Summer/Autumn Edition 2014

Wilson‘s

Retrospective

THINK YOU‘RE A HISTORY

GENIUS?

THINK YOU‘RE BRITAIN‘S YOUNG

HISTORIAN OF THE YEAR 2015?

Prove it! Enter the History Department‘s essay writing competi-

tions.

You can choose one of the following topics:

1) Any aspect of British involvement in the Second World

War (KS3 & GCSE/A Level categories)

2) Any aspect of the First World War (KS3 only)

3) Work on any local history theme (KS3 and A Level)

What Should My Question Be?

Formulate a question which begins with one of the following

stems:

How important was .... ? To what extent did .... ?

How significant was …. ? How successful was …. ?

CLOSING DATE: MONDAY 16TH JULY

2015.

Foreword from the Editors

The History of the AK-47— A German Story

The Battle of Mons

What is History?

Che Guevara: A Divisive Revolutionary

The Ming Dynasty

The Emperor Nerva

Lessons From Auschwitz

The Columbian Exchange

Historical Factfile: Lord Kitchener

Escaping to Israel

Wilson‘s History: Harold Auten VC

The Birth of the NHS

The July Crisis of 1914

Notable Anniversaries of 2014

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 9

Page 10

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 24

Page 26

Can you help?

If you‘d like to help Wilson‘s Retrospective by writing articles, please contact us at:

NICHOLLSJ@WILSONSSCHOOL.SUTTON.SCH.UK OR

MCDONALDA@WILSONSSCHOOL.SUTTON.SCH.UK

CONTENTS

Hello and Welcome

The year 2014 has been a thoroughly interesting one. Not only is Wil-

son‘s on the cusp of celebrating its quatercentennary, but Britain as a

whole has experienced a very historic twelve months. From commemo-

rating the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings and the centenary of

the outbreak of the First World War in the Summer, to being on the

brink of separation with the Scottish Independence Referendum in the

Autumn, this country has witnessed many important events.

Thus this edition of Retrospective takes a look at arguably one of the

most significant periods in both Wilson‘s and Britain‘s recent history:

the first few months of the First World War. The causes of the conflict

still divide Military Historians to this day, and Andrew explores this de-

bate at the end of this edition. But before that, we take a look at the Bat-

tle of Mons, the first engagement of the war fought by British troops; our

Historical Factfile looks at a man who was instrumental in encouraging

millions of British men to join up, Lord Kitchener; and our Wilson‘s

History section charts the life of old Wilsonian, and Victoria Cross-

winner, Harold Auten.

We also bring you Phil, Alastair, Kieran and Jack‘s experiences of the

‗Lessons From Auschwitz Project‘, as well as fascinating pieces on the

origin of pizza, the AK-47, the Ming Dynasty of China and Che Gueva-

ra.

We hope you enjoy your read.

Jack Nicholls and Andrew McDonald

Editors of Wilson’s Retrospective

4

The inspiration for this Russian assault rifle was actually

a Nazi German assault rifle called the Sturmgewehr 44.

This was considered to be the first true assault rifle and

was developed by the Nazis during the Second World

War. The designer Hugo Schmisser highlighted a gap in

the gun market where most guns were being designed for

either long range or very short, close quarter firing. The

problem of having no gun to satisfy battles that took place

at medium range was highlighted by the

Gewehrprüfungskommission (German, Small Arms

Proofing Committee). They concluded that many battles

took place at less than 2km so a new rifle was needed to

conquer this firing range. This would give German soldiers three main advantages: they could carry

more ammunition, gain the physical benefit of using a lighter weapon and importantly increased fire-

power.

Hitler was very much opposed to the new pro-

ject because he felt it added extra strain to an

already complicated plan. He did not want a

new weapon to be launched to the front line in

such little numbers and there were not

enough suppliers to produce the volume that

the German Army required.

However the real story of the AK47 only begins once the Germans were retreating through Poland

and into their own homeland as a result of the resurgence of the Red Army towards the end of WW2.

The Russians became increasingly in contact with German sol-

diers and their equipment- particularly the STG44. A man,

called Mikhail Kalashnikov, was part of the Red Army during

the war but was sadly injured while on patrol in a tank. He was

sent to hospital and it is during his time spent on his bed that

he began designing the gun which would go on to be the most

iconic weapon of the 20th and 21st century. He understood the

need for a light and powerful weapon but he also added his

own touch of making the gun very robust. The first designs

were tested in 1946, known at the time as the AK46 but was

later tested in 1947 following the results of the experiments con-

ducted the previous year. The gun went into full scale production in 1947 and the name of AK47 has

stayed ever since. (A family gun tree from the AK47 has been created subsequently, with the latest

gun being the AK200).

The AK47 has survived for over 60 years as one of the most recognisable guns in the world and has

been manufactured more times than any other assault rifle on the planet. The gun has been used

across Africa, Asia and in the last ten years, the Middle East. The gun is even on the flag of Mozam-

bique, where the gun was a sign of the liberalisation struggle.

Unfortunately due to the features of the gun it is now widely used by ‘child soldiers’ due to its small

number of moving parts (8) and high power to weight ratio. Mr Kalashnikov said, in response to the

increased use of the AK47 across the world, ‘this a weapon of defence, not a weapon of offence.

And that I intended it to be used a defence of the motherland (Russia)’.

The History of the AK47- A German Story by Patrick Kirby

5

The AK-47, one of the most iconic weapons of the last 100 years.

Mikhail Kalashnikov (1919-2013)

The Sturmgewehr

6

The Battle of Mons by Jack Nicholls

This year has been full of many significant anniversaries, from the seventieth anniversary of the D-Day

landings and Operation Market Garden to the bimillenial of the death of Augustus Caesar, the first Em-

peror of Rome. But perhaps the most significant event for Britain has been the centenary of the start of

one of the bloodiest conflicts of her history, the First World War.

Beginning with the assassination of the Austro-

Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on

28th June 1914, the war would escalate into fierce

fighting on numerous continents. Such names as

Ypres, the Somme, Passchendaele and Gallipoli

would become synonymous with the carnage that fol-

lowed. However the first major engagement between

British and German forces on the Western front is

clouded in obscurity. Unlike the industrial maelstroms

produced by later battles, this relatively unknown clash

saw the old ‗Contemptibles‘ of the British Expedition-

ary Force (B.E.F.) engage the Germans in open country. It saw some of the last cavalry charges and it was

the first time that British troops had fought on European soil for ninety-nine years.

The Early Stages

The German Schlieffen Plan, which aimed to cut through Belgium, capture Paris and defeat the French

within 6 weeks, was slowing down. Although the French had suffered appalling casualties in the Battles of

the Ardennes - losing 27,000 men killed on 22nd August alone - the Belgians had put up unexpectedly

stiff resistance, with their fortress city of Liege in particular proving to be very tough going.

Nevertheless the Germans were advancing fast, and in

front of them was the inadequately small British Expe-

ditionary Force, which consisted of about 120,000 reg-

ular soldiers, only 70,000 of whom were to be involved

at Mons. The Germans had committed nearly 1.5 mil-

lion men to the fight on the Western Front however,

and the Kaiser himself had remarked upon the

―contemptuous‖ size of the force that Britain had put

into the field.

But the ‗old Contemptibles‘ was not a new force. Its

size was appropriate for its role of policing the Empire,

which it had done for decades theretofore. Neverthe-

less it was highly out of sorts for the scale of the fighting

of the huge continental war in which it now found itself. Bismarck too had observed that if the British Ar-

my landed and attacked Germany he would send a patrol of Berlin policemen to arrest it. It was thus

clear that in order to be taken seriously in this new conflict Britain would need to mobilise

fast. But right now her pre-war regular Army was all she had ready for combat.

6

Advancing German infantry 1914.

"A" Company of the 4th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, resting in the

town square at Mons before entering the line prior to the Battle of

Mons.

7

The Battle

Despite her small size the B.E.F. was a superbly-trained, well-armed force of professionals; it would be

able to put in a good account of itself against a modern, mechanised European army, which would pro-

vide a very different test from that of the Boers or the Zulus.

On 22nd August the B.E.F. began its advance towards the battlefront, aligning itself on the left flank of

the French Fifth Army and thence into its first fighting on the continent of Europe since 1815. The force

was headed by Field Marshal Sir John French

and consisted of 4 infantry divisions, 1 cavalry

division, 70,000 men and 300 guns. However it

was thinly spread over 30 miles of front. Head-

ing towards it was the German First Army,

which numbered 160,000 men in 8 infantry di-

visions and 3 cavalry divisions. The Germans

had also brought with them 600 guns.

Agreeing to hold the line for 24 hours along the

Mons-Condé Canal south-east of the small

French town of Mons, in order to allow the

French Fifth Army on their right to take up de-

fensive positions, the B.E.F. hastily drew up de-

fensive perimeters along the northern bank.

On 23rd August the Germans launched their attacks on the British positions. The rapid rate of the Brit-

ish fire convinced many Germans that they were attacking machine guns. But they were not. Nonethe-

less the Germans were repelled again and again, suffering hundreds of casualties to superb fire from the

British rifle and artillery positions along the bank

of the canal; the artillery were often firing over

open sights. However the British positions gradu-

ally became untenable and soon the Germans

were gaining ground.

Just east of the British positions, at Havre, the

German 17th Division crossed the canal and

turned westwards. The next day, the 24th August,

the Germans attacked across an area of artificial

water courses, ditches and oyster beds, which lay

to the left of the British positions. Meanwhile the

British continued to resist heavy pressure along

the bank of the canal. French‘s force was in danger of being surrounded, if not overwhelmed. He thus

ordered a general withdrawal.

The B.E.F. was not the only Allied force that was now retreating; the French Fifth Army was moving

back from the line of the River Sambre. At Mons a successful rearguard action was fought around the

town of Elouges and the B.E.F. and French Armies began what was to be one of the biggest retreats in

history. They would not stop and fight until the River Marne, around 136 miles south-west of the initial

battlefront; British forces would not re-enter Mons until the last few weeks of the war in 1918.

7

"L" Battery, Royal Horse Artillery

The B.E.F. faced an entire German Army.

8

Aftermath

The battle of Mons may have been a tactical German victory, but the British had successfully checked the

German advance for a day, and had managed to allow the French Fifth Army, under the command of Gen-

eral Charles Lanrezac, to first form defensive positions, and then retreat safely in order to block the Ger-

mans from successfully enveloping Paris.

At the battle of Mons the British suffered 1,600 casualties and their German counterparts an estimated

2,000 men. Compared to later battles of the war, such as the battles of the Somme, Passchendaele and Ver-

dun, this was a minor engagement. However it was of huge strategic significance as it helped to slow the

German advance down, thereby preventing them from successfully implementing the Schlieffen Plan and

defeating France.

Lieutenant Maurice Dease of the 4th Battal-

ion, Royal Fusiliers. For his actions at Mons,

he became one of the first two recipients of

the Victoria Cross in the First World War.

Recommended Reading:

The Great Retreat of 1914: From Mons to the Marne by Spencer

Jones

Mons: The Retreat to Victory by John Terraine

The Angels of Mons

The First Victoria Cross

Such was the ferocity of the fighting at Mons that five Victoria

Crosses were won during the fighting, all on 23rd August. The

first recipient of these was Lieutenant Maurice Dease, who suc-

cessfully maintained rapid and effective fire at his machine-gun position -

after the first gunner was killed - despite being wounded several times. He

died shortly after being carried to safety. His gun was then manned by Pri-

vate Sidney Godley, who continued to fire until he ran out of ammunition.

It is believed that he then dismantled the gun and threw the pieces into the

canal before being captured. Godley also received the Victoria Cross; he

survived the war.

Journalist Arthur Machen reported in the London Evening News

that British troops had seen the apparition of St. George in the sky

over the battlefield, summoning the spirits of the dead men of Ag-

incourt to repel the advancing Germans. Another version of this

story claims that the troops actually saw guardian angels. Despite

this variation the story was swallowed by a British public only too

willing to believe in spiritual tales, as the scale of British losses

were gradually becoming clear to them. Machen later tried to dis-

prove the story, but the legend had been born; he was too late.

9

To write history one must first be able to comprehend it‘s very nature: it is not the study of the past but a deci-

phering of ambitions and intentions.

All information has a purpose; for that is why it is written. Howev-

er for the information to be of use this purpose must be known

and it is therefore the historians‘ role to disentail the aims of the

author to discover the fact. This sounds simplistic in theory but

examine the case of St Augustine‘s confessions: what was intend-

ed to be a truthful account of his life transpires into a elaborate

labyrinth of exaggeration and understatement, far from the hones-

ty of the saint he is proclaimed to be. If the fact is isolated from

the purpose we are left with a history of number not a history of

the people, the history has ceased to exist and has become a sci-

ence. This ―Cut and paste‖ as Carr labels it fails to educate but

instead reports, removing the skills of history.

The notion of history is to tell of the past without influence and bias, however this is a task which remains impossi-

ble as a result of human nature; everyone has allegiances and beliefs which impacts their perception of events. A

notable example from modern history is the involvement of ground

troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this comprehension of the

human condition, the notion of set roles and ideas emerges, for it is

seen as wrong to hold the view or an account of the past which runs

counterintuitive to the prepaid narrative. This form of academic re-

striction has had a detrimental impact on the discussion of the holo-

caust and other recent genocides, preventing true understanding and

meaning to emerge. It is therefore viewed that history is used as a tool

to voice the concerns and ideas of

today through the events of the past,

for he who controls the past controls

the future. A prime example of this comes through the emancipation proclama-

tion of 1863. It is often stated the USA underwent a transgenic shift in race per-

ception when the Act was passed, however this is simply a fallacy since the ideas

which contributed to the freeing of the slaves derived from the founding fathers

―all men are created equal‖, not all races are equal. The greatest threat to the

notion of history however is underlined by its very nature, it must be made.

Winston Churchill once proclaimed ―History is written by the victors‖ and this

is true, we don't hear the side of those who lose for they do not hold the power.

If we did our understanding would be much different; Wat Tyler would have

been the voice of the people and not the thorn of the throne.

It is therefore imperative that when writing history your terms of stance are de-

fined as well as your circumstance, this will allow for a comprehensive decoding

process of the events. Only by understanding the nature of history can history be written to it‘s greatest and fullest.

However history has become tainted and has assumed the position of the propaganda tool, thus if you truly value

history you must brake the mould and challenge the established conditions. Then and only then will you come

close to understanding, what is history?

What is History? by Charlie Francombe

The Confessions of St. Augustine

Do we really have a clear picture of the wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan?

The Emancipation Proclamation,

10

Che Guevara: A Divisive Revolutionary by Muhammad Malhi

Che Guevara is a truly rare figure in history; he is revered as a

quintessential icon of leftist movements but he is also reviled as

a ruthless fanatic whose gentry is a hyperbolic myth. He is seen

as a revolutionary fighter as well as a spokesman for a failing

ideology; the people who took inspiration from him regard

him as a noble martyr while his detractors deride him as a man

with ―Robespierre‖ mentality. What cannot be disputed is that

his life was revolutionary and his face is now crystallised as a

symbol of rebellion.

Guevara was a Marxist idealist and a prolific writer who

sought to unite Latin America and the rest of the developing

world through violent struggle, and to disintegrate the national-

ism, poverty and disparity that had bled it for centuries. As a

young medical student, he travelled throughout South America

and he witnessed a continent ravaged by inequality; this experi-

ence radicalised Guevara and gave birth to an aggressive en-

deavour to overthrow the Capitalist system which he perceived was decaying Latin America. The en-

lightening experience amalgamated with his deep interest in Marxism to convince him that the only

solution to Southern and Central America‘s problems was combative revolution; he proclaimed the

famous words of Marx as he strived to ―let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic Revolution‖.

He would go onto join Fidel Castro‘s ―26th July

Movement‖ with the intention of removing the

American-backed Fulgenico Batista from power in

Cuba. His tactical success is epitomised by his rise

to power as he, an Argentine among a plethora of

Cubans, became the second-in-command and his

strategic ability played a critical role in ousting Ba-

tista.

The military ingenuity of Guevara came to the fore

when he led the seven week march towards Ha-

vana. In the final days of 1958 Guevara decisively

led his ―suicide squad‖ in the attack on Santa

Clara; within twelve hours the defeated Batista left Cuba and Castro took full command. The victory is

rightfully regarded as a ―remarkable tour de force in modern warfare‖ as Guevara‘s forces eventually

won despite being outnumbered ten soldiers to one. It was this virtuoso skill in securing the fall of a

corrupt dictator that announced to the world that this was a resolute man who was willing to throw

down the gauntlet to the bourgeoisie. His bravery seemed to project itself so strongly that it even

earned the respect of the enemies he fought in the war.

Havana March, 5th May, 1960

Che Guevara (1928—1967)

This can be seen through Iglesias‘s recount of the time when he was wounded in battle: "Che ran out

to me, defying the bullets, threw me over his shoulder. The guards didn't dare fire at him ... later they

told me he made a great impression on them when they saw him run out… ignoring the danger, they

didn't dare shoot." In one sense Guevara was an anti-imperialist idealist, the empathetic practitioner of

medicine who was able to employ the pen and machine gun with strikingly equal skill; he was the revo-

lutionary who rejected the comfort of middle class splendour to pursue a life where he would chal-

lenge the imperialism and capitalism which he believed was responsible for the Third World‘s under-

development. Guevara was and continues to be a hero for many with Nelson Mandela lauding him as

"an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom".

Guevara is also loathed as a brutal individual whose martyrdom is a myth.

His reputation as a harsh disciplinarian has long been scrutinised. The peri-

od from 1958 to 1959 saw the executions of hundreds of people nation-

wide as Guevara gave the orders to punish Batista‘s officials; he had now

become a ―hardened man‖ who was not fazed by the humanitarian implica-

tions of the death penalty. This has led many, such as Armando Valladares,

to claim that he did not afford others a systematic legal process. Yet, this

does not suggest that he was a callous executioner; Jon Lee Anderson has

emphasised that "I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a

case where Che executed an innocent‖. Notions that he was a violent killer

are unsupported. Guevara‘s main ambition was to bring revolution across

Latin America and it must be argued that he failed in achieving his ultimate

aim. The attempted revolution in Congo was deemed to be a disaster with

Guevara himself describing his recount of it as ―a history of failure‖. He then embarked on fomenting

a revolution in Bolivia and this would prove to be his last endeavour as he was executed by Bolivian

troops. Guevara was unable to sow the seeds of revolution across his beloved Latin America and

hence, by failing to achieve his major ambition, he can be described as a revolutionary who failed. It

must be acknowledged that Guevara advocated Communism, an ideology that would go onto suffer an

abrupt collapse. Under the banner of Marxism-Leninism regimes across the world, whether they be in

China, Russia or Cambodia, claimed the lives of millions of people; the Revolutions of 1989 signified

that Communism fell amidst universal denunciation.

Che Guevara is one of history‘s most idiosyncratic personalities. He is not the gracious saint that

some people worship nor is he the murderer that others despise. He was an ideologue who was coura-

geous when fighting with his comrades and a guerrilla whose coldly analytical mind encouraged him to

be merciless when confronted with his enemies. As he was surrounded by Bolivian soldiers in the Yu-

ro ravine and facing death, his final words echoed what he truly was: ―"Shoot me, you coward! You are

only going to kill a man!" Guevara was a man who lived a revolutionary life and he was prepared to die

for what he believed in; he was the idealistic romantic who was willing to use violence to create an im-

possible utopia. His voracious tenacity led him to his romantic death.

11

Recommended reading:

Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson

Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge Castaneda

The Motorcycle Diaries by Che Guevara

Brave freedom fighter or brutal

murderer?

The Ming Dynasty by Douglas Ledgerwood

The Ming dynasty ruled China from 1368 to 1644, succeeding the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty which had ruled since

1271. It was a period of impressive Chinese economic and military advances, which also boasted a refined culture and

an efficient political system, especially during that time period.

The dynasty was founded and named by Zhu Yuanzhang who is also known by

his ‗era name‘ Hongwu.

Zhu began his reign by sending his 26 sons each to a province to control the

court in that province. In doing this, he was able to command a more complete

control over China. Being from a humble background, Zhu recognised the

hardship that the peasants in China faced and was keen to ensure that they were

not mistreated as he had been in his childhood. He therefore introduced the

Yellow Records and the Fish Scale Records which each made sure that the gov-

ernment received all the land tax they were owed and to affirm that peasants

would not lose their land.

Following Zhu Yuanzhang‘s death and a coup to overthrow his grandson, Zhu

Di came into power as the Yongle Emperor and a ―second founding‖ - a pros-

perous period for China - followed.

The middle of the Ming reign saw a reversal in trade policy. Foreign trade was

now permitted and the private merchant trade that resulted led to prosperity for

everyone in China. The merchants who were originally at the bottom of China‘s

social hierarchy enjoyed education in culture and literacy from their involve-

ment in the trading industry. The empire effectively became a free market dur-

ing this time – a huge step away from no foreign trade at all. It allowed the poor

to experience a wealthier life-

style which would have never before been possible, despite Zhu Yu-

anzhang‘s sympathy for peasants and those at the bottom of the social

ladder.

During this period, capitalism and urbanisation developed through the

growth of the handicraft industry. This growth was largely down to the

exports of various commodities such as silk, tobacco, alcohol, porce-

lain, crops and others to mostly Middle-Eastern countries. Later on, a

return to a ban on shipping goods and the policy of restraining com-

merce hindered the expansion of the economy and the progress of cap-

italism.

China developed a wonderful culture during the period of Ming rule. It

was the most literate society at the time and produced great works of

literacy and philosophy through Wang Yangming‘s work on

‗philosophy of the mind‘ and 3

masterpieces of Chinese litera-

ture in Journey to the West, Outlaws of the Marsh and Romance of Three

Kingdoms. In the arts, China put on grand displays of its wonderful porcelain

and calligraphy. Some of the works from this period are considered the most

precious in the world. The Chinese would often offer its porcelain to countries

abroad when on trade expeditions.

Despite being seemingly comfortable to be a citizen in the Ming dynasty, its fall

was ultimately due to the rebellions which were a result of people not being

able to pay for food. Their fear of the court and respect for the court marshals

had waned towards the end of the Ming era which contributed to people‘s will-

ingness to revolt in various places across China.

The Ming dynasty paved the way for China as we know it today,

especially in the cultural sense with their porcelain and other works of art which have survived the test of

time. It was an intriguing and innovative time for China and one in which they cemented themselves as a

world power.

12

Zhu Yuanzhang

Chinese Red Seal Trading Ship

The Emperor Nerva by Tom Coates

13

One of the more controversial opinions which I hold, and

one which I have ardently defended on multiple occasions,

is that Nerva was in fact the second most successful Em-

peror of the First Fourteen Emperors of Ancient Rome –

that is: the Julio-Claudian dynasty; the three less related

emperors from the Year of the Four Emperors (69A.D.)

and the Flavian dynasty; as well as Nerva, Trajan and Ha-

drian. The most successful emperor of these 14 and in-

deed of all time is indisputably Augustus – his reforms sur-

vived intact and unamended for over 400 years and aspects

of the system which he founded survive, albeit modified to

the point of unrecognisability, in the Catholic Church of

the modern day.

The second most successful emperor, however, is strictly

up for debate, with the obvious candidates being characters

such as Trajan, Vespasian and even Claudius. The less obvious candidate here, and the

one which I feel was most successful, even if unintentionally,

was the short-lived emperor Nerva. Whilst emperors such as

Trajan made military gains, Vespasian brought short-term

peace and Claudius introduced the Imperial bureaucracy

proper, Nerva guaranteed something more important: by

adopting Trajan, who was completely unrelated to him, as a

successor, he set a precedent which would lead to peace for

the next hundred years of the empire: the example of adopting

a successor based on their competence and skills rather than

familial relations, and as a result led to a very prodigious 100

years of relative tranquillity which would only end with the

Year of the Five Emperors in 193 AD. This precedent, even if

it was set only as a result of Nerva‘s hand being forced due to

Trajan‘s military predominance, is still one of the most im-

portant examples set in the history of the empire and one which was used by Nerva him-

self to prevent his overthrow by the pre-eminent antagonist to his rule at the time: that is to

say, Trajan himself. Nerva is not an emperor a lot of people have heard of or place any re-

al value upon, but he was directly responsible for one of the longest periods of internal

peace in the Roman Empire.

Nerva ruled for only two years, from

96 to 98 AD.

Augustus, who ruled from 27 BC to 14 AD,

was perhaps the most successful Emperor.

On Wednesday 5th February 2014, Phil, Alastair, Kieran and

I accompanied the Lessons From Auschwitz Project—which is run by

the Holocaust Educational Trust— on a trip to Poland, during which we visited

Oswiecim, Auschwitz 1 and Auschwitz 2 (the latter of which is more commonly known

as Auschwitz-Birkenau). It was a very moving and thought-provoking visit, and one that

we were all very glad to have attended.

14

The ‗Lessons From Auschwitz Project‘

We went from Krakow airport initially to the town of Oswiecim - once a town with a thriving

Jewish community before the war with a population of 8000. It was a sobering experience to

discover that the great synagogue had been destroyed and the Jewish population was now completely gone because of

the Holocaust. It demonstrated how easily an authoritarian state could destroy an entire culture and emphasised the

importance of stopping prejudice in the modern age as genocide still exists, for example in Rwanda and Bosnia.

From there we went to the Auschwitz 1. Entering the concentration

camp, you pass under the famous ‗Arbeit macht frei‘ sign and you

realise that many prisoners never saw the reverse side of it. We first

moved into a barrack which showed pictures of Auschwitz during the

war and a particular image – a satellite image of the camp - struck me

particularly. We were told by the guide how the pictures were taken

by allied bombers, and that they were told not to bomb the rail lines

because they were not military objectives- leading to the deaths of

many thousands of people. It showed to me how bystanders had a

great effect on the Holocaust as many just turned a blind eye to the

murder in order to achieve their own aims.

We then went into a second building that had areas where various brutal punishments occurred. We passed a cubicle

where prisoners would be forced to stand for hours on end, and we realised that the Holocaust was not just about gas

chambers, but other injustices as well, injustices that attempted to strip people‘s dignity away. Outside, we walked into

the yard to the ‗wall of death‘. The silence here seemed eerie in a place where so many people had been executed, and

you could realise the human cost of the Holocaust, not just the statis-

tics, as although the events occurred long in the past, you could empa-

thise with the victims, as you could see the place where they died. We

moved to outside the fence and we saw the gallows where the camp

commandant, Rudolf Hoess was executed. We were told that often

the perpetrators of the Holocaust were just normal people – Hoess

himself had 5 children and a wife. This showed to us clearly the ease

of how such a tragedy could occur, and again highlighted the im-

portance of stopping prejudice. We then viewed the gas chamber,

which evoked similar emotions to the wall of death – I personally was

shocked to be standing in the place where so many people had died,

and was humbled to have seen the last sight of so many victims of the

Holocaust.

Finally, in another barrack, there were on display the belongings of the victims taken from them at ‗Kanada‘. Many of

the belongings were akin to those of today: glasses, dolls, shoes. In such a way, it showed that the victims

were not just a statistic but were just like us. The vast array of shoes in a room belonged to thousands was

the result of just a few days worth of hunting on the part of the Germans. This made it all the more poign-

ant, as you could imagine that so many people that you know now would have been in a similar situation...

Alastair Prince

Jack Nicholls

Thousands of ordinary items taken by the Germans

were on display.

We paid a brief visit to Oswiecim.

15

...After this we visited Auschwitz- Birkenau, the site of the largest death camp maintained by the

Nazis during WW2. Initially we climbed the tower of the infamous guardhouse, which made it

clear just how large the camp was; huts stretched as far as the eye could see, and we were told that an extension had

been planned for the camp (although this had never been built.) We then walked around the site of the camp (led by

our able guide Pasha), viewing the atrocious conditions experi-

enced by all inmates; from the cold wooden huts in which they

slept 4 to a bed to the toilet hut, where a job as a

‗scheisskommando‘ (toilet cleaner) was valued by inmates simply

because they could talk to people. Following this we walked

alongside the long rail tracks deeper into the camp, passing the

ruins of the camp on both sides and an iconic rail cart which

would have transported thousands of Jews inside. The atmos-

phere was difficult to describe; the sun was shining but it was eeri-

ly quiet, with everyone in silence and no birds to be heard. Our

tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau continued as we visited the ruins of

the destroyed gas chambers, and then Kanada 1 – where the

properties of prisoners were confiscated and sorted. Where this

stood there was now an exhibition which contained one particu-

larly powerful section – walls plastered with the life stories and

family photos of people who were killed in Auschwitz. This had such an impact because it really humanised the victims

– figures such as 6 million casualties do not really mean much but these stories of lives which were so tragically cut short

was yet another reminder of the horror which took place.

The trip ended with a ceremony which took place at the end of the rail tracks in the trees of Auschwitz, in the shadow

of the Jewish memorial and not far from the ruins of the crematoria. By this point the sun had gone down; it was cold

and dark which only added to the atmosphere. We had been accompanied on the trip by Rabbi Barry Marcus, who led

a memorial service which included some of his own Jewish prayer. The service also included numerous readings by

participants in the course, including two Wilson‘s students who read ‗A dream‘ by Abraham Kopolovitz – a young Jew-

ish boy who wrote a poem of hope and dreams whilst living in the terrible conditions of the ghetto. Following this, every

person lit a candle they had been given and placed it in the surrounding area – on the tracks or the memorial. The con-

trast of the flickering flames against the cold darkness was truly a sight to behold and left everyone in a quiet, reflective

mood.

Lessons...

Over the following weeks we were able to reflect on our trip to Poland and some of the lessons that could be taken

from Auschwitz. When regarding the Holocaust it is important to personalise everyone involved – from the victims to

the perpetrators, as this gives us a greater understanding of the events and how it really affected people. The question

of how such an atrocity could occur – a purge which spread right across Europe and required the involvement of mil-

lions, from Greek officials to French train drivers and the SS guards themselves – is one which is still difficult to answer,

and will forever be thus. But it is nonetheless a stark reminder of exactly what can happen when the worst of human

nature manifests itself; when people allow themselves to be consumed by fear, and anger, and hatred, when regimes

which thrive on conflict and racism are allowed to come into power. The slippery slope which began when Hitler rose

to power in 1933 and descended into the removal of Jewish rights and eventually the persecution and mass genocides

of the early 1940s shows just how quickly hatred and discrimination can become the norm, and people will do what the

regime says simply because it has been normalised to them. It is our duty in the modern world to ensure that we contin-

ue to maintain standards of equality and do not permit the rise of far right movements which thrive on hatred – whilst

the Holocaust is extreme, it is nonetheless an example of what can happen when prejudice is left unchecked.

And yet the Holocaust provides us, or me at least, with another feeling as well. It was in the sunshine that beat down

upon the green fields alongside the wooden huts. It was in the gentle breeze rustling through the trees and the flickering

of the candlelight in the darkness, illuminating the rail tracks down to that famous gatehouse. And that‘s the sense of

hope that pervades amongst humanity, even when there is no reason to hope. On the site of Auschwitz-Birkenau an

excavation found a diary which had been buried by a Sonderkommando – one of the Jews charged with burning the

bodies of his comrades. In it he tells of the horrors he has witnessed in the faith that eventually they would be found by

liberators, and so even in such a bleak and desperate time he still believed that someday the Nazi regime – which would

have seemed all-powerful – would have been defeated. And whilst we cannot always guarantee that the righteous will

triumph over evil – indeed, it is impossible to ever class anyone under either adjective – that faith is what makes us hu-

man and means that when we remember the Holocaust, remember all those that died and the lessons we must take

from it, we also remember that hope remains within each of us and it is never too late to dream and believe in what we

hold dear to us.

Phil Knott

The trip finished with a candle-lit ceremony.

The True Horror of the Holocaust

Here are some more images of our trip to Auschwitz:

When you are taught of the Holocaust you hear of the 11 million deaths, 6 mil-

lion of which were of Jewish heritance; the horrendous conditions of the concen-

tration camps and of Auschwitz. However these are not the truly horrific aspect of the Holocaust. True 11

million is an unimaginable number, however it is too generalised. Every one of this 11 million was a separate

person, an individual with a family, a life and a story, millions of which are lost forever. Therefore the true

horror of the Holocaust is told in the stories of survivors, and they tell the tale of the Sonderkommandos.

The Sonderkommandos, or ‗special detail‘, were groups of prisoners, all of

whom were Jewish, forced by the Nazi commanders of the various camps to

carry out abominable tasks in and around the gas chambers. The worst of the-

se was the persuading of fellow inmates to ‗shower‘ within the gas chambers.

With towels and bars of soap the Sonderkommandos deceived their fellow

inmates into wilfully walking into the chambers created for one reason: the

mass execution of the Jewish race, and other ‗undesirables‘. However once the

Sonderkommandos had finished shutting the gas chambers their job was not

done; ten minutes later, after the lives of 1,500 people had been extinguished,

the more gruesome task of the Sonderkommando began. The Nazi com-

manders used these special details as slave labour in removing the bodies from

the gas chambers and feeding the ever-burning furnaces so that no evidence of

the Nazi crimes would remain.

‗Work sets you free‘ - the sinister sign at entrance to

Auschwitz 1.

Inside one of the refurbished barracks of Auschwitz 1.

Auschwitz 1—before the war this was a Polish Ar-

my barracks, hence the firm, brick construction.

16

Kieran Redmond

Sonderkommando in Auschwitz-

Birkenau, August 1944.

The Gas Chamber in Auschwitz 1. This was a very moving

part of our trip, as we discovered that over 700 people were

gassed at any one time in a building the size of a bungalow.

The toilets, which provided the lucky in-

mates with much-needed contact with one

another.

Kanada 1—the site in which all the stolen possessions

were stored.

The remains of one of the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau,

in which the Sonderkommando were forced to work, inveigling

the victims into the building, and subsequently burning their bod-

ies.

A view of the track of Auschwitz-Birkenau from the tower.

Over 1 million people arrived on these tracks and died at the

death camp, which was the largest camp built to fulfil the

‗Final Solution to the Jewish Question‘.

The path to the Gas Chamber at Auschwitz 1, along which

many children walked to their deaths.

17

18

The Columbian Exchange by James Nash

Despite popular opinion, pizza as we know it (i.e. bread

base with tomato sauce and cheese topping) didn‘t actually

exist until the late 18th century. While there were various

foods labelled as pizza, the modern pizza didn‘t appear for

so long precisely because it was impossible for it to be cre-

ated until that point. This is because tomatoes, the core

ingredient that lends the sweetness to a slice of pie, weren‘t

found within Europe until the early 16th century, when

they were brought back by explorers who had been to the

newly discovered land mass of America.

Thus, tomatoes are part

of a process termed ‗the

Columbian Exchange‘ –

the trading of various

materials between the

Americas and Europe

upon Columbus‘ dis-

covery, all of which

changed the world.

There are three main items of exchange; disease, livestock

and plants.

Diseases from the Old world

that travelled to the New were

those such as smallpox and mea-

sles, and they devastated the

people there. Smallpox in partic-

ular far surpassed any wars of

the period, and even the Black

Death in its relative death toll,

and, coupled with the various

other diseases brought from the

Old World is thought to have

wiped out 95% of Native Americans in the first 100 years

after Columbus‘ discovery. In many cases, it‘s even thought

that this exchange even aided the conquest of the Native

Americans by the Old World powers – the Incans had

been thrown into civil war by the death by smallpox of

their emperor, allowing the Spaniard, Pizarro, to conquer

various Incan lands. On the reverse side, it is now thought

that syphilis was actually given to the old world by the New,

and since the chief contractors of the disease were sailors,

who visited many ports around the world, the

disease quickly spread across the entire globe.

The introduction of

livestock also revolu-

tionised the new

world – before the

arrival of Columbus,

the largest livestock

used by the Native

Americans was the

Alpaca, which could

carry a maximum of around 100 pounds. The intro-

duction of cows and oxen therefore saw an increase in

agricultural production. The largest cultural impact,

however, came from the introduction of the Horse.

These animals saw the rebirth of large parts of Native

American culture, as people

moved away from agriculture

and towards a nomadic life-

style hunting buffalo on horse-

back – a shift that influenced

the culture of the Native

Americans, who would be

seen during the era of the

cowboy several hundred years

later.

The most important change for the Old World howev-

er came from the introduction of new plants. These

included potatoes, tomatoes, chilli peppers, cocoa

beans, bananas and maize. Several of these crops were

able to be grown in otherwise unusable soil in the Old

World, aiding in the massive population boom across

the world. In Ireland the average worker by 1840 ate

50 potatoes a day – paving the way for the devastation

caused by the potato famine. Most important to our

story, however were the introduction of tomatoes,

which at first were unpopular due to people believing

that they were poisonous, eventually leading to the cre-

ation of the pizza.

So that was the Columbian exchange – on the one

hand, hundreds of species and thousands of people

were wiped out, on the other, the new food and live-

stock created population booms across the world, and

started us towards the globalisation we see today.

Whether or not this was worth the cost is debatable –

the only solid fact we can ascertain is that pizza would

not have been possible without it.

Smallpox has been very influential.

Tomatoes arrived from America.

The Horse has had a huge cultural impact

upon Native America.

Despite its almost universal popularity, pizza is

a relatively new addition to the European pal-

ate.

HISTORICAL FACT FILE

Name: Lord Horatio Kitchener

Nationality: British

Birth: 24 June 1850

Ballylongford, County Kerry, Ireland

Death: 5 June 1916

West of the Orkney Islands, Scotland

Occupation: Military Commander/

Colonial Administrator/Statesman

Historical scene: 1871—1916 British

Empire conquests and the First World

War

Historical Importance: Most famous for his First World War recruitment

poster, Kitchener held a variety of commands throughout his illustrious military ca-

reer.

In 1871, Kitchener joined the Royal Engineers. The early years of his time in the

Army were full of numerous engagements and skirmishes, the most notable of

which were the failure to relieve General Gordon at Khartoum in 1884-1885, and

the successful Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan against the forces of the extremist

al-Mahdi in 1898. Afterwards he was made governor of the re-conquered Sudan,

and became a national hero.

In 1900, Kitchener was appointed chief of staff to Lord Roberts, the British com-

mander in the Boer War. Kitchener‘s reaction to Boer resistance has been heavily

criticised. His measures included the use of camps to imprison civilians, which is

seen as the origin of the concentration camp.

He was made Viscount Kitchener and Commander in Chief India in 1902; Procon-

sul of Egypt in 1911; and an Earl in 1914. At the outbreak of World War One he

became Secretary of State for War. Unlike many of his colleagues, he believed that

the war would last for years, and so enlisted volunteer ‗Kitchener‘ armies, which

were to be made up of the infamous ‗Pals‘ battalions. But his support for the disas-

trous Dardanelles campaign in 1915, combined with the ‗shell crisis‘ the same year,

eroded his reputation.

Sent on a mission to Russia in June 1916, Kitchener drowned on 5th June when his

ship, HMS Hampshire, was sunk by a German mine.

19

Located in the Middle East and surrounded by Arab

countries, Israel‘s population was only 32% Jewish in

1948, numbering just over 600,000 people. But in

2014, the population of Israel is 8.1 million, 6.1 mil-

lion of whom are Jews. So where did all these people

come from?

The answer is rather complex. During the Holo-

caust, Hitler had six million Jews exterminated in

concentration camps. During and after World War

II, millions of Jews fled Europe to escape persecu-

tion and opposition back home and they and their

descendants make up the majority of Jews in Israel

nowadays. This is all common knowledge. But what

many people do not know of is the vast exodus of

Jews from Arab countries in the aftermath of World

War II.

Anti-Semitism has always been a problem in the Ar-

ab world. In June 1941, anti-Jewish riots took place

in Baghdad in which at least 180 Jews were killed.

Similar events took place in Libya in November

1945 where 130 Jews were killed and in December

1947, when 97 Jews were massacred in Yemen. The-

se are just a select few of the atrocities that happened

and, when Israel opened its doors, the

majority of Jews living in Muslim majority

countries seized the opportunity and fled.

Escaping to Israel by Matthew Waterfield

20

In 1948, there were roughly 1.4 million Jews living in

the Maghreb (North Africa) and Arab lands. Today

there are less than 8000.

A good example is Iraq. In 1948, there were 135,000

Jews living in Iraq, but the community faced heavy

persecution. On top of the Baghdad riots of 1941, a

new law had been passed that year forbidding Jews

from engaging in banking, discharging them from all

government positions and dismissing them from their

jobs working for the railways, post offices and more.

Although emigration to Israel was forbidden, it kept

occurring, illegally, and by 1950, the Iraqi authorities

permitted the airlift of 120,000 Jews to Israel, in Op-

eration Ezra and Nehemiah. By 1968, there were only

2,000 Jews left and today, there are estimated to be

only seven Jews left living in Iraq.

Iraq is not unique in any way. There are no Jews at all

left in Libya, where there were once 40,000, in Alge-

ria the number has dwindled from 120,000 to less

than 50 and in war-torn Syria, with a Jewish popula-

tion numbering 30,000 in 1948, there are now 17 left,

all over the age of 60.

Large swathes of Iraq are ruled by a group whose vi-

ciousness is comparable to the Nazis, Syria is in

flames, Yemen is still in abject poverty and Libya is a

failed state, with an ongoing insurgency. On top of

this, many people in these countries still harbour the

same anti-Semitic attitudes that led to the exodus in

the first place. Taking all this into consideration, it‘s

highly unlikely that Jews will be willing to swap the

―land of milk and honey‖ for the lands of unrest and

dictatorships.

Many Jews were forced out of Arab countries in the first few years

after World War Two.

The predominantly-Jewish nation of Israel is surrounded by hostile,

Arab neighbours.

Wilson‘s History Andrew McDonald explores the life of Old-Wilsonian and VC winner Harold Auten

1,354 men have been awarded the Victoria Cross since its establishment in 1856, and all must be commended for the immense

bravery which they have displayed. One recipient, deceased since 1964, was Harold Auten—Old Wilsonian who served in the Roy-

al Naval Reserve for the duration of the First World War.

Born on 22nd August in 1891 in Leatherhead, Surrey, Auten was a pupil at Wilson‘s during the inaugural dec-

ade of the twentieth century, at which time the school was still located at its original site in Camberwell. After

finishing his education there in 1909, he joined the Royal Navy Reserves the following year in 1910, beginning

his service in Q-ships. These were merchant ships equipped with a large amount of defensive arms, whose pri-

mary purpose was to lure enemy submarines into making surface attacks, given that ostensibly they posed no

threat to them. However, having surfaced, these submarines became easy targets for Q ships, as upon revealing

their arms they were able to dispatch them quickly and efficiently. Greatly used by the Royal Navy during the

First World War, these ships formed an integral part of British countermeasures against the notorious German

U-boats, which preyed on British vessels to devastating effect. Auten continued his service in them once the war

broke out in 1914, and by 1917 he had been promoted to Lieutenant after three successful years of combat.

However, it was in 1918 that his already prestigious career- he was

awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in 1917- culminated in his

becoming a recipient of the Victoria Cross. On 30th July at 5:00 pm,

a German U-boat torpedoed Auten‘s Q-ship, wrecking the fore part

of the ship such that it was disabled and quickly began to flood at the

front. After initial impact the crew calmly mobilised itself in response

to what was clearly a terrifying threat to their lives, removing the

wounded to the lower deck where they could be treated and dis-

patching a ‗panic party.‘ This was a small group of sailors who cau-

tiously rode away from the Q-ship, giving the impression that it had

been abandoned which in turn induced the enemy U-boat to ap-

proach it, thereby bringing it within range of Auten‘s hidden guns.

However, Auten daringly waited even longer, until the U-boat was

completely perpendicular to his ship‘s length, which placed all of his guns in a position to fire at it. Now primed, Auten‘s ship

opened fire, its first shots striking the U-boat at its water-line, rupturing its side and blowing out a number of its crew. Now com-

pletely emasculated, the U-boat subsided several feet into the water with her bows risen, presenting an immovable target to Auten‘s

ship, which itself was gradually sinking. Auten pounded the U-boat with shells accordingly, until it eventually sank with just a small

amount of debris left in its place. His willingness to risk the lives of the entirety of his crew in order to maximise his chance of de-

stroying the U-boat marked his enormous bravery and capacity for initiative and composure, wholly justifying the Victoria Cross as

a reward for and recognition of his actions against a ruthless enemy. Him and his crew were rescued four hours later that evening,

and thus one of the finest examples of organisation and deceit in the history of the Q-ships was brought to a close.

After the War, Auten wrote the first book on Q-ships in 1919, which was entitled Q Boat Adventures. In

the Inter-war period he had a successful career working in New York in the entertainment industry, as

executive vice-president of The Rank Organisation, a British film company which became the largest of its

kind in Britain. Yet he continued his service in the Royal Navy up until the end of the Second World

War, during which he was one of the senior staff organising trans-Atlantic convoys which provided Britain

and the Allies with essential supplies and munitions. As well as being awarded the Victoria Cross in 1918,

he was made an Officer of the United States Legion of Merit and a Commander of the Dutch Order of

Orange-Nassau, both in recognition of his laudable services to the Allied cause during the Second World

War. He spent the remaining 19 years of his life living peacefully in America, where he died in 1964 in

Bushkill, Pennsylvania. He left behind him a quiet legacy of honour and exemplary leadership, as one of

the many unsung heroes of military conflict of whom both the school and anyone looking to respect the

past achievements of these great people should be immensely proud.

21

H.M.S. Stock Force, the Q-Ship captained by Harold Auten.

‗Q-Boat Adventures‘,

Auten‘s novel.

Harold Auten

22

The Birth of the NHS: in a crisis, be revolutionary by James

Gunnell

In a recent article in the Daily Telegraph, our adoration of the National Health Service was accu-

rately summarised with ‗The NHS – Britain‘s national religion‘. The idea of free and compre-

hensive ‗cradle to grave‘ social security has resonated profoundly with us and the principle of

compassion underlying the Beveridge report is a hallmark of our society. Understandably, solu-

tions to the challenges faced by the NHS such as a small budget and an ageing population has

created controversy, but where has our commitment to the NHS come from? Furthermore,

could the historical context of the foundation of the NHS help politicians decide how we can

confront future problems?

In 1911, the National Health Insurance Act passed by David

Lloyd George set a precedent for collective contribution for

community health care. It was a scheme whereby a proportion

of a worker‘s wages were taken, topped up by the Government

and used to subsidise healthcare costs. However, this was limited

only to workers. The unemployed and those on extortionately

low wages were left to rely on voluntary hospitals or local author-

ities to provide them with free care. Arguments for a nationally -

funded health service were first propagated by Dr Benjamin

Moore in 1910, then in 1930 the Socialist Medical Association

championed this radical concept. The Second World War pro-

vided the real catalyst for change. The influx of wounded sol-

diers and air-raid casualties forced the government to establish

the Emergency Medical Service in 1939, in which the govern-

ment took control of voluntary and local hospitals.

As the tide of war began to swing in the allies‘ favour, the govern-

ment realised that the voluntary hospitals had become economi-

cally dependent on the Emergency Medical Service. Furthermore,

the ideological aspect behind the war created a widespread appe-

tite for social and health support for those who were suffering.

During the war, communities across Britain were forced to make

sacrifices for the greater good of defeating the evil of Nazism. Ci-

vilians suffered from the trauma of bombing, workers committed

more hours in hazardous factories, food was rationed and soldiers

suffered from the fierce fighting of many huge battles. The total

death toll reached 495,000 in Britain. This notion of a collective

effort was reflected by the 1942 Beveridge report. Whilst war was

being waged against Hitler, Beveridge defined Britain‘s conflict

with the ‗five giant evils‘: disease, squalor, want, idleness and igno-

rance. Beveridge wanted everyone to provide a contri-

bution to fight these evils and argued for justice and equality in the provision of social

security.

Lloyd George set a precedent for the future

NHS.

In 1942 William Beveridge published his

hugely influential report.

23

Beveridge famously declared that ‗a revolutionary

moment in the world‘s history is a time for revolu-

tions, not for patching‘. This has huge relevance

for the current problems faced by the NHS. The

regulator ‗Monitor‘ estimates that 64 of 145 Hos-

pital trusts in England will be in deficit by the end

of the year. David Cameron has promised to pro-

tect the NHS budget in the next parliament, but

this is insufficient as new technology is more ex-

pensive to use and an ageing population is more

costly to treat. The NHS is undoubtedly in a financial crisis, yet the government would do well to

reflect on how a similar crisis was met in 1948. Radical reform is needed and it is not just in-

creased privatisation that will solve the budget ‗black hole‘. Amalgamating social care of the elder-

ly with NHS hospital trusts would decrease hospital admission costs, as treatment could be pro-

vided whilst avoiding a hospital visit. Britain‘s worsening health propagated by drinking, smoking

and obesity is placing a burden on the NHS which outweighs arguments of freedom of choice

and liberalism. Taxing cigarettes and alcohol could make up the cost these have on society as

well as restoring the concept that we are all responsible and accountable for maintaining the so-

cial health system.

The creation of the NHS was orchestrated

mainly by Aneurin Bevan. He proposed a

system that was nationally funded and na-

tionally run. He largely excluded local au-

thorities as 80% of the cost of the NHS fell

on central government‘s funds. Arguably,

by bypassing local authorities he restricted

the ability for the local community to have

a say in how problems relevant to that area

should be dealt with. Furthermore, oppor-

tunities for the use of local initiative was

reduced. This principle of central control

was challenged in the 1990s as reform,

spearheaded by Tony Blair, made hospi-

tals ‗providers‘ and GPs ‗purchasers‘. The

GP fundholders represented the patient yet also invested in the hospital that was charging the

lowest price for treatment. This resulted in a more efficient system and one that was more fo-

cused on patient care. This change demonstrates that fundamental reform of a key principle can

strengthen the NHS.

Politicians should take heed: the NHS is a national religion we all value hugely, but they should

not fear making efforts to improve it.

Current Prime Minister David Cameron may not be doing

enough to reform the NHS.

Aneurin Bevan helped to create the National Health Service after the Second

World War.

24

The July Crisis of 1914: who was responsible for the outbreak of

the First World War? by Andrew McDonald

Understanding the outbreak of the First World War is notorious-

ly difficult, as it requires one to wrestle with the many different

and conflicting interpretations as to which nation caused it, or,

perhaps more accurately, which nation bears the most responsi-

bility for it. The principle actors on one side were the German

and Austro-Hungarian Empires, who together with Italy formed

the Triple Alliance, a coalition which bound all three of them to

support one another in the event of one being attacked. On the

other side were France, Britain and Russia, who had their own

counter-part to the Triple Alliance - the Triple Entente - which

obliged them to support one another in the same manner as the

Triple Alliance did its members. However, it was in Serbia where

the first short-term event that triggered the war took place-the

assassination of Archduke Ferdinand

of Austria, who was killed by a Serbi-

an nationalist named Gavrilo Princip

as an overt act of protest against Aus-

tria-Hungary‘s annexation of south

Slavic Balkan territories, of which

Serbia was one. What ensued was a

number of weeks of misguided war-

mongering mixed with inadequate and

often lacklustre attempts at diplomacy,

a combination in which the former

eventually quashed the latter and so led these five principal actors

into a war which would ravish Europe and brutally dispel the

anachronistic beliefs that war was still tame and winnable with

ease. These few weeks are collectively referred to as the ‗July

Crisis‘ or the ‘37 days‘, as a prelude to the official beginning of

the First World War on 28th July, on which the first official dec-

laration of was made by Austria-Hungary on Serbia. Why war

could not be averted during this time is one of the most contro-

versial and painful questions of the past century.

Austria-Hungary

Beginning with Austria-Hungary, as the principal actor involved

in the first short-term cause of the war, it is logical and tempting

to attribute the majority of the blame to it. This is because upon

learning of the assassination of its imperial representative, Austria

-Hungary sought to capitalise on the situation by provoking a war

with Serbia which they would win. This would allow Vienna to

emasculate Serbia and so restore considerable order to its crum-

bling Empire, given that dissident Serbia was the greatest threat

out of all of the nations it had annexed. Thus Austria-Hungary

looked to cause war, by presenting Serbia with an ultimatum on

23rd July which was specifically designed to be unacceptable to

them, thereby forcing them to go to war. For example, the ultima-

tum stipulated a total purge of officials who were found to be

nationalists by the Serbian government, and censorship of all anti-

Austria-Hungary propaganda. However, Serbia actually accepted

the majority of the ultimatum, to the surprise and consternation

of Vienna. Yet still they pursued their policy of provoking war, by

hurrying all of their diplomats out of Belgrade to

prevent the Serbians from securing a peaceful set-

tlement even if they had accepted the ultimatum in

its entirety. Thus Austria-Hungary proceeded with

its warmongering, declaring war on Serbia on 28th

July and bombarding Belgrade the following day, killing off the

possibility of any final attempts at mediation. This first declara-

tion of war brought all of the remaining principal actors into the

war, through invoking the two rival Alliance systems which pre-

cipitated a domino-like chain of declarations which converted

Austria-Hungary‘s war into a European one. Thus the argument

that Austria-Hungary bears the majority of responsibility for the

war is derived from the fact that it was its irresponsible and belli-

cose warmongering with Serbia which began the chain of events

that led to the war‘s outbreak.

Germany

However, these other principle actors - Russia, Germany,

France and Britain - all to a certain extent failed to neutralise

Austria-Hungary‘s warmongering, such that it would be simplis-

tic to place all of the war-guilt on Austria-Hungary. As for Ger-

many, it was instrumental in encouraging Austria-Hungary‘s

warmongering, primarily because it provided it with what has

been called a ‗blank cheque‘-unconditional support even if its

war with Serbia escalated into a European one, such was the

enthusiasm in Berlin for European war. Berlin wanted Europe-

an war a means to test the strength of the Triple Entente, which

sandwiched Germany in an unnerving position in the centre of

Europe. However, Germany did try to restrain a steadfast Aus-

tria-Hungary by proposing mediation, but this came too late at

the end of July when all hope that Austria-Hungary would seek

peace with Serbia had evaporated. Furthermore, when Russia

declared war on Germany on 1st August, Germany immediately

commenced it‘s Schlieffen Plan by invading neutral Luxem-

bourg, Belgium and finally France, which secured Britain and

France‘s entry into the war. Hence Germany demonstrated a

destructive desire for war in the face of the opportunity it had to

prevent it by supporting the warmongering of its ally Austria-

Hungary, and even once war began between it and Russia its

military plans further escalated the growing conflict to a great

extent.

Russia

Russia‘s involvement in the July crisis can also be viewed as

miscalculated, although this time for its antagonism of Austria-

Hungary which helped induce it to declare war on Serbia. This

was because Russia, in alliance with its south Slavic brothers,

reassured Serbia that it would support it in the event of an Aus-

tro-Hungarian invasion. This support gave Serbia the confi-

dence to reject certain requirements of the ultimatum, which in

turn helped preclude a peaceful settlement being achieved be-

tween it and Austria-Hungary. What‘s more, Russian troops

were ordered to mobilise on 25th July, which helped raise the

diplomatic temperature to a level conducive to the Triple Alli-

ance turning on Russia as well as Serbia in declaring war, there-

by escalating a localised war into a European one. However,

these Russian actions were reactions to German and Austro-

Hungarian provocation, rather than calculated attempts at in-

ducing European War, and so Russia is not the most responsi-

ble for the outbreak of the war.

Gavrilo Princip

25

France

France too can be seen as in part responsible for the outbreak of

the war, chiefly because of its policy toward Russia. Whilst visit-

ing Russia on a state visit which lasted from 21st to 23rd July, the

French President - Poincaré - reassure Russia that it had a sup-

portive ally in France. This reassurance to an extent encouraged

St Petersburg to enter into the European conflict by supporting

Serbia against Austria-Hungary and Germany, as it felt confident

that should either of those two powers turn on it then it could

rely on France as an ally. Thus rather than restrain Russia,

France‘s support to a certain extent ignited within it the convic-

tion to challenge the Triple Alliance, which was a major factor in

widening the war into a European conflict. However, these ac-

tions of the French lie sufficiently far away from the root cause of

the war –the warmongering of the Triple Alliance- for it to be

implicated as the most responsible for its outbreak.

Great Britain

Finally, Britain‘s actions are unique in that it was the only princi-

ple actor which initially sought full neutrality within the Triple

Alliance/Triple Entente system, rather than immediately estab-

lishing its firm support for either of the two as all the other princi-

ple actors did. Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary since

1905, instead proposed mediation at the conference table in or-

der to diffuse the strained situation on the continent and restore

the broken mess of European diplomacy. However, call for such

mediation was rejected by Austria-Hungary and Germany, which

strengthens the case that they were warmongers seeking Europe-

an war by obstructing the diplomacy which would prevent it.

However, another interpretation is that it was Britain‘s initial neu-

trality which ensured that its calls for mediation were rejected, as

had it immediately declared its support for France it may have

intimidated Berlin into accepting mediation. Grey was a staunch

proponent of declaring such support for France, but the British

Cabinet was too divided on the issue for it to reach a consensus

which backed Grey‘s proposal, even when he threatened to re-

sign if it continued its ambivalence. Grey was only able to secure

such a consensus when Germany invaded Belgium on 4th August

as part of the Schlieffen Plan, as Britain was pledged to guarantee

Belgian independence which this invasion compromised. By this

time Germany was already at war with Russia and France, mean-

ing that Britain was far too late in its attempt to join the conflict at

a stage which would intimidate Germany into diplomacy before it

resorted to declaring war on Triple Alliance powers. Thus Britain

failed to show its hand at an early enough stage in the July Crisis

to force mediation on the Triple Alliance, although ultimately

were Germany not warmongering in the first instance there would

not have been a crisis in which Britain had to involve itself.

In Conclusion

It is abundantly clear that all of the principal actors in the July

crisis exercised poor judgment, as they failed to anticipate that

their actions were riskily increasing the likelihood of a European

war. However, a clear contrast can be drawn between the princi-

ple actors of the Triple Alliance, namely Austria-Hungary and

Germany, and those of the Triple Entente - Russia, France and

Britain. The former were actively and wholeheartedly commit-

ted to inciting European war, as demonstrated by their active

attempts to stifle diplomacy and willingness to escalate a local-

ised conflict into a European one. The Triple Entente powers,

whilst failing to challenge the Triple Alliance‘s flagrant warmon-

gering with a coordinated and sufficiently-intimidating response,

were dragged into the conflict by such warmongering, and so

their responsibility is diminished by the fact that they did not

actively provoke war to the same extent that Austria-Hungary

and Germany did. Yet even here the question of who is respon-

sible for the outbreak of the war is not fully-answered, as it re-

mains to be settled the issue of whether it was Austria-Hungary

or Germany within the Triple Alliance which bore the most

responsibility. Although Austria-Hungary was the first of the two

to provoke war, their actions were principally concerned with a

localised conflict against Serbia; Germany was the power which

brought that warmongering to the European staunch, encourag-

ing Austria-Hungary to not fear a war with Russian which re-

flects its agenda of starting a European war—a ‗World‘ war, ra-

ther than a localised one between two nations. This greater mili-

tary ambition and much more destructive vision brings a greater

amount of responsibility within the Triple Alliance to Germa-

ny‘s rather than Austria-Hungary‘s position, and so it was Ger-

many which was the most responsible for the outbreak of the

First World War.

Recommended Reading

The War That Ended Peace: How

Europe Abandoned Peace for the

First World War by Margaret

MacMillan

The Sleepwalkers: How Europe

went to war in 1914 by Christopher

Clark

Catastrophe: Europe goes to War

1914 by Max Hastings

The Pity of War: 1914—1918 by

Niall Ferguson

Take a look at our ‗Notable Anniversaries of 2014‘

page (26) to see some of the dates pertaining to the

chronology of the outbreak of the First World War!

26

Notable Anniversaries of 2014

25th January = 90 years since the first Winter Olympics, held in Chamo-

nix, France, starts.

1st February = 1964 The Beatles make their first Number 1 in the Unit-

ed States.

31st March = 125 years since the inauguration of the Eiffel Tower.

15th April = 25 years since the Hillsborough disaster.

20th April = 200 years since Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba.

4th June = 25 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre.

6th June = 70 years since the D-Day landings on the beaches of Nor-

mandy (the ‗longest day‘).

23rd/24th June = 700 years since the battle of Bannockburn.

28th June = 100 years since the assassination of the Archduke Franz Fer-

dinand in Sarajevo, which started the First World War.

28th July = 100 years since the start of the First World War.

4th August = 100 years since Britain joined the First World War.

19th August = 2,000 years since the death of Augustus Caesar, the first

Emperor of Rome.

1st September = 75 years since the German invasion of Poland.

20th October = 300 years since the coronation of King George I in

Westminster Abbey.

9th November = 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

1st December = 75 years since Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer is sup-

posed to have made his first appearance.

Give us your feedback

Getting feedback from readers helps us to do a better job. Please

take a couple of minutes to answer the questions below, and

email us your answers to:

NICHOLLSJ@WILSONSSCHOOL.SUTTON.SCH.UK

OR

MCDONALDA@WILSONSSCHOOL.SUTTON.SCH.UK

How informative did you find this magazine?

Did you like the design of the magazine?

How could we improve this magazine?

Published and promoted by Maxi Kyriakides on behalf of Wil-

son‘s Retrospective.

We hope you have enjoyed your read.

27

2014 Wilson’s Retrospective.

Printed and promoted by Wilson’s Retrospective, on behalf of Wilson’s

School, all of Mollison Drive, Sutton, Surrey, SM6 9JW.