1 

  

Christmas 2013 Edi on

 2 

  

Contents: Page 3……….Editorial 

Page 4……….Could There Be Another Adolf Hitler? 

Page 7……….The Islamic Revolution in Iran 

Page 11……….The End of Apar heid: Who Was Responsible? 

Page 14……….Did the Allies Cause World War Two? 

Page 17……….Mahat a Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’ 

Page 20………Wigan’s Roman Inheritance 

Page 22……..The Ba le of Staling ad: A Tur ing Point? 

Page 24…….Did Byzantine Aid Enable the Success of the First Cr sade? 

Page 26……..Life as an Infant an in Napoleon’s Ar y 

Page 28……..Meet Marc Mor is  

Page 30……..EXCLUSIVE Inter iew with Marc Mor is 

Page 32……..St dying Histor  at the Universit  of Bir ingham 

Page 33……….Meet the Histor  Societ  

Page 34……...Histor  Societ  Events 

 

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

thor, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College,  

or its History Society 

 3 

  

As 2014 draws ever nearer, the world is be-ginning to turn its attention to the 100th an-niversary of the beginning of World War One. Sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdi-nand at Sarajevo, the death toll of civilians and servicemen during the war mounted 6 million. Somewhat naïvely, it was dubbed ‘the war to end all wars.’ The debate as to how the war should be remembered is ongoing – Jer-emy Paxman recently sparked controversy by referring to David Cameron as a ‘complete idiot’ over his plans for the commemoration, saying ‘people get the idea that this is going to be celebrated’. There is, of course, a fine line between commemorating the bravery of soldiers, and the legacy of war, and appearing to ‘celebrate’ a conflict. This debate demon-strates the palpable presence of history on today’s society: as American author David McCullough pointed out, ‘a nation that for-gets its past can function no better than an individual with amnesia’. In short, a nation’s very being is determined by its past.

The debate concerning how the past should be commemorated is fraught with difficulties. In openly remembering the past, it’s easy to be seen as disrespectful, or insensitive. How-ever, in not remembering the past, one can appear just as disrespectful, or even ignorant. In Israel, for example, the horrors of the Holo-caust have been remembered through a si-lence on the annual Holocaust Memorial Day, since its instigation in 1951.

More recently, Germany have begun to com-memorate the loss of soldiers in World Wars One and Two. As hotly debated as this is, it is widely accepted that the past should be re-membered, and, wherever possible, learnt from. But, as Jawaharlal Nehru explained, ‘you

don’t change the course of history by turning the faces of portraits to the wall’.

This edition of the Winstanley History Maga-zine includes an incredible variety of articles, ranging from a fascinating insight into Wig-an’s Roman Heritage, to a thought-provoking assessment of the scope for the rise of ‘another Adolf Hitler’. See Page 32 for a first hand account of what it’s really like to study History at degree level, written by ex-Winstanley student Ted Griffiths. Also in this edition, is an exclusive article with prominent historian Marc Morris, presenter of the BBC series ‘Castle’.

Articles for publication in the Winstanley His-tory Magazine are always welcomed; many thanks to those who have written for this edi-tion!

Enjoy!

Phoebe McGibbon (Editor)

Editorial

 4 

  

In this article, I aim to outline the various possibilities of another rise to power, like Hitler’s, that could be so devastating it could plunge the whole world into anoth-er war. For me, the two most current threats are North Korea and their constant threat on our allies, the United States of America; and also the situation in Syria. Could the outbreak of civil war expand, as more and more countries debate and choose sides?

When studying Hitler’s rise, it is very complex. His journey to totalitarianism wasn’t so easy. Most would argue that for Hitler, this hunger for revenge began at the end of the first world war, where the Germans were forced to surrender, and not only that, they were also forced to sign and therefore accept the Treaty of Ver-sailles. This forced Germany to pay a huge

6.4 billion in reparations, a reduction in the German army to 100,000 men, 6 bat-tleships, no submarines and air force. In addition, the de-militarisation of the Rhineland and the loss of key areas like the Saar coalfields, Danzig and the Polish Corridor had a large negative impact on the German people. Hitler despised this and later vowed to rip up the treaty of Versailles - and that was a promise he kept.

Post war Hitler began working for the po-lice, spying on potentially ‘dangerous’ po-litical parties, however he found one to be of particular interest… The N.S.D.A.P.. This of course became the Nazi party. Hit-ler found some success, with his powerful and emotive speeches; these later become part of a monumental campaign, involv-ing Joseph Goebbels. As the party began to

Could There Be

Another Adolf Hitler?

By James Knowles

 5 

  

grow, Hitler deployed the SA, SS and the formidable Gestapo. These groups were his personal bodyguard and secret police force, all of which seem to be vital in any dictatorship.

It wasn’t all so easy for Hitler though, the failed ‘Beer-Hall’ Putsch of 1923 came as a great shock for Hitler. It accentuated an arrogance about him, but also showed off a lack of preparation. This saw him tried for treason and jailed. However another powerful speech within the courtroom, managed to secure Hitler the empathy of the jury, as he blamed his need for a take-over, on the ‘November Criminals’ of 1918. He was ‘rewarded’ with large cell, allowed visits from influential Nazis, and was free to write his book- Mein Kampf. The book that outlined the threat of the Jews, the need to gain Libensraum (Living space) by expanding in the east, and the desire to rip up the treaty of Versailles.

Power though, finally came in January 1933, when Hitler was named chancellor of Germany. For Hitler, his hard work had paid off. The influential propaganda cam-paign set up by Goebbles, involving torch lit marches, posters, speeches and the pog-rom of Jewish shops (Kristallnacht) all aided Hitler’s campaign, along with the depression of 1929. The hyper-inflation lead German people into desperation;

President Hindenburg had no choice, but to appoint Hitler, after increased election successes for the Nazis.

All this, lead to start of the Second World War; and Hitler’s promises to the people of Germany were being kept. The lack of punishment from the League of Nations on Germany meant Hitler could re-arm, take back the rhine-land, Sudetenland and continue his journey east to Poland, when Hitler attacked, Britain and France knew they had to step in.

The question is, nowadays, could this type of rise to power take place, unpunished, until it was too late? For me, currently there are two main threats to world safety, and they come from the current civil war in Syria, and the tyrannical leader ship in Korea of the seemingly volatile- Kim Jong Un. The Syrian threat is a strange one? If you compare this with the unrest in Ger-many before Hitler came to power, some may argue similar, maybe worse? Bashar Al-Asad succeeded his father, Hafez Al-Asad, who led the county for thirty years. This country’s leadership is very much a family affair. Hafez al-Asad prepared his son for leadership. It is the decline in hu-man rights that catches the attention first. Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia were censored. Could this be compared to the burning of Jewish books and censorship of

 6 

  

newspapers and radio broadcasts? More recently however the chemical attack on civilians really caught the attention of two of the major world powers, America and Russia. This is where the main threat came from, Russia are Syrian allies and America threatened to fire miles in order to punish Asad and his regime for using chemical weapons on the civilians, Russia were pre-pared to step in and stop the Americans. It is questionable if this old rivalry could re-emerge and could these countries have more international disputes?

The other threat, in my opinion, comes from North Korea. Similar to the Syrian rise to power, the Korean is another suc-cession of leadership. The current leader Kim Jong Un, seems to be a lot more radi-cal, not just with his propaganda, but his threats on foreign countries. The dictator-ship seems a lot more totalitarian in North Korea, than the government that leads Syria. The obvious reason being the people aren’t fighting back in North Korea, whereas in Syria they are? This didn’t seem to happen in Germany back When Hitler had secured the chancellor position. The control of the people along with their indoctrination is seemingly key to a suc-cessful dictatorship. The North Korean people are forced to sing Pro Kim-Jong Un songs, to make sure they avoid dis-respecting their ‘great’ leader.

Kim Jong Un is also similar to Hitler, with his extremely aggressive foreign policy. The only difference is, Hitler promised, and then executed; Kim on the other hand, has only threatened Missile strikes on The United States of America and disavowed armistice with South Korea. I say ‘only’ as its only hypothetical threats, but how seri-ous is the Korean leader? Hitler certainly was very serious with his threats on the lost countries from the Treaty of Versailles, but should this modern day threat be con-sidered serious?

To conclude, the debate is still open. The policy off appeasement by the then world powers would not work today and is not tolerated, Syria is a great example, where the leader Gadaffi was running a regime unacceptable to run in junction with hu-man rights, Nato got involved and he was stopped. The League of Nations back then continued to let Adolf Hitler off, and the sanctions imposed upon Germany had lit-tle effect as Hitler was so driven and intent on revenge. If these strikes were to happen from North Korea, or the civil war contin-ues, I feel the world powers of today (America, China, and Russia) would have to step in and due to their severe powers, the trouble would be stopped, and another Hitler would be easily preventable.

 7 

  

The 1979 Iranian Revolution took many international observers by surprise. It bore none of the hallmarks of a typical upris-ing; there was no financial crisis or mili-tary defeat. Instead, it was a spontaneous religious revolt against an oppressive monarch. It had wide-ranging consequenc-es for the region, including the Iraq-Iran war and United States foreign policy. Per-haps more importantly, it resulted in to-day’s Islamic regime, which has pursued a nuclear programme to international con-demnation. So what caused this revolu-tion? The failing economy, conservative disgruntlement with the secularising re-gime and incidents of political oppression were all significant, but fundamentally it represented widespread anger at contin-ued British and American involvement in Iran, particularly in relation to the 1954 coup. The Iranian people overwhelmingly viewed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a puppet controlled by the US, and this ultimately led to his downfall.

First of all, it is necessary to understand the history of Western participation in Ira-nian politics. Influence in Iran was appeal-ing to the United States and Britain due to its oil fields, as well as its border with Russia, which made Iran strategically im-portant during the Great Game and the Cold War. Examples of Britain seeking to exert influence on Iran in the face of Russian expansion and regional fighting include the Anglo-Persian War of 1856-57, the Reuter Concession and the crea-tion of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1908 to control the newly discovered oil fields. The Persian Constitutional Revolu-tion of 1905-07, leading to the establish-ment of an elected Parliament, was a re-action to ever-growing British control of the Tehran government. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the British feared a Red Army advance on Iran and helped Reza Kahn come to power in a coup d’é-tat in 1921. A 1932 British Embassy doc-ument, supported by the memoirs of An-thony Eden, states that Britain put Reza

Was Western involvement responsible for Iran’s Islamic Revolution?

By Peter Lyon

 8 

  

Kahn “on the throne.” Reza Shah imple-mented policies in line with Anglo-American interests.

Nevertheless, Reza Shah’s rule came to an abrupt end during the Second World War. The security of supply routes through Iran was crucial to the Allied war effort and in 1941, following the Shah’s refusal to annex Iranian Azerbaijan to the Soviet Union, the Allies occupied the country. Reza Shah’s perceived friendli-ness with the Axis Powers led him to be ousted by the Allies in favour of his son. On the whole, the Iranian public viewed the Second World War as a foreign con-flict and the British occupation was met with widespread dismay as yet another unwanted intervention. After the war, Iran became united in the desire for a future decided by Iranians alone. Yet ten years later their hopes were dashed when the US Central Intelligence Agency instigated a coup to overthrow their democratically elected government.

In 1951, the public’s outrage towards on-going British control of oil revenues led the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, to nationalise the oil industry. The British, infuriated, banned sugar and steel exports to Iran, along with the import of Iranian oil, crippling the Iranian economy. President Truman was sympathetic to the Iranians, but, claiming that the Soviets were looking to expand into Iran and fearing a Com-munist Revolution, Britain persuaded his successor Eisenhower to commit to a coup d’état in 1953. Yet the historian Gasiorowski claims that the CIA had been “carrying out covert activities” in Tehran against Mosaddegh since the summer of 1952. In any case, with the Shah’s agree-ment, the coup was carried out, Mo-

saddegh imprisoned and many activists killed. The details of the coup reflect the Americans rather unfavourably. Iranian businessmen, journalists, mandarins and street thugs were bribed in an effort to engineer social unrest. Several members of the new government, including the Prime Minister, General Zahedi, had had links with the Nazis. The CIA sent Nor-man Schwarzkopf to train the security forces, who would become the notorious SAVAK secret police.

It appears that the Eisenhower administra-tion had resolved to do whatever it took to ensure the Shah stayed in power. The Iranian public came to believe that their leader was beholden to a foreign regime intent on destroying the country’s culture and democracy, and that it was neces-sary to rise up and take the country back. At the heart of the Iranian Revolu-tion was a nationalist movement, funda-mentally opposed to the influence of the West in Iran. One of the revolutionaries’ key aims was to prevent the political, economic and cultural “plundering” of Iran by foreigners. The impact of the long-running interference by two countries with cultures incomparable with Iran can-not be underestimated. On the other hand, it could be said that the ambition of the Pahlavi dynasty for a secular Iran in itself angered the largely Islamist Irani-an public.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi extended his father’s secularisation policy, falling out of favour with the religious popula-tion. His White Revolution of 1963 (a se-ries of modernising policy changes) of-fended some Shi’a clerics as it under-mined the social status of clergy, gave women the vote and allowed religious mi-norities to hold office. The popularity of

 9 

  

Ayatollah Khomeini increased after his ar-rest in 1963 for publicly denouncing the Shah as a “wretched, miserable man” who had “embarked on the destruction of Is-lam in Iran.” Many Iranians came behind his vision of a theocracy based on Sharia Law and the guardianship of senior cleri-cal jurists. An efficient network of reli-gious opposition developed, spreading books and sermons. In 1976 the govern-ment ended the use of the Islamic calen-dar to the indignation of religious leaders. Widespread protests commenced shortly after the deaths of the popular Islamist leader Ali Shariati and the son of Kho-meini, Mostafa.

However, this aspect of Iranian history relating to secularisation is of lesser im-portance, considering the fact that there was no revolt during the 1930s when Re-za Shah pursued a more aggressive secu-larisation programme. Perhaps more sig-nificant was the charisma and shrewdness of Ayatollah Khomeini in uniting the dis-parate political groups behind his Islamist ideas. Regardless, the root of the move towards a secular state was the influence of the United States. The Shah’s close alliance with the liberal President Jimmy Carter was certainly a key trigger to the religious protests of the late 1970s.

A third cause of the 1979 Islamic Revolu-tion was the failure of the regime to al-low for political debate, instead suppress-ing dissidents through the SAVAK secret police – described as “Iran’s most hated and feared institution” – which executed over 100 political opponents. The security forces responded to protests using live ammunition, most notoriously on 9 Sep-tember 1978 (Black Friday). Although this authoritarianism angered some revolution-aries, for the most part it came to an

end after Carter came to power in 1977, so it was probably not a major cause of the revolution. The Shah’s focus of re-pression towards the Communist Tudeh Party possibly left a gap for the Khomei-ni’s religious groups to break through.

This point reflects the incompetence of the Shah in running government. He in-sisted on signing inconsequential legisla-tion, instead of leading the country at a time of social unrest. His growing reclu-siveness was primarily due to declining health from cancer. He was also paranoid of being forced out by some ministers and often dismissed officials at random. Moreover, he was seen as living an ex-travagant lifestyle with no consideration for poorer Iranians. For example, $100 million was spent on the 2500th anniver-sary of the Iranian monarchy in 1971. Students and liberals were particularly critical of the rise in social injustice and income inequality. He also failed to court the traditional business leaders, the baazari, who criticised the regime for the failing economy.

The government’s increased reliance on oil (79% of total government revenue by 1977) led to a large trade deficit and ru-ral industries suffered. In 1974, the re-gime ambitiously attempted to meet oil expectations raised by the effect of the Yom Kippur War on other oil supplies. Yet this move failed and squandered valuable resources. The economy declined in 1977-78 causing shortages, inflation and aus-terity measures. Certainly, this contraction was a trigger for the protests, although it would be wrong to imply that an im-proved economy was the demonstrators’ principal demand. That said, Khomeini used the recession as a way of furthering his own political message of a better

 10 

  

future. Overall, the American policy of in-terference in Iran, mainly during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi created an image in Iran of the Shah as a tyran-nical US puppet who had contempt for the Iranian religious population. Still, an ongoing theme is the success of the Aya-tollah in inspiring many Iranians to fight the regime. The failing economy, social injustice, government inefficiency and sup-pression of protests were not irrelevant but their significance to the 1979 revolt is small compared to the legacy of West-ern interference for many decades, most importantly the 1953 Iran coup, which on-ly succeeded in turning the Iranian people against Western powers.

 11 

  

Throughout history there have been many 

protagonists  which  certain  events  have 

been revolved around. Most often the end 

of  apartheid  is  seen  as  the  sole work  of 

Nelson Mandela; which  is  usually  due  to 

the hype made by  the press  at  the  time. 

But  in  fact  contrary  to  popular  belief  ‐ 

Mandela  was  not  the  sole  person  who 

brought the end to the mighty venomous 

apartheid  laws  which  were  placed  upon 

the people of South Africa.  

Since  the  Dutch  and  British  presence  in 

South  Africa,  the  native  Africans  have 

been  treated  as  second  class  citizens  by 

Afrikaners. When  the  African Nationalist 

Party  came  to  power  in  1948,  they 

brought a campaign which was known as 

Apartheid. The Apartheid  laws  separated 

the majority Black Africans and the white 

minority.  This  completely  changed  the 

lives of Black South Africans. For example; 

Black South Africans were divided into re‐

gions. These regions were known as town‐

ships,  townships  had  awful  living  condi‐

tions.  These  Townships  were  over‐

crowded  and  disease  often  spread  very 

easily in these townships, only making liv‐

ing  conditions worse  for  the  native  Afri‐

cans. One of the biggest economic factors 

which  affected  the  Black  South  Africans 

most was the job opportunities ‐ these job 

opportunities  were  highly  sought  after, 

but most often hard  to find. Most people 

had to travel from a popular township re‐

gion called Soweto to Johannesburg every 

day to work (this would be approximately 

from  Winstanley  College  to  Manchester 

Airport).  By  introducing  these  laws  it 

made  sure  that  the Native Africans were 

constantly  under  control  by  the  Afrikan‐

ers. 

Mandela  was  introduced  to  the  anti‐

apartheid movement when he met Walter 

Sisulu in 1944. Mandela and Sisulu formed 

68 Years Later: Did Germany Really Lose The War?

The End of

Apartheid: Who

Was Responsible? By Alex Gore

 12 

  

the  youth  league which was  a  branch  of 

the ANC  (African National Congress). The 

ANC  are  a political party  in South Africa, 

which was originally set up to bring down 

apartheid laws. In 1951 Mandela was elect‐

ed  president  of  the  ANC,  where  he  led 

peaceful protests and talks raising aware‐

ness of apartheid. 

When Mandela was  arrested  he  used  his 

trial as an opportunity to spread the anti‐

apartheid movement and after this speech 

he  became  a  figurehead  of  the  anti‐

apartheid  movement.  He  stated  to  the 

world that he was “prepared to die” before 

he would give up trying to end apartheid. 

This  speech motivated  and  inspired  hun‐

dreds of people to fight against the racist 

government  in  South Africa  at  the  time, 

the way that Mandela spread the word of 

the anti‐apartheid movement is one of the 

main ways in which he helped the cause. 

After Mandela  was  released  in  1990,  he 

became  involved  in  negotiations  to  end 

apartheid.  His  role  in  these  final  stages 

was  vital  and  he  played  a  huge  role.  He 

and F.W. De Klerk (who was the president 

at  the  time)  came  to  an  agreement  that 

the ANC and the African Nationalist Party 

should share power for five years and then 

after  this  period  there would  be  an  elec‐

tion.  In  this  election  the  ANC  won  full 

power, with Mandela as  the  leader. Man‐

dela's appointment as president was cele‐

brated across the whole world, as this was 

a  step  forward  in  the movement  against 

racism. This is one way that Mandela's role 

wasn't  exaggerated  by  the  press,  as  he 

was recognised by the world for his role in 

the end of apartheid resulting in him gain‐

ing a Noble Peace Prize. Some would ar‐

gue that De Klerk’s contribution was more 

substantial  than  Mandela’s.  In  February 

1990,  De  Klerk  lifted  the  ban  on  anti‐

apartheid  organisations,  which made  or‐

ganisations  like the ANC  illegal.  In May of 

that  same  year,  De  Klerk  ended  the 

Groups Areas Act; The Land Act; the popu‐

lation  Registration  Act.  By  ending  these 

apartheid  laws De Klerk  lost members of 

his government party and  lots of Afrikan‐

ers trust, but that didn't stop De Klerk. De 

Klerk went ahead with ending  these  laws 

regardless  of  the  stigma which  he would 

face, this shows that De Klerk felt strongly 

that South Africa had  to move  forward  in 

order to progress as a society. This shows 

that  the  role  of Mandela  has  been  exag‐

gerated as De Klerk did have an important 

role  as  he  weakened  the  apartheid  laws 

himself  and without De  Klerk  then Man‐

dela  wouldn't  have  been  released  from 

prison at all.  

Another person which played a major part 

in the end of apartheid was; Desmond Tu‐

tu,  he  was  a  Bishop  at  the  time  of  the 

Apartheid  laws. Tutu  used  his  position  in 

the  church  to  travel  around  the world  (a 

privilege  that  other  black  South Africans 

would  not  have  had).  While  travelling 

around  the world  he  spread  the word  of 

apartheid  and  the  perils  that  apartheid 

brought to thousands of South Africans. 

Tutu never promoted violence and he nev‐

er claimed to be a political leader. Because 

Tutu was not a political leader and he was 

a key figure in the church, the government 

couldn't  send  him  to  prison  like  they 

would  do  with  other  activists.  After  the 

Soweto  riots,  Tutu  organised  a  peaceful 

march  which  brought  30,000  South Afri‐

cans onto the streets of Cape Town. I think 

Tutu didn't play a major role  in the role  in 

 13 

  

the physical end of apartheid, but he did 

play a huge  role  in bringing awareness of 

apartheid  to  the world. And  the  result of 

this was that people then knew the harsh 

living  environments  that people were  liv‐

ing in. This makes me think that Mandela's 

role was exaggerated   because Tutu's role 

was fundamental in bringing awareness of 

apartheid to the world, which then conse‐

quently  would  have  meant  that  other 

countries  would  have  started  to  apply 

pressure to South Africa to end apartheid. 

Many people believe that the ANC was the 

only  anti‐apartheid movement, but  there 

are  lots  of  other  organisations who were 

vital in the end of Apartheid.  

Allan Boesak was a minister of  the Dutch 

reformed church. In 1983 Boesak suggest‐

ed  that  all  anti‐apartheid  groups  should 

come  together  to  form one organisation, 

which was called the UDF. The UDF was an 

umbrella  organisation,  with  700  anti‐

apartheid  organisations  branching  off 

from it. The UDF was the largest and most 

powerful organisation in South Africa, this 

was  vital  in  showing  how  South  Africa 

could  come  together  and  unite.  I  believe 

that the UDF was vital in the end of South 

Africa  because  it  showed  to  the  govern‐

ment at  the  time how black people could 

work  together  to  reach  a  common  goal. 

This makes me  think  that Mandela’s  role 

was indeed exaggerated as Boesak played 

a major role  in ending apartheid by creat‐

ing the UDF. 

Many  people  despite  the  evidence  pre‐

sented, still believe that Mandela was the 

sole  person  who  brought  an  end  to  the 

apartheid system. However,  I believe that 

it  wasn't  just Mandela  but  an  accumula‐

tion  of  events  and  people  who  brought 

peace  finally  to  South Africa  after many 

years  of  hardship.  It  was  only  Mandela 

who in the final stages was a key negotia‐

tor  finalising  the  transition  from  anti‐

apartheid laws to a free country. Although 

Mandela's role was undeniably exaggerat‐

ed ‐ the accomplishments he has complet‐

ed throughout his life cannot be discredit‐

ed,  resulting  in Mandela being always  re‐

membered  for  the amazing  things he has 

done  in aiding those who were a part of a 

minority group of society.   

 14 

  

By Zara Andrews

Historically, Britain and France declared war on Germany on 

the 3rd of September 1939 a er Hitler invaded Poland two 

days before. The fundamental reason for World War II by  

major historians such as AJP Taylor and Allan Bullock has 

been o en been seen as Hitler’s aggression was the catalyst 

of the inevitable war to come. The best quote of this is from 

the historian Donald Wa  in 1989 who describes, ‘In the 

end the war was Hitler's war. It was not perhaps the war he 

wanted. But it was the war that he was prepared to risk, if 

he had to.’ However things are not as they seem; to solely 

blame Hitler would mean pu ng 50 million deaths on his 

heavy shoulders, not including the 10,860,000 deaths that 

were prosecuted in the Holocaust which already hang heav‐

ily on him in hell. Alterna vely, the blame can be balanced 

out onto the shoulders of the Allies; America, Canada, Rus‐

sia, China, Britain and France. Each in their own way con‐

tributed to the lead up to the Second World War, o en 

through the own self‐interests of their leaders. 

The underlying reason for many conflicts during the inter 

war years has o en been due to high debt and poor econo‐

mies in countries, an example of this can be seen in the 

Manchurian Crisis in 1931. The 29th of October 1929 has 

always been iconically presented as the day of the Wall 

Street Crash which plummeted Northern America alongside 

Europe and Asia into the economic Depression. Japan in 

par cular was badly hit by the Depression through exports 

decreasing by 50% from 1929 to 1930 causing their industry 

to fall to the brink of collapse. Due to this crisis, Japan’s 

primary concern became their lack of resources and build‐

ing space. Many of the resources that Japan exported came 

from Manchuria (belonging to China), which was transport‐

ed by the Manchurian railway (owned by the Japanese). The 

financial crisis in Japan caused alarm, crea ng a need for 

more land. A er allega ons that the Chinese had tried to 

blow up part of the railway in Mukden the Japanese invad‐

ed Manchuria. Within five months of invading the Japanese 

had gained the whole of Manchuria, se ng up a puppet 

Government to rule there. 

The significance of this is that it determined the weaknesses 

of the League of Na ons therefore implica ng Britain and 

France. The pressing problem of Britain was that there was 

an unwillingness to act (mainly due to the government 

wan ng isola on from the rest of Europe); a refusal to use 

the Royal Navy to blockade ports in Manchuria would have 

caused the invasion of Manchuria to be worthless. Similarly, 

major countries such as Russia and America had not joined 

the League meaning that military force could not be used to 

force Japan out of Manchuria. It also implicated that whilst 

the League of Na ons imposed sanc ons on trade with Ja‐

pan, it was s ll able to trade with its main trading partner, 

America.  A full year a er the invasion, a report by the 

League of Na ons was published, sta ng that Japan should 

leave Manchuria. A Special Assembly of the League of Na‐

ons was held to vote on the issue, in January 1932, with 

only Japan vo ng against leaving Manchuria. In reac on to 

this the Japanese simply decided to leave the League of 

Na ons, announcing further plans to invade more parts of 

China. Overall, the dysfunc on of the Allies in their incapa‐

Did the Allies  

Cause WW2? 

 15 

  

bility to work together allowed Japan to become a greater 

power, gaining military experience as well as crea ng war 

with China.  

Furthermore, on the 23rd of March 1933 Hitler himself was 

able to ascend to power through the Great Depression 

which had gripped the Northern Hemisphere. In Germany 

especially where millions of people had become unem‐

ployed and hyperinfla on had made money worthless, with 

so li le money the repara ons of £22 billion that were be‐

ing paid only increased tensions. The Treaty of Versailles 

was o en described by the Germans as a ‘diktat’ (meaning 

dictated peace); along with the repara ons there was the 

War Guilt in Ar cle 231, entailing that Germany had accept 

full responsibility for World War One. Another ar cle of the 

treaty seized land away from Germans, giving it to other 

countries who had been affected by the war. Most signifi‐

cantly, Alsace‐Lorraine was given back to France, however 

land was also given to Austria (displacing 5 million Germans) 

and Germany was split by the Polish Corridor to weaken it. 

This unjust treatment to specifically the Germans caused 

widespread anger by them over the Treaty of Versailles, 

allowing Hitler to become a prominent figure in the inter‐

years of war. Thereby implying that Britain, France and 

America’s involvement in the Treaty did go some way to 

causing the outbreak of World War II. 

The backset of the economic Depression allowed Hitler to 

come to power through the chancellor of March 1930 was 

Heinrich Bruning who opted to increase taxes and imple‐

ment wage cuts. In the July 1932 the Nazis won 230 seats 

a er promises to increase the high unemployment as well 

as reverse the Treaty of Versailles. Historian Alan Bullock 

views that Hitler’s charisma allowed him to seize advantage 

of the power struggle between Von Schleicher and Von Pa‐

pen for Chancellor of Germany, effec vely handing over 

power to Hitler in 1933. Immediately a er being given pow‐

er it is well known that Hitler ordered the rearming of Ger‐

many, even though as part of the Treaty of Versailles Ger‐

many was meant to stay disarmed. The rearmament of Ger‐

many’s army was well known and was, in fact, encouraged 

par cularly by the Bri sh. The Anglo‐German Naval Agree‐

ment was signed on June 18th of 1935 to allow Germans to 

increase their navy by 35%. Crucially, if this agreement had 

not been made it would have enabled the French and 

Bri sh to react to the rearming with a jus fied manor. Yet 

by suppor ng Hitler in rearming it meant that France would 

have not had the support of Britain if they protested. 

Already by 1935 there was a clear problem with many of 

the Allies coping with inter‐rela ons. Eminently, the lack of 

collabora on between France and Britain is the main prob‐

lem. Similarly, problems in collabora on by League of Na‐

ons between America and Russia created the case of ap‐

peasement and beli lement of power. The best example of 

this is in 1935 during the Abyssinian Crisis. The Italian dicta‐

tor, Benito Mussolini, saw this problem in the Northern 

Hemisphere, and took advantage of it, commen ng at the 

League of Na ons once, ‘The League is very well when spar‐

rows shout, but no good when eagles fall.’  The invasion of 

Abyssinia was carried out by Mussolini a er (on November 

22nd 1934) the Italian fort at Wal Wal was surrounded by 

1,000 Abyssinian soldiers who ordered the garrison be re‐

turned to the Abyssinians. Both Abyssinia and Italy were 

original members of the League of Na ons, so France and 

Britain had to get involved as prominent members in the 

league. A er a small  me of peace on January the 25th it 

was reported that 5 Italian soldiers had been killed near to 

the base at Wal Wal. When full scale war began, Haile 

Sailessie (Emperor of Abyssinia) asked the League for help.  

However instead of helping Abyssinia, Britain pulled its navy 

out of the Mediterranean Sea to allow the full scale invasion 

to go ahead. Moreover, the invasion had to cross down the 

Suez Canal which was owned by France and Britain. The 

historian R.J.B Bosworth says in his biography about Musso‐

lini, ‘Mussolini knew that, in pressing on with an adventure 

in Ethiopia, he was risking much. The lack of detailed plan‐

ning was also evidence of the inadequacy and danger of 

charisma c decision’. Inferring from this extract, if Britain 

and France had chosen to close the Suez Canal the invasion 

would have halted and Mussolini would have been unsuc‐

cessful as well as humiliated. Furthermore, it would have 

meant that Hitler would not have looked to Mussolini as a 

poten al ally so would have broken down the Axis before 

they had formed. Another historian, Buchanan supports this 

theory in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War 

in saying that the sanc ons by the League of Na ons drove 

Fascist Italy into an alliance with Nazi Germany .Therefore 

Britain and France can be seen as a fundamental ally to 

causing World War II. 

In contrast though, it was not completely France and Brit‐

ain’s fault. The Abyssinian Crisis mirrors the invasion of Lib‐

ya by Gioli  (five  mes Prime Minister of Italy) from the 

29th September 1911 to 8th October 1912 as a post‐war in‐

vasion to gain land before a serious World War. This warn‐

ing of another World War was probably not seen at the 

me by most countries, although possibly by France. During 

the Abyssinian Crisis there were sanc ons put in place by 

members of the League however there was a refusal on coal 

sanc ons by Britain as it would have meant that 300,000 

jobs would have been lost. Another reason for the ineffec‐

veness of sanc ons was that France saw Italy as a poten‐

al ally against Germany, most famously the Hoare –Laval 

Pact allowed Mussolini two thirds of Abyssinia in return for 

appeasement. This ul mately never came to pass due to 

being leaked by press, crea ng public outrage. Meanwhile, 

 16 

  

 all the  me in America the sales of arms to Italy were in‐

creasing. A er frustra ng talks with the League of Na ons 

the result was that America only further increased its sales, 

making sanc ons completely ineffec ve. 

The disarray was only further added to when in 1936 Hitler 

ordered the rearmament of the Rhineland. The significance 

of this in the lead up to World War II was that Hitler ad‐

mi ed that, ‘If France had then marched into the Rhineland, 

we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our 

legs.’ France’s refusal to act without the support of Britain 

and Britain’s refusal to act meant that Hitler was enabled to 

gain the confidence he needed to be able to later progress 

onwards to his Anschluss with Austria, the invasion of the 

Sudetenland then Czechoslovakia and causing the unneces‐

sary war by invading Poland on the 1st of September 1939. 

This was a domino effect which could have easily been halt‐

ed at the rearming of the Rhineland with no causali es. The 

Abyssinian crisis was s ll centre stage in the world, but this 

new threat caused France to panic. This  me though France 

did not ally with Russia (like previous to WWI at the threat 

of Germany) because of fear of communism.  

On the other hand, the growing threat of Hitler in Nazi Ger‐

many also caused Russia to look for alliances against Ger‐

many. Repeatedly the Bri sh refused any alliance with the 

Communist enemy, both Lord Halifax and Lord Chamberlain 

declined. Moreover, when Lord Halifax (reluctantly) actually 

tried to create an alliance between the USSR and Britain, 

Stalin opposed it as a trick. Already it could be seen that an 

alliance with Britain would have meant war for Russia either 

way as Hitler aimed to destroy Communism. The conflict 

between Britain and the USSR meant that there was dys‐

func on and controversy on how to actually control Germa‐

ny, pushing Stalin instead to make the Nazi‐Soviet Pact in 

1939. This pact was overall more preferable to the USSR as 

it had the secret promise of spli ng Poland into two, mean‐

ing a gain of land as well as immediate war with Hitler to be 

avoided. Alterna vely, this also led to Hitler’s push to in‐

vade Poland on the 1st of September, to create the ul mate 

Second World War as a result. 

Perhaps most ironically, the country that claimed to have 

saved Britain from losing the Second World War can be also 

seen as the underlying reason to why it happens. The Eco‐

nomic Depression led to the Manchurian crisis, the rise of 

Hitler, the Abyssinian crisis and the Second World War. Yet 

it was ironically caused by America; previous to the Wall 

Street Crash, the 1920s is well known as the ‘Boom’. Mass 

produc on first came to industry lines with Henry Ford us‐

ing it to create the ‘Tin Lizzy’. In 1927, the 15th million ‘T 

Model Ford’ was produced. The first sound movie was pro‐

duced in 1927, giving way to famous stars such as Charlie 

Chaplin. Ordinary people could buy shares in businesses and 

‘buy on the margin’ to make quick money from profitable 

industries. The only problem at the  me was the Canadian 

farmers who had developed high efficiency wheat which 

had a high crop yield so could be sold far cheaper than 

American wheat.  

Unfortunately, everything changed when people who could 

afford to, had bought modern luxuries such as radios and 

refrigerators. Near to the end of the 1920s a surplus of luxu‐

ries began to build up at factories, these goods were unable 

to be sold to other countries due to tariffs which had been 

placed on American goods. The sudden drop in industry 

meant that millions of people went out of work, leaving 

many s ll needing to pay off mortgages and money bor‐

rowed. People who had been ‘buying on the margin’ saw 

their shares in companies significantly drop and major 

banks became bust as a result. Panic selling became an im‐

mediate concern as people tried to sell their worthless 

shares, causing the Wall Street Crash by Black Thursday and 

Black Tuesday. This consequently engulfed the Northern 

Hemisphere also into the Economic Depression too. The 

highly effec ve Canadian wheat alongside the Dust Bowls 

caused a large amount of American farmers to move to Cali‐

fornia in a search for a be er life. Overall, therefore the 

crea on on the Boom in America and the Wall Street Crash 

that was created by it causes America to take a significant 

amount of the blame for the crea on of the Second World 

War. 

To conclude, the Allies did help to cause World War II. Alt‐

hough countries such as Canada have a far smaller role to 

play in crea ng the Second World War. The crea on of the 

Second World War should not be blamed fundamentally on 

Hitler, or likewise the Axis but on also the Allies. America 

plays the most powerful role in contribu ng to the cause of 

the Second World War. The Wall Street Crash’s global effect 

far outweighs any other cause, yet it is worsened by Ameri‐

ca’s refusal to join the League of Na ons. Following suit, the 

second main responsibility of crea ng the Second World 

War falls onto the dysfunc on of Britain and France in their 

inability to work together. Repeatedly they do not work 

together in crises which could have been stopped, the best 

example being the Suez Canal in the Abyssinian Crisis. 

Moreover, Lord Halifax’s incapability to work with the USSR 

to defend against the growing Nazi Germany means that 

there was no solidarity formed. Countries such as China and 

the USSR also contributed to crea ng World War II perhaps 

most significantly in the Manchurian Crisis which caused 

Japan to find allies in Germany and Italy. To sum then, the 

Allies are just as much at fault for the crea on of the Se‐

cond World War as the Axis.  

 17 

  

By Phoebe McGibbon

As Sir Walter Romilly once commented in the House of Commons, when people think of great and successful men, they tend to think of men like Napoleon: men of war, violence and conquest. There is perhaps no greater an-tithesis to the man Romilly describes, than Mahatma Gandhi. A tireless fighter, a man of irresolute conviction, Gandhi’s battle was fought with truth, hope and compassion. The small Indian man dressed in flip-flops and loin cloth remains arguably one of the greatest statesmen of the 19th Century, and reminds us that, as he once said himself, ‘in a gentle way, you can shake the world’.

Mohandas Gandhi (the term Mahatma actual-ly means ’great soul’ and was acquired later) was born in the coastal town of Porbandar, India on October 2nd 1869. In keeping with his father’s Hindu beliefs, Gandhi was married at the age of just thirteen to Kasturbai Ma-khanji. Their marriage lasted until her death in 1944.

Although he showed no real academic flair at school, Gandhi’s father wished him to train as a barrister, so that he would be able to take up his own post as Chief Minister of Porban-dar. In 1888, Gandhi travelled to University College London to read law and jurisprudence (theory of law), and in 1891 trained as a Bar-rister. In 1893, at the age of twenty four, Gan-dhi travelled to South Africa, where he was employed by an Indian law firm, as a legal representative for Muslim Indian traders based in Pretoria. He was appalled by the treatment of Indian immigrants in South Afri-ca, and, being coloured himself, suffered dis-crimination and humiliation. When he had first arrived in South Africa, Gandhi was forcefully thrown from a train at Pietermaritzburg, hav-ing refused to leave the first class compart-ment for which he had purchased a ticket - blacks were not permitted there. He was also barred from hotel rooms on several occasions, and beaten for refusing to remove his turban. Gandhi’s experiences in South Africa shaped his ideals in the years to come, and aroused

Mahatma Ghandi: ‘My Life is My Message’

 18 

  

the political activist within him. For twenty years, he joined with the Indian immigrants in South Africa, in their attempts to win basic rights. Seen as a danger, Gandhi was impris-oned several times whilst in South Africa. Here began his commitment to satyagraha’ (truth). This was the basis for his non-violent activism in the years to come; an unusual combinatiton of Hindu, Christian and Muslim ideals. The values Gandhi held are held by many strong and powerful men - a devotion to truth, a dis-like of violence and an ultimate aim to bring about love, are arguably human values. But few would be able to remain true to these val-ues in light of such persecution and opposi-tion. Most men hold these ideas, and indeed profess to believe in them, but when put to the test, would succumb to violent retalia-tions. Gandhi’s human values, coupled with his almost superhuman strength of character, present a baffling paradox.

In 1914, Gandhi’s efforts were rewarded: the South African government conceded to his demands for the increased rights of Indian immigrants. Indian immigrants in South Africa were thereafter granted citizenship. Soon af-ter this victory, Gandhi returned to India, car-rying his experiences of South Africa with him. But Gandhi had been involved in more than just politics. Whilst in South Africa, he had read many religious texts, developing a child-hood interest. Although raised as a Hindu, Gandhi’s beliefs reflected a mixture of Hindu-ism, Christianity and Islam.

Soon after returning to India, Gandhi realised that Indians could never truly have equality within their own country, until they cast away the rule of the British Empire. Although he be-lieved that the British colonial influence was a positive one, he saw the ever increasing ne-cessity for independence. By 1920, Gandhi was an internationally recognised figure in In-dian politics. Having largely won the support

of the Indian National Congress (where his understanding of both Hinduism and Islam was of huge benefit), his non-violent refusal to co-operate led to thousands of arrests. However, even at the Amritsar Massacre; an attack by British troops on Gandhi’s support-ers, Gandhi instructed his supporters to make no violent retaliation. He explained simply, that, ‘an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.’

In 1922, Gandhi was imprisoned for two years, seen as a threat to the British Empire (his ini-tial sentence had been six years). For a while, he faded from the political limelight, choosing to devote his time to the improvement of Hin-du Muslim relations.

However, in 1930, Gandhi led the largest or-ganised challenge to British authority in India; a symbolic, non-violent protest against British Salt Tax Policies: The Salt Satyagraha, com-monly known as ’The Salt March’. Gandhi marched 240 miles over 24 days, supported by over 80’000 Indians. Upon reaching the sea at Dandi, Gandhi and his followers pro-duced salt from the sea-water without paying the tax. Gandhi was arrested once again at midnight on the 5th May 1930.

When World War Two broke out in 1939, Gandhi was once again prominent in Indian politics. Initially having been in favour of of-fering Britain ‘non-violent moral support’, Gandhi soon became disillusioned with this course of action. He realised that India could not support a war in which Britain was fighting for a democratic freedom she would not allow India herself. As the war continued, Gandhi’s demands for Indian independence became ever louder, until, in August 1942, Gandhi and the entire Congress were arrested by the British at Bombay.

Gandhi was released from prison in 1944, fol-lowing a malaria attack. The British under-stood that should Gandhi die in prison,

 19 

  

Indians would be furious.

In 1945, shortly after victory in the war, Britain declared that power would be transferred to Indian hands. On the 15th August 1947, the Indian Independence Act was finally invoked. The battle was won.

But India’s troubles were not at an end. The Mountbatten Plan of June 1947 created a par-tition between the new Muslim country, Paki-stan, and the Hindu country, India: the crea-tion of two independent states. Gandhi him-self had been opposed to partition, foreseeing the tensions it would cause. Violence erupted between Indians and Hindus, and in an at-tempt to ease the troubles, Gandhi himself fasted. A frail, elderly man; the Bapu (father) of India, Gandhi refused to eat until the fighting and killing stopped.

It is perhaps arguable, up to this point, that Gandhi was merely the face and figurehead of the campaign for Indian independence, and that another leader could have stepped into the breach at any point. However, following the Mountbatten Plan of 1947, and the vio-lence that ensued, it was purely India’s love for Mahatma Gandhi that brought peace. The people ended their fighting to save the life of their leader, their ‘father’.

After ending his fast, Gandhi worked for the rest of his days to bring harmony between Hindus and Muslims throughout India and Pakistan. He was assassinated in New Delhi on 30th January 1948 by a Hindu fanatic, who felt betrayed by Gandhi’s willingness to engage and co-operate with Muslims.

Almost 100 years since Gandhi’s first victory in South Africa, his legacy remains unparalleled. In 2013, India’s economy is blossoming. Alt-hough currently an uneasy hybrid of commer-cial cities and poverty-stricken slums, India is set to rise as a major world influence in the coming years. Gandhi quite simply, changed

the world. India gained independence, Britain lost one of her major imperial colonies. And the world saw a small man dressed in his fa-mous loin cloth, standing beside international statesmen; having won the respect and love of his own country, and the rest of the world. The tale of Gandhi’s achievements is a beauti-ful one: it is incredible that this one man was able to lead his country to freedom from the British Empire, never once resorting to vio-lence. As Albert Einstein once said, ’generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood’.

 20 

  

If you come from Wigan, like me, reading this may give you a new sense of pride. Either way, it might surprise you. Looking at it now, Wigan, a place with its history rooted firmly in industry, seems one of the most unlikely candidates for a Roman settlement. But, in the last couple of years, archaeologist have found heaps of evidence to suggest otherwise.

For a long time now, there have been a decently large amount of findings to suggest Wigan had a Roman past, but it is only recently that some ex-perts have had enough confidence to conclude that Wigan was the Roman station of Coccium. This minor settlement called Coccium has always had a certain mystery about it. It was mentioned only once in the Antonine Itinerary (a register of all the roads, cities, towns and other settlements in the Roman empire), and was noted as being 17 miles from Mancunium (Roman Manchester) and 20 miles from Bremetenacum (Roman Ribchester). As it turns out, the distances match up quite well with modern-day Wigan. Still, it was the results of numerous digs that set this theory in stone for many people.

In 2008, an excavation near to George street, Ince-in-makerfield, was the trigger for much excite-ment within the Wigan archaeological society. There, in the dig site, at about 1m deep, a large band of gravel, clay, cobble and flat stone was found. For those working the site, this all pointed towards one thing -- a Roman road. A spokesman noted that, as the exposed section was 4.5m wide,

assuming the thickest end is the centre, the road could be around 9m wide. Encouragingly, Ed-mund Sibson, a local Reverend in the 19th centu-ry, traced three Roman roads into Wigan, one of which passed very close to George street.

Vast amounts of artefacts were uncovered well before this discovery, which probably inspired archaeologists to look further. In 1822, Roman cremation urns were found during the gas-works construction, suggesting it was the location of a Roman cemetery. When the Parish Church was rebuilt in 1846, a Roman altar was found beneath the High altar. Roman coins, such as a hoard of 137 silver were stumbled-upon near the Boar’s Head Inn, in 1926. Even a rare gold coin of the emperor Vitellius was found in Mesnes park, dur-ing 1850. Yet, it wasn’t until the early 1980s, when excavations took place in Wiend, that Wig-an’s real Roman heritage became fully apparent. Manchester University spent two seasons reveal-ing strong evidence of metalworking and military-style wooden buildings. By this time, it was was finally conclusive, Wigan was settled by Roman invaders.

Further still, in late November of 2004, sites of archaeological interest were investigated again. Evidence quickly emerged of extensive Roman occupation from as early as the 2nd century AD. Samian-ware (Roman pottery) of fine quality was discovered in plentiful amounts this time, and ex-cavation work continued for months.

Voguing:

Standing Out to Fit In

Wigan’s Roman Inheritance

By Nathaniel Lamb 

 21 

  

However, none of these finds come close to what was unearthed in early 2005, and that’s why I’ve decided to leave the best till last. As work contin-ued, Oxford Archaeology North team (the team working the dig sites in Wigan, at this time) un-earthed something extraordinary. A well-intact, Roman hypocaust. This was essentially the Ro-man equivalent of underfloor central heating, formed of a stone floor suspended on pillars made from stacked brick tiles. When these were in use, hot air from a furnace room was forced under the floor and rose through box flues built into the walls of the building. For the Archaeologists, this was all the evidence they needed to confirm their beliefs; they had uncovered a Roman bathhouse. Now, bare in mind that in Britain, Roman bath-houses are few and far between. They’re rare. To discover this, meant Wigan was amongst the ranks of Bath, Shrewsbury, Newcastle and a few other cities housing the remains of Roman baths. Need-less to say, this find allowed excavation work to continue for an extra six weeks.

The dig team surely amazed themselves, because in this short period a further two hypocausts saw the light of day, along with a possible plunge pool. The stoke holes in these rooms were well-defined and one was still filled with burnt materi-als from its past firings during the Roman occupa-tion. A deep trench found running away from the main site was suggested as the water supply to the baths. In another part of the site, scrap pieces of lead were found, indicating a possible workshop, where Romans would have been producing the lead used in lining pools and water tanks. There was no denying that this was the site of a Roman bathhouse, and more investigations indicated that it was probably attached to a mansio (the Roman equivalent of a hotel), where dignitaries would have stayed when travelling between the various settlements. In effect, it could well have been the Travelodge of its day. What is most fascinating, is that all of the findings could point towards Wigan, or Coccium as it was called, being a Roman fort.

Not long ago, the remains of the hypocaust were rebuilt and restored, using as much of the original materials as possible, in the Concert Square, one the of the community areas in Wigan’s Grand Ar-cade. You may have seen it already, as it is com-pletely open to viewing by the general public!

The idea that Wigan -- standing today with the remnants of derelict mills and old factories from a

bygone era of industry -- was once a small, yet still significant, part of the Roman empire in Brit-ain is simply astonishing.

I felt nothing but pride when Wigan won the FA cup, and I feel nothing less again when I consider my hometown’s real historical heritage.

 22 

  

Many highly credited historians value it as a fact that Stalingrad was the major turning point of world war two and partly they are right as in many ways the USSR was on the upper hand after Stalingrad. However, I be-lieve with strong evidence that this may not be the case.

The battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943) saw Pau-lus’ 6th German army face off against the so-viet 62nd and 64th armies under chuikov. The battle which started as the guarding of army group A’s flank quickly morphed into the ide-ological war for “Stalin’s city” and became synonymous with the “rattenkrieg” of the un-derground and savage building to building fighting and famous snipers such as Vassilly Zaitsev portrayed by Jude law in the film “the enemy at the gates” the title however refers to the battle of Moscow and not Stalingrad. This brings us to the first possible turning point in the east. Moscow.

In 1941 the German army fresh from success in the east in 1939 and in the west in 1940 aided by Italian and Rumanian forces steam-rolled across the western USSR (modern Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Moldova and parts of modern day Po-land) in an operation named Barbarossa this enveloped soviet armies and despite stiff re-sistance particularly at Brest and its fortress there was no stopping the German war ma-chine while the red army fled and was eaten

up by axis forces and surrounded, in greater numbers than the Germans were at Stalin-grad, at Kiev. By late autumn 1941 fighting near Rzev slowed the German onslaught but it wasn’t stopped. Only at the outskirts of Moscow were axis forces first halted. A scout-ing detachment on motorcycles marked the high watermark for the German advance in the east. The soviets threw all remaining re-serves into the battle throwing the Germans off the advance with weight of numbers alone. This was not a pretty victory for the soviets but it did allow them to make good defences for the winter. However the Ger-mans had not been defeated only a minor setback and although “general winter” took their toll the German spring offensives threw the soviets out of their winter positions in the lead up to case blue however even after Sta-lingrad and Stalin’s infamous order no.227 “not one step back” the Germans still held a slight advantage and were still on the initia-tive.

This was proven at Kharkov in its third battle in 1943 when the German army retook the city and the city of Belgorod. In the offensive they inflicted 86,469 casualties to the loss of just over 11,000. This showed the Germans had recovered from Stalingrad and although their invincible reputation was broken they still had, at this time, a capability of going on the attack and beating the soviets.

Voguing:

Standing Out to Fit In

The Ba le of Stalingrad

The Turning Point of WW2 in the East? 

By Cameron Fleming

 23 

  

No further major German attacks came and with the exception of army group Courland and the defence of Poland and Germany itself not much resistance came. The significant breakthrough for the soviets came in the summer of 1944 when the Stavka secretly amassed a huge army for an operation codenamed Bagration in the Byelorussia re-gion. This operation is largely forgotten by western history due to its proximity to the western main offensive, D-day. However, bagration was even more a success seeing soviet troops to the Baltic in one offensive and obliterating most of the remaining Ger-man resistance this was supported by offen-sives in the Ukraine and eventually in the Bal-kans.

Overall, the turning point wasn’t where many historians put it, at Stalingrad, but judging on German resistance Moscow stopped the Ger-mans, Stalingrad beat their confidence, Kursk was check and checkmate came at Bagration which inevitably led to Nazi Germany’s de-mise in the east. Therefore I would put the turning point at Kursk because that is the last point where the Germans made any actual ground into the USSR and the first point the Russians could follow up their major victory with another major victory and in short saw the red army progress from the lambs to be-come the lions and the mighty war machine which would control eastern Europe for 55 years.

Arrows from the top: bagra on 1944, 

Moscow 1941, Kursk 1943, Kharkov 

1943, Stalingrad 1942‐43 

 24 

  

Did Byzan ne Aid Enable the 

Success of the First Crusade? 

By Holly Browe ‐Woolnough 

The First Crusade began in 1096, the beginning of the 

Crusading  period.  But  how  can what  is  essen ally  a 

widespread  pilgrimage  end  as  a  successful  military 

endeavour? There are various reasons for the success 

of the first crusade, a key one being Byzan ne aid, but 

there was also the religious mo va on and the prow‐

ess of the military and the key  leaders, which are  im‐

portant to consider.  

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  crusade,  Byzan ne  aid 

played a key role in furthering the crusade. At the first 

obstacle  of  Nicaea,  it was  an  effec ve  collabora ve 

venture.  Alexius,  emperor  of  Byzan ne,  provided 

food,  supplies  and  weapons  to  encourage  them  to 

con nue. When  it  seemed  as  though  the  Chris ans 

wouldn't  succeed, Alexius  sent  ships  to blockade  the 

lake through which the people of Nicaea were gaining 

supplies.  Through  this,  he  managed  to  nego ate  a 

truce, and  the  city was  surrendered  to him,  showing 

how  central  Byzan ne  aid was  to  the  crusade's  first 

successes,  which  are  crucial  for  boos ng  morale. 

Then, at the ba le of Dorylaeum in 1097, Alexius pro‐

vided  them  with  a  military  advisor,  Ta kios,  who 

would  be  able  to  guide  them  as  he  understood  the 

land  be er  than  the  Crusaders.  At  Dorylaeum,  his 

guidance played  a  key  role  in  the Crusaders'  victory, 

proving  the  importance  of  Byzan ne  aid.  However, 

the  Byzan um‐Crusader  rela onship  seems  to  break 

down a er this, as at An och, Ta kios eventually de‐

serts them, causing resentment and the supplies that 

Alexius  sends  to  them  are minimal,  and  barely  help 

them get through, showing how Alexius was seemingly 

becoming  less  interested  in  the  Crusaders'  welfare. 

Then, a er  the  success of An och,  it  seems  that  the 

final straw was when Bohemond claimed the  land for 

himself , instead of giving it to Alexius, as promised in 

his  oath.  This  severed  the  links  and  the  aid  disap‐

peared  from  there. A er  this,  the crusaders went on 

to  success  in Ascalon  and  Jerusalem,  sugges ng  that 

Byzan ne aid was not crucial to the Chris ans' victory. 

Another  explana on  for  their  success  was  their  im‐

mense  spiritual mo va on  and  religion.  These were 

most substan al a er the Byzan ne aid disintegrated. 

The first occurrence was at An och, when Peter Bar‐

tholomew had a vision of the holy  lance, that pierced 

Christ's side and when the Crusaders found this, they 

marched on the Turks, carrying it, and the enemy fled 

in  fear.  The  second was  at  Jerusalem, when  a priest 

had a vision of Adhemar  Le Puy  telling  them  to  fast, 

pray and walk around  the city barefoot, and  in doing 

so they managed to enter the city. These spiritual ap‐

pearances gave the crusaders the mo va on that they 

needed  to con nue with the crusade, as  it suggested 

that they had God's support and that he would assist 

 25 

  

them  in  success.  The  Crusade would  have  halted  at 

An och were  it not  for  the  lance and  the peniten al 

march refocused the Chris ans' energies. Without the 

element  of  ideology  and  spiritual  exhilara on  there 

would have been no march to Jerusalem. (Tyerman.) 

Another alterna ve reason for the Crusaders' success 

is the Muslim disunity of the Eastern world. In general 

terms, the division of the Sunni Abbasids and the Shia 

Fa mids meant  that neither would defend  the other 

against the Chris ans, almost enabling the Crusaders' 

success. Earlier events in the Muslim world, for exam‐

ple,  the death of Malik Shah  in 1092 made  the com‐

muni es disintegrate. Jo schky cites that the quarrels 

for  inheritance  of Malik  Shah's  empire  depleted  the 

dynasty's  resources, meaning  that  the Muslims were 

not fully prepared or focused for figh ng off the Chris‐

ans,  making  success  much  easier  for  them.  More 

short  term disunity  is  apparent  at An och when  the 

Muslim  leader,  Kherbogha  delayed  his  a ack  as  his 

soldiers were coming from various towns (Mosul, Da‐

mascus  and Aleppo) meaning  that  he  couldn't  effec‐

vely co‐ordinate an a ack with them, giving the Cru‐

saders more  of  an  opportunity  to  a ack  a  less well 

defended An och.  The  instability of  the Muslim  reli‐

gion also enabled and directly assisted Crusader victo‐

ry. At An och, Bohemond found a recent Muslim con‐

vert,  Firuz, whom he  convinced  to  let  them  into  the 

city,  successfully  almost  handing  An och  over  to 

them. 

The final key reason for the Crusaders' success would 

be  their military  techniques. The  leading knights con‐

sistently  made  key  strategic  decisions  that  created 

success. At the ba le of Dorylaeum, the army was split 

into  two,  so  the  Turks would  be  unprepared. When 

the first army had almost been defeated by the Mus‐

lims,  the  second  one  came  forward,  revitalised,  and 

easily  defeated  the  Turks who were  shocked  at  the 

sudden reinforcements. This technique  is exercised at 

Ascalon  as well, when  the  crusaders  launched  a  sur‐

prise a ack on the sleeping Muslims a er they caught 

Turkish  spies who  revealed  their plans. The  supreme 

cunning  and  intelligence  that  was  employed  by  the 

military  leaders was central to the success of the ma‐

jority of the ba les and sieges, and really boosted mo‐

rale. 

Conclusively,  Byzan ne  aid  played  a  key  role  in  the 

Crusaders'  early  successes,  but  it  is  incorrect  to  say 

that  it was the most  important  factor, as the Crusad‐

ers survived without it a er the allegiance deteriorat‐

ed.  It  seems  that  the  religious visions were  the most 

importance, as they boosted morale when it looked as 

though  they were going  to give up, and  it ul mately 

showed  that  the Chris ans had God's  support, which 

drove them to success. 

 26 

  

By Cameron Fleming 

Nafziger  summed  it up best  that  "The army's  in‐

fantry  is  its most  essen al  component.  Even  to‐

day, no army can take and hold any ground with‐

out the use of infantry." And it was especially true 

in the era of Napoleon Bonaparte and the French 

revolu on.  Even  with  napoleons  revolu onary 

use of massed ar llery and the “glorious” cavalry 

charges of  the era  it was  the humble  fusilier de 

ligne who did the real hard work in the armies of 

France  and  Napoleon  knew  this  and  admired  a 

“brave  soldier who  has  undergone  a  bap sm  of 

fire” and righ ully so they brought him to be em‐

peror  twice  and marched  from  Portugal  to Aus‐

tria, Moscow to Berlin and back again and it is this 

soldier  that  fought against  the armies of Britain, 

Portugal, Spain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, 

the  o oman  empire  and  fought  off  internal 

threats  from  the beginning of  the French revolu‐

on in 1789 un l napoleons exile to St. Helena in 

1815. 

In  1789  the  rights  of man  and  ci zen was  pub‐

lished out  lining  the  rights  that all men had  cre‐

a ng, from the masses of poor peasants, ci zens 

(although  the document  ignored  slavery and de‐

nied women the same rights it led to more equal 

treatment of  the  third estate and  to a period of 

banned slavery) and by the  me of Napoleon Bo‐

naparte’s  take‐over  of  France  the  ci zens  were 

transformed,  through  conscrip on,  into  soldiers. 

At first, the volunteers wore the tradi onal white 

of the royal era with the conscripts in blue (which 

is where  the  term bleu  for an  inexperienced sol‐

dier  comes  from)  but  Napoleon  saw  with  the 

weight of conscripts and volunteers cap vated by 

“the  li le corporal”  led  to  the decision  to clothe 

the whole Grande Armée  in blue. This trend was 

temporarily broken  in 1807 when Napoleon gave 

the army white but  the  look did not  last and he 

saw  its  tac cal  flaws  (in  s cking  out  like  a  sore 

thumb) at  the ba le of Eylau and  so  the French 

returned to blue.  

It was not  just the French who fought  in Napole‐

ons armies; his  truly  interna onal army saw Sax‐

ons,  Bavarians,  Hanoverians,  Neapolitans,  Span‐

ish, Portuguese, Irish, Poles, Austrians, Westphali‐

ans,  Dutch  and  Belgians  fight  in  an  army which 

entered Russia  in 1812  at  a  strength of 550,000 

and  these  allies’  quality  varied  as much  as  their 

LifeasanInfantrymanin

Napoleon’sArmy

 27 

  

uniforms with  the  fearsome  Vistula  legion  from 

Poland and their tradi onal czapca shakos to the 

poten ally  compromising  Neapolitans  in  white 

uniforms. 

 “An army marches on  its stomach” as Napoleon 

said  and  in  his own  era  this became one of  the 

most  significant  factors  in  the  survival of  the ar‐

mies  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  with  techniques 

mimicking  those  used  for  centuries  before.  The 

armies of Napoleon o en foraged for food where 

they  went  leading  some mes  to  the  forceful 

loo ng of food from  locals this  led to some mes 

shortages like in Russia in 1812 where a scorched 

earth policy  led  to  the French army slowly being 

strangled to death by shortages or some mes this 

hos le  treatment  of  local  popula ons  led  to 

armed resistance  like  in Spain and their “robbers 

and  smugglers”  (captain Blaze) guerrilla or “li le 

war” tac cs.   

The  job  of  controlling  the  growing mass  of  fusi‐

liers,  vol geurs,  chasseurs  and  grenadiers  fell  to 

the officers. Although the French army contained 

sergeants  like  the  Bri sh  army  they were  relied 

on much  less  and  it was  the  junior officers who 

led the men into ba le. Also in strong contrast to 

the o en eli st Bri sh army of the  me, the offic‐

ers were o en raised from the ranks and despite 

some  s ll  being  from  aristocra c  families,  they 

were more  o en  than  not  fana c  supporters  of 

the  emperor  and  fearlessly  led  from  the  front 

leading  to a high mortality  rate  in  junior officers 

and also a huge success rate for skirmishers in the 

Napoleonic wars  in demoralising  the men by de‐

stroying the chain of command  in the army. Fur‐

ther  up  the  chain  of  command,  the  officer  be‐

came more reliant upon  the  inspira onal  leader‐

ship  of  napoleon with  their  tac cs  lacking  both 

the  vision  of  the  situa onal  needs  of  the  ba le 

and  the  ming  that  napoleon  had  perfected  to 

win a ba le. 

The  soldiers’  life  transi oned  during  the  period 

from  a  life  based  on  drill  and  fire  prac ce 

(without  ammuni on)  and  the  forced marching 

which  led  to  tac cs  of  firing  lines  and  focused 

a acks  generated  from  a  lower  level  of military 

ac vity and urgency for soldiers to be trained to a 

quick  training  for  the Marie  Louise’s of  the  later 

campaigns  where  the  reduced  skill  and  tac cal 

flexibility led to an almost lazy use of infantry as a 

solid  mass  in  an  a ack  column  which  would 

march  wearily  towards  the  enemy  and  aim  to 

smash into their line and crush the shallower for‐

ma on. This made their 1777 pa ern musket use‐

less  as  a  ranged weapon  as  it  only  allowed  the 

first two or three ranks to fire meaning it became 

used as a melee weapon primarily with the bayo‐

net and so the infantry had to rely on ar llery de‐

stroying the enemy lines and the cavalry a acking 

at the right moment. Despite this, elite light infan‐

try  like vol geurs were s ll used to cover the ad‐

vance of the infantry. 

In  conclusion,  the  life  of  a  soldier  in Napoleons 

army varied by era,  theatre of conflict and com‐

mander but his  life anywhere was  less than com‐

fortable and  it  is fascina ng to remember that at 

the beginning of the era, Napoleon pulled money 

out of his own pocket to give his men in Italy food 

and shoes whereas in contrast, in Russia many of 

the men went bare  foot or had makeshi   shoes 

showing us not only that napoleon may have be‐

come out of touch with his men but that he had 

over  reached  himself  from  a manageable  force 

that could be  supplied  to an unwieldy beast col‐

lec vely  that was  simply  too  big  to manage  the 

consequences of this fact being felt most harshly 

upon  the ordinary  soldiers. To put  this  into per‐

spec ve  the 550,000  strong army which entered 

Russia in 1812 le  with less than 60,000 men and 

the diseases they brought back killed many more. 

So,  next  me  you  watch  Sharpe  or  listen  to 

“Waterloo”  by  ABBA,  remember  the  humble 

François the fusilier and his harsh life on the field 

of ba le.  

 28 

  

Meet Marc Morris! 

By Sophie Stradins and Luke Hoskisson 

Dr Marc Morris  is  a  historian  and  broadcaster, 

specialising in the Middle Ages. Following the suc‐

cess  of  his  bestselling  biography  of  Edward  I,  A 

Great and Terrible King, he has recently complet‐

ed a major new book, The Norman Conquest.  In 

2003  Marc  presented  the  highly  acclaimed  six‐

part series Castle for Channel 4 and wrote an ac‐

companying book. He has also contributed to his‐

tory programmes  such as Time Team, as well as 

other  shows  on  both  television  and  radio.  You 

may have, perhaps, listened to the debate on BBC 

Radio 2,  involving Marc, on  the  topic of  the  au‐

then city  of  the  Ba le  of  Has ngs’  loca on.  In 

addi on to this, Morris has wri en numerous ar‐

cles for History Today and the BBC History Mag‐

azine, as well as Heritage Today. As you can imag‐

ine, teachers as well as students were excited to 

have  such  a  fantas c  and  notable  Historian  at 

Winstanley College,  for a  lecture on  the Norman 

Conquest.  

Equipped  with  power  point  and  projector,  Dr 

Morris began with  the Bayeux Tapestry. He  told 

us  of  the  famed  embroidery’s magnificent  jour‐

ney. We  learned of how  it avoided being used as 

wagon‐rags  during  the  French  Revolu on  and 

then of how Napoleon got wind of  it and used  it 

as a symbol of French military prowess. Then the 

Second World War came and once again the em‐

broidery survived despite almost impossible odds. 

In Nazi hands the tapestry evaded the bombs and 

the fire to emerge unscathed. As Dr Morris wrote 

himself ‘that it [the tapestry] successfully avoided 

destruc on  during  the  modern  era  is  nothing 

short of miraculous.’ 

A er sharing with us all  the story of The Bayeux 

Tapestry, Dr Marc Morris moved on to tell us the 

story on it. We learned of Edward the Confessor’s 

brilliant,  11th  century‐mortality  rate  defying, 

reign of 24 years  ‐  ruling  from his corona on on 

the 3rd April 1042 un l of course the beginning of 

that  fateful  year,  1066.  Despite  the  mediaeval 

norm  of  royalty  having  many  children  (in  fact, 

Henry  I had a child ‐  legi mate or not  ‐ for every 

single  year of  Edward  the Confessor’s  extraordi‐

narily  long  reign) Edward  the Confessor bore no 

children.  It  is  uncertain  as  to  why  Edward  the 

Confessor  stayed  celibate  or  even  if  he  did. Did 

Edward  resent  the  Godwin  fac on  enough  that 

he’d  sacrifice  his  own  dynasty  in  order  to  keep 

the Godwin’s out of  royal household. Was he or 

his wife, Edith, genuinely unable to produce chil‐

dren? The ques on s ll remains, and the mystery 

s ll  looms but what  is certain  is that he provided 

no clear heir to the throne of England. Lack of an 

heir  is  a  long  term  failure  of  any  King,  a  failure 

 29 

  

of any King, a failure which eventually lead to the 

Norman  Invasion of October 1066 and the Ba le 

of Has ngs.  

We’re  sure  you  know  what  happened  on  that 

fateful day on the 14th of October 1066 but what 

people  forget  is that things tend to happen a er 

ba les,  especially  if  the  ba le  is  to  determine 

who rules an en re country. The ba le began at 

9:00 and ended at Dusk the same day (with a half 

me rest  in between) and so, a er this rela vely 

microscopic  amount  of  me  things  changed  for 

England, or  Land of  the Angles.  It  is  this  change 

that Marc Morris  pushed,  and  not  just  the  few 

hours  of  figh ng  near  Has ngs,  in  the  south  of 

England. 

We  could  just  sit  and  type  up  all  the  changes 

brought and directly  influenced by  the Norman’s 

invasion,  in  chronological  order  but we  are  not 

going  to  this,  because  a  lot  of  the  informa on 

would already be known  to you,  the  reader, but 

also,  it  is not what Marc Morris did. Marc Morris 

made a point e.g. he said: ‘Architecture was mas‐

sively  revamped. A great example of  this  is Win‐

chester  cathedral which  the Normans  rebuilt  to 

be the  longest cathedral  in the world, and also  it 

competed for the  tle of ‘biggest cathedral in Eu‐

rope’ at the  me only to be ever so beaten by St. 

Peter’s Basilica in Rome.’ These carefully selected 

facts, with their superla ves and content of pure 

grandeur  are  what  kept  the  lecture  refreshing; 

that and anecdotes about arguing with old people 

at his previous speech in a care home. 

It wasn’t all  just smile and  listen though. He kept 

both the students (and the teachers) on their feet 

with ques ons ranging from the topic of the Dan‐

ish skirmishes on the North East coast to engaging 

us  in a game of  ‘Can You Guess  the Castle  from 

the  Picture?’. A er  the first  few  ques ons were 

met with self‐conscious  fuelled silence, the thea‐

tre  hall  quickly  became  a  compe on  of  who 

could shout  the answer  loudest and quickest. All 

the lecturer‐student engagement, humour and us 

of  images ensured  that we  ‐ usually  sleepy,  lazy 

teenagers  ‐ were not once tempted to check our 

watches to see when it was over. 

As history  students ourselves we are biased and 

undoubtedly we  all  enjoy  the  subject. However, 

for anybody, whether math student, geo‐chemist 

or even an Anglo‐Saxon, it would have been easy 

to find Marc Morris’  lecture very  interes ng and 

enjoyable.  Instead  of  just  chronologically  re‐

pea ng  the  events  of  the Norman Conquest, Dr 

Marc Morris finely tailored his presenta on.  

As an A level history student applying to read His‐

tory at university as well as a member of the His‐

tory Society, I recognise the importance of univer‐

sity standard  lecturers, especially  from published 

and recognizable historians. A personal statement 

with  the  likes  of  Dr Marc Morris  imbedded  on 

them are dis nc ve and will high light it from the 

rest. There are also prac cal applica ons of a lec‐

turer  coming  into  college.  Any  extra  knowledge 

picked up  straight  from a historian’s mouth may 

be the difference between a standard and an ex‐

cep onal  grade.  You  don’t  even  have  to  study 

medieval history, in fact, if you study, in the class 

room, a different point in history to the mediaeval 

era,    then you may benefit even more. You may 

fall in love with a new area of history or you may 

get that university place you really want because 

the interviewer, who teaches the Modern History 

degree, asked you: What  is the Domesday book? 

and you knew it.  

The extra brownie points we got, however, were 

only  secondary  to  the  fact we a ended a  funny, 

interes ng and deeply engaging, informal lecture.  

Buy Dr Marc Morris’ book ‘The Norman Conquest’ 

published by ‘WINDMILL’. It’s an easy read which 

doesn’t lack detail or depth ‐ great for revision or 

just for entertainment. 

 30 

  

An EXCLUSIVE  

Interview with Marc Morris... 

At what point in your career did you choose to specialise in the Middle Ages and what made it stand out 

for you from other areas of History? 

Pre y much the minute I arrived at university (King’s College London, back in 1993). I had done the late Middle Ag‐

es/Tudors for A Level, and WWI and WII for GCSE, so I was ready for something different. I was delighted to discov‐

er a lecture list about the Norman Conquest, Becket, Magna Carta etc, because I hadn’t covered that period since I 

was about 12. It sounded fun. 

Could you describe your wri ng process – how do you go about researching a topic, then wri ng it, and 

how do you manage to edit your work? 

Research, I begin by reading [or o en re‐reading] the most obvious, general books on a subject, and moving on to 

journal ar cles etc. It’s important in the early stages of research to read as widely as possible, just to see what’s out 

there. E.g. on the Conquest I simply skimmed through everything in Anglo‐Norman Studies, the proceedings of their 

annual conference. But research and wri ng are complimentary. At some stage you have to start wri ng, just to 

organize your thoughts and get something on paper, and that raises ques ons which send you back to do more fo‐

cussed research. In terms of wri ng, structure and planning are essen al. I begin by crea ng a master  meline cov‐

ering the en re chronological span of a book [e.g. for the Conquest, from about 975 to c. 1100], and entering in all 

the relevant events from one year to the next. Once I’ve got that, I start to look for obvious chapter breaks. For ex‐

ample, if a major character like Simon de Mon ort or King Harold dies, that’s a chapter break. Spo ng these is very 

important, because then other parts of the structure fall into place. This too is an ongoing process, subject to revi‐

sion as you work out the fine detail in the course of wri ng. It can also be immensely frustra ng and tedious when 

you can’t see a way forward. But once you’ve got the structure nailed, wri ng is rela vely straigh orward, and can 

on occasion be enjoyable. 

Could you describe your experiences of presen ng the TV series ‘Castle’? 

It was great fun. It was also hard work, because the scope kept ge ng enlarged. E.g. it was supposed to be 6 x 25 

minutes, but a few weeks before filming started this was increased to 6 x 50 mins. The whole thing was researched 

and shot in about 8 months, 2001‐2, but then transmission was delayed by 6 months, which gave me the chance to 

write the book. I think it’s good if historians are able to present their own stuff, because [assuming they’re consci‐

en ous] it acts as a quality control. Many  mes I was presented with a revised script into which new info had been 

inserted, so I had to say ‘excuse me, where has this fact/data/sta s c come from please?’. TV presenters generally 

don’t do that. 

What 3  ps do you have for people who wish to study History at degree level? 

1. Be prepared for the fact that, at an undergraduate level, your job is to answer essay or exam ques ons as bril‐

liantly as possible. I was reasonably interested in past socie es as a teenager [s ll am, for that ma er], but I also 

enjoyed being asked a ques on and finding out the answer, regardless of the subject ma er. E.g. I remember en‐

joying answering a long essay ques on for my MA about Anglo‐Saxon coinage, and having to read lots of obscure 

numisma c journals. I’m not par cularly interested in coins and coinage, but I was interested in answering the 

ques on. Conversely, I’ve met lots of people who are more passionate about the past than I am, but have li le ap ‐

tude for answering essay ques ons. 

 31 

  

2. Being intelligent about what you read is important. You can read every hour of every day and s ll do poorly if 

what you’re reading is rubbish. Equally you can probably do really well by reading for only 3‐4 hours a day if your 

choices are well‐informed. Make sure the books and ar cles you are reading are up to the minute. Read the intro‐

duc ons and conclusions first to get the general thrust of an ar cle. 

3. Reading is important, but so too is thinking. Make notes, and think about the ques on you’ve been set as you 

make them. You should be interroga ng books and ar cles as you read them as you would an interviewee. Don’t 

leave the thinking and wri ng un l the night before a deadline. 

With the current debate about what should be taught in schools, why would you say that History is so 

essen al? 

History is essen al for two reasons. First, the past gives you the ability to understand the present. Someone, I for‐

get who, said that to know no history is to remain forever a child. I think that about nails it. Knowing no history 

leaves you at the mercy of poli cians, journalists and others who want to shape your opinions for their own ends. 

Which leads me to my second, more general reason, which is that history as a discipline teaches you to ask ‘how do 

we know that?’. It teaches you to weigh evidence, to judge, to discriminate. Or, as another wise old owl once said, 

‘the purpose of educa on is to determine when a man is talking rot’. 

Could the harrying of the north ever be jus fied?  

To summarize: the Harrying of the North was a campaign conducted by William the Conqueror’s troops during the 

winter of 1069‐70, during which they laid waste to northern England, especially Yorkshire, by burning the grain har‐

vested in the barns and killing all the livestock. They killed lots of people in the process too, but many thousands 

more perished in the months that followed as a result of starva on. 

Clearly by our standards this would amount to genocide. But medieval rulers had different standards. Targe ng 

your enemies’ economic resources in this way [harrying] was standard prac ce across all of Europe. Some histori‐

ans have argued that the Harrying was nothing special, no different from other episodes of harrying carried out 

during the eleventh century in England and elsewhere. 

But then other historians have followed contemporaries in poin ng out that, while the prac ce of harrying was 

commonplace, the scale of what occurred in 1069‐70 was shocking. Clearly William felt it was jus fied because the 

people of northern England had three  mes rebelled against him during the period 1066‐69. His chaplain, William 

of Poi ers, evidently wrote an account of the episode which jus fied William’s conduct in just such terms. Sadly it 

has not survived, but we have the reac on of Orderic Vitalis, who was copying Poi ers’ chronicle, and departed 

from it at this point to insert his own condemna on of the Harrying. Orderic lamented the suffering of the defence‐

less – women, children and the eldery – and guessed that the death toll had been 100,000. Modern es mates from 

Domesday Book suggest we could well be looking at a death‐toll of that kind of magnitude. 

What would you say to someone who disputes the site of the Ba le of Has ngs? 

Get well soon. 

Was the Norman Conquest merely a hos le takeover by an illegi mate claimant? 

The Conquest was certainly a hos le takeover. The ques on of legi macy is altogether more moot. William based 

his claim on nomina on by Edward the Confessor; so too did Harold. Harold also claimed elec on by the other Eng‐

lish magnates, and he certainly had enough supporters to get himself crowned when the Confessor died. But it 

seems clear that many people thought the crown should have gone to Edgar Aetheling, the only claimant who 

could claim by hereditary right. So who had the be er right? Once a king was in power, most people accepted him 

as being God’s choice, so might was o en right in this period. 

 32 

  

Meet Marc Morris! 

9 weeks into my course (Economic and Social History) 

at Birmingham can be summed up as follows: It’s a 

complete change from being at Winstanley! 

Studying at Birmingham and at university in general is 

all about self‐mo va on. I have 8‐10 contact hours 

per week and the rest is just reading, making notes 

and essays. I aim to work 30 hours per week including 

contact hours (lectures and seminars) so you have to 

be extremely self‐disciplined in order to get the work 

done. Although first year for the majority of universi‐

es doesn’t count and you only need 40% to pass, 

ge ng yourself into a good rou ne definitely helps 

when it comes to essay deadlines so you’re not cram‐

ming at the last minute. 

It is a huge adjustment moving away from home but 

the amount of support available is immense. Any que‐

ries I’ve had have been sorted straight away. Everyone 

thinks that Lecturers are scary and you can’t talk to 

them. This is far from the truth. Every lecturer has free 

hours during the week which you can make an ap‐

pointment to go over things you didn’t understand in 

the lecture or for further guidance about reading. I’ve 

been to 3 lecturers for help and they’ve all been really 

helpful and approachable. The main thing I would say 

is don’t be afraid to ask for help. It’s a big change both 

socially and educa onally and all the staff understand 

this and are willing to help.  There’s a department 

dedicated to advising you on essay skills, note taking 

revising etc. which has been a huge help for me. 

My degree consists of 5 modules: Making of the mod‐

ern world 1500 – 1800, Economic History of Modern 

Britain, Social History of Modern Britain, Prac cing 

History skills and a Module outside the main discipline 

which I chose Economics. If you took a single honours 

history it’s the same except the economic and social 

modules are replaced by a medieval module.  

The main thing from A level history which has bene‐

fi ed me the most for Uni is the coursework e.g. skim 

reading, and individual research in books. Uni essays 

are basically mini A2 courseworks. Don’t let that put 

you off as you have plenty of  me to do it and you get 

to choose from a wide range of ques ons and you an‐

swer it exactly how you want, there’s no boundaries. 

Finally, as the saying goes “all work and no play…” is 

definitely true. You need to get a good work/life bal‐

ance otherwise you burn out too quickly. First year is 

about finding your feet and adjus ng to Uni life. I’ve 

already made some amazing friends and the nightlife 

at Birmingham is electric. I couldn’t recommend Uni‐

versity of Birmingham enough.  

If you have any more ques ons about Birmingham or 

just Uni in general, halls, Uni life anything at all get in 

touch with Silvia who can forward them to me. 

Studying History at the University of Birmingham 

By Ted Griffiths 

 33 

  

Meet the His-President  Joe Gaffney 

Magazine Editor  Phoebe McGibbon 

Magazine Assistants  Holly Browe ‐Woolnough Isaac Tweedale Georgia Sampson Georgia Ascro  Megan Owen James Knowles 

Quiz organiser  Lucy Weir Lewis Williams 

Debates coordinator  Julia Taylor Rachel Burgess 

External speakers re‐searcher (work in collabo‐ra on with Elaine P) 

Robyn Yates 

Guest Speakers  & Muse‐um Coordinator 

Robyn Yates 

Internal speakers coordi‐nator 

Jack Lunt 

Social Media coordinator  Harry Griffiths 

History Mentor coordina‐tor 

Joe Gaffney 

Trip researcher (working with Ma ) 

Lucy Weir Chris McLauchlan Connor Simms‐Page 

Medieval Total War  organiser 

David Farrimond 

Display coordinator  Hannah Brady Amy Pla  

Adver sing overseer  Lucy Weir 

Discussion group leader (films/ar cles…) 

Silvia Marques Kayleigh Gibson 

Official photographer   Zara Andrews 

Vice President  Cameron Fleming 

Follow us on Twi er: @WinHist 

Like us on Facebook: h ps://www.facebook.com/WinstanleyHistory 

 34 

  

History Society On Friday 15th November,  

David Atherton came into  

college to deliver a talk on a 

WW1 Soldier’s Diary 

We were privileged to receive  

lectures this term from Crusades 

Historian Jonathan Philips, and 

Norman Historian Marc Morris 

Congratulaons to team

 ‘Nein 

Nein Nein’, who won t

he  

History Society Quiz on

  

November 20th! 

Debate: “Are people who simply follow orders person‐ally responsible?”

 

Congratula ons to the Vice‐President  

Cameron Fleming on his elec on victory! 

History Mentoring: Each Thursday

Don’t forget ‐ Historical Dress Up Day: 11th December 

Marxism Talk

by Ma Fisher

Presenta on on ‘

The 

Evolu on of German 

Tanks’ by Mike Woods! 

Crusades Lecture by Andrew Jo schky

Coming soon: Christmas Drama! 

Christmas Term

Crusades ‘catch‐up classes’ 

 35 

  

Meet Marc Morris! 

Baffled by the Crusades?  

Struggling with an essay?  

Finding it difficult to manage  

revision?  

Need some advice?  

Contact one of our email mentors, or come 

along to a mentoring session… 

 

Help is on hand each Thursday, in A5! 

Email mentors...

Isaac Tweedale: V3004@winstanley.ac.uk 

Joe Gaffney: V2796@winstanley.ac.uk 

Robyn Yates: V2689@winstanley.ac.uk 

Bradley Renouf: V2636@winstanley.ac.uk 

Sophie Connelly: V2779@winstanley.ac.uk