historians have dismissed the practice of counterfactuals as whimsical fantasies. How can we be sure that if one event was different, the eventual outcome would not have been the same?

One cannot assume that the change in an event will prevent a future event from happening.

Although it is useful to consider alternative outcomes to more closely analyse the actual events of the past, one can easily fall into the trap of predicting a new 'timeline' of history which might, for obvious reasons, seem pointless.

But seriously, can counterfactuals help historians? Unquestionably it is better to analyse actual historical events than imaginary ones. But these 'imaginary' ideas are still vital to our understanding of the past because they offer historians an opportunity to prioritise events leading to an eventual outcome based on the significance of the effect of the event or, more simply, by how much event 'x' affects event 'y'. Therefore counterfactuals can be used to consider how an event would have occurred eventually without a preceding event that is believed to have caused the later event. In other words, would the later event still have happened without of the proceeding event? To provide an example, would a Great War have broken out in the 20th century without the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Such use of counterfactuals allows us to weigh up the relative importance of each preceding event. In this case, it lets us analyse the role of the death of Franz Ferdinand as a cause of the First World War.

The criticism of counterfactual accounts is somewhat persuasive. But they deservedly hold a place within historical study. Counterfactuals not only force a historian to analyse certain events very closely and to address all influences on a certain topic, but also gives them freedom to consider the result of various outcomes. Overall this leads to a better understanding of their period of study.

Counterfactual analysis is also one of the closest techniques historians have to an experiment. Just as scientists test their hypotheses in laboratories, historians can examine their hypotheses and speculations about history. Provided they consider rational outcomes, the counterfactual study will leave historians with a better idea of the importance of certain influences on a final outcome, having evaluated how they could have varied. “It is, at the very root, the idea of conjecturing on what did not happen, or what might have happened, in order to understand what did happen”.

E.P.Thompson described 'counterfactual fictions' as 'Geschicbtswissenschlopff'or 'unhistorical sh*t'.


FEATURE

The 10 Most Iconic

Photographs of History

Photographs arguably have a power beyond words to encapsulate the complexities of an event with stunning simplicity. Indeed, as the old cliché goes, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’. Sometimes chilling, sometimes uplifting, and sometimes astounding, photos have an unparalleled emotional impact. This is particularly the case with historical photos. Intricate webs of diplomatic relations, further entangled by racial and economic issues, can be captured in a mere photograph, often depicting just one individual. Here we hope to have selected ten varied and globally iconic photos of history.


FEATURE

Over 250 metres above the streets of New York, 11 construction workers eat their lunches. Taken in 1932, the photo has come to symbolise the lack of safety during the Great Depression, when men accepted any job regardless of the danger involved. However, it is generally accepted that the photo is staged, in order to promote the new Rockefeller skyscraper.

Charles C. EbbetsLunch atop a Skyscraper30 Rockefeller CenterNew York City, United States1932

Charles LevyMushroom Cloud Over Nagasaki

Nagasaki, Japan9 August 1945

In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs in Japan, one on the city of Hiroshima and the other on Nagasaki. The two devastating instances remain the only times in history that nuclear weapons have been used as a form of warfare. Killing at least 129,000 in total, but potentially saving even more lives, the USA’s decision remains a moral quandary.


FEATURE

The morning after the Chinese military brutally suppressed student protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989, this unknown man, or Tank Man, blocked a column of tanks. When they tried to manoeuvre past, he continued to obstruct their path. Although the man’s fate is heavily debated, the photograph nevertheless remains a modern-day David and Goliath story, an inspiring cultural symbol for non-violent resistance against a cruel, faceless authority.

Jeff WidenerTank Man

Tiananmen SquareBeijing, China

1989

In 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the fi rst men ever to walk on the Moon. Although it was a momentous feat of engineering, the lunar landing had a signifi cance outside of science. The ‘Space Race’ had become symbolic of the confl ict between the USA and USSR during the Cold War. John F. Kennedy promised in 1961 to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. Dead for six years and with just 161 days to spare, he won the race to the Moon.

NASAAldrin Poses on the MoonSea of TranquilityThe Moon, Milky Way GalaxyJuly 1969


FEATURE

In 1920, Lenin gave a speech to a crowd of Soviet troops The image itself has been edited as a means of confirming Stalin’s version of the Russian Revolution. In later reproductions of the photo, Leon Trotsky, the leader of the Red Army and seen to the right of Lenin, and Lev Kamenev, who was executed when Stalin took power, were both removed. Hence the photo not only represents the immense significance of the Bolshevik revolution, but also the Orwellian censorship of Stalin’s regime.

Anon.Lenin Addresses the TroopsSverdlov SquareMoscow, USSR5 May 1920

During the medal ceremony for the 200m at the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico City, the US athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos performed the Black Power salute. Carlos had forgotten his glove, so the Australian Peter Norman suggested he wear Smith’s right-hand glove. They kept their fists raised until the national anthem had finished, and were booed by crowds as they stepped down. This was a rare incidence of political protest at the Olympics, which attracted global media coverage and put pressure on the US government to improve their treatment of African-Americans.

John Dominis (Associated Press)Black Power Salute 1968

Men's 200m Finals1968 Summer Olympics

Mexico City, Mexico17 October 1968


FEATURE

The 11th of September 2001 has arguably been the most significant day of the 21st century thus far. At 9:41 on that day, a man, whose identity remains unknown, jumped from the North Tower of the World Trade Center to his death. Although he was just one of at least 200 who died in the same way, this image cut straight through the deafening mass hysteria to provoke an intensely personal response to the world-changing event.

Richard Drew (Associated Press)The Falling ManWorld Trade CenterNew York, USA11 September 2001

Peter LeibingLeap of Freedom

Berlin WallWest Berlin, USA

15 August 1961

In 1961, when the Berlin Wall was just two days old and only a low barbed wire fence, Conrad Schumann was a soldier, posted to East Germany. As a police car pulled up on the other side ready to carry him away and West Germans beckoned him, Schumann made the decision to jump across. His defection became an icon for the fissure that divided Europe both physically, ideologically and politically during the latter half of the 20th century.


FEATURE

Yevgeny KhaldeiRaising a Flag Over the ReichstagReichstag BuildingBerlin, Germany2 May 1945

Having defeated the Nazis at the Battle of Berlin in 1945, a group of Soviet troops raised their flag atop the Reichstag. The Red Army photographer Yevgeny Khaldei hoped to emanate the equally iconic image ‘Raising the flag on Iwo Jima’. The photo is generally accepted to be staged; Khaldei had been carrying the flag, made of three sewn-together tablecloths, for this purpose. Nevertheless, the image has become symbolic of Communism’s triumph over Fascism.

Malcolm Browne (Associated Press)Thich Quang Du's Ritual SuicideSaigon, Vietnam11 June 1963

This chilling image depicts Thich Quang Duc, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who burned himself to death in 1963. Calmly sitting down on a cushion at a busy road intersection, a five-gallon gasoline calm was poured over Duc, before he lit a match. The monk was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. The American photographer Malcolm Browne subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize for photo of the year. Although President Diem promised to implement reforms improving the condition of Buddhists, he never delivered, and was toppled by a coup later that year.


BRITAIN

World War I was enor-mous. It stretched far beyond the trenches of Western Europe, and few people nowadays ap-

preciate that the sounds of the guns were heard across the Middle East, Macedonia and East Africa. Few people remember the 30,000 casualties at Kut, and few recall the British shaming at Tanga. The simple truth is that we have limited our perception of the First World War to the battlefields of Europe. It was there that the great war poets and playwrights saw what they made into ‘Journey’s End’ and ‘Anthem for Doomed Youth’. And it was here that the majority of “our boys”- be-ing the British Army- fought in this war. But relatively little has been written of the other fronts, the campaigns just as fascinating and important as the war in Flanders but largely fought by common-wealth troops and not very well reported at the time. People didn’t hear or care about them at the time, seeing them as irrelevant sideshows to the “real” war in France. Whether it was unnecessary or not, the fact remains that thousands died and few people now care, and this is a tragedy. The men who lived and died far from home deserve to be remembered, irrespective of whether you believe that the fighting on other fronts was necessary or not.

MesopotamiaMesopotamia, modern day Iraq, had been a member of the Ottoman Empire for

centuries, but at the outbreak of the First World War this arid colony took on a new significance: oil. This could keep Britain’s expansive naval war going. And it would be easy - the Ottomans had been a crum-bling power since before the Crimean War, and many local tribes were loyal to the British cause. Described by one British soldier as being ‘miles and miles of Sweet Fanny Adams with two rivers in the middle’, the territory was largely flat and arid; there were no roads, little fresh water and an annual flood. But then the campaign wouldn’t take long, so these problems would not make too much of a difference. The start was simple: the oil fields of Basra fell in November 1914, and in early 1915 moves were made to eliminate threatening positions to the North of this place. But the lure of the centre of population, Baghdad, was too great for the British forces, and on the 12th September the 6th (Poona) Divi-sion began a march on Baghdad. Despite winning early victories, the Ottoman troops, inspired into a jihad against the Allied invasion, repulsed the advance at Ctesiphon in November. The Indians fell back in disarray, and the shambolic re-treat finally took them into Kut-al-Amara on the 3rd December. Here, 31,000 men were cut off by the Turks and an epic siege began. 3 divisions were sent to Bas-ra and repeated attempts were made at relief, but these all faced stout resistance and ultimately failed. Kut was subjugated on Easter day of 1916, and 13,000 men fell into the hands of the Turks, who were unable to cope with this influx of POWs,

and 70% of the British died at the hands of their captors. Thus humbled, the Brit-ish put a new man in charge, Major-Gen-eral Stanley Maude, and he organised and executed a brilliant new expedition into the desert beyond Basra, destroying Turkish morale entirely in February in actions in the Shumran Peninsula and in March, Kut was finally avenged with the capture of Baghdad. The advance contin-ued throughout 1918, and on the last day of October a treaty was concluded with the Ottomans, and finally an occupying force entered Istanbul. In this theatre, the Allies lost more men to disease than enemy action, suffering over 92,000 casualties. Reinforcements were often under equipped, undermanned and per-

WE WON'T REMEMBER

THEMArchie Williams explores the

forgotten fronts of World War I

General Allenby enters Jerusalem


BRITAIN

ished quickly. Wounded men could spend two weeks on river boats before getting medical attention, and in the hot condi-tions disease flourished. But, due to the majority contribution by commonwealth troops, the story was not brought to the British people with as much force at home as the story of the Western Front. Thus, this costly campaign vanished into obscurity, and there it has remained ever since.

PalestineWhat was very obvious right from the start of the war was the British reliance on the Suez canal. It was their key supply route to India and the Far East, and it was

vulnerable. Thus, from early 1915, Turk-ish troops massed in Palestine began to attack the British in Egypt. These attacks continued until August of that year. Small skirmishes on the border flared up until 1917, when the Allies had amassed ade-quate forces to launch a campaign along the varied terrain of the coastal road. Two attempted breakthroughs alerted Otto-man high command to the threat, sucking reinforcements into the holy land from Mesopotamia. A new commander, Sir Edmund Allenby, took over, bringing ANZAC reinforcements to match the new Turkish troops in the area, now the second largest theatre for the British after the Western Front. The subsequent attack pushed to the North and East; the

Turkish were routed. On the 7th of De-cember, British forces entered Jerusalem as a ‘Christmas Present for the British People’, in the words of Prime Minister Lloyd-George. By the end of the war, the British had crossed the River Jordan and to land forces in order to help them fight against the Austro-Hungarian army. So the British dusted off an old treaty which gave the British and French the right to land troops in the Macedonian port of Salonika (now Thessalonika) in the event of a flare-up in the Balkans. But when the task force landed in October 1915, it was already too late. Serbia had been almost entirely conquered by Austria and Bulgaria and there was nothing the British could do. But they were there


BRITAIN

now, and decided to stay there in order to participate in future operations against Bulgaria and in order to preserve British prestige in the region following Gallipoli. Throughout 1916, they dug in around the city, and allied forces swelled within ‘the birdcage’. Small skirmishes broke out throughout 1916 and 1917, with heavy losses on both sides. The campaign became very unpopular with the British public, being mocked with the popular music-hall song ‘If you want a holiday, go to Salonika’. But in 1918 the allied troops in ‘the birdcage’, supplemented by Russian and Italian personnel, were ready to break out. The counterattack began in September, with heavy fi ghting against mountain fortresses as high as 2000 feet above sea level. The balance of power changed sides again and again, and the brutal hand to hand confl ict on rocky screes made it well and truly “a soldier’s battle”. But on the 30th the Bulgarians made peace before the battle concluded, drawing the campaign to a close. Thus, the guns fell silent on one of the most controversial fronts of World War I.

East AfricaAt the outbreak of war, there were two major faultlines in colonial Africa. There was the Namibia/South Africa bound-

ary, which witnessed a brief campaign, resulting in allied victory and little loss of life. However, it was on the border between German East Africa (Tanzania) and British East Africa (Kenya) that the most intense fi ghting took place. The governors of both nations discouraged war, believing that giving blacks guns with which to shoot white men may ‘give them ideas’, but nonetheless military commanders on both sides disagreed, and started a campaign unlike anything seen anywhere else in this war. Both forces used local militia and black troops, with very few Europeans fi ghting on either side. In November 1914 the allies launched an assault on Tanga, which was repulsed by the enigmatic general Paul von Lettow Vorbeck’s militiamen. The British had not been prepared for any sort of resistance. Encouraged by this victory, the Germans sent out aggres-sive guerilla patrols against the Uganda railway around Mount Kilimanjaro. The Allied situation was dire, and hundreds of reinforcements were needed. Locals who knew the terrain and avoided direct confrontation made matters almost im-possible. Field Marshal Jan Smuts, a Boer veteran of the 1899-1902 confl ict, used the tactics the British had used were well into Syria. In the diffi cult days of late 1917 and Passchendaele, Allenby’s off ensive

and the romantic actions of Lawrence ‘of Arabia’ provided a welcome source of relief. It is a wonder why it has been forgotten, but again it surely must lie in the huge use of foreign troops who were unable to bring the tale of the operations in the Holy Land back to the British People. However, the British post-war oc-cupation of Palestine would soon have far reaching implications, arguably causing problems that linger to this day.

SalonikaThe War had- arguably- been precipitated in 1914 by Austrian aggression to Serbia, a weaker nation by far. As their allies, the Entente powers felt they ought against the Boer commandos in the closing stages of that war. In miserable rain in early 1916, the Allies began to push the Germans back, still with no pitched battles being fought. It was a frustrating experience across largely unmapped terrain for the British. It concluded after the armi-stice was signed, and Vorbeck returned to Germany a hero who hadn’t really been defeated, but repeatedly outfoxed the blundering allies, rather like Erwin Rommel in the Second World War. For the loss of 2,000 Germans, 10,000 Allied soldiers had been killed by disease and enemy action. It cost the British 12 billion pounds in a campaign they didn’t want to fi ght and that they could never truly claim to have won. But yet again, the issue arises that few British men fought, and the Allied forces were largely black, Rhode-sian or South African. Thus, it is now little known in the UK. But it was certainly ‘a running sore’ in the British war eff ort throughout the 14-18 confl ict, and worthy of our remembrance at the very least.

_________

Overall the First World War was a sprawl-ing and vast confl ict, much more so than many people appreciate today, and over a third of British deaths were outside the Western Front. We don’t remember many of them, and names like Kut and Tanga have never had the resonance of Verdun or Thiepval. This is an embarrassing truth, and something that we must emphasise in the current centenary com-memorations. We have a unique chance to propagate knowledge of the forgotten campaigns, and this must be taken. •

British soldiers in Mesopotmia


BRITAIN

þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ

Between the Early Norman and late Mediæval periods the English Alphabet lost fi ve letters. The reason for this seems obvious - surely they were just obsolete. But this doesn’t help much, and is hardly satisfactory. Why did they become obsolete? Why did they even exist in the fi rst place? In order to provide a more meaningful answer, we have to go back to the very earliest roots of the English language, and delve into the historical development of the world’s third most spoken language.

þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð William Sheffi eld puts a linguistic spinon English history

þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ

ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ þ æ ð Ð ᚹ ȝ þ æ ð Ð

THE MISSING

FIVE LETTERS

OF THE ENGLISH

LANGUAGE



BRITAIN

The earliest language that could be called English is An-glo-Saxon, spoken, somewhat unsurprisingly, by the Anglo-Saxons. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and other peoples migrated to England during the fi fth to sev-enth centuries, fi rst at the request of the native British

(hereafter called ‘Celtic’) kings, in order to help fi ght off other Norsemen, but then they began to settle. They weren’t just a ruling minority; rather, they made up most of the population and pushed the Celts into Wales and Cornwall, where a form of Celtic language survives. It says something about the nature of this settlement that the Anglo-Saxon word “wealh”, meaning “foreigner”, came to denote both “Celt” and “slave”. In fact, we get the words “Wales” and “Welsh” from it.

The Anglo-Saxons brought their language and their writing system with them. They used an alphabet of ‘runes’, like the Norse (Viking) languages did. The rune alphabet was made up of very angular characters, due to the fact that all the writing was in stone and wood inscriptions.

At this point, and up to the 6th century, the Anglo-Saxons were pagan, and believed in gods and goddesses such as Tiw, Woden, Thor and Frigg (who give their names to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday respectively). But in the sixth century Christian missionaries were sent to convert England back to Christianity; however, they didn’t like runes because they had too many pagan connotations. But in order to convert the Anglo-Saxons, they needed to communicate with them. Very few Anglo-Saxons knew any Latin, so the Christian missionaries had to use Anglo-Saxon. But they didn’t know how to write it. They couldn’t use runes, so instead they used the Latin alphabet. Bizarrely, one language was being written in the letters of another. Thus our fi ve letter were used to spell sounds unfamiliar to scribes from Latin.

______________

Letter One: ThornThis letter was used to combat the ‘T H’ problem that Anglo-Sax-ons encountered. It was odd that this was borrowed from the pre-Christian Futhorc, because Christians didn’t like runes. Nev-

ertheless, it was used to spell the voiced voiceless ‘T H’ sound.

Letter Two: Eth or ÐætThis was another letter for the ‘T H’ sound. It came from the alphabet devised for writing Irish, and although its name in Old English was Ðæt, in the 19th century it came to be called Eth. Up until the eighth century, Thorn and Eth were used inter-changeably, and it could perhaps have been the fashion to use one particular one in a certain monastic scriptorium. However, in the ninth century Eth gave way to Thorn, especially at the start of words.

Letter Three: AshThis letter was used for another non-Latin sound. The vow-el sound that the monks and missionaries heard in words like “man” wasn’t like the vowel ‘a’ sound in Latin; it almost sounded like the ‘e’ of ‘set’. Because of this, the scribes wrote the sound as both letters: “ae”. But by the end of the eighth century the scribes had joined the letters as one new one: “æ”. Modern scholars named the letter Ash. It had already been used as an inscription ligature to join two letters in Latin, but in Latin it made an /aı/ sound, as in “Cæcilius”.

Letter Four: WynnA letter was needed to spell the ‘w’ sound, as the Latin ‘v’ wasn’t used for that anymore. Some scribes spelt ‘w’ sound with a ‘u’, which was the form of ‘v’ used in handwriting, but some scribes obviously found this confusing, as they spelt the ‘w’ sound with a ‘double u’ - ‘uu’. But in southern England the scribes chose a new letter - Wynn, meaning joy.

Letter Five: YoghThis letter is actually the letter ‘g’ written diff erently in Old En-glish. However, Yogh or ‘g’ was used to spell many sounds. This meant that complications arose when Yogh died out.

______________

So at this point the language spoken in England was really a mix of two languages - Latin from the Christian missionaries and

The Anglo-Saxons brought their language and writing system with them when they arrived in the 5th century


BRITAIN

Anglo-Saxon from the Anglo-Saxons. This language is nowadays referred to as Old English, and lasted until the Norman invasion. It was spoken over all England, apart from Cornwall, but had diff erent dialects, although the unifi cation of England under the West Saxon kings meant that their version of Old English became the standard dialect.

From 750 to 1050 AD Vikings and other Norsemen settled in England, in an area called the ‘Danelaw’. They brought their language - Old Norse. It was very like Anglo-Saxon, but had slightly diff erent words and pronunciation. At the point Old English evolved into a mix of three languages: Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse.

But up until then, our fi ve letter remained. The major upheaval of the English language came in 1066, when the Norman French invaded England. So, as with a lot of things in English history, we can blame the French! When they arrived, the English language was given a fourth element: Norman French. English here entered another phase: the so-called ‘Middle English’ period, which existed from 1066 AD to the mid to late 1500s. This was when the letters died out.

Letter One: Thorn. It carried on being used after the French scribes arrived, but they gradually replaced it with ‘T H’ again. Most of the handwriting about that time was in a ‘gothic’ or ‘blackletter’ font, but in this Thorn and the letter ‘Y’ look identical. Therefore when the Continental printers came to England, they read Thorn as ‘Y’. So Thorn was mis-taken for ‘Y’, and was printed so.

Letter Two: Eth or Ðæt. In the ninth century Eth faded from use and gave way to Thorn. By 1300, it had been fully replaced by Thorn and ‘T H’.

Letter Three: Ash. The French scribes didn’t like this unfamiliar letter, and by 1300 it too had fallen out of use. The short version of the sound was re-placed by the letter A, so Ælfred became Alfred. The long version of the sound was replaced by ‘ea’, ‘ee’, or ‘e’, so “sæ”, “sæd” and “æfen” became “sea”, “seed” and “even”.

Letter Four: Wynn. The French scribes got rid of this letter too, and it had disappeared by 1300, replaced by ‘uu’, which was joined to produce one new letter - ‘w’.

Letter Five: Yogh. As a way of writing the letter G, Yogh survived until the end of the 14th century; however, the sounds it made were replaced by other letters. For example, the hard ‘g’ sound was spelled with ‘g’.

So we return to the original question: why did the English Alphabet lose fi ve letters? Firstly, the English alphabet lost fi ve letters because the Con-tinental printers and scribes didn’t like the strange and unfamiliar letters, because they didn’t recognise them. Consequently, the letters were not needed any more, and became obsolete. The sounds in English had moved on and changed, and the frictional consonants had practically vanished. Quite simply, they disappeared because the English language, in response to political and societal changes, had moved on. •

æ

ȝ

þ

Ðð

ᚹ

Thorn

Wynn

Daet

Eth

Ash

Yogh


EUROPE


EUROPE

Born in Gori, Georgia on 21st Decem-ber, 1879, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin) was his moth-

er's fourth child. Joseph's father, Besar-ion Djugashvili (Beso), was a bootmaker who was constantly drunk and often beat Joseph and his mother, Ketevan. Ketevan took on housework after leaving her husband; she was a religious woman and gathered enough money to send Joseph to school in 1888, after which he won a scholarship to the Tiflis Theological Sem-inary, a Georgian Orthodox school which he attended from the age of sixteen.

While studying at the seminary he joined a secret organization. Members were supporters of Georgian indepen-dence from Russia. Some were also so-cialist revolutionaries and it was through these people that he met in this organi-zation that Stalin first came into contact with the ideas of Marxism. In 1901 Stalin joined the Social Democratic Labour Party where he helped to organize indus-trial resistance to Tsarism. On 18th April, 1902, Stalin was arrested after coordinat-ing a strike at the large Rothschild plant in Batumi and was sent to Kutaisi Prison.

After spending 18 months in prison Stalin was deported to Siberia. Although still in prison, he gave his support to Lenin. Upon his escape from Siberia, Stalin leaned towards Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He was, however, far from the heart of the Bolsheviks, and was overshadowed by his rival Leon Trotsky. After escaping from exile, he was marked by the Okhranka (the Tsar's secret police) as an outlaw and continued his work in hiding, raising money through robberies, kidnappings and extortion. Stalin gained infamy being associated with the 1907 Tiflis bank rob-bery, which resulted in several deaths.

In February 1917, the Russian Revo-

lution began, and by March, the Tsar had abdicated and was placed under house arrest. Lenin, denouncing the provi-sional government, managed, with Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik party, to over-throw it in Petrograd during the October Revolution. This momentous event of history was to pave the way for Stalin and the Soviet Union.

_________

Throughout the summer of 1923, Lenin was on the brink of death, but a struggle for power among the politicians was still obvious. Trotsky seemed to hold the most powerful position, although opposition was rising. In 1922, Stalin was appointed to the newly created office of general secretary of the Communist Party. Al-though he would later become Trotsky's largest problem, for the time being, the opposition also included two other poli-ticians: Lev Kamenev and G.E. Zinoviev. Together, the three formed the "troika", launching a series of criticisms to belittle Trotsky, who was not as powerful as he had hoped within the party. Because Trotsky was not prepared to split the leadership, Stalin had used Trotsky’s un-popularity to his advantage, gaining more control over the party. As such, Stalin removed his rivals and rose to power.

The struggle between Stalin and Trotsky was fuelled by their different visions of what the future of the Soviet Union would look like. Trotsky believed in a worldwide revolution, whereas Stalin supported Communism in one country. He believed that the success of Marxism did not depend on worldwide Commu-nism, which his comrades wished to create immediately. Rather, he said that capitalism would fall eventually in any case, but it was essential for Russia to es-tablish its power as a Soviet Union before

any expansion. In December 1924, Stalin made his opinion on Marxism clear. However, by 1925, divisions began within the “troika”. Whereas Stalin kept his sup-port for the NEP (Lenin’s new economic policy), Zinoviev and Kamenev opposed it, thus creating the Leftists (Zinoviev and Kamenev) and the Rightists (Stalin). By the time the leftists and Trotsky had united to oppose Stalin, it was too late. Stalin had made shrewd appointments and consolidated his power so that even-tually nearly all members of the central command owed their position to him. Trotsky was exiled from Russia in 1929 and Stalin had won.

Stalin soon conducted a vast reign of terror, having people arrested and ac-cusing potential rivals of being "enemies of the people". Members of the political opposition were summarily executed. The purges eventually extended beyond the party elite to local officials suspected of counterrevolutionary activities. He became the sole leader and any resistance was met with swift and lethal response. Consequently millions of people were exiled to the labour camps of the Gulag or were executed. But Stalin’s legacy stretched much further than his brutal and centralising ‘cleansing’ of the party. He also set in motion rapid industriali-sation and collectivisation that initially achieved huge successes, but over time cost millions of lives and vast damage. But perhaps most importantly, Stalin established the USSR as a world super-power, which was to win the Second World War, cover one sixth of the Earth’s land surface, and dominate the political landscape of the second half of the 20th century. Although Stalin died in 1953, the Soviet Union survived. And although the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Stalin’s legacy lived on. •

STALIN:Rise to Power

Nicholas Lockett investigates the life of the 'Man of Steel'


EUROPE

By September 1944, the Second World War had been raging for nearly 5 years, and the Allied commanders were looking for a quick solution to the war. One

of these commanders was Field Mar-shal Montgomery. He created a plan, in which airborne landings were to capture the bridges across several rivers in the Netherlands in time for the advancing Allied troops. This would create a small corridor for the Allies to go around the Siegfried Line, which was a heavily fortified German network of defences, allowing the troops to capture the Ruhr, the industrial heartland. It was hoped that this would collapse the German war

industry, and therefore bring about a swift end to the war. The plans were that there would be three airborne land-ings around Eindhoven, Nijmegen and Arnhem. At Arnhem, the 1st Airborne Division under the command of Ma-jor-General Urquhart were to land and quickly capture and hold the Arnhem road, rail and pontoon bridges until the XXX Corps arrived to relieve them. That was the plan, at least.

In the night of 16th-17th Septem-ber 1944, 2,000 transport aircraft took off from Britain. In preparation to the landings, most of the AA defences and Luftwaffe bases were destroyed, so the first lift suffered few casualties. Some

of the gliders were lost, as they collided with others already landed or with trees. Some of the troops landed on an enemy group training, which cost the whole division the element of surprise, as the landings were reported straight to Mod-el, the German commander in the area. Moreover, he got hold of the operation plans from a downed plane and decided to concentrate his efforts on Arnhem, putting snipers and machine-gun nests on the route of the paratroopers, slowing them down and forcing some units to take other paths to Arnhem. When the avant-garde arrived at the rail bridge, they couldn’t stop the Germans from de-stroying the bridge, so the only objective

THE BATTLE OF

ARNHEMStepan Khovanov delves into the details of a pivotal battle in World War II

Paratroopers at Arnhem


EUROPE

left was the road bridge, because the pon-toon had been dismantled before the op-eration. Finally, some troops managed to get hold of the northern end of the road bridge, but the other end and the town were still in German hands, so the British reinforcements had to break through the enemy lines to reach their allies at the bridge. Due to the faulty communication equipment, the British weren’t able to connect to other groups around Arn-hem or the front-line troops of the XXX Corps. After several attempts to capture the southern end had failed, the British dug in, resulting in a stalemate. Serious house-to-house fi ghting broke out all around the northern end. As there wasn’t

any link with those outside of Arnhem, the troops near the bridge were suff ering due to lack of food, medicine and, mostly, water. No link also meant only a very small number of reinforcements were available. As they had to avoid so many snipers and machine-gunners, the com-panies arrived too late, and the Germans had enough time to prepare to beat them off . All attempts to break through failed. This was bad for the people inside the German ‘ring’, but it also had a bright side: because the Germans focused on the outside, they couldn’t spare many men for the inside. The objectives were changed - forget the bridge and dig in at Oosterbeek.

On the second day of the operation the planned supply drop was delayed by fog in Britain, so the pilots had less time to transport cargoes. Despite that, they still managed to deliver approximately 15,000 supply crates in 600 fl ights over an 8-day period. However, this wasn’t enough, as the companies needed around 270 tons to sustain themselves daily. The situation was even worse, because around 90% of crates had landed outside British-held territory, into German hands or no-one’s. On September 19, the Germans, no longer attacked on the out-side of the ring, were able to focus on the

inside. The British troops were then sub-jected to a continuous artillery barrage, which left only one building standing. After this, all casualties that could walk were evacuated. The British at the bridge accepted defeat and surrendered.

The Battle of Arnhem failed for many reasons. Firstly, it is believed that the landing zones were too far from the objectives, so it took the paratroopers longer to arrive in time to seize and hold the bridges. Moreover, the supply drops were too imprecise, and as result the British only recovered 10% of the overall supplies. Of course the fact that the Germans got hold of the plans did not help their chances of victory. Further-more, the planners weren’t realistic in estimating the Axis strength and ignored any evidence to the contrary, such as aerial photographs and information from the Dutch Resistance. Consequently, the troops weren’t prepared for the number of Germans in the area. They believed that the XXX Corps would get to Arnhem in 2 days, and this infl uenced their planning in terms of numbers and the supplies sent with the paratroopers to Arnhem, so the troops were too depen-dent on the XXX Corps relief. And so, when the Corps got delayed, the whole battle of Arnhem failed. •

The bridge at Arnhem


THE AMERICAS

Music is integral to every known culture, past and present. The fact that it is influenced by all other as-

pects of that culture, including social and economic organization, climate, and ac-cess to technology, means that music tells us a great deal about societies. This is per-haps no more obvious than with hip-hop, or rap, music, which is a relatively recent genre of music, taking on its recognisable form in the late 1970s. Since its inception, rap music has been, and continues to be, dominated by African American youths. Arguably therefore, providing a com-plete overview of recent black history in the United States is impossible without reference to rap music.

While they are usually assumed to be synonymous, hip-hop and rap are in fact slightly different. Hip-hop denotes MC-ing (rapping), DJ-ing, breakdancing and graffiti writing. Therefore rap, in which the artist speaks over an instrumental beat, is just one section of a much larger subculture.

After sampling technology and drum machines became widely available, rap music took off. The first rap song is usually assumed to be Sugarhill Gang’s ‘Rapper’s Delight’. Impressively recorded in just one take, the song touches on ra-cial issues in the USA, with Wonder Mike

proclaiming “Hello to the black, to the white, the red and brown, the purple and yellow”. Indeed racial tension is a theme that has been dominant in rap music. The genre began, and became so popular, because it gave young African-Ameri-cans a ‘voice’. It granted them a medium of expressing their dissatisfaction with their economic deprivation and lack of political representation. Hence there has always been a political element to rap music, often concerning racial problems.

Discussion of political themes really exploded with the second wave of hip-hop music, during the 1980s. Artists such as Run-D.M.C. and LL Cool J incorpo-rated social-political commentary into their lyrics; Grandmaster Flash’s ‘The Message’ was heralded as the first rap song to provide lyrical social description. Likewise Public Enemy, successful be-tween 1987 and 1994, stood out for their politically-charged lyrics and criticism of the American media. For example, their 1989 song ‘Fight the Power’ calls on activists to “fight the powers that be” to save their freedom of speech. Tracks like this, along with those from Eric B &

Rakim and A Tribe Called Quest, as well as many other artists, epitomised the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of hip-hop. From the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, this period was characterised by Afrocentrism, black nationalism and political militancy. This conscious hip-hop was a response to American capitalism and Ronald Rea-gan’s conservatism.

After the focus on violence during the period of ‘gangsta rap’, social and political commentary in rap music reemerged during the 2000s. Artists such as Kanye West, Outkast and Jay-Z secured hip-hop’s position in mainstream music. Kanye West, particularly on his break-through album ‘The College Dropout’, depicts religious issues in America, while Outkast focus on matters of family and divorce, such as on the popular track ‘Ms. Jackson’, in addition to racial issues, dis-cussed on ‘Rosa Parks’, for example. On top of social commentary, the criticizing of politicians has remained important to hip-hop music. More recently, Killer Mike of Run the Jewels released a track named “Reagan”, in which he criticizes the foreign policy of the old hip-hop vil-

HISTORYTHROUGH

HIP-HOPMusic is a powerful historical tool, Adam Pearson argues

“The genre began, and became so popular, because it gave young African-Americans a ‘voice’.”


THE AMERICAS

lain, American President Ronald Reagan, with regards to the Iran Contra scandal. So while it may seem that hip-hop tends to be dominated by drug and sex-related content, rap as a form of both political commentary and activism is still very much alive.

Hip-hop music has been a powerful depictor of, and response to, violence. Although violence was a central theme during the ‘Golden Age’ of hip-hop music, it grew enormously in signifi cance with the emergence of ‘gangsta rap’. Pioneered in the mid 1980s with artists like Schooly D, this sub-genre came to dominate the entire hip-hop scene thanks most importantly to the group N.W.A.. Active between 1986 and 1991 and featuring, perhaps most famously, Dr. Dre, as well as rapper-turned-movie-star Ice Cube, they have often been credited as the most infl uential hip-hop group of all time. Tracks such as ‘Straight Outta Compton’ attack police brutality with unprecedent-ed anger and, with lines such as “squeeze the trigger and bodies are hauled off ”, vividly depict street violence. Open ref-erence to the killing of police, in addition to frequent use of profanities, meant that gangsta rap caused a political stir; indeed both George Bush senior and Bill Clinton criticised the genre.

Nevertheless N.W.A, and later artists such as Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg, marked a shift of hip-hop’s centre from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast. Combined, they created another sub-genre of hip-hop, called G-funk, which focused on violence, but in a smooth and relaxed manner. In response to the relative void in East Coast hip-hop music, the Wu-Tang Clan eventually revitalised the New York rap scene in the early 1990s, particularly with their 1993 album ‘36 Chambers’. The East Coast hip-hop movement consequently gained momentum, with massively successful artists such as Mobb Deep, Nas and Notorious B.I.G. Hence there began a rivalry between the two geographical hip-hop hotbeds. But the rivalry turned violent, and personal, culminating in the assassinations of ‘Pac’ in 1996 and ‘Biggie Smalls’ in 1997.

In response to the devastating loss of two iconic talents, hip-hop music toned down its violent image for a short while, with Dr. Dre claiming that “gangsta rap

was dead”. But hip-hop remained a cen-tral tenet of African-American culture, as well as popular culture more generally. Since violence unfortunately remained integral to underground street life, it continued to be represented in rap music. New artists such as Eminem and 50 Cent came to prominence during the 2000s. 50 Cent, who himself had been shot 9 times, described his drug dealing and the endemic violence in African-American day-to-day life. Consistently playing an important part in the rap music of the late 2000s and early 2010s, violence persists as a key theme in today’s hip-hop music.

There is a current trend for rappers to brag ostentatiously about their wealth and material possessions. Artists such as

Rick Ross, usually seen with enormous chains and shiny watches promoting his album ‘Hood Billionaire’, come to mind, along with other lyrically-hollow main-streamers, especially those from Cash Money Records. Rap music receives bad press due to these chart-dominating rap-pers who trivialise money, drugs and sex, and provide no genuine insight into Af-rican-African life. But, for the most part, hip-hop music continues to be a rousing, harrowing, and insightful art-form. To-day, arguably more than ever before, art-ists such as Kendrick Lamar, J. Cole and Lupe Fiasco, to name just a few, tackle important social, political and emotional issues. Therefore hip-hop music deserves its place as a critical historical source on recent African-American history. •

2Pac became the West Coast icon for 90s hip-hop

The Sugarhill Gang's 'Rapper's Delight' is usually taken to be the fi rst rap song


ASIA

Bhutan, a tiny fragment of ancient traditions and culture hidden in the East Himalayas. It is a segment of history which remained nearly untouched

until recent years. Bhutan is a coun-try which was isolated from the rest of the world for a long time and was not aff ected and developed in the same way other countries were. It is an example of a country free from the advancements which changed everywhere else and only now has the ways of the modern world entering it. Only in 2007 did it stop hav-ing an autocratic king and start having a democracy. Yet, despite its position in the past, it is considered the happiest country in the world and is frequently in the top fi ve countries with the fastest growing economies, made famous for its principle

of Gross National Happiness. Perhaps Bhutan suggests that the almost medie-val ways which other countries feel they have moved on from are in fact better, and this is an example of the past which has stuck around, which we should take advice from.

To understand Bhutan one must appreciate how great its separation from the rest of the world was. Bhutan is this well-preserved pocket of history because that is exactly what its leaders had been working towards. Bhutan is a very strong-ly Buddhist country which the govern-ment sought to uphold; through their iso-lation policy Bhutan became the last true Buddhist kingdom in the world. The fact that tourists were fi rst allowed into Bhu-tan in 1974 shows the protective nature of the Bhutanese government. Bhutan was a

collection of fi efs and small regions until the early seventeenth century when it became unifi ed as one nation. Since then, as countries began to become more and more connected, a very distinct Bhuta-nese identity arose and Bhutan was not changed with everyone else.

Bhutan developed its fi rst diplomatic relation in 1961 and joined the United Nations in 1971. It had hoped to maintain its long endured self-imposed isolation, but appreciated that it was impossible. Only in the 1960s did it start to introduce a national currency, telephones, postal service, schools and hospitals. Yet this did not make Bhutan an awful country: what they had worked and people were happy. The only reason it diverted to a more modern system was because it is wedged between India and China and could not

BHUTAN:Lost in the PastBlake Jones refl ects on the ancient kingdom of the thunder dragon


ASIA

The Phunakha Dzong

A monk at a Bhutanese monestry


ASIA

keep it up.Bhutan has another remarkable

custom of a mandatory national dress, which one can receive a fi ne for if it is not worn. Men must wear the gho, a knee-length robe held in place by a belt. Women must wear a kira, an ankle length dress which is wrapped around the body. It was introduced in the seventeenth century to improve the Bhutanese sense of national identity. It was described in the Driglam Namzha, which states the offi cial behaviour, dress code and style of art and architecture which the Bhutanese must follow, it was written by Ngawang Namgyal who unifi ed Bhutan as a nation, but hoped to unify it in one culture.

However, the mandatory national dress only came about in 1989, out of concern of Bhutan losing its identity. At fi rst one was at risk of a £2 fi ne (three days’ wages) if found out of national

dress. This policy has been relaxed since then and now is only strictly enforced for offi cials. Nevertheless, throughout nearly all of rural Bhutan and large amounts of their busiest cities, one still fi nds people in the national dress. It was enforced as a precaution but it was barely necessary. The Bhutanese have such a commitment to their culture that they go on wearing these garments of the past because they truly believe in what it represents and the connection they feel as a nation.

Moreover, Bhutan’s isolation is shown by the control the government has over its people. Bhutan had a remarkable level of censorship, similar to that of Sta-lin’s Russia, Mao’s China or North Korea. The internet and television were banned until June 1999. The citizens of Bhutan have only been able to access the outside world through the standard means for almost sixteen years. However this was

not done to prevent the overthrowing of a system or to unkindly keep the citizens in the dark. The ban on the internet and television came from a fear that they would corrupt people and take them away from Buddhist values. When they legalised them the King himself oversaw it; they had only waited so long because they appreciated the very permanent eff ect on a nation they have. When tele-vision was fi nally legalised the King of Bhutan announced, ‘not everything you will see will be good. It is my sincere hope that the introduction of television will be benefi cial to our people and country.’

Bhutan was right to be cautious about television. Though Bhutan has always had a low crime rate, it rocketed to be higher than ever before once television came about. The marijuana which they used to feed the pigs with, they began to smoke. Children started fi ghting each

“Even if we can never quantify happiness as precisely as we currently quantify GNP, perhaps it is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong”

Men in ghos practising archery, Bhutan's

national sport


ASIA

other with moves they learnt from WWF. Whilst this has now calmed, it probably would have been benefi cial to Bhutan to not legalise television. However in the name of modernisation they felt com-pelled to go forward this way and this is what we must prevent in the future. There are many other brilliant traditions of Bhutan which are certainly benefi cial, but could be cast away due to pressure from the outside world.

________

Bhutan’s isolation from the rest of the world has allowed it to be free from what we do because it’s considered the norm. It has been able to evolve its attitudes to women, the environment and the econ-omy in distinctly diff erent and probably better ways. Bhutan is a developing na-tion, there is no escaping that. As a result women may not have as much power since there is a need for them to have many children and they cannot work as much; this leads to men being in more positions in the government. However, women are in an uncommonly good posi-tion in Bhutan. There is a principle where the women are the ‘anchor mothers’ of a family and thus have control over the property of the family. This tradition which was untouched for a long time allowed women to have the presumptive right of land ownership. In Bhutan both men and women work in shops or work in the fi elds, depending on what they are best suited to. It is also very common for men to run the domestic aff airs and be the main person to deal with cooking. In a recent census it was found that whilst only 4% of women did not have jobs, 10% of men were not working. Bhutan is developing, but because it was sepa-rate from the infl uence of other nations’ attitudes to women it now only needs to develop in certain areas, having already reached a very good place in other areas.

Besides, Bhutan does not have the same concerns of other countries re-garding the environment. Bhutan is 50% national park and roughly 70% forest. It was spared from the industrial revolution and the global changes it made, allowing the country to remain beautiful with a well preserved collection of species to match its well preserved culture. The only risk Bhutan is now at is the danger that it is developing too quickly. Having

suddenly been introduced to the outside world, the people struggle to incorporate it into their daily lives properly, leading to littering and pollution.

Finally Bhutan’s economy is brilliant considering its size and level of develop-ment. Bhutan is commonly ranked in at least the top fi ve nations with the fastest growing economies. It has an estimated GDP growth from 2013 to 2017 of 14.46%. It has this fantastic, growing economy, but their main source of income is from agriculture. The fact that such an ancient culture and way of doing things, is doing so much better than the rest of the world suggests to us that we should listen to this frozen portion of history and fi nd way to incorporate it into our lives.

Above all though, Bhutan does not care about its economy. The way Bhutan measures success is by GNH – Gross National Happiness, a term coined by Bhutan’s last king, Jigme Singye Wang-chuck. Through the combination of suffi cient material goods and spiritual fulfi lment, they calculate how happy their citizens are and how successful their country really is. GNH is made up of four main pillars: social development,

the preservation of culture, environment conservation and a good government. If a country develops on its own and comes to the conclusion that we should value hap-piness instead of product like the rest of us do, we know that somewhere we went wrong. Instead we should be working to be more like Bhutan, not trying to make them modernise to be like us and bring the focus back to happiness meaning success.

In conclusion, Bhutan is a piece of history, strangely still around, which is slowly peeking its head into the rest of the world and gradually updating itself. The ways to create this seclusion were desperate, but they were eff ective. Bhutan is an example of what could have happened if we had not been bogged down with the issues and also advance-ments which altered the more connected countries. Bhutan’s isolation was a good thing since without the infl uence of the rest of the world it came to the conclu-sion that happiness is what mattered above all. We agree that we should listen to history; here we have a whole nation which represents the past and we would be fools to not use it as an example. •

Ancient Bhutanese temple, Tiger's Nest


AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST



In July 1936 Spain erupted into civil war. Fought between the Nationalists and Republicans, Spain was divided along ideological lines.

Arguably, the war stemmed from societal tension as early as 1923 when a military coup was staged. Consequently, the weak monarchy was only permitted to act as a figurehead. This culminated in Alfonso XIII’s (the monarch) abdication in 1931 and the simultaneous dissolution of the military dictatorship that had assumed full control since the coup. Further weakened by the Great Depression of the 1930s, unemployment was rife and quality of life was low. With the rise of Mussolini in Italy in 1925 and Hitler’s consolidation of power in Germany in 1933, fascist ideologies were polarising Spain. In the run up to the civil war the Spanish government swapped from the Left to the Right and then back to the Left. The ‘Popular Front’ was then formed which united all the left wing parties against the rising Right. However, this proved to be a less than cohesive movement throughout the war and ultimately catalysed the Republic’s defeat. The conflict was ignited in 1936 by the murder of a right wing politician named Soleto. As a result, General Franco, the leader of the Spanish army and Nationalists, invaded mainland Spain from Morocco. Moved by the conflict in Spain, a huge influx of foreign volunteers travelled to support their respective causes. Franco, thanks to his disciplined and united fighting force, as well as aid from other countries, led the Nationalists to victory. But what truly defines this conflict was the extent of international involvement, making it a chillingly apt precursor to the global catastrophe that follows.

The turmoil in Iraq and Syria has dominated the media for many years. Arguably the situation has been aggravated by international intervention leading to war and other strife.

Islamic State (IS), or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is widely acknowledged as an extreme terrorist organisation that branched from al-Qaeda. It claims to have 10,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria and access to $2,000,000,000 in funding. The organisation rose to prominence due to its participation in the 2003-2011 Iraqi war and subsequent involvement in the Syrian Civil War over the last four years. Having gained popular support from Arab Iraqi Sunnis, IS filled the vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2006. It continues to fight against the governments of Iraq and Syria, both recognised as legitimate by the United Kingdom, with the aim of consolidating and expanding its caliphate over parts of Syria and Iraq, which it proclaimed in June this year. Despite their military inferiority, IS fighters seem to be fervently fixated on their cause. Thus, this is a historic conflict which, it appears, will continue to be waged for some time into the future. The war is likely to be prolonged by its international dimension; although al-Qaeda cut its ties with the group, IS continues to receive support from Muslims all over the world. Therefore, its struggle is as much a global conflict as that in Spain over 70 years previously.

While this similarity is certainly noticeable, it is less striking than the people both conflicts have attracted. The Spanish Republic’s cause compelled many British communists and socialists from all backgrounds to leave the country and fight the war against fascism. A wealth of literature survives from the conflict, and provides an exclusive insight into each individual’s own experiences and thoughts. Many intellectuals joined the conflict, notably Eric Blair - otherwise known by the alias George Orwell. Whilst many of the British Republican volunteers were young men, women also joined the fight against fascism. That said, eighty percent of the

BRITS, BELIEFS AND BRUTALITY:

Have we seen IS before?Jack Dawson analyses the striking similarities

of British volunteers nearly 100 years apart



4,000 Britons who volunteered to fight on the side of the Republic were manual workers who either left their jobs or were unemployed.

70 years later, and more and more British volunteers continue to flood into Syria and Iraq every month to join their fellow ‘brothers’ who are fighting for IS. The fundamental difference between the two sets of volunteers is the gender balance. While women did travel to Spain to support the Republican cause, there have been very few acknowledgements of female volunteers for IS from any country. Hence, a major similarity lies in the majority of the volunteers in both conflicts - young men. Furthermore, the fact that members of the same family have travelled to the Middle East also bears a striking resemblance to the Spanish Civil War. It would also be foolish to assume that all Muslim volunteers have been easily indoctrinated from a young age. In fact, many of the volunteers have been highly educated and high academic achievers. What is also intriguing is that volunteers in both events have been considered socially ‘normal’. The socialists and communists

who volunteered in Spain were not ostracised. Likewise, many British volunteers for IS have been described as normal and friendly. Therefore, it must be stressed that in both the Spanish Civil War and the current conflict raging in Iraq and Syria the British volunteers were seen as normal members of society.

The types of individuals who went to fight for their respective conflicts has been examined. But what compelled them to set out in the first place and for what eventual aim? The striking difference between the two situations is that one motive is religious whilst the other was political. However, if one delves deeper the boundaries between the two motives fragment and similarities begin to congeal.

The key word when describing the Spanish Civil War is ideology. It is important to note that the British communists weren’t just fighting for politics sake in Spain; rather, it was a cause they felt was to have a particular overarching importance in their lifetime. Their involvement was arguably therefore more moral than practical. But it is clear that many intellectuals were

strongly moved by the Republic’s cause in Spain. George Orwell felt the need to extinguish the fascist flame in Europe, proclaiming ‘I’ve come to fight fascism.’ However, one must point out that not all intellectuals favoured the Republic’s cause. Evelyn Waugh, for instance, was one of the few intellectuals who supported the Nationalist movement and this is most resonant through his literature. Nevertheless, British volunteers in Spain were moved by political and ideological affiliations.

But what were the motives driving those Muslim’s to leave everything they had at home to go and fight for IS? The common word that comes up when many are asked is obligation; the volunteers argue that ‘jihad is obligatory’. In the case of the Spanish Civil War it could be argued there was an active choice to be made by many Britons as to whether they fought. However, the powerful language that the intellectuals who volunteered for the Republic used to describe their motives suggests otherwise. Words such as ‘complete’ and ‘absolute’ to describe their ‘choice’ imply that many Britons felt compelled to fight for Spain as it was

IS militants, bearing rifl es and fl ags

"70 years later, and more and more British volunteers continue to fl ood into Syria and Iraq every month to join their fellow ‘brothers’ who are fi ghting for IS."



the ‘supreme cause of [their] time.’ It became a ‘conviction’ - a cause to which they were personally and emotionally attached. But the women who travelled to Spain with their husbands showed fewer signs of such motives. Instead it appears that their motivation to travel to Spain lay more with their husbands than the cause itself. It is clear that once they arrived, Spain began to have the romantic and trance-like effect that it had first had on the young men - these women too began to follow their husbands by fully championing the Republican cause.

One could also argue, rather controversially, that both sets of volunteers were fighting and continue to fight for the common goal of freedom. Virginia Woolf suggested that many thought the Republican cause was a ‘cause of liberty’. Similarly the Britons volunteering for IS see themselves in a similar light - freedom fighters aiming to reinforce their caliphate.

However, the roles of the British volunteers in both conflicts undeniably differ. Many of the British Republican volunteers joined the International Brigades (IB) - forces of troops consisting of a number of different nationalities. Within the IB, Britons would usually be stationed at the front line but some would also broadcast propaganda over the radio.

In contrast, the British IS volunteers have been involved in far more horrific scenarios. Incidences of beheadings, often performed by British volunteers, are never far from the papers. There is obviously a stark difference in the level of violence that the British individuals involved themselves in the two conflicts. In fact, many British Republican volunteers became disillusioned with their cause and communism when they saw and heard the about the ‘Red Terror’. Eventually many Britons who had volunteered to fight for the Republic would leave the communist party either due to witnessing the ‘Red Terror’ or as the ‘brutal realities of Stalin's Soviet Union [began to be] made known.’ That said many Britons in both conflicts have adopted the role of recruitment. Volunteers in the current Syrian war have released recruitment videos in English and continue to use social networks in an attempt to persuade British Muslims to

join their cause.Evidently therefore, British

volunteers in both scenarios were attracted to their cause by similar motives. However, the nature of the volunteers’ involvement in the separate conflicts has differed most noticeably.

With the inflamed media currently documenting every slither of information spilling out of Syria and Iraq there has been huge pressure on the British government to act. It is clear that the government is strongly anti-IS. But why is it against the IS cause and was it anti-Communist in the late 1930s for similar reasons?

There are a number of factors that can explain the government’s fear of communism in the run up to the Second World War. The first of these was that Britain was a monarchy and Chamberlain saw communism as a threat to the established hierarchy. Whilst Nazism and fascism left capitalism untouched, the Comintern had made it clear that their aim was to achieve a global socialist revolution. A deep distrust of the USSR was therefore felt by many in the British government. Moreover, many felt that the communist movement was also a direct threat to Britain’s ageing Empire because it could ignite a revolution in many of the colonies.

The British government’s equally distrustful view of IS is based on different motives. In the present, the British government champions human rights to an extent that would have been unprecedented in the late 1930s when Britain itself was committing atrocities, such as quelling the Arab Palestinian Revolt in 1936-9, in order to sustain its Empire. In light of this change, the British government has condemned IS based on its disregard for human rights. Whilst the government did disagree with the atrocities committed by the Communists during the Spanish Civil War, they were still very much aware of similar violence taking place in the Nationalist camp. The British government also knew that many British Republican volunteers did not support this violence and in fact returned from Spain disillusioned. In truth, Britain favoured the Fascists over the Communists and Socialists due to a much darker factor that involves little heartfelt

outrage at violations of human rights at all. To put it candidly, Britain benefited economically from Nationalist victories. Franco’s capture of Bilbao secured valuable iron ore exports for Britain whilst British businesses also invested in the Nationalist cause with the hope of profiting in the long run. On top this, throughout the war Britain was secretly negotiating with the Nationalists for the output of British owned mines in Spain.

As of yet there has been no information released regarding Britain profiting from its involvement in Syria and Iraq and any comment in support of that view is pure speculation, and highly controversial.

Despite these differences there is one prevailing similarity. In both situations the British government did not want, and does not want with regards to IS, the conflict to be brought back to the UK. The general strike of 1926 and the depression made the possibility of revolution, probably a socialist one, a very real concern to the conservative politicians. Today there is a similar fear expressed by the British government. In the same way that the general strike seemed foreboding of a possible

General Franco



revolution, the fairly recent London bombings in 2005 act as a reminder of the possibility in the future of another radical terrorist attack in Britain. This has led to United Kingdom recently raising its terror level from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’, suggesting that a terrorist attack is ‘highly likely’.

In many ways the fear of IS has been made far more potent due to the increased accessibility to social networking sites. This contrasts to the limited amount of information available to the public during the Spanish Civil War. Today the majority of Britons condemn IS and campaign to see those who volunteered tried and jailed for affiliation with a terrorist organisation. Contrarily, very few of the public knew about the details of the situation in Spain. Thus it was only the government who actually feared the British communists and the public would only realise the threat of communism at a later date. Hence there is a stark difference in public attitude towards the separate conflicts.

Overall the Spanish Civil War and the crisis in Syria and Iraq are two individual conflicts and certainly not exact parallels. Nevertheless they offer interesting similarities and differences. In many ways Grenada Television’s lamentation of the Republican volunteers is eerily prophetic of the British IS volunteers today: ‘Thousands of volunteers came to fight and die in a foreign land for ideals they believed to be their own.’ •

"Today the majority of Britons condemn IS and campaign to see those who volunteered tried and jailed for affiliation with a terrorist organisation."


REVIEW

Put simply, Christopher Clark’s Sleepwalkers can only be described as a rigorous exploration. Although

written by a Professor of History at Cam-bridge, his history is intended for a much broader audience. Despite this, Clark delves into the causes of the First World War with unprecedented thoroughness, and at over 700 pages long, the book opens up controversial historical themes and issues for discussion. Most importantly then, Clark succeeds in raising new, perti-nent questions with his usual clarity and accessibility.

The central theme of the book, summed up in the subtitle, is ‘How Europe Went To War in 1914’. Clark, besides focussing on the assassination at Sarajevo, takes on wider, more-deeply ingrained reasons behind the war. He suggests that Austria may have brought it on themselves and that Germany wanted a war no matter what. Arguably the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was the perfect ammunition they could use to unleash their arsenal.

Clark’s account of the outbreak of the First World War begins in 1903 with the murder of Alexander I of Serbia by a secretive terrorist network called the Black Hand Group. This same group

assassinated the Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914. Clark hints at the possibility that the Austrian government knew full well that the Black Hand group were targeting them. Consequently, the fact that they blamed the resulting mess on Serbia must be seen as simply an excuse for war. In historical study, countless times Germany has been blamed for escalating the confl ict between Austria and Serbia and for being a driving force behind Austria's decision to declare war. But Clark refuses to play the blame game. Instead, he argues that the Germans were not alone in their paranoid imperialism.

Hence Clark puts forward his own view of how war broke out in Europe in 1914: that no nation really meant to wage war, but each just sleepwalked into it. This argument forms the main basis for the book and has been widely heralded by historians as 'more convincing' and a 'terrifying reality'. From this foundation, Clark is able to argue that the war would have been inevitable even without the assassination in Sarajevo. Furthermore, he brilliantly places this illogical confl ict into context by showing that pre-1914 Europe was inherently unstable and riven by nu-merous ethnic and nationalistic factions. Its at moments like these, when Clark

depicts a complex web of nationalistically and diplomatically fuelled inter-state tension with such engaging concision, that the book really comes alive.

However, there are some ideas put forward by Clark that are seen by histo-rians as far less convincing. For example, he suggests that the European elites were suff ering from a 'crisis of masculinity'. Consequently, they needed to prove they virility, guile and determination in battle to quell this "crisis". There is some cred-ibility to the view that previously mar-ginalised proletarian and non-white men impacted the political climate of early 20th century Europe. But the belief that a chillingly gruesome and destructive war of epic proportions began as a result of upper-class statesmen’s sexual insecurity seems insuffi cient to say the least.

Overall, Christopher Clark’s reassess-ment of pre-war Europe is a thrilling and consistently fascinating read. Putting forward a controversial and carefully crafted explanation for the outbreak of the war, Sleepwalkers is an important addition to the ongoing debate about the First World War. Harold Evans of The New York Times Book Review summed Clark’s work up perfectly when he wrote: 'the book is a masterpiece.' •

SLEEPWALKERSMax Finch reviews Chris Clark's controversial WW1 reappraisal


FEATURE FICTION

AMONG THE SANS-CULOTTES

Andrey Ogarev puts you into the heart of the Terror once more

PART 2:THE PREPARATION

I woke up the next morning to a devastating roar coming from the street. When I looked out of the window I saw a massive crowd of people marching down the street armed with muskets, pistols, knives and sticks, many of them wearing red, white and blue trousers, and chanting

“Kill the King! Viva la France!” I quickly put on a shirt and ran downstairs out on the street. I followed the crowd, until I could see the Tuileries Palace rise from the horizon. As we advanced closer I heard a gunshot. Then another. Then another... until eventually the whole street broke out in the terrifying thunder of gunfire. With the smell of gunpowder blocking my nose and throat I started crawling through the raging crowd to the nearest cover. I had to step over the lifeless bodies of men who only a minute ago were standing next to me and cheering for the Revolution. It was then, in all that chaos, that I saw her, riding through the screaming crowd on a giant white horse, like a boat floating through the great waves of the ocean. “Oriel!”, I shouted at the top of my voice. “Oriel”, I’m here!”, I screamed again like an fool. I saw her turn around and then the sky. I saw the great blue sky advancing towards me like a titanic wave advances towards a lost ship during a storm. I saw time sinking into the eternal funnel of life, only to be born again and rise like a phoenix from its ashes. Despite the shock from a bullet wound and a brain fracture from the fall, I saw her.

I woke up to a loud continuous moan. I looked around. It was a small dark dusty room with a big door and a tiny window. The noise was coming from the other side of the door. I tried to sit up, but the excruciating pain in my left shoulder quickly changed my mind. “Ah! You awake”, said the voice from the darkest corner of the room. It was Oriel. She told me what happened. She told me how she heard me scream and saw me get shot. She told me how she and her friends sat me on the horse and raced me to the hospital. Then, she told me, she raced back into the battle and killed over 15 Swiss Guardsmen. She told me how she stormed the Tuileries Palace and almost managed to kill the King, but unfortunately he ran off with his family to the Assembly. She was disappointed by that, but she sounded proud.

“Today, we move one step closer to our victory. Viva la Revolution!”, announced a rough voice from the corridor. An enormously tall man with a huge athletic body and a big puffy face stood in the doorway. It was Georges-Jacques Danton. “Congratulations on becoming the Minister of Justice, citizen”, said Oriel. “And thank you, Oriel, for

your people’s help. The Nation won’t forget you”, replied Danton in his deep baritone roar. As Oriel explained later the Sans-Culottes helped Danton to organise the storming of the Tuileries which, as she calls it, was the final push towards the abolition of the monarchy in France and the establishment of the honoured democracy.

For the next six weeks Oriel took care of me. She transported me from the hospital to her house and introduced me to her father, who she lived with since her birth. He was an eager member of the Sans-Culottes too, but, due to his age, was unable to make any meaningful contribution to the Revolution.

It was chaos in the government during these six weeks. The monarchy ended, and the Legislative Assembly was re-placed by the new Convention. During these six weeks, the insurrectionary Paris Commune held more actual power than the Assembly. I remember the fire, the shouting at the popular tribunals set up by Sans-Culottes and dead bodies being dragged down the streets during the night. I remem-ber how Oriel came in all covered in blood with a knife in her hand. She told me it was for the Revolution and for the people. Later that night, I found her crying in her bedroom.

For the next few months, while I was recovering from my wound, Oriel took me out of the house and showed me everything I’d asked her about the Sans-Culottes. She showed me their meeting rooms and even took me to a few meetings. I remember one in particular, on the 21st of September. It was more of a party than a meeting. I remember Oriel proudly proclaiming: “We are Sans-Culottes... poor and virtuous, we have formed a society of manual workers and peasants... we know our friends – those who have delivered us from the clergy, the nobility, feudalism, the dime, royalty and all the evils which accompany it. They are the people who are called anarchists trouble-makers and followers of Marat by the aristocrats”. As it occurs to me now, the real motive of the Sans-Culottes wasn’t really their hatred of the nobles, belief in an aristocratic conspiracy, or the desire to overthrow privilege and establish true equality. At the end it all boiled down to one simple human desire. Oriel had told me about the food campaign to fix prices, when she and her angry friends walked around the city visiting food shops asking for discounts on their knives and pistols, which happened to be quite effective. It was clear to me now - hunger was the catalyst for the Revolution. •


BIOGRAPHY

Born in London in 1887 to an Irish minister, this great general-to-be grew up in a time when his once proud family was in heavy debt. However, when his father became Lord Bishop of Tasmania, the financial dif-

ficulties were solved, but he and his four siblings received a cruel upbringing at the hands of their mother. Monty, as he was known, said himself that this bad influence made him tend to bully his peers. In 1901, the family returned to England – and Montgomery promptly almost got himself expelled from the Royal Military College, for being too violent. Upon graduating in 1908, he entered the 1st Battalion of The Royal Warwickshire Regiment, and saw service in India, where he was promoted two years later to the rank of Lieutenant.

At the outbreak of the First World War, in August 1914, Montgomery participated in several battles before being shot through the lung and knee at Méteren, two months after the fighting started. To recognize his ‘gallant leadership’, he re-ceived a Distinguished Service Order; this was the first in a long line of awards and medals. Despite having been severely wound-ed, he had recovered by 1915, and was promoted to the rank of Brigade Major. He was then put in charge first of the 112th Brigade and then of the 104th Brigade. By 1916, he had returned to the frontline as a General Staff officer with the 33rd Division, and then with IX Corps the following year.

Between the wars, Monty served in India and Ireland, as well as in conquered Germany, and even attended the Staff Col-lege in Surrey. In 1927, he married Elizabeth Carver, who was the widow of an Olympic rower. Sadly, she died in 1937.

The Second World War brought another chance for Mont-gomery to lead men into action; II Corps was under his com-mand in the 1940 mass Dunkirk evacuation. However, Monty refused to respect authority; he had been in trouble with his superiors at various phases in his life, and this was no exception. While he was popular with his men, he almost faced dismissal several times. Narrowly avoiding the wrath of the War Office, he continued to criticize the commanding officers and, as a result,

was relegated to regional command. But he worked his way back up the ranks, gaining the title ‘Companion of the Order of the Bath’ on the way, and eventually becoming responsible for the defense of the entirety of Kent, Sussex and Surrey in 1941.

His most famous achievement, though, was yet to come. In 1942, during a re-shuffle in the high command in North Africa, Montgomery was sent to the Middle East. On the 13th of August, he assumed command of the 8th Army and set about transforming its capabilities and morale. He separated the command of the Air Force, Army and Navy, in order to make them work together in a more reliable and cohesive way. This may appear counter-intuitive, but it seemed to work. From 1942 onwards, he crushed Rommel the Desert Fox and his army in a series of decisive battles, notably El Alamein in Egypt and in Syria. His improvements in morale and effectiveness had helped secure the Middle East, and his legendary tank battles and signature black beret had bought him a place in history. He went on to make considerable strategic improvements on the plans to invade Italy in 1943, and led the forces that took part in the April 1944 Normandy landings. After breaking through German lines, he was promoted to Field Marshal and pushed forward through Europe with the 21st Army Group. On the 4th of May 1945, Montgomery presided over the defeated German delegation as they finally surrendered.

Considering that he was described by one of his closest friends as having a “lack of tact and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people`s feelings”, Monty’s achievements are remarkable. He certainly had a sense of humor, constantly joking with his men and naming his dogs “Hitler” and “Rommel”. Those in power may have often frowned upon him, but his great military skill was obvious.

Before his death in 1976, he continued his career, command-ing several other units, and of course getting into trouble sever-al more times. But undoubtedly his greatest legacy was left on the battlefields in Egypt and on the heaths of Southern Saxony, where the war in the West met its end. •

The year: 1942, and the Axis forces in North Africa have pushed the allies back to their last territories, on the western Egyptian border. What is needed to stop the unstoppable advance of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and the Africa Corps is a hero - a hero such as Bernard Montgomery.

MONTYA BIOGRAPHYby Alasdair Czaplewski

TIMELINEISSUE

No. 2

Timeline - Issue 2

Documents

Transcript of Timeline - Issue 2