Brun

el U

nive

rsity

Hist

ory

Soci

ety

Issu

e 00

2

The Top Hat

Cicero

Brunel University Isambard Centre for Historical Research Wednesday Seminar Series 2012-13

Gaskell Building Rm 239, Brunel University, Uxbridge

Histories of Power and Empire

17 Oct. 5pm: Prof. Sir Richard J. Evans FBA, University of Cambridge ‘The American empire and the refashioning of German culture, 1945-55’

7 Nov. 4pm: Prof. Simon Gunn, University of Leicester 'The People and the Car: Automobility and the Transformation of Everyday Life in 1960s Britain'

5 Dec. 4pm: Prof. Peter Mandler, University of Cambridge 'The Sociological Imagination in Mid-Twentieth Century America and Britain’

16 Jan. 4pm: Dr. Jim Bjork, King’s College London 'Masquerade: Serial Nationalization between Agency and Indifference’ 23 Jan. 4pm: Prof. Martin Thomas, University of Exeter 'Integrating and Disintegrating Empire and Republic in Postwar France’

13 Feb. 5pm: Prof. James Belich ONZM, University of Oxford 'The Black Death and the Spread of Europe’

6 Mar. 4pm: Dr. Sarah Stockwell, King’s College London ‘Loitering in the corridors of power: the British pursuit of an imperial role

at the end of empire’ 17 May. Afternoon: Symposium ‘Heritage, diversity and the legacies of empire’ A limited number of travel bursaries are available for non-Brunel students from across London. Contact: tamson.pietsch@brunel.ac.uk

Inside this Issue

Page 3 Forging a Dictator Zander Oldring

Page 7CiceroSam Aylett

Page 9 East India Company Stephanie Corner

Page 5 Star Wars Louis Adcock

Page 10 The Boy in the Striped Pjamas

Laura Marriner

Page 11 Lecturer of the Month

Inge Dornan

2

3

Recipe for an AutocratWhat does it take

to turn you into Stalin? Is it

inherent or is it forged by life experience? To efficiently address these issues analysing the youth of the dictator seems the most effective way. Drawing upon the evidence presented by Simon Sebag Montefiore in his book Young Stalin this article will seek to explain the phenomena behind the tyrant responsible for so much 20th Century destruction.

Born on the 8th December 1878, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili was to become a tyrant and a murderer. Yet he originated from humble beginnings. A son of an alcoholic cobbler and an attractive young Georgian, Stalin was clearly not born into greatness. However, his heritage and genealogy perhaps had a greater impact

upon shaping him than many historians would care to consider. Stalin’s mother – affectionately known as Keke – was strong willed and bordering on arrogant; a trait which her son seemed to channel into self-righteous egoism. His father, Beso, too would have a great impact upon him, especially as he descended into alcoholism and domestic violence. Perhaps this exposure to violence desensitized the Young Stalin and allowed the ruthless massacres of the 1930s to take place.

Whilst this certainly holds a great amount of truth, placing the entire blame of Stalin’s bloodlust upon the parents seems to be not only clichéd but inaccurate. Montefiore seems to bring attention in his book to the fact that Stalin’s upbringing was not unique – his personality was though. Not

all these children developed into the neurotic dictator of Soviet Russia. Therefore, life events must have had an influence.

Even from birth the young Djugashvili was struggling for his life. However, it was later accidents and illnesses that would have a greater impact. Stalin, for example, was to develop a stiffened, near crippled, left arm during his childhood. Whilst there is historical debate concerning the truth behind its origins Montefiore identifies a series of incidents in which Stalin was hit by phaetons. Not only did this damage his left arm but it resulted in a limp that would stay with the Russian leader until death. These physical impairments when combined with his heavily pockmarked face, Montefiore suggests, led to an inferiority complex. Such a complex was

4

clear when Stalin highlights his annoyance at not being able to dance with women. It is possible that, therefore, such an inferiority complex fuelled the paranoia that would become commonplace during his time as dictator.

Had this event happened in isolation, however, then the dictator may well have just been consigned to poverty and paranoia. The determination of Keke got Stalin an education and eventually a place at the Tiflis seminary. Importantly Montefiore brings attention to the interesting contradiction that the seminary seemed to create more atheists than it did clergy. It is for that reason that Tiflis Seminary was influential upon Stalin. It was here he developed a desire for Communism. Reading illicit texts and falling in love with Marx. His intelligence, delinquency and passion were channelled into a revolutionary cause. Stalin had shifted from a troublemaker to a political terrorist. Djugashvili, though was still capable of compassion and loyalty towards comrades until the 22nd November 1907. It was on this day Kato Svanidze, Stalin’s first wife

Man of Steel

impetuous ego his strong emotions were forged into a paranoid, fanatical killer bent upon protecting the glorious revolution. This was moulded through a series of significant early life events that left the man over sensitive whilst emotionally stunted – a dangerous juxtaposition that led to the tragic loss of millions of lives.

Zander Oldring

Second Year Undergraduate

and romantic soul mate, died aged 22 from typhus. The impact upon Stalin personally was tremendous, but the impact upon his world view would have dramatic consequences for the world. When talking to a childhood friend Stalin remarked upon Kato’s death “she died and with her died my last warm feelings for humanity.” This fascinating fusion between beautiful romantic and stone hearted killer is perhaps best illustrated by that quote. Kato’s death was the hinge point when Stalin shifted from romantic revolutionary to dictatorial killer.

Stalin’s combination of genealogy and upbringing are therefore, self-evidently, unique. Born with an

Star Wars

In the middle of considering the topic of my next article for this

magazine, it dawned on me how much many popular films have been influence by historical events. In a series of articles exploring this correlation, I have decided to begin with the Star Wars franchise. This is mainly because it is easy to identify links between these films and historical events, but also because the recent Disney purchase of Lucasfilm has ignited a recent increase in interest in the Star Wars franchise.

The first of said links that can be seen is not so much regarding a historical event as it is a person. This is the comparison between Palpatine, the primary antagonist of the prequel trilogy, and Adolf Hitler. While Palpatine’s ascent to becoming a dictator is an easy link to forge, this could be applied to any dictator throughout history.

What makes the link so discernible between these two is the fact that one of the aims that contribute to Palpatine’s quest for galactic domination is the eradication of the Jedi. Not only does the discrimination against an entire people help the viewer draw comparisons between Palpatine and Hitler, the fact that Jedi happens to be a religion only helps to reinforce the credibility of this comparison. A link between these two characters is thus easily made, but this is not the only basis upon which one could compare Palpatine and Hitler.

Another aspect of Palpatine’s agenda that corroborates this comparison is the fact that he eventually manages to eliminate all political opposition in the galaxy. Additionally, he achieved this during the process of transforming the Republic into an empire. Needless to say this mirrors the

transformation of Germany from a democratic state under the Weimar Republic to a totalitarian regime dubbed the Third Reich. It is equally noteworthy that post-transformation, both regimes went on to conquer further territories. Hence I stress the similarities between the fictional character that is Emperor Palpatine and the unfortunately non-fictional Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Moving away from simply a character comparison, another feature of Palpatine’s regime mirrors that of the Third Reich. While the above points may or may not have been intended, I think it’s more than fair to say that this parallel has been intentionally fabricated. The point of comparison that I am referring to in this case is the fact that the soldiers that serve Palpatine’s regime are called Stormtroopers. While I am sure this comparison needs no explanation,

5

I will note as I find it interesting that Palpatine’s Stormtroopers appear first in the list when typing the word ‘Stormtrooper’ into Google. The similarities between not only the two personalities of Palpatine and Hitler, but also the similarities between the natures of both of their regimes are all the more evident when this ‘Stormtrooper’ connection is considered.

Shifting focus away from comparisons to the Second World War, my next point of comparison between the Star Wars franchise and historical events is focusing on a more recent conflict. This is the similarity between the battle between the Ewoks and the forces of the Galactic Empire and the Vietnam War. This comparison is primarily based upon the primitive technology that the Ewoks utilised in combat. Not only did said technology consist of simply of wooden crafted weaponry, such

as bows and arrows, but the Galactic Empire were vastly superior in this regard as they were able to use weapons such as laser guns and speeder bikes. Another facet of this battle in Star Wars that prompts such a comparison is the fact that the battle occurs in a jungle based environment. This point illustrates that various events throughout history have influenced directors that worked on the Star Wars franchise at one point or another.

As this article has llustrated, major films have been influenced by historical events in one way or another. In subsequent issues I will explore such influence on other major films. As for now, I hope you enjoyed reading this article and that you are looking forward to subsequent articles in the coming months.

Louis Adcock

Editor - In - Chief

Similarities between Fact and Fiction

Thursdays 11-12 Radio Brunel

BUHSChristmas Social

More Next Month

6

BUHS Poppy Appeal Raised: £192.97

Cicero and Cultural Property

The charge against Gaius Verres is that during a period of three years he

has laid waste the province of Sicily: that he has plundered Sicilian communities stripped bare Sicilian homes, and pillages Sicilian temples. Here before you, here with their tale of wrong, stand the whole Sicilian people. (In Caecilium div. 311) Above is an extract from a set of speeches written by rhetorician and classical ‘lawyer’ Cicero, who prosecuted under Roman law, the governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres, in the fifth century BCE who seized statues, paintings and other artefacts from the Sicilian people.

For a history of these

events and how scholars have used cases like this to highlight origins of debate about cultural property I urge you to read Margaret M. Miles ‘Art as Plunder; The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property’. My own current research in regards to Cultural Property draws upon these debates and in this article I would like to draw your attention to the discourse and problems regarding Cultural Property. My current focus is in regards to illicit trading in antiquities and artefacts, but in this article I would like to focus on Cultural Property itself and questions of ownership and the Internationalist discourse.

First of all I would like you to ask yourself what you believe cultural property to be? The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property defines ‘Cultural Property’ as “property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each

State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science”.

I have found the idea of ‘Cultural Property’ to be very problematic. I can see valid points in the Universalist argument for the shared stewardship of cultural property and its fluidity between institutions for purposes of education and dissemination. Also, I can see validity in the Nationalistic Retentionist argument that Cultural Property belongs to be held by its nation state in the correct historical context.

During the Enlightenment period after the French Revolution the dissemination of information between scholars, academics, and countries started to spread The Republic of Letters. Out of this also came ideas of Heritage and Culture transcendent of national borders.

Simultaneously Imperialist nations started to collect cultural artefacts from around the globe during colonial conquests. Britain perhaps being the most prestigious of

7

Imperial powers amassed quite a collection, of which many well known artefacts were published in the British Museum and remain there to this day. Some of these famous imperial treasures include the Rosetta stone, the Bulls of Babylon and the ‘Elgin’ or Parthenon marbles; all of which are still on display and certainly worth a trip.

Let us use The Parthenon Marbles as an example. The Parthenon Marbles were removed from the Acropolis in Greece between the years of 1801 and 1810 by Lord Elgin. Keep in mind what I have mentioned about Universalists ideas in regards to Cultural Property and ownership. The aforementioned 1970 UNESCO convention is not retroactive (it cannot be applied to cultural property removed prior to 1970). In 1983 a formal bilateral request was made by Greece for the return of the Parthenon Marbles, which was formally rejected in 1984 by the UK government.

Greece made further moral claims for the marbles to be returned and housed in a new museum that had been

commissioned in anticipation of the 2004 Athens Olympics. The UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation made further recommendations for the return of the Parthenon Marbles.

However, The British Museum refused and continues to offer reasons as to why they cannot afford to remove the collection and that they cannot in light of the British Museum Act 1963.

As you can see ideas in regards to Cultural Property and its ownership are many and somewhat problematic and whilst countries signing up to conventions much like the 1970 UNESCO convention agree that a universalist approach to Cultural Property is a positive approach and a necessary one many institutions still fight to retain illicitly gained artefacts and their practise is much more Nationalistic hoping to retain these items.

There are many more cases in which problems in regards to the provenance of artefacts comes into question and that museums still accept black market antiquities, but

that is for another time. For now think about Cultural Property and which approach you think is best.

As historians we should respect these artefacts which tell us much about the past and that they are an important educational tool. We should endeavour to share stewardship over these Artefacts. More often archaeological sites are destroyed during conflict; artefacts are illegally sold into private collections and hidden away in Museum stores.

At the moment I am not sure which side of the fence I fall, I believe that Internationalist sentiments are ideal however they also fuel Retentionist practises as much as they seek to extinguish them. I also believe in the fluidity of artefacts for educational purposes if there can be an effective way of managing it.

What I think we can all agree on is that historical artefacts are important to all of us who wish to learn from them and cherish them as treasures of past cultures, histories and peoples and we should mourn the many artefacts that are destroyed and looted on a daily basis in the midst of fighting and conflict.

Sam Aylett BA(Hons)

Postgraduate History Student

Ancient Philosophy On Modern Issues

8

East India ExpansionThe British are well

known for taking over vast parts of the world,

what they called expanding and colonising. After defeating the Spanish Armada, and feeling pretty good about themselves, the British decided to enter the Indian Ocean. It also wasn’t until the British decided the food was too bland, clothes were too itchy, a new beverage was needed that they stumbled upon spices, silk and tea and entered Asia for trading. The most well-known joint stock trading company was the East India Company. Whilst expanding their empire and hoarding goods they not only treated Indians as inferior creating a Raj, but true to the British, got caught up in battles. Yes, a simple trading company one day, was a fighting navy and ruler of the seas the next. It was the Opium trade

that increased the link between navy and company and of course exemplified the link between trade and war.

It was the Battle of Plassey on the river banks of the Bhagirathi River which led to East India Company rule in India. The Nawab of Bengal, that’s a hereditary governor to me and you, and French allies, tried to take Calcutta. However, Britain sent Admiral Charles Watson to recapture it and in a twist the British formed a conspiracy with the Nawab and managed to push the French and Dutch further away from Asia. The East India Company needed to travel efficiently and better than other European powers, so involved themselves in important routes. One was the Suez Canal, which was originally the French and

Egyptian’s, but had to be sold to Disraeli. This created an instant connection between the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans. It was constantly fought over at sea by the Navy of the East India Company. They knew much about Battles at sea, from the days of the English East India Company, in battles of Pulo Aura and Swally. However, we all know how holding on to the Suez Canal and trying to dominate the Ocean would turn out for Britain in 1956. Not good, not good at all. Stephanie Corner

Second Year Undergraduate

9

Based on the novel by John Boyne and directed by Mark Herman,

this is a beautiful story of two young boys living in Nazi occupied Poland from two very different experiences. When the father (David Thewlis) of a small family is promoted to Commandant of a concentration camp and relocated from Berlin to Poland, his wife (Vera Farmiga) and two children are completely unaware of the horrors that lie just beyond their garden wall.

The youngest child Bruno (Asa Butterfield) had dreams of becoming an explorer, so it is of no surprise that he soon discovers the terrors of the Nazi regime. Yet, due to his innocence he is unaware of what it is that he has come across, instead he believes it to be a ‘farm.’ This story emphasises the naivety of many who were relocated as part of the armed forces, to work and control the concentration camps not just in Poland but Germany as well. Untold by her husband, Bruno’s mother only realises what she has allowed her family

and children to be moved next to when she smells the foul stench of burning flesh from the ‘farms’’ insinuators. Horrified by this she still continues to fuel Bruno’s belief that the camp is indeed a farm.

Bruno soon discovers an inmate of the camp, the boy in striped pyjamas, Shmaul who he begins to create a friendship with between the boundaries of the electric fence. This friendship shows that not all the Jewish prejudices and anti-Semitic opinions were practiced. Yet it is the lies of his family, and his friendship with this boy that in turn leads to a very sad turn of events for both Bruno and Shamul.

Despite being a story of historical fiction there are some truths found within this tale. The fact that many of the inmates were used as servants within the nearby officers’ houses did in fact happen. For example there have been reports of those who were hired to cut the officers’ hair, peel potatoes, clean the silver and so forth. The circumstances in which Bruno’s

family found themselves would also not have been uncommon, many sources suggest that many Germans, even Polish, were unaware of the genocides and tortures that were taking place within these camps partially due to the way in which they were built as factories. That is what the general population believed to be happening and they were too crippled by the fear inflicted upon them by the Nazis that none would question otherwise.

Although this is an upsetting tale, it is brilliantly acted, and perfectly directed. Winning British Independent Film Award for Best Actress (Vera Farmiga) Audience Choice Award (Mark Herman) and nominated for British Independent Film Award Best Director ( Mark Herman), and Most Promising Newcomer (Asa Butterfield). I would strongly recommend this film and so give it an 8/10.

Laura Marriner

Second Year Undergraduate

The Boy in theStriped Pyjamas

10

Lecturer of the MonthInge Dornan has been

teaching at Brunel for the past ten years, during this

time she has established the MA in Modern World History and been a vital role in the creation and development of the History Society. As Touch Point Leader and main member of staff who deals with the society, it seemed obvious who I was going to interview first. Inge currently teaches several modules surrounding her field of research and so many History and Politics students will have come into contact with her during their time at Brunel. She studied for her BA at Warwick and then went on to do her PhD and MPhil at Girton College, Cambridge. After she graduated, for a year she worked at Oxford, Warwick and University of East Anglia in which she spent most her time travelling on

trains before getting a full time position at Brunel in 2002.

Q - What first brought you to teaching at Brunel?

A - When I first came to Brunel in 2002, the department had created a study of Gender and the Atlantic World and I was brought in as an appointment for that. This was one of my first major appointments since graduating from Cambridge in 2000. The Department at this point was called Politics, American Studies and History. This placement was ideal as it is a key part of my research.

Q - What is the best part of being part of the Politics and History Department?

A - I think, because it is a very collegiate department and we all get along very well together. I always feel very lucky as well that we get such great students come in every year, which makes an enormous difference to the teaching experience. So basically the teachers and students make the experience for me. Obviously the nature of the department being quite small makes everything much more friendly and most of us have been here quite a long time, with only a few new placements who have come in within the last couple of years.

Q - Why did you initially get involved with the History Society?

A - Basically, Dr Kristian Gustafson and I set up the society three years ago. Previously it had been suggested that a society should be set up and after student support and enthusiasm. So Kristian and I were appointed to be Touch Point Leaders for History and Politics. We thought setting up the societies would be a good idea as it helps to give students a voice, not just in the department but more widely in the university as well. It also helps to forge an identity as historians and politics students and an opportunity to network and meet others socially. The department didn’t really have anything like this before the society was set up. It was important that the students were

11

Inge Dornanleading everything and we were in the background helping if necessary. Those involved have also always been so encouraging and enthusiastic.

Q - What are your hobbies outside of lecturing?

A - I am sing in a folk band, which has no name as we basically just play Irish, American and English folk music in my local area for different folk nights. I also am very involved in taking part in triathlons and marathons and going hill walking. I took part last weekend in the Abingdon marathon and I was in the local newspaper for being the first women’s team over the finish line. I’ve also just joined a new choir at Brunel with the Arts Centre called ‘Brunel Rox’, as I know Rae Evans the leader.

Q - What research are you currently working on?

A - I am currently working on a book with the provisional title ‘The Politics of Violence’ which is about women in slavery in colonial South Carolina.

Q - Is there an ideal module that you would like to teach?

A - Well I think I teach already, as I am very lucky the modules that I find the ideal. We’re very lucky here at Brunel that we are encouraged, certainly at Level 3 to teach a

module that we research on as well. To me the previously Level 3 module which is now at Level 2: ‘Slavery and Abolition in the Atlantic World’ is my ideal module to teach as I really love the entire subject area.

Q - What brought you to an interest in slavery?

A - While studying my BA in Medieval Renaissance History but I really loved the Caribbean History program, I didn’t take it officially but I did sit in on lectures and seminars and loved it and that’s how I ended up eventually taking the route that I did. After taking an elective module in first year on ‘The Race Question’ I was incredibly inspired by lecturer to carry on an take another elective in my second year and Warwick had quite a few slavery scholars

teaching their at this time. So it was really the lecturers who inspired me with their passion on the subject that brought me to where I am today.

Sara Brimble

Second Year Undergraduate

Write For Us

Email:

Brunelhistorysocietynewsletter@gmail.com

12