Historian's Corner

The Palace of Soviets: Socialist Realism Applied to Architecture

2008-05-24T07:14:00.000-07:00

During the course of its eight decades in existence the Soviet Union created one of the most unique political, cultural, and social environments in recorded history. During the 1930’s Stalin commissioned an architectural project that was to be a perfect representation of this unique environment. That project, which was to be the Palace of Soviets, was designed in a way the completely fit the Socialist Realism style of art.

The Palace of Soviets was to be the greatest government building and office center in the world. Because of its unique history the Palace of Soviets is remembered as a monumental building project rather then an actual structure. When design of the building began it was decided to create something that would function as a government building, office center, and a monument all in one. While many architects competed it was Boris Iofan who won the competition and was granted the honor of designing it. If finished the building would have been 1,361 feet high, which at the time would have made it the largest building in the world. The whole edifice was to be crowned with a massive statue of Lenin made out of aluminum and the inside would have housed a main chamber that would seat 20,000 people. To make room for the structure Stalin had the Cathedral of Christ the Savior torn down. Although work began the construction had only risen to the eleventh story when the project was halted at the beginning of the war in 1941. Eventually the whole structure was torn down so that the steal girders could be melted down and used to create tank traps. To understand the history of the Palace of Soviets one must understand the artistic style of the time because it was this style that influenced the buildings design even more so then its intended use.

The Communist party managed to impact almost every aspect of life in the Soviet Union after the revolution. Upon taking control of the government the party quickly moved to control not only every aspect of administration but also to assume authority over areas that had hitherto been considered outside of government control. Art was one of the areas that became very important to the Soviets at an early stage. The Bolsheviks believed that art was one of the most important ways to control society and shape its perceptions. This attitude lead to a government approved style that was called Socialist Realism. This new style was first formulated at the Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934. In theory the style was supposed to be realistic depictions of things from a socialist perspective. What this translated to in real life though was a style that was always positively portraying Soviet life and culture in ways that were affirmative to the point of being totally divorced from the reality of life within the Communist system. The general characteristics that are seen in this style was an emphasis on things that normal workers and peasants could relate to. In terms of the way that this style was applied to architecture everything built should be large, project strength and greatness, and be awe-inspiring.

The design of the Palace of Soviets was one that was fully based on the style of Soviet Realism. If it had been completed the building would have dominated the skyline of Moscow. It would have been something seen from miles around by every citizen as they walked around downtown and did their daily business. Soviet Realism dictates that art is subservient to the state and the palace would have been the greatest manifestation of this principle, as the building would have become the great symbol of the Soviet Government. The classical style of the architecture was something that every citizen could understand and appreciate which was important. Crowning the whole building was a statue of Lenin. This piece was important for it added a sense of heroicness to the building as well as made a political monument instead of just a building. The design of the Palace was done in such a way so that every citizen and especially every party member who saw the building would be filled with a sense of awe and feeling that the building projected power, greatness, and success.

While other architectural projects based on Socialist Realism were completed during Stalin’s reign none of them ever came close to matching the size scope or grandeur of the Palace of Soviets. When the plans to build the palace were abandoned after World War II the site was turned into the world’s largest swimming pool until the 1990’s when the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was rebuilt exactly where Stalin had torn it down. In the end the Palace of Soviets has become a striking illustration for the history of the USSR itself. Grand and magnificent in design, poorly initiated in construction, incomplete, and ultimately swept away.

Causes of the Great Terror

2008-03-10T16:16:00.000-07:00

In 1918, the Bolshevik party, through means of insurrection, seized control of the government in Russia and, in so doing, forever changed the lives of the Russian people and their society. Promising to bring an end to repression and tyranny by the rich and powerful, the new Soviet government quickly transformed itself into one of the most cruel and repressive regimes that human beings have ever been forced to endure under. While the terror and repression was something that continually waxed and waned from 1918 until the death of Stalin in 1955, there occurred a most vicious and peculiar period of violence at the end of the 1930’s that has forever been remembered since as the “Great Terror”. What makes this period of violence so noteworthy is that during this time the Bolsheviks launched their campaign of carnage against members of their own party. Indeed, those caught up in this nightmare thought that Stalin’s only perceivable motive was to destroy the best people in the party.[1] Theories concerning the cause of the Great Terror have been many over the years and the event defies explanation by one simple answer. Modern scholarship suggests that instead of just one cause it was, in fact, the combination of several factors, including the political situation in the 1930’s, Stalin’s personality and psychological state, and the economic advantages of The Terror that all conspired together to form the unfortunate events that took place.

The political events that eventually led to the Great Terror began in February of 1934 at the Seventeenth Party Congress. Dissatisfaction and grumbling began to emerge behind the scenes against Stalin and he saw evidence for the first time that his position as leader was threatened. Events at this congress are murky but there are accounts that a group of conspirators actually met at the congress and discussed removing Stalin from his post and replacing him with Kirov[2]. To this end, Kirov was consulted, but he chose instead to warn Stalin of the threat. Additional cause for concern occurred at the congress when the vote for the Central Committee was taken by secret ballot and Stalin did badly. Some memoirs claim that Kaganovich, who was responsible for counting the votes, had to actually “cook the books” to ensure Stalin’s reelection.[3]

Stalin was clearly threatened politically. While this would cause any normal person concern, it only served to inflame the already deep-seated paranoia with which Stalin viewed the world and those around him. Kirov quickly fell victim to this distrust, for although he had approached Stalin on his own initiative at the Seventeenth Party Congress, he was one of the most popular candidates to take over if Stalin was removed. This “threat” inevitably led to the estrangement between Stalin and Kirov[4] that continued up to Kirov’s assassination.

On December 1, 1934 Leonid Nikolaev assassinated Kirov inside the Smolny Institute.[5] Speculation still remains as to whether Leonid acted alone out of anger towards Kirov for sleeping with his wife or whether Stalin’s own hand had directed the assassin. Regardless of the cause, Kirov’s death officially began the terror and bloody purges that would engulf the party and ultimately lead to the imprisonment or death of many party leaders, as well as normal members.

While Stalin played the mourner-in-chief at Kirov’s funeral he moved within the party to use Kirov’s death to justify the building of the procedural mechanisms he would later use in the Great Terror.[6] The bloodshed began just five days after the assassin’s bullet struck down Kirov when twenty-six people were executed.[7] While the political situation at the time was obviously one where Stalin had reason to be concerned, the brutality of what was to follow had just as much to do with his personality.

Stalin was clearly a paranoid individual. His reaction to Kirov shows this quite well, but was not the only example of his obsessive mistrust. Stalin was a very lonely and isolated individual at this time.[8] The suicide of his wife, Nadya, coupled with the opposition of other party members left Stalin surrounded by mere subordinates with almost no true friends or equals. Surrounded by real threats and suspicious of everyone he began to lash out violently at anything that could possibly threaten him. To this end, the false accusations that he placed on others where not intended to just deceive the country and the outside world, but were part of his active deception of himself.[9] Stalin had always been a violent individual and throughout his carrier had shown himself to resort to cruelty and bloodshed whenever faced with obstacles. These factors all combined to create Stalin’s dangerously damaged psyche, which was intent on implementing the ultimate Bolshevik Inquisition.

Once the Terror had begun another reason emerged to increase and expand the already formidable purges. The Bolshevik government had established the Gulag prison camp system soon after their seizure of power. While these camps had originally been intended as centers of reeducation, the attitude towards them changed as they began to be seen as potential sources of productivity and income.[10] Prisoners within the camp system came to be viewed as potential sources of slave labor for the mining and manufacturing industries. The purges of 1937 and 1938 led to massive arrests that began to feed the Gulag system with larger and larger pools of workers.[11] This camp system allowed Stalin to take all of the people who had been a potential threat or obstacle to himself and turn around and use their exploited labor to help support the Soviet System. While many citizens who had been arrested in the terror were executed instead of being sent to the camps, roughly half were sentenced to the Gulag and used to support the Soviet economic system.[12]

The events of the Great Terror defy any simple explanation and any attempt to put forth one, straightforward cause would be hopelessly inadequate. Looking back at the events that occurred, several different themes and events seem to wind together to create the very unique set of circumstances that would destroy so many lives. The political situation of the 1930’s was increasingly tenuous for Stalin as party members became ever more dissatisfied with his leadership. Stalin’s own personality, which lent itself to paranoia and violence, led him to attack any threats to the state or himself, personally.[13] Once initiated, the violence against “enemies of the people” had economic benefits as hundreds-of-thousands of prisoners poured into the Gulag system and were used as slave labor. Each one of these different events worked together to supply the cause of the Great Terror and helped to define the shape and horror of its nature.

[1] Eugenia Semenovna Ginzburg, Journey into the Whirlwind, [1st ed. (New York,: Harcourt, 1967). 74

[2] Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, 1st American ed. (New York: Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 2004). 129

[3] Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005). 313

[4] Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. 130-131

[5] Ibid. 143

[6] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 346

[7] Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. 155

[8] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 345

[9] Ibid. 336

[10] Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History, 1st ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2003). 9-10

[11] Ibid. 107

[12] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 356

[13] David L. Hoffmann, Stalinism: The Essential Readings, Blackwell Essential Readings in History (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003). 102

Stalin's Role in the Bolshevik Party Prior to the Revolution

2008-02-08T13:41:00.000-08:00

Few figures in history have been so simultaneously lionized and demonized as Joseph Stalin[1]. One of the greatest controversial figures from an age of controversial people, Stalin became a legend in his own time as leader of the Soviet Union. As the passage of time has allowed greater objectivity Stalin’s reputation as a revolutionary leader has drawn scrutiny for the deliberate falsehoods that he, himself, manufactured to boost his image as a Bolshevik prior to 1917. When all the Soviet propaganda is pealed away what was Stalin’s role in the Bolshevik party before the Revolution? Stalin’s career within the Bolshevik party morphed continually before the Revolution from regional dissident to Marxist leader to political prisoner. At all times, his position was based on being a useful bureaucrat and functionary who could get things done for the party leadership. While his star rose and fell within the party during this period he primarily functioned from the background and at no time during this period was he ever to play a key role in bringing on the Revolution as was later claimed.

Stalin’s development as a Marxist began while he was still a student at the Tiflis Seminary, but it was not until he abandoned his schooling that he became a full time revolutionary. In November of 1901 Stalin moved to Batumi[2] and, while he was hardly welcomed by the Marxist leadership there, he quickly moved to implement his own agenda. He called meetings and at these declared that he was, “Bringing a newly aggressive spirit to the Revolution in Batumi.”[3] Far from allowing the dislike of local party officials to dissuade him, Stalin organized a workers’ demonstration in March of 1902.[4]

Although arrested for the strike, the young Stalin was soon free and working as a writer/editor for the party newspaper Brdzola.[5] Due to Stalin’s excellent education from the seminary and his bibliophile nature, the role of writer became a reoccurring part of his revolutionary duties from this point forward. Brdzola became very successful and this new experience actually caused Stalin to consider abandoning his clandestine work for the party.[6]

Clandestine work was ultimately where Stalin was comfortable and also where he tended to be exceedingly useful. “Expropriations” became the sanitized term for the bank robbery and thuggery that the Bolsheviks practiced to help fund their party.[7] Stalin became an important individual in these plans and he showed himself willing to get his hands dirty without any qualms. Ironically, these activities of brigandage were probably some of his greatest contributions to Bolshevism prior to the Revolution because they gave Lenin significant amounts of currency to fund his activities.

Illegal expropriations helped Stalin to make a name for himself in higher party circles and even afforded him the opportunity to meet with Lenin.[8] His hard work and talents eventually lead to, in 1912, Stalin being chosen to take a greater role in the party and to become one of the main leaders in the Russian Empire.[9] Moving immediately to the Caucuses Stalin began to write in support of the formation of a new Central Committee.[10]

Writing soon became the center of Stalin’s work as he began to turn out his own material and worked as an editor for the Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda. It was also during this period that Stalin helped to found the famous daily newspaper Pravda which he also took control of as editor once it began publishing.[11] These jobs working on newspapers should not be undervalued because it was through this medium that the Bolsheviks communicated their message to many of the workers that they were trying to garner support from. At this time and place ideas and information could only be disseminated verbally or on paper and Stalin’s job gave him critical control over the party’s efforts in written media.

In 1913, Stalin began research on the issue of “the national question”.[12] This job, given by Lenin, was significant and was apart of Stalin’s rise as an expert within the party on nationalities. Stalin traveled to Vienna and for weeks spent his days researching in libraries and writing. Before returning to Russia, he completed his text on “the national question”, which was later published under the title of “The National Question and Social-Democracy”.[13] Considering that the article and the research were both instigated by Lenin as a job particularly for Stalin, this signaled the Georgenes growing importance as a leading party figure.

Stalin’s rise within the party was interrupted, at this point, and cut short when he was arrested in 1913 and exiled to Siberia.[14] Stalin had been imprisoned before but he had always received leniency and exile to places that were easy to escape from. This time, however, Stalin found himself sent to a remote part of Siberia which he would not escape from and were he would play a new role as a party member, that of political prisoner.

It would be four years before Stalin would be free again.[15] Stalin was sent to the Turkhansk District in the Yenisei Province which was located in north-east Siberia.[16] Before 1913 had even closed, the officials became concerned that Stalin would attempt escape so he was moved an additional 75 miles further to Kureika which was just below the Arctic Circle.[17] Having reached the point of being party leader in St. Petersburg, Stalin now found himself removed from politics altogether.

During his imprisonment in Siberia, Stalin passed his time by being antisocial and causing scandal. Of all the things he had done and that had been required of him, living without work and party responsibilities was the most difficult. By the time of his return from Siberia, Stalin was too late to take a prominent role in the Revolution.

Prior to the Revolution, Stalin’s role within the Bolshevik Party was varied and extensive. He played important roles and rose throughout the party hierarchy over the course of his career, but the reasons for his success rested with his pragmatic usefulness to the party leadership. As a regional party member and leader, Stalin organized strikes and operated as a writer and editor for Bolshevik newspapers. His most significant contribution during this period was bank robberies to help raise cash for Lenin.

Even as Stalin slowly rose within the party his success was due to his usefulness to party leadership and specifically to Lenin. In fact, Lenin’s reasons for promoting him were due to Stalin’s being a good organizer, a hard worker, someone who didn’t complain about assignments, he conformed to the working-class stereotype, and he was a committed Bolshevik.[18] Lenin’s attraction to Stalin, prior to the Revolution, seems to have been built on his willingness to carry out Lenin’s plans and agenda. Regardless of the reasons of Stalin’s rise, his ascension was severely interrupted by his imprisonment and exile in 1913. This period of separation from party work, ironically, became the period in Stalin’s life that most influenced his role and impact on the Revolution. Stalin had penetrated the inner circle of party power but he did not have time to play a significant role on the national scene before his exile. When the Revolution took place in 1917, Stalin had no role in the events leading up to it and had been too far and too long removed from party affairs to be given any of the significant assignments once he was released.

Stalin’s role in history and in the history of the Soviet Union is absolutely assured. His role in the party from the 1920’s up to the 1950’s was one continual period as the most important political figure of the state. This preeminence in later years does not extend to the pre-Revolutionary period and any attempt to manufacture such a role is deceptive. Stalin was one of the old Bolsheviks who had been an active member of the party before the Revolution and he had played an important role at the regional level. His skills and the appreciation of party officials opened up doors to the national level of party politics but at no point did he have a significant role in the major events and controversies of the party prior to the Revolution. Once Stalin’s legend has been reexamined and thus, stripped of the decades of propaganda, the image that remains is one of a dedicated individual who had nothing to be ashamed of when it came to his record of achievements or his devotion to the cause of communism.

___________________________

[1] For the purposes of clarity and consistency in this paper I have chosen to use the pseudonym Stalin throughout the entire paper even though that man who was born Joseph Dzhughashvili (aka. Koba) went my many names and didn’t begin to call himself Stalin until 1912.
[2] Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005). 49
[3] Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). 90
[4] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 49
[5] Ibid. 50
[6] Ibid. 50
[7] Ibid. 74
[8] Montefiore, Young Stalin. 168
[9] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 83
[10] Ibid. 83
[11] Ibid. 84
[12] Ibid. 90
[13] Ibid. 90
[14] Montefiore, Young Stalin.
[15] Service, Stalin: A Biography. 91
[16] Ibid. 102
[17] Ibid. 106
[18] Ibid. 83, 89

Timline: Stalin's Early Life

2008-02-06T10:31:00.001-08:00

I am currently taking a class on Stalin and Stalinism this semester. To help organize my own thoughts I have started this time line. Thus far it only contains information on Stalin's life up to the October Revolution.

Operation Alsos and American Technological Intelligence During World War II - Bibliography

2008-02-02T12:07:00.000-08:00

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Alphabetical Index of Subj. Adm. Publication, War Department HQ. Army Airforce March 15, 1943 thru, Alsos Mission European Theater of Operations – Undated; Intelligence Reference Publications (“P” File) 1940-45; War Department General and Special Staff, Record Group 165; National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.

Alsos Mission Reports and Correspondence Relating to the Progress of German Scientists in Connection with Nuclear Physics, 1944-45; Office of the Director of Intelligence G-2, Subordinate Offices Foreign Liaison Branch; Records of the War Departments General and Special Staff, Record Group 165; National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.

Frank, Charles. Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Nuremberg Trials Project: A Digital Document Collection Harvard Law School, July 2003 [cited 12/13/2007 2007]. Available from http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview.

Samuel A. Goudsmit Papers; National Archives Gift Collection, Record Group 200; National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD

Personal Accounts:

Goudsmit, Samuel Abraham. Alsos, History of Modern Physics, 1800-1950 ;. Los Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers, 1983.

Pash, Boris T. The Alsos Mission. New York,: Award House, 1969.

Secondary Sources

Albrecht, Ulrich. "Military Technology and National Socialist Ideology." In Science, Technology and National Socialism, edited by Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker, 88-125. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Bernstein, Jeremy. Hitler's Uranium Club : The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall. Woodbury, N.Y.: AIP Press, 1996.

Beyerchen, Alan. "German Scientists and Research Institutions in Allied Occupation Policy." History of Education Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1982): 289-99.

Boyne, Walter J. The Messerschmitt Me 262 : Arrow to the Future. Washington, D.C.: Published for the National Air and Space Museum by the Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980.

Christensen, Charles R. A History of Technical Intelligence in the Air Force, 1917-1947: Operation Lusty. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002.

Cooksley, Peter G. Flying Bomb : The Story of Hitler's V-Weapons in World War Ii. New York: Scribner, 1979.

Davis, Watson. "Biological Warfare." The Science News-Letter 49, no. 2 (1946): 19-20.

Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. German Science : Some Reflections on German Science : German Science and German Virtues. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1991.

Ethell, Jeffrey L., and Alfred Price. The German Jets in Combat. London: Jane's Publishing Company, 1979.

Garli*nski, Józef. Hitler's Last Weapons : The Underground War against the V1 and V2. London: J. Friedmann, 1978.

Gimbel, John. Science, Technology, and Reparations : Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Great Britain. Air Ministry. The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force, 1933-1945 : With a New Introduction. 1st U.S. ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.

Guillemin, Jeanne. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda : The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. 1st ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.

Johnson, David. V-1, V-2 : Hitler's Vengeance on London. New York: Stein and Day, 1982.

Kennedy, Gregory P. Vengeance Weapon 2: The V-2 Guided Missile. Washington, D.C.: Published for the National Air and Space Museum by the Smithsonian Institution Press, 1983.

Longmate, Norman. Hitler's Rockets : The Story of the V-2s. London: Hutchinson, 1985.

Moon, John Ellis Van Courtland. "Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience." International Security 8, no. 4 (1984): 3-35.

"Nazi Try at Germ Warfare." The Science News-Letter 51, no. 10 (1947).

Neufeld, Michael J. "The Guided Missile and the Third Reich: Peenemunde and Forging of a Technological Revolution." In Science, Technology and National Socialism, edited by Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker, 51-71. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Overy, R. J. "Hitler and Air Stragegy." Journal of Contemporary History 15, no. 3 (1980): 405-21.

———. "The German Pre-Production Plans: November 1936-April 1939." The English Historical Review 90, no. 357 (1975): 778-97.

Renneberg, Monika, and Mark Walker. Science, Technology, and National Socialism. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Spielvogel, Jackson J. Hitler and Nazi Germany : A History. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

Stackelberg, Roderick, and Sally Anne Winkle. The Nazi Germany Sourcebook : An Anthology of Texts. London ; New York: Routledge, 2002.

Trischler, Helmuth. "Self-Mobilization or Resistance? Aeronautical Research and National Socialism." In Science, Technology and National Socialism, edited by Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker, 72-87. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Walker, Mark. German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Operation Alsos and American Technological Intelligence During World War II Part 4

2008-02-02T08:05:00.000-08:00

Guided Missiles

Of all the technological advancements associated with Nazi Germany, guided missile research is one of the greatest. Technically, guided missiles comes under aeronautical research, but the program in Germany grew to be so large and so significant that it was made its own separate category for Alsos to investigate. Through the end of World War II Germany managed to maintain complete supremacy in this field, which led to intensive competition between the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union over the capture and exploitation of Germany’s guided missile assets.

The origins of this achievement can be traced back to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. According to the settlement Germany was limited in many ways and forbidden to develop certain technologies. At no point in the treaty though, was there anything pertaining to the development of rockets. Because of this, rocket research in Germany continued after World War I in the private sector. In 1929 the Reichswehr began to investigate the possibility of using this new techno-fad as a weapon. Initially the Army considered using these weapons as artillery for chemical warfare.

Over time both the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe worked independently on their own weapons programs. The Luftwaffe began work on a pulse-jet powered unmanned aircraft they deemed the Fi 103. The army in turn eventually developed a series of rockets that culminated in the A4. Latter these would become better known by their popular designations of V-1 (Fi 103) and V-2 (A4). Each of these had their own advantages and disadvantages. The V-1 was simple and relatively inexpensive to produce and could run on regular low-grade fuel oil. Its disadvantage was that it required large fixed ramps to launch and flew at a slower speed in a straight line, making it possible to shoot it down. In contrast the V-2 required special fuel and was much more expensive to produce. Where the V-2 excelled was in its ability to launch from mobile field sites and travel at supersonic speeds to strike without warning, immune to all known countermeasures.

On June 13, 1944, the first attack on Great Britain by the V-1 occurred, which was followed shortly by the first V-2 attack on September 8. With these attacks Hitler began to use Germany’s technical superiority in guided missiles to launch a vengeance campaign to punish the British public. In the end this accomplished little in military terms and only managed to kill civilians. A perfect example of this occurred in November of 1944 when a V-2 hit a Woolworth’s Department Store crowded with Christmas shoppers, killing 168 people. Statistics for the weapons show that the V-1 killed an average of 2.2 people per bomb while the V-2 killed 5.3 people per bomb. By this time in the war Britain was completely out of danger from invasion or traditional bombing but these vengeance weapons were a frightful and continual reminder that Germany could still reach out hurt the already war-weary citizenship.

Due to the high profile that Germany’s missiles had to the world, several intelligence agencies were pursuing information on them. Alsos was limited to surveying the research facilities used for development in the program. This included looking for and evaluating all information related to wind tunnels, proving grounds, control systems and laboratories for fuel research. By October of 1945 Alsos had submitted over twenty technical reports related to guided missile research and development which represented a wealth of captured information. Included in this information were five extensive reports on the “Facilities in Germany for Development of Guided Missiles”.

Rocket booty-collecting was rampant and was seen quite clearly by the way that the Americans not only took information and material but actually immigrated 100 top German scientists back to the United States. The Soviet Union was little different, and when they took position of the main production facility at Peenemunde they stripped it bare, sending everything back to the Soviet Union where they began to build and launch their own V-2 rockets.

By 1945, Germany was technologically ahead of the Allies in every way possible in rocket research. Rocket design, fuel, construction techniques, and guidance systems were all areas that the scientists in American were by no means close to duplicating. Alsos for its part was able supply information on these areas giving details on not only research but also on tests and production issues. The work of Alsos became very important in the post-war period when that information was used to help the work of American scientists as well as the German specialists who had joined the U.S. program.

Conclusion:

With the increased preoccupation on nuclear technologies and weapons since the end of World War II, it is not surprising that most historical attention directed at Alsos would be directed toward this field. This focus is undoubtedly reinforced by the two books written by leaders of the Alsos team which state that the uranium bomb was the real reason for the mission. Both Pash and Goudsmit then ignore the team’s other accomplishments. In hindsight though, what was really accomplished by the bomb discoveries? Effectively what Alsos found was that German atomic research was behind and would play no part in the war whatsoever. During the post-war period nothing discovered by the team contributed to nuclear science. While most accounts are exclusively preoccupied by the atomic question, the efforts by the Alsos team in this field contributed nothing but peace of mind to the Allied war effort.

Alsos’s, enduring legacy after 1945 was in its aid to United States scientific research efforts. This legacy comes not from the popular “uranium problem” but from Alsos’s little-known work in other scientific fields. This is especially seen in the examples of its findings on biological weapons, aeronautics, and guided missiles. In all three fields American science and industry was able to learn from and in some ways advance by German knowledge and research. Each of those three areas were fields that would soon become exceedingly important in the coming Cold War. When one looks back they can clearly see how much Alsos learned from the Germans in these areas and how it essentially discovered absolutely nothing that advanced atomic research. In light of this realization, it is time researchers reevaluate the historical record on Alsos, and give credit to the portions of the mission that truly accomplished great things for the United States.

Operation Alsos and American Technological Intelligence During World War II Part 3

2008-02-01T14:14:00.000-08:00

Aeronautical Research

It is ironic that airpower played such a large and key role in World War II when one considers how the concept of a national air force was less then 50 years old. Germany jumped to the lead in realizing the importance of an air arm for the military and demonstrated this very clearly in their support of aeronautical research from the moment Hitler took power. It was inevitable then that work done in this field by the Nazis would be of significant interest to the Alsos mission. In its efforts in this field, Alsos searched for, found, interrogated and examined massive amounts of men and material related to aeronautical research. The results of this were of enormous benefit to U.S. scientific research efforts in the same field. By the war’s end U.S. researchers knew exactly what projects and problems the Germans had been working on, what had worked, what had not worked, and most importantly what they had learned.

Germany’s road to usefulness had been a long one indeed. Twenty years earlier on one would have ever expected the dread the Luftwaffe would bring in the early 1940s. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles had left Germany stripped of her air force and had forbidden the construction of another. As humiliating as this was to the nation and its pilots, it was even more devastating for the teams of aeronautical engineers who would be needed if the German military was ever to take to the skies again.

Aeronautical research and development began to develop respect and support as an official institutional science starting at the beginning of the twentieth century. In Germany this corresponded with the creation of three important research organizations:

1. Experimental Model Institute of the Society for the Study of Motor Airships (1907)
2. German Experimental Centre for Aviation (1912)
3. Scientific Society for Aviation (1912)

Interest and more importantly funding for these institutions and the research they represented was favorably endorsed and supported through the end of World War I.

When Germany lost the war and was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles they were forced to surrender all aeronautical material to the Allied governments, and was forbidden to build or import military aircraft of any kind. This proved to be not only highly unpopular but also caused industry to stop supporting research. Science in this field managed to limp along through government support until economic depression in 1928 caused the civil government to cut all funding. When Adolf Hitler took power in 1933 government support and funding suddenly returned; scientists who once could get no support found that no request for funds was too high. Tens of millions of Reichsmarks soon began to flow into research and development for aeronautical programs. By the time war started in 1939, German scientists were on the cutting edge of aeronautical research and unsurprisingly became one of the major targets for Alsos.

The field of aeronautics is one that was far too vast for Alsos to have been able to cover alone. Fortunately there were many other intelligence organizations that were also interested and Alsos was able to share the responsibilities in this. As a result most of the work and research done by the team was in the areas of airplane frames and airplane engines.

Hitler himself defined the importance of technology to National Socialism when he said, “Decisive for the winning of any war remains, however, that one is always in possession of the “technically superior weapons’”. This techno-doctrine became even more important when the war began to go badly for Germany and the only hope of defeating the vastly superior enemy was with a clear and distinct edge over them in weapons. When it came to the field of aeronautics the effects of this doctrine were displayed quite obviously in Germany’s jet aircraft. In the early 30s German aircraft engineers realized they were quickly approaching the absolute limits of speed for propeller-driven craft. The result of this realization was design programs by all the major aircraft engine designers. By 1944 Germany was beginning to deploy the infamous Messerschmitt 262, and plans were begun to equip most of the bomber force with Arado Ar 234s, the first jet bomber. Germany had arrived at this achievement first; and while it was too late to truly benefit from that victory, they maintained this lead in Jet engine and airframe design even into the beginning of the post-war period.

German aircraft designers did not place all their eggs in one basket, however, and work continued on several different projects. One such program was the “People’s Fighter.” In the latter part of the war German engineers worked tirelessly to develop a small, easy-to-pilot, and cheap fighter. The concept was that these small craft would be cheap enough to produce in mass and that adolescent boys could be taught how to fly them. In this way it was surmised that the Luftwaffe would be able to afford to send up large formations against Allied bomber fleets. These projects and others were continued with inadequate material and equipment right up to the end of the war.

From March 1945 on, Operation Alsos found that it was in far more danger of drowning in the overflowing sea of aeronautical research then of running dry. Between March and July, Alsos visited and wrote reports on twenty-two different facilities related to this type of research. Dr. Goudsmit in his report stated that “German aeronautical research was on such a large scale and so extensive that it was impossible to restrict the investigation to a few important targets only.” Alsos was the first to go through the important research facilities at Gottingen, Braunschweig, and Kochel. In addition to this Alsos also bore the responsibility for interrogating important aeronautical research scientists. By September of 1945, just a few months after Germany’s surrender, Alsos had already provided the Allies with a very detailed picture as to what the Germans had been pursuing in aeronautics. Not only did it provide detailed information on specific research related to jet propulsion, wing theory, and weapons; but it also provided information on the entire organization of German Aeronautical research.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics expressed its appreciation for the work Alsos had done when they wrote on June 29, 1945:

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics wishes to express its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered it by the Scientific Intelligence (Alsos) Mission… It is a pleasure to indicate the benefit that has accrued to this Committee in the prosecution of its research program for the Army and Naval Arms, through participation in the Alsos Mission, and to convey to you the compliments of the Committee on the effective operation of your Mission.

According to the letter Alsos was instrumental in giving the committee a clear understanding on German research, its accomplishments, its equipment, and even its future. On the subject of aeronautics the mission was a stunning success, accomplishing its goals quickly and allowing both researchers and industry in the United States to benefit and learn from the complete experience of their German counterparts.

... to be continued

Operation Alsos and American Technological Intelligence During World War II Part 2

2008-01-31T12:14:00.000-08:00

Biological Weapons

One of the clearest examples of the success and benefits of Alsos was in its findings on German biological weapons. In addition to the numerous other weapons development projects that Germany was actively engaged in they also were attempting to develop both biological weapons and methods to protect against them. Alsos holds the distinction of being the only intelligence team authorized to pursue German research in this field. This fact alone should demonstrate the great value of the team’s efforts in this field.

The use and development of biological weapons between World Wars was a situation similar to the development of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 60s. There were many similarities between the two weapon types, such as their primary targeting of civilian populations; the deployment of both through air power; and the pursuit of biological warfare in the 20s and 30s by all the major powers, just as nuclear weapons were in the 50s and 60s. In fact, the reason all the major powers stockpiled biological weapons was fear that the enemy would use such weapons on them, which in turn dissuaded every country (except Japan) from actual deployment. This is strikingly familure to how democratic and communist countries squared off during the Cold War with nuclear weapons that each side was afraid to use.

While all countries were actively involved in developing bio-warfare technology many statesmen found such weapons quite repugnant including, Adolf Hitler. It is certainly odd that a man who did not hesitate to send untold numbers of people to their deaths in gas chambers would oppose biological and chemical warfare. It is certainly true though and may in some way stem from Hitler’s own experiences of being gassed during World War I.

While some have claimed that aversion to bio-warfare by Hitler kept Nazi Germany from experimenting in this area of weapons research, this is unfortunately wrong. In a report on the overall performance of the Alsos mission, scientific chief Samuel Goudsmit did admit that the work done by the Germans was primarily defensive in its orientation but he goes on to state that more research was planed but was simply too late to play any part in the war. On the surface, research into defenses against biological attack seems harmless; but it involved more than one might think. To develop new techniques against bacteriological attack there must of course be testing and experimentation. For this purpose the Nazis did not utilize animals like other countries but instead turned to prisoners in concentration camps. News of this activity began to reach members of Alsos in January of 1945. One report from that time states:

Although the records received mentioned the fact that prisoners of the concentration camp were used for experimental purposes, there is nothing to indicate what was done. There are documents listing the names of doctors conducting the experiments and granting a scientists or doctor permission to enter the camp to carry on his work.

The work being done on those prisoners was in part experimentation using biological weapons.

Details of this became even clearer when the Allies caught and interrogated Prof. Eugen Haagen who later became famous for his part in experimenting on prisoners. Ironically, Haagen was not working on weapon of mass destruction to kill people but was in fact trying to develop vaccines to protect against Yellow Fever, Typhus and other deadly contagions. One of the things that came across very strongly in the evidence during his trial is that Haagen was displeased with the health of prisoners given to him for his research. This fact was not due to any soft heartedness on his part, but was in fact due to his wanting healthy “specimens” who could better simulate a normal Wehrmacht soldier. This is seen quite clearly in a letter that he sends concerning his research on a vaccine for dehydrated petechial. The prisoners he had been using as specimens were having reactions that were “still too violent” and he requested another 200 more people to continue his experiments until they were right. Dr. Haagen was later tried at Nuremberg for his crimes against humanity.

Even though research may have been primarily directed toward “defensive” research, the Nazis did not totally abandon offensive programs at any point. On March 19, 1945, a memorandum for the Scientific Branch was sent that contained information from a German POW. The report said that the prisoner claimed to have seen German bacterial bombs up close, and that he even informed his captors where the bombs were loaded. These reports proved accurate and on March 26 the war department sent out an intelligence bulletin concerning the discovery of 250-kg bombs stored in Magdeburg.

As described to PW, the bomb has two detonating chambers (one in front and one in back) with 2 side fuses. In the center of the shell is an empty lead lined chamber with threaded opening on the side into which a tube is screwed. The opening has 8 threads and when the tube is screwed into the last thread it is opened and the microbes which have been stored in the tube escape into the chamber. The opening is smeared with a gelatinous substance to prevent the escape of germs… PW thinks the germs are of cholera type.

Although these bombs were never used in combat their existence and deployment proves that the Germans had created offensive bacteriological weapons. Even at the end of the war when Germany was losing, the option to use these weapons always existed.

By the completion of the Alsos mission six specialists had filed over 30 reports concerning their findings on the German activities in biological weapons research. As a whole the mission was highly successful in the immediate context of gathering information on German capabilities. What ultimately proved an even more valuable capture was the official records and research, which were transferred back to the United States for further study. As an unexpected boon that would prove to be very useful during the upcoming Cold War, Alsos also captured Germany’s intelligence gathered on Russia’s bio-weapons program. What is known today about Russia’s program of the time comes primarily from this same information gathered by Alsos.

...to be continued

Operation Alsos and American Technological Intelligence During World War II Part 1

2008-01-30T12:57:00.000-08:00

The following is a copy of a research paper I did last semester after going to Washington DC. Unfortunately including all of the footnotes was to complicated and time consuming.

During World War II, Operation Alsos was charged with gathering intelligence on Germany’s scientific war effort. The large mandate given to the mission and its members presented significant challenges; but also promised many great advantages to the military, industrial and scientific communities in the United States. Traditionally, the approach taken by many (if not most) chroniclers examining Alsos, focus almost exclusively on the missions work to discover the state of German atomic bomb research. While that portion of the mission was vitally important, and preoccupation on the topic is understandable, it proved to be only one of Alsos’ many accomplishments. Over the years, the success of the Nazi bomb investigation has overshadowed those other successes and tended to distract observers away from other important areas.

Operation Alsos was highly efficient and highly successful in the pursuit and capture of new German technologies as well as research materials and important personnel in several different fields. Some of the mission’s greatest successes related to the fields of biological warfare, aeronautics, and guided missiles. These discoveries proved to be important and ultimately contributed to the advancement of United States science and industry. Even though the atomic research has hither-to overshadowed everything else, the accomplishments in other fields - especially the three above mentioned - gave the U.S. tangible assets and scientific knowledge that proved to be far more valuable in the post-war period.

Background on Operation Alsos

The results of Operation Alsos were far more favorable then anyone could have imagined when the mission was first commissioned in 1943. At the time, Germany enjoyed the perception of being the unchallenged world leader in science. Such an image had been forged over the course of the previous several decades and was continually reinforced by the constant publication of new discoveries and accomplishments in scientific journals. Concern over this fact began to cause Allied leaders to worry when rumors began to come out of Germany of new super weapons that the Nazis were working on, and in which Hitler was purportedly putting his hopes to win the war.

It was in response to these growing concerns that the Allied leadership put together an operation whose job it would be to gather intelligence on Germany’s scientific war effort in general and on specific programs in particular. According to the accounts of the mission commander, Boris T. Pash, and of the scientific chief, Samuel A. Goudsmit, the main purpose of the mission was to discover the extent of German atomic bomb research. To provide a cover for the “real” objective, the mission’s directive gave the broad mandate to “collect intelligence on the scientific war effort of the enemy.” The results of this cover turned out to be quite fortuitous for the Allies because the mission’s members, under the direction of Dr. Goudsmit , actually did gather intelligence on a broad range of scientific programs. By the end of the war the majority of reports generated and discoveries made were in non-atomic fields.

While the original mandate of Alsos was as broad as possible it would have far exceeded the mission’s ability to accomplish its task without first limiting the range of focus to specific scientific endeavors. With this in mind Alsos automatically and voluntarily limited itself to fields where there was a clear need for intelligence information, and to subjects that were already being pursued in the United States. Those parameters ultimately led to a limited list of target categories:

1. The Uranium Problem
2. Bacteriological Warfare
3. Organization of Enemy Scientific Research
4. Aeronautical Research
5. Proximity Fuses
6. German Research Facilities for Guided Missiles
7. The Speer Ministry’s Interest in Research
8. Chemical Research
9. Metallurgical Research
10. Shale Oil Development
11. Miscellaneous Intelligence

Ultimately the intelligence on every one of these categories proved to be fruitful to one extent or another. Dozens of investigators spread out over Europe to investigate facility sites, interrogate personnel and take position of equipment. By the end of 1945 hundreds of technical reports were filed by Alsos and were disseminated not just to the War Department but also to American research and Industry as well.

It is important to note the uniqueness of Alsos both in the makeup of personnel and in the approach taken to determine targets and objectives. Alsos could not be run like a regular intelligence mission due to the sophisticated nature of the research material that the team would be going after. From the very beginning it was understood that civilians with scientific knowledge and expertise would have to be assigned and actively participate in the fieldwork. Due to this fact an early balance was established and the responsibility and direction of the team was split between military personnel who held command, secured targets and provided protection; and the civilian scientists who judged what targets were important and evaluated all information and material that was captured.

An unexpected boon was discovered when the scientists quickly demonstrated how valuable they could be at formulating targets, and not just evaluating them when they were captured. Dr. Goudsmit shares a story to illustrate this point. Washington, D.C., sent a great deal of information on a potential human target that included every personal detail down to what type of beer he liked. All the scientists needed were details, missing from the report, on the individual’s scientific work. The military found it very difficult to understand just how the scientists could judge which of their German counterparts were important and which were not, prior to receiving information from inside German territory. The key in all of this was the fact that all of the important scientists from every field, in Germany and the United States, had been apart of an international scientific community that had known, worked together and shared information for decades. This important, albeit rarely understood, truth gave Alsos an important edge in choosing its targets.

Alsos’s combination of military personnel and civilian scientists deployed in France immediately after the invasion on D-Day. Following closely behind British and American armies as they advanced though Europe, Alsos secured targets of potential benefit sometimes before the shooting in the area had even ended. This effort continued through 1944 until the end of 1945 when the mission was declared complete and the personnel were pulled out of the theater. Operation Alsos was and still is considered a complete success and a fine example of how best to run an intelligence mission responsible to collect technical research intelligence.

...to be continued

Washington DC Trip - Day 5

2007-10-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Today was the beginning of research at NARA

Now when you go to NARA you don't get to just wander around and pull boxes off the shelf. The place to start is in the index room which holds nothing but lists for everything at NARA facility at College Park. This is a picture of only 1/2 of the room.

Once you actually find what you want in an index you must then fill out a pull slip.

Washington DC Trip - Day 4

2007-10-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

If you aren't tired of it yet here are more pictures of the Capital Building

Some may complain but I loved seeing these guys out there protecting our nations capital as well as the tourests like me

The Library of Congress: The single most beautiful building I have ever seen

This is another building owned and used by the Library of Congress that is just across the street from the Jefferson building

Washington DC Trip - Day 3

2007-10-15T19:48:00.000-07:00

Monday was reserved for visiting and orientation at the National Archives and the Holocaust Museum. The purpose of these trips was to help us understand what the institutions had to offer to researchers as well as give us an idea how we would be doing our research this week.

On the way to the Holocaust Museum we stopped off at the Smithsonian information center

Unfortunately I have no pictures of the Holocaust Museum because they don't allow pictures there and I like to follow the rules

Washington DC Trip - Day 2

2007-10-14T19:47:00.000-07:00

Sunday morning some of us got up early and went to Arlington National Cemetery

Lunch was at a little hole in the wall Chinese place in China Town that was absolutely incredable

My favorite memorial so far was the Jefferson Memorial

The World War II Memorial with the Lincoln Memorial in the background

The Vietnam Memorial

Many of us went out again sunday night to view the memorials at night

Washington DC Trip - DAY 1

2007-10-13T07:46:00.000-07:00

For the next 8 days I'm on a trip to Washington DC. Here's some of the places and things I've been able to see while I'm here.

After walking by the White House my classmate Hans and I went to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum

Of course there was no way that Hans and I could not stop by the National Archives when it was so close.

After the National Archives we went to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum

On the way back to our hotel we took a minute to admire our nations capital.

Operation ALSOS: The Search for a Nazi Atomic Bomb Pt. 2

2007-10-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

Putting Together Team Alsos

Military command of the Alsos mission was given to Colonel Boris T. Pash while the scientific chief was Samuel A. Gouldsmit. Gouldsmit (seen to the left) and his people had the scientific knowledge and background that allowed them to identify who in the scientific community was a likely target for capture and interrogation as well as the competence to examine scientific information, sources and material. Colonel Pash and his men were responsible for the operational details, logistics, security and the overall command.

The “official” orders of the Alsos team were to investigate what scientific work the Germans had been up to in general. This was generally considered by many in the upper ranks as merely a cover. Gouldsmit took the charge seriously and while it was made clear to him that what he war “really” supposed to be doing was hunting down an atomic bomb program he none the less attempted to comply with his official orders as best he could.

The match of civilian and military personal working on the operation functioned exceedingly well. While the military personal pulled their wait every day the scientists showed their worth by setting objectives and creating targets. One of the greatest examples of this was seen in the chagrin of the intelligence officers who could not understand how the scientists on their team could identify which German scientists were important and which ones were not. With out any preliminary work or information they created lists of who was important to the Nazi atomic program and who was not. In addition they also put forth probable suggestions as to what those scientists were working on to build a German bomb. What the military and intelligence officers did not understand was that the scientists on their team were apart of a small international scientific community. These men within the operation all knew their foreign counterparts by reputation if not in fact by personal acquaintance. Therefore it was no challenge at all for American scientists to know exactly whom among the German scientific community was capable of building a bomb. In addition to this they also were able to be completely certain they knew who all the German scientists were because no one could have risen to the caliber necessary to play an important role in building a bomb without the international community knowing who they were.

Because of these strengths and others Operational Alsos deployed to the field ready and equipped to gather intelligence to the greatest degree possible. As the Allies began the invasion of France Alsos deployed along with them. Closely following the troops the team began going from site to site and searching for individuals attempting to piece together what the enemy had been up to.

Operation ALSOS: The Hunt for the Nazi Atomic Program Pt. 1

2007-10-09T16:01:00.000-07:00

Fear of the Unknown

It is hard looking back through history and to understand exactly how worried the allies were of a Nazi Germany with nuclear bombs. In 1938 three German scientists, Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann and Lisa Meitner discovered nuclear fission. At that point Germany had a decided lead in nuclear research over everyone else in the world. In October of 1939 Albert Einstein wrote President Roosevelt a letter at the behest of some scientific refugees who were friends with him. In this letter Einstein told the President about the terrifying implications of the Nazi lead in Nuclear research and about the possibility of their producing a “Super Bomb”.

Roosevelt’s reacted swiftly by starting an American program to build an atomic bomb before the German’s were able to and thus began the first nuclear arms race. This helped but did not alleviate the fears of U.S. officials. Germany had been the leader in science for some time and many feared the catastrophic possibilities of Germany using bombs not just on the European battlefield but in the United States as well. As was pointed out to Roosevelt in the letter he received from Einstein one atomic bomb smuggled into New York harbor on a ship could have disastrous effects.

To counter the lack of information that the allies possessed a team of scientists, intelligence officers and military personal was assembled to investigate and find out exactly how far the Nazis were towards making a working bomb. This mission which was dubbed Operation ALSOS deployed to Europe and followed the allied advance into Italy and then France. ALSOS was charged with finding out detailed information on the German Nuclear program as well as confiscating any material or personal related to the project.

Frigates in the Napoleonic Era

2007-05-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Frigates were large ships that were as long as Ships-of-the-Line and like them carried three sailing masts. The class was originally developed by the French Navy but quickly emulated by the British Navy. The role of the frigate during this ear was to protect the British merchant fleet as well as to scout for the battle fleet. In addition British frigates were often sent out as raiders to harass and capture smaller French and Spanish ships.

While they were more lightly armed (carrying between 20 to 60 guns) they were faster then Ships-of-the-Line. Handily combing speed with power they became dangerous tools in the hands of capable captains being able to outgun almost everything they came across while outrunning anything they could not. Originally the Fifth and Sixth Rate ships were the only ones that fell within the Frigate class but in 1756 the Royal Navy reclassified all Fourth Rate vessels as Frigates. The growing power and armament of the First Rate vessels meant that the smaller Fourth Rate ships could no longer survive the harsh conditions of full naval battle.

Frigates were unique in that they had their guns higher and their top deck lower then Ships-of-the-Line. Most frigates were built with one gun deck but the American’s in the 1790’s built some 44-gun ships with two gun decks. These ships gained wide respect for their power and handling and were eventually emulated by the British Navy.

Today the USS Constitution still survives as the last example of the old American Frigates. Still a commissioned ship by the Navy the Constitution is the oldest warships in the United States Military. To this day she remains a shining example of American ingenuity and hard work.

Line of Battle and Ships-of-the-Line

2007-05-11T07:36:00.000-07:00

Historically, the most important tactic used by a naval officer prior to the 1500s was boarding an enemy vessel to capture or destroy it. This tactic was replaced during the sixteenth century when cannon technology made shooting at the enemy from a distance more desirable than risking the crews in personal combat. As a consequence the practice of individual ships closing on each other to fight became problematic. Battles quickly became confused jumbles of ships and the danger of hitting a friend was always an issue. These reasons and more resulted in the shift of tactics by the Navy and the development of the Line of Battle.

All ships during the age of sail were strongest along their two sides. Due to the way ships were constructed only a couple cannons could be pointed forward or aft at any time. As a result, virtually all ship guns were pointed out on either the port or starboard side. Because of this, fleets would assemble into long “Lines of Battle” and attack the enemy as they he passed. The idea was that these ships would pass the enemy, firing into them one at a time. This style of ship-to-ship fighting allowed the greatest concentration of fire by each ship. In addition a given target received no relief; for once one ship passed, another was right behind it, ready to give another broadside before the target could catch its breath.

Any ship that could withstand this new type of warfare became known as a Ship-of-the-Line. These were the largest of all Navy ships, carrying anywhere between 50 to 120 guns. Their purpose was exclusively limited to battering the enemy to pieces. While the strongest of all naval vessels, they were not the fastest and therefore left missions such as commerce raiding and escort duty to the formidable frigate class.

Before 1756 all First-Rate to Fourth-Rate ships were considered fit to withstand the punishment of a major engagement. By this point, though, the power of First, Second, and Third Rate ships had increased to the point where the British Navy reclassified Forth Rate ships as Frigates. It was believed that the fifty to sixty guns that Fourth Rate vessels carried could no longer stand up to the increased firepower of the larger classes.

The birth of the Ironclad ships in the mid-1800s signaled the end of the Ship-of-the-Line. The smaller armor plated ships powered by steam soonoutmatched the wood and sail of the old era.Today the only Ship-of-the-Line still in existence is the HMS Victory. She has been preserved with honor in Britain as a museum for her role as Nelson’s flagship at the battle of Trafalgar. Visitors are able to visit her and gain a rare glimpse of a bygone era when the British Navy ruled the world’s oceans.

British Navy Classifications In The Age Of Sail

2007-05-10T09:09:00.000-07:00

Between the late 17^th and early 19^th centuries the British Navy made use of a rating system to distinguish and categorize its vast array of warships. This system not only gave an indication of the ship’s size but also the number of guns she carried and the size of her crew. The Admiralty made this move in the 1670’s as a way of determining a ship’s strength and capabilities as well as the material and costs associated in her administration and use. While the system was modified and expanded over time it served as a quick and easy way to size up a ship’s needs, capabilities, and threat impact in one quick sentence.

These different classes were:

In addition to these classifications there was also a distinction made that classified the 1st threw 6th rate ships as either a Ship-of-the-line or as a Frigate. (More on this another time)

The British Navy used this system until the end of the age of sailing ships in the early 19th century when steam power began to replace canvas as the force that drove a vessel. While this system of classification is more fluid then ridged it does provide a general framework for understanding the capability and roles of British ships during this period. For those of you who have an interest in such things or have just been confused by references in movies and books I hope this gives a concise but clear understanding of the subject.

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 6 - Conclusion

2006-12-27T07:40:00.000-08:00

Scholarship on this subject has gone through transformations and changes over the years but a vast amount of ambiguity and disagreement still exists over the basic definition of Fundamentalism and the causes of the movement in its origination. Part of the dilemma seems to originate from the two approaches that were developed by Cole and Sandeen. Many try to look at Fundamentalism as a purely cultural phenomena divorced from its religious context or as a purely religious movement. DeBerg in her book goes as far as to say the religious influences were all really cultural reactions. This takes the religious aspects of the movement and, instead of ignoring them like some, turns religion, itself, into a cultural phenomena instead of a spiritual one.

George Marsden attempts to incorporate both cultural/social and religious/spiritual influences into his argument. However, as much as he is respected the limitation to which his view has been accepted is seen in the many college survey texts on United States history that do not incorporate his arguments. The shifts and changes that have occurred in the historical study of Fundamentalism will, most likely, continue on into the future. As complex and diverse as the movement was, scholars are not likely to come to a complete consensus on the subject any time soon.

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 5

2006-12-26T10:35:00.001-08:00

All of the previous works discussed in this blog series showcase the major themes and arguments concerning the origins of Fundamentalism up until recently. However, in 2000, Betty A. DeBerg’s book, Ungodly Women, introduced another new take on this classic study. She attempts to highlight the issues of gender as it interacted and influenced Fundamentalism. Like many other social issues during this time, ideologies on gender were in flux and DeBerg argues that a great deal of f Fundamentalism’s drive and focus came from its desire to secure and maintain the gender roles of the Victorian Era in the nineteenth century.[1]

The book begins as a variant of the classic cultural argument by examining the industrialization and urbanization that was taking place at the turn of the twentieth century. DeBerg argues that gender roles of the Victorian era were a result of this change in society as men were no longer able to find their identity as hunter or farmer and patriarch of the home.[2] As a result, the society created ridged ideas of what manhood and womanhood meant so as to compensate for the social upheaval. DeBerg goes on to argue that these standards collapsed under the strain of the new age as women began to enter the public sphere.[3] Not surprisingly, Fundamentalists did not approve of this trend and the book recounts the powerful arguments that they employed to try and counter the trend.[4]

DeBerg shows that Fundamentalism, at this time, began to more and more show emphasis on the proper and distinctly different roles that men and women had. Women, it was argued, were the keepers of the home and conservatives put great importance and honor on this vocation.[5] Simultaneously, there was also a great movement to increase the involvement of men in the church. The Victorian Era had seen the great decline of men’s evolvement in the church[6] and while women had not become clergy, they had become very involved in the day-to-day functions and running of their local churches.[7]

DeBerg also argues that all of these efforts by Fundamentalists were taking place in the context of a society that was changing and inclined in a different direction. This different direction led towards the increased acceptability of “unchaperoned dating, dancing, movie-going, short skirts and bobbed hair, and an increase in premarital sex…”. [8] DeBerg’s analysis sees all of these factors as highly important and instrumental to the Fundamentalist movement. She maintains that this extreme upheaval in the society profoundly impacted the development of Fundamentalist theology.[9] According to the book, Dispensational Theology and Biblical inerrancy were the product of the age in which they were developed and were heavily influenced by the turmoil over gender. Dispensationalism is an apocalyptic view of the world that condemned the excesses of the society, one of the greatest of which, DeBerg puts forth, was gender issues.[10] Biblical Inerrancy has often been seen as central to Fundamentalists but, her book attempts to view this situation in a new light:
“Yet it is readily apparent that the Bible was not defended, revered, or exegeted simply for its own sake nor for the sake of abstract theological disputations. The Bible was of such concern to these conservative evangelical Protestants because they saw in it the basis for a set of eternal and unchanging social norms, most of which set boundaries on private, gender-related behaviors and attitudes.”[11]

In this is seen the centrality of gender in DeBerg’s view of Fundamentalism. According to DeBerg, the doctrine of an inerrant Bible was a weapon developed to use against the changing gender ideologies of the society. The conclusion of DeBerg’s work is that Fundamentalism was shaped and fundamentally influenced by issues of gender in the culture.

This book and its new take on the cultural argument is receiving quite a bit of notoriety in the academic community. A review of the book in Church History called the book “essential reading” on the subject of conservative Christianity.[12] The reviewer in The American Historical Review called the book “a refreshing addition to too much discussed areas of historical inquiry”.[13] By all accounts, DeBerg’s work seems to be set firmly in place as the newest innovative perspective of historical scholarship on the origin of Fundamentalism.

to be continued…

[1] Betty A. DeBerg, Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000). 14

[2] Ibid. 15

[3] Ibid. 25

[4] Ibid. 43-44

[5] Ibid. 46

[6] Ibid. 75

[7] Ibid. 81

[8] Ibid. 99

[9] Ibid. 119

[10] Ibid. 122

[11] Ibid. 128

[12] Nancy A. Hardesty, "Review: Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism," Church History 61, no. 4 (1992). 468

[13] Ann Braude, "Review: Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism," The American Historical Review 97, no. 5 (1992). 1607

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 5

2006-12-26T10:35:00.000-08:00

[1] Betty A. DeBerg, Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000). 14

[2] Ibid. 15

[3] Ibid. 25

[4] Ibid. 43-44

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 4

2006-12-24T12:31:00.000-08:00

When Ernest Sandeen published his work it quickly became very influential and, like Stewart Cole’s, opened the door for scholarship that would further develop the theory that he originated. The best example of this is George M. Marsden who is currently one of the foremost scholars on American Fundamentalism. Having written numerous books on the subject Marsden argues and defines a Fundamentalist as:

“an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes to cultural values and mores, such as those associated with secular humanism.”[1]

While Marsden’s definition of Fundamentalism is distinctly different from that of Sandeen, the legacy of his predecessor is clearly seen in the theological focus of Marsden’s work.

Marsden’s work goes beyond that of Sandeen in that it maintains its theological/religious approach while examining how the cultural influences those beliefs and forming what we uniquely know as American Fundamentalism. In his book, Fundamentalism and American Culture, Marsden argues:

“to understand fundamentalism we must also see it as a distinct version of evangelical Christianity uniquely shaped by the circumstances of America in the early twentieth century.”[2]

The uniqueness of Marsden’s argument is that he does not rely on either the purely theological or cultural argument that was typically taken before. He views Fundamentalism as, “a genuine religious faith”, and he sees the adherents of the movement as theologically and intellectually driven. Fundamentalism emerged when the religious and theological convictions of evangelicals were uniquely incubated by the upheaval in the society at large. According to Marsden, the movement was the reaction some evangelicals had to what was going on in the culture based on their established beliefs and convictions. [3] The work of Marsden is well respected and, while it is not universally accepted, it is seen as good scholarship and a benefit to the collected work on Fundamentalism.

Academic and scholarly evaluations of Fundamentalism are not the only works that have been undertaken, however. Another interesting study of the subject was presented in the book, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon, which was edited by Jerry Falwell. This admittedly biased account of Fundamentalism by its modern proponents claims that the movement developed as a defense of basic doctrinal beliefs.[4] The book argues that the militancy of the movement, past and present, is an attempt to protect historical, orthodox Christianity from being perverted into something other then Christian.[5] While this view is definitely outside the realm of scholarly research, it is a unique personal history of the movement.

to be continued…

[1] George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1991). 1

[2] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006). 1

[3] While this might seem to some to be the same thing as the cultural argument the uniqueness is in the formulation of ideas, values, and theology. The implication of the cultural argument is that the ideas and theology of fundamentalism was developed as an attempt to protect traditional values of the Victorian Era. Marsden and others who argue a theological perspective maintain that the values and the reaction against counter values where the result of the established ideas and theology that was held by many evangelicals.

[4] Ed Dobson & Ed Hindson, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Resurgence of Conservative Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doublenday & Company Inc., 1981). 11

[5] Ibid. 78-81

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 3

2006-12-23T12:29:00.000-08:00

In 1967, Ernest Sandeen, an assistant professor of History at Macalester College, began his published writings on the subject of Fundamentalism. His work attempted to apply a new theory to the subject that was divergent with the prevalent views of Stewart Cole and Norman F. Furniss. Furniss wrote an important book in the 1950’s. In his book, he had partially adopted some of Cole’s arguments and argued from a cultural perspective at the same time.[1]

Sandeen’s first work that traced the origins of Fundamentalism was an article in Church History.[2] In this article Sandeen argued that:

“Both Cole and Furniss were interested in Fundamentalism primarily as a negative force, interested in it because it impinged upon denominational machinery.” [3]

Sandeen believed that this particular approach effected or colored the view of both scholars and as a result, their accounts and those who followed them make Fundamentalism appear like a political controversy and never a religious movement.[4]

Sandeen argued that all the evaluations of the Fundamentalist movement, to that point, invariably treat it in purely political, sociological, or psychological terms. Disagreeing with this view, he attempted to study it through religious and theological means. Ultimately, the thesis of his article was that the movement was made up of an alliance between Dispensationalism and the Princeton Theology. These two groups, he argued, came together and formed the core of the movement based on theological like-mindedness until 1918.[5]

At the end of his argument, Sandeen offered a four-part critique of the traditional historiography on Fundamentalism. First, Fundamentalism saw itself as a champion of certain religious truths and, in-so-ignoring these religious motivations, other scholarship was incomplete. Secondly, Fundamentalism was marked by doctrinal innovation and claims by Fundamentalists to an unbroken theological heritage can not be accepted at face value. Thirdly, earlier historiography had needlessly given in to semantic confusion on a definition of Fundamentalism and that the movement could indeed be defined and clarified. Fourthly and finally, earlier scholarship that had portrayed Fundamentalism as agrarian, anti-intellectual, or even uneducated was incorrect.[6]

Sandeen’s work on Fundamentalism was a fresh take to the academic community. In one article written in response, LeRoy Moore wrote that Sandeen, “corrects many of the misunderstandings contained in the hitherto standard treatments of Cole and Furniss”.[7] While LeRoy disagreed with Sandeen’s definition of Fundamentalism, he did greatly appreciate the religious/theological evaluation that had hitherto, been absent in historical scholarship.

Within three years of writing his article, Ernest Sandeen published a book on The Roots of Fundamentalism that instantly became one of the pivotal works on the subject. Continuing the themes he began in his article, Sandeen stated that the purpose of the book was to argue that Fundamentalism existed, “as a religious movement before, during, and after the controversy of the twenties”.[8]

to be continued…

[1] Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-19331 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1963).

[2] Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History 36, no. 1 (1967).

[3] Ibid. 66

[4] Ibid. 66

[5] Ibid. 67

[6] Ibid. 82-83

[7] LeRoy Moore, "Another Look at Fundamentalism: A Response to Ernest R. Sandeen," Church History 37, no. 2 (1968). 195

[8] Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970). xiii

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 2

2006-12-21T19:26:00.000-08:00

In the last several years there have been many advancements in the study of Fundamentalism and in some way they all owe Stewart Cole a debt. As explained previously, Cole’s work, History of Fundamentalism, was the first to attempt to catalog and work through this highly complex issue. In 1931, when the book was written, the Fundamentalist controversy was still occurring yet, this work set the standard view on the subject for the next sixty-five years. Cole argues that Fundamentalism was the conservative reaction to the changing values and beliefs of the Christian Church[1]. Through the first three chapters of the book, he tracked the changing of the American society from a Christian/church centered society[2] to a modern, industrial society that, “developed without regard for the well-being of Christianity”[3]. Many people within the church attempted to reconcile the forces of modernism with Christian beliefs and it was these liberalizing endeavors that sparked the great conservative reaction and the rise of Fundamentalism. Cole states:

In twelve volumes of The Fundamentals they delivered their orthodox manifesto as a test of Christian loyalty and as a corrective to the position of liberals. This event gave the party an aggressive policy and a consciousness of social solidarity in an urgent cause.[4]

This event sparked what Cole refers to as, “Two cultures clashing within the Christian church”.[5]

Cole’s treatment of Fundamentalism is one that looks at the movement through purely cultural eyes. It was the combination of change in ideas and authority that threatened the traditional position and beliefs of the church and the conservative believers’ refusal to accept this change as the status quo that sparked the controversy.[6] As a result Fundamentalism was a reaction to the increasingly secular and modernist tendencies of the culture.

While other works on Fundamentalism have come along, Cole’s was the first and his holds the distinction as having offered an argument that has dominated the historical landscape on the subject. Just how much it has done so can be seen by the fact that so much of what has been written since follows his cultural argument. In an article written in 1995, John Fea shows how influential Cole’s idea was. Fea states that:

“Most textbooks treat fundamentalism as a movement reacting to the sweeping intellectual and cultural changes of the 1920s.[7]

He argues that even though there were new and innovative arguments as to the origins of Fundamentalism, the treatment of the subject in survey texts was still arguing some derivative forms of the argument that Cole produced in the 1930’s. Fea shows that all the texts examined for his article presents similar arguments for the origination of the Fundamentalist movement and that a major part of this view or outlook was, “first introduced by Stewart Cole”.[8]

to be continued…

[1] Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1963). 52

[2] Ibid. 9

[3] Ibid. 17

[4] Ibid. 52-53

[5] Ibid. 64

[6] Ibid. 28-30

[7] Fea, "An Analysis of the Treatment of American Fundamentalism in United States History Survey Texts." 206

[8] Ibid. 207-208

Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 1

2006-12-21T07:25:00.000-08:00

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries a great deal of cultural confusion existed in the

United States

. In a notable age of religious and scientific confusion a new religious force emerged in the form of American Fundamentalism. This strongly conservative, anti-modern force was intensely felt throughout the nation at every level of life. Over the course of the last century, the historiography of this movement has undergone shifts and changes as historians have attempted to explain this very unique aspect of American Christianity.

All scholarship on the subject can be broken down into two categories. Historians have been divided in their evaluations of Fundamentalism and their focus on the cultural/social or the theological/spiritual factors as being the key to explaining the movement. In the 1930’s, as scholars began to examine this movement, Stewart G. Cole wrote his influential History of Fundamentalism[1]. Cole’s evaluation was wholly an examination of cultural factors and argued that the fundamentalist movement was a cultural backlash. This book was monumentally influential and Cole’s basic argument became the standard one for the next sixty-five years. Even to this day, the majority of all United States history survey textbooks present this cultural view[2].

In the late 1960’s a new take on Fundamentalism and its origins began to develop. Ernest R. Sandeen began to write about Fundamentalism and argue that the key to understanding it was to understand its religious and cultural factors. His argument traced the intellectual and theological trends that preceded and developed in the movement. Sandeen’s work was very influential and his basic premise of looking at Fundamentalism as a religious/theological development instead of an exclusively cultural one has influenced many.

More recently available on this subject has been the work of Betty A. DeBerg in her book, Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism[3]. The thesis of the book is that an immense deal of Fundamentalism’s drive and focus came from a desire to protect the Victorian gender roles of the nineteenth century. DeBerg claims that neither the cultural or theological arguments that have, thus far, been attempted are adequate to explain Fundamentalism[4]. While DeBerg is merely the latest scholar to attempt to come to terms with Fundamentalism, her work has gained a great deal of attention from the academic community.

to be continued...

[1] Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1963).

[2] John Fea, "An Analysis of the Treatment of American Fundamentalism in United States History Survey Texts," The History Teacher 28, no. 2 (1995).

[3] Betty A. DeBerg, Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000).

[4] Ibid. 5 While DeBerg seems to view gender as a third category to evaluate fundamentalism for the purposes of this paper her work is considered to fit under the umbrella of a cultural argument sense gender attitudes are cultural. While she is handled separately in this evaluation there are still only two predominate categories handled in this examination.

19th Century Europe

2006-12-20T10:01:00.000-08:00

Last semester for my 19th Century European History class I did a chart of the European Rulers to get an idea of what was going on during the century as a whole. Some of you might find this interesting.

Quote of the Day 12/19/2006

2006-12-19T11:41:00.000-08:00

This book is not the obituary of Fundamentalism. Ever since its rise to notoriety in the 1920's, scholars have predicted the imminent demise of the movement. The Fundamentalists, to return the favor, have predicted the speedy end of the world.

- Ernest R. Sandeen
The Roots of Fundamentalism