Using an historical approach, what were the faulty tactics of presentation used by Colin Powell in his UN address on February 5th, 2003?
A) Plan of Investigation
Using a historical approach, this investigation seeks to identify the faulty tactics of persuasion employed by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State on February 5th 2003 in his speech to the UN. In order to recognize the flawed approaches of persuasion used by Powell, claims in his speech should be compared with the now-accepted counters to US allegations and each point should be analysed in a historical context to determine how Powell’s presentation methodology was mistaken. Speeches, newspaper accounts, expert testimony in interview and documentary form and government reports are mostly used to evaluate the authenticity of claims of Iraq’s possession of WMD and of the opposition. The two main sources to be evaluated are Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 address to the UN, and War on Iraq:What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, an interview-cum-analysis by Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt.
B) Summary of Evidence
George Bush’s State of the Union speech, delivered on January 28th, 2003, introduced the claims made by Powell the following week, and in fact informed Congress that “United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th” where “Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about…Iraq's illegal weapons programs”[1]. He conveyed his intent to go to war by ending with “If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just … And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States …”[2]
On February 5th, 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council the US’ case against Iraq, reminiscent of Adlai Stevenson’s UN presentation in 1958. Powell referred to promises made by Iraq to disarm and UN Resolution 1441 where it was ruled that Iraq had to comply with disarmament obligations[3].
He claimed that “the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction”[4]. A tape recording of a conversation between an Iraqi general and colonel, dated November 22, 2002, where IAEA inspector Mohammed El-Baradei’s visit[5] was discussed and orders for a “modified vehicle” to be evacuated were introduced as evidence. He also displayed photo-enhanced images and explained them as weapons munitions facilities, active munitions bunkers, and a nearby decontamination vehicle. To contrast with that photo, he showed a photo taken of the same area on the 22nd of December, which showed that “the tents are gone, the signature vehicles are gone”; Powell stated this evacuation was for the benefit of the UN inspection teams arriving that day. He also declared that the US had photos of Iraqi cargo trucks and missile-moving cranes engaging in unorthodox activities, presumably to move weapons before UN inspections two days later[6].
Powell also asserted that Iraq was continuing to possess and produce biological weapons such as deadly anthrax, and that an Iraqi civil engineer had witnessed production as recently as 1998. He also spoke of eyewitnesses describing mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails[7].
Chemical weapons were also another facet of Powell’s claims on Iraq possession of WMD; more photos of before/after timings after weapons inspections of a “chemical complex” and “unusual activity” were shown, and claims of Iraq’s possession of fatal VX agents were put forth. Powell also states that “We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry”[8].
Powell also repeatedly mentioned Iraq’s possession of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and the fact that they had not been able to account for their supposed destroying of these weapons. He claimed that “Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent” as well as an array of artillery shells, and bombs that were unaccounted for by the Iraqis.
According to Colin Powell, all information provided by him came from appropriate channels of information, claiming that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”[9].
The culmination of this diplomatic tour de force conducted by the American commander-in-chief and his Secretary of State Colin Powell was the invasion of Iraq on March 20th, 2003, which was, according to President Bush, in order “to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger”[10].
C) Evaluation of Sources
Colin Powell’s speech, presented February 5th, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, mainly regarded the possession of WMDs by Iraq, and the US’ views on this apparent transgression of UN Resolutions. According to Powell, the information originated from “a variety of sources…U.S. sources…other countries… such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites.”[11][12] He explained the purpose of the speech to have two reasons: firstly to “First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei” and secondly to “provide…additional information…about Iraq's WMD”. The underlying purpose of this speech, implied by Powell, was to present to the world the US’ case for war against Iraq, demonstrated by the timing of this speech with the State of the Union Speech and the actual invasion a month later[13]. This speech is extremely valuable in the sense that it is delivered by a key representative of the United States government, accurately representing the US governments’ beliefs and views on the situation[14]. However, limitations of this speech include the fact that specific sources are never named. Furthermore, Powell has a very specific purpose in his speech and selected facts and information especially to support these claims[15].
Scott Ritter’s and William River’s Pitt’s novel War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know is a direct contrast to the claims presented in Powell’s speech, arguing facts against Iraq’s possession of WMDs. The book is co-written in 2002 by Ritter[16], a UNSCOM weapons inspector, and Pitt, the editor at “Progressive Democrats of America”. Much of the book is written in interview form between Pitt and Ritter about Ritter’s findings in Iraq, or more specifically his lack of findings. The purpose of this book was to counter the US’ government claims about Iraqi possession of WMD’s; interestingly written even before Powell’s speech was made yet rebutting all claims made in the UN presentation. The value of this source lies in the fact that the information given is first-hand knowledge of the topic, as Ritter was actually conducting investigations in Iraq himself, and also that the book was written before the speech, thus eliminating accusations of it being a rebuttal specifically designed against Powell.[17] However, limitations of this source would be that Ritter would have a direct bias against the claims of the US government and perhaps select facts to support his bias or views; and the material contained is designed to be provocative and presented accordingly[18].
D) Analysis
Powell’s claims that Iraq did not fully comply with weapons inspections are supported by other sources[19] who have all agreed that Iraq did not fulfill inspection requirements and refused inspectors access to certain presidential palaces and other Iraqi sites[20]. Powell says this was to prevent inspectors from location hidden weapons caches or to ensure time to conceal weapons at these sites. However, Ritter explains it as the reluctance of Iraqi officials to expose inner areas in fear revealed layout knowledge would be used to plan future attacks[21]. However Powell did not acknowledge this different interpretation of Iraqi actions, leading to his first historical fallacy in persuasion, which was to pretend certainty in a case with ambiguities[22].
The decontamination vehicles shown by Powell were known by UN weapons inspectors to be fire-trucks[23]. Additionally, the intercepted communications between Iraqi generals discussing possession of munitions vehicles are doubtful due to the clandestine nature of Iraqi army communications and the improbability of classified discussions held over radio where high risk of interception is known. Additionally, the disappearance of vehicles and other operational equipment from sites, according to both Hans Blix and Ray McGovern, 27 year image analyst, can be attributed to “routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection”[24][25]. David Albright, nuclear weapons assessor of 20 years, also argues that there was no way to confirm the actual function of the “weapons munitions facilities” described by Powell through aerial photographs without actually entering the premises[26]. These claims by Powell are instances of him substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events, as well as using illogical, unsupported reasoning, which are further historical fallacies[27].
Powell’s claims of biological weapons possession by Iraq were also countered by Ritter in his argument that anthrax held by the Iraqis would be “brown, sludge liquid,” that would be “useless today” as the shelf life of anthrax is three years and the last known production batch was in 1991[28]. Additionally, the “biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails” described by Powell are proved by UN weapons inspectors to be hydrogen generation facilities[29]. This is presentation of entirely false evidence, and the selection and omission of certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose or to support a social/political cause. This is a flawed approach to persuasion as facts are intended to be given in context with the situation’s entirety, while ensuring the veracity of the facts presented, another way in which Powell’s approach to convince the world was flawed[30].
Sarin and tabun nerve agents purportedly in possession by the Iraqis also had a shelf-life of about 5 years, rendering them useless today. VX nerve agents, the Iraqis denied having the capabilities, however production equipment was located and hence destroyed in 1996, destroying all possibility of further production of VX agents[31]. Additionally, there was no solid proof of dual-capability factories according to weapons inspectors having perused the area[32], yet the language used by Powell—“we know that…” indicates surety, which was not the case as proven by the dispute of the apparent facts. Selecting appropriate language indicates the level to which a persuasive speaker should be believed, and Powell made the mistake of demonstrating a false level of confidence.
Powell’s claims of Iraqi possession of “100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent” and the 16 122mm shells found and other artillery, were also rebutted by inspectors and organization directors. Their counterargument was that if Iraq in fact possessed these weapons, why were they not found by June 10th, 2003, at which point over 230 sites had been inspected?[33] Furthermore, Powell’s claims that Iraq possessed WMD merely because they had not provided proof of their destruction are not grounds to declare that because they did not prove the weapons’ absence, that meant that Iraq still possessed them. According to Ritter, Iraq may have wished to retain autonomy, hence the absence of proof of destruction. However, Powell simply presented the simpler situation, exhibiting the unsound tactic of oversimplification of complex events to suit his purposes and intents.
E) Conclusion
While Powell’s presentation to the UN may have been a “masterful performance” in terms of delivery, the techniques used to present the content to convince the world of Iraqi possession of WMD were severely flawed in that they did not follow a relation of facts that was historically appropriate, meaning his delivery was more of a show than a factual representation of events that transpired. Powell’s main mistakes were pretending certainty in a case with ambiguities, substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events, using illogical, unsupported reasoning, selection and omission of certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose, demonstrating a false level of confidence, and oversimplification of complex events. By pinpointing the variations in data presented by Powell and data presented by other sources, the faulty tactics of persuasion were thereby identified. In a historical context, this question shows how the simple choice of presentation of certain information can change national policies, and alter the course of history.
Word Count: 1998
Bibliography
Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003. Na .
Carr, Edward H. What is History? New York: Vintage Books, 1961.
Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006.
Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003.
Corn, David. "Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003. .
Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na .
El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na .
Fischer, David H. Historical Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. Harper Perennial, 1970.
Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.Com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003. .
Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004. .
Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003. .
Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003. .
Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007 .
Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003. .
Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations. .
Warrick, Joby. "Evidence on Iraq Challenged." Washington Post 19 Sept. 2002. .
[1] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[2] Bush’s justification for war was his claims of Hussein’s possession of “materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” as well as 38,000 unaccounted for liters of botulinum toxin”. Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[3] Interestingly, Powell failed to mention that the title of the resolution was “The situation between Iraq and Kuwait”, meaning the resolution dealt directly with these two countries and arms limitations in this specific context. The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations.
[4] Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[5] El Baradei’s description of his visit, on March 7, 2003, a month after Powell’s speech,clearly states there is little proof of Iraqi possession of WMD. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[6] Interestingly, Dr. Hans Blix, who Powell quoted in his own speech, directly rebutted this exact statement in his own speech on February 14th, 2003, stating that “two satellite images Mr Powell showed to the council on February 5 did not prove that Iraq was clearing the site of forbidden munitions” Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[7] Such claims were supported by other US Government Documents: Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003.
[8] Stewart Stogel, “Iran Agrees Iraq Hid Arms,” Washington Times, June 10, 2003. A quote from an unidentified “Iranian official” with “ties to Supreme Leader Khamenei” that states that Iran had knowledge of illicit weapons being integrated into the civilian black market
[9]Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003. On page 464, it is claimed that Powell’s speech was primarily based on “information from a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile plants”
[10] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[11] His description of other sources was “people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to” Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[12] Discussions on discovering biological warfare systems in Iraq are described to be primarily discoveries by “the US military”, “US forces” and Kurdish forces” who “subsequently turned it over to US military control”. This brings to question whether any of Powell’s sources were from agencies outside the US. , Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[13] Senator Chris Dodds’ speech on February 5, 2003, as a direct response to Powell’s speech, links Powell’s speech to the decision to invade Iraq, when he stated “ Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council shed additional public light on Iraq's WMD programs”, and the only way to address that “threat” “is to invade Iraq” Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na
[14] Washington Times Letter to the Editor, “For the Record,” June 6, 2003. Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor echoes Powell’s beliefs about Iraq’s possession of WMD.
[15][15] Ray McGovern, 27 year analyst of US government affairs, speaks about Powell’s use of placement of supporters during his speech; the placement of George Tenet, head of the CIA, right behind him as if to “that the Central Intelligence Agency stands behind…everything Colin Powell says”
[16] Ritter served in Iraq in his capacity from 1991-1998. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[17] This is an advantage due to the precedent of Joe Wilson, US diplomat. He was asked to verify uranium yellowcake papers and deemed them false, upon which the White House published that Wilson was a “Democrat”, and then leaked his wife’s CIA operative identity, thus ending her career. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[18] This is shown by the title itself, with the description of the US administration as “Team Bush”, likening it to an illegal gang or suchlike. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[19] Such as Scott Ritter, UNSCOM director Richard Butler, and UNMOVIC Executive Director. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[20] Nevertheless, Blix himself stated in his March 7, 2003 address that “Iraq should be given some credit” for their cooperation with inspectors. However, this cooperation was referring to recent inspection activity, and not the activity Ritter, El-Baradei, and Butler were referring to, which occurred primarily in the ‘90s. Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[21] This was echoed by David Albright, who likens placing weapons in presidential palaces as placing “crown jewels’ in the one building inspectors would request to inspect. “Evidence on Iraq challenged” Washington Post. September 19, 2002
[22] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 13)
[23] Ray McGovern again refutes the claims of the images as decontamination vehicles by criticizing Powell’s expertise as an image analyst. “CBC News In-depth: Iraq”, Ritter does the same in his book
[24] Dr. El-Baradei also echoed this sentiment. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[25] Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[26] This is supported by Mel Goodman in his interview “Did Powell Make the Case?” Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.Com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003.
[27] History as representation of hazy facts can be considered as history, but with the addition of logic to piece together those facts, which was not apparently Powell’s doing. “What is History” Edward Hallet Carr
[28] Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002. , also echoed in “Úncovered: The War on Iraq” documentary
[29] David Corn, Washington Editor of “The Nation” also supports this in his article Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003.
[30] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 18)
[31] Hans Blix, also states that the inspections that occurred in 1998 would mean that substances found today manufactured then would have expired. Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[32] Upon hearing Powell’s speech, a “BBC reporter” went to the exact sites exhibited in images shown by Powell, and found nothing there, according to Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006. (pg 109)
[33] The US Government’s primary rebuttal to this claim (supporting Powell), as shown in the Senate’s document, was that if Iraq truly had gotten rid of all its WMD, why was there no documentation of such removal of their WMD? Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003.
Was Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter framed for murder in 1966?
Section A: Plan of Investigation
On the night of June 17, 1966, four adults were the victims of a brutal shooting in a bar and grill located in New Jersey. Immediately arrested for the crime was former top ranked boxer Rubin Carter. Since then questions have been raised as to whether or not he was framed by an inherently racist judicial system, questions which were influenced to a large extent by Bob Dylan's 1975 song “Hurricane” which in turn later gave its title to the Oscar-nominated motion picture starring Denzel Washington.
This investigation seeks to determine the validity of this claim and ascertain to what extent, if any, they were misrepresented. The two main sources used are Rubin’s book, “the 16th round” and witness, Patty Valentine’s key prosecuting statement. Secondary sources such as newspaper articles, police reports and prosecutor briefs will also help to gain insight into the trial, and the reasons behind Rubin’s prosecution.
(Plan of Investigation – 151 words)
Section B: Summary of evidence
On June 17, 1966, at 2:30 a.m. police reports reveal that two African-American males entered the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey and began shooting what was later revealed to be a shotgun. Jim Oliver, bartender at the grill, and customer Fred Nauyoks, were both killed instantly by the shotgun. Hazel Tanis, the only female present was hit in numerous parts of her body, and died less than a month after. Willie Marins was the only one of the four to survive the shootings. Though he was shot in the head, he survived whilst losing sight of one of his eyes.
Alfred Bello was near the bar at the time and heard the shots. He was the first on the scene, and called police to report the scene. He later confessed that he had been planning to commit a robbery, but was not convicted for any felony. A resident on the second floor of the bar and grill, Patty Valentine, said she looked out of her window after the sound of gun-fire and saw two “black men” leaving the scene in a white car heading west. A neighbour of Valentine, Ronald Ruggiero, also heard the shots, and upon looking out of his window, saw Bello running for a telephone. He then saw two African-American males fleeing the scene in a white car while also hearing the tires of the car screech.
Rubin Carter’s car was stopped by police because it matched the description given to police by the two witnesses, and both he and fellow passenger John Artis were taken to the crime scene. Little physical evidence was taken from either man, such as fingerprints, and the eyewitnesses could not identify Carter or Artis as the shooters. The police then took both men to the hospital to be viewed by the seriously wounded Marins, who stated: "I can't tell. I don't know." Despite this, the police did find a live .32 caliber pistol bullet and a 12-gauge shotgun shell which were the same types as used in the shootings. Because of these findings, Carter and Artis were taken to the local police station to be questioned. At the time, they were the only two suspects of the shootings.
Both men were given no choice but to be polygraph tested. The examiner, John J. McGuire, stated the following conclusion about Carter specifically: "After a careful analysis of the polygraph record of this subject, it is the opinion of the examiner that this subject was attempting deception to all the pertinent questions and was involved in this crime. After the examination and confronted with the examiner's opinion the subject denied any participation in the crime."
Despite appeals later that year, both Carter and Artis were convicted of murder and were sentenced to life in prison.
(Summary of Evidence – 495 words)
Section C: Evaluation of Sources
The 16th Round (1974)
Written by Rubin “Hurricane” Carter and published first in 1974 in Canada, and is now subsequently out of print. Carter had had no education beyond high school and yet produced a literary work that, to critics, is far beyond the capabilities of a high-school graduate. like it! Carter was, however, reported to have studied during his years in prison. The book was Carter’s way of pleading to the public and showcasing his life as the man convicted for a crime he did not commit. Carter hoped that this would inspire people to plead on his behalf, for which it was successful. The lively writing style and the shocking, powerful account of his life give somewhat of a ‘true’ read to the audience. Certain evidence within police reports and trial transcripts are omitted and claimed events do not hold up to police and witness reports. At the age of 17, Carter escaped from a juvenile reformatory because, as the book would state, “Mr. Wallace,”: “He was the reason I once had to suffer six agonizing months of solitary confinement in a six-foot-tall, three-foot-wide box that almost drove me insane.” From the 16th round, this incident is blamed on Mr. Wallace and also the fact that Carter had severely beaten Mr. Wallace a year before when Carter saw Wallace molesting a young inmate. Because of this, Rubin escaped the reformatory as Mr. Wallace had destroyed his chances of parole. However, in an interview with Sports Illustrated in 1963, Carter stated, “When I got to be 17 I started to realize women. When I first went [to the juvenile reformatory] I didn’t care about women. What did I know? Then I started noticing dancing, clothes, just life. It got pretty dreary. So I escaped.” Also, in an interview with the Saturday Evening Post, Rubin stated that “I just getting into more trouble at Jamesburg, and they kept adding time... I was good for a whole six months. I had thirty days to go when I got a disciplinary report and I appeared before the Board. They were talking about sending me to Annadale Reformatory... I knocked out a window and went home.”
(The 16th Round, 1974 – 388 words)
Patty Valentine’s testimony transcript to Grand Jury (1966)
The transcript is from the first trial of Rubin Carter in 1966, and is from a secret Grand jury testimony which neared the end of the trial. Mrs. Valentine was the first to call the police after finding Marins and Hazel, both shot, in the Lafayette Grill. Valentine later identified Carter’s car as the car used in the crime. Valentine was the key prosecution witness in the 1966 trial, . reporting having seen both the killers and their getaway car at around 2:30 A.M, June 17th from her apartment window above the Grill. In the position to see two men running from the scene, and entering a car which she later identified, her account of is very detailed but consistent as more than one prosecutor questioned even the most precise details of her account. Valentine, however, was wrong in the car description as she described the getaway car as a different car to that of Carter’s, and later described this fault as merely a lack of automobile knowledge on her part.
(Patty Valentine’s testimony transcript to Grand Jury,1966 – 194 words)
(Evaluation of Sources – 590 words)
Section D: Analysis
The evidence that is from police reports logically goes against Carter’s alibi. Carter was not randomly pulled over in his car as shown in both the motion picture and Carter’s book, the 16th round. Police evidence shows that Carter was pulled over, and then pulled over again 30 minutes later when a more detailed description of the getaway car was given which matched his car. Some find it hard to trust anything that is written in Carter’s book because of the fact that Carter changes events beginning from his childhood. Similar to the book, the motion picture follows the same path. One key example of this is Marins, the man who was have blinded by the shootings. Police reports show that the man was not in the state to say anything when Carter and Artis were brought to the hospital. However, in both the movie and the book, Marins says “no, that’s not the guy”. On the other hand, Valentine, was considered by some as ‘prejudiced against the African race’. During Carter’s third trial in 1986, civil rights movements, especially those headed by African-American individuals, focused on the racist judicial system that locked Carter and Artis up. Following the 1966 trials, in 1986 instead of an all-white jury similar to the one that first convicted Carter, A jury of 5five Caucasian and 5 five African Americans were present. This ensured that a verdict would be fair, and pertain solely to the evidence presented and not racial judgment. Interestingly enough, though racism is a commonly used excuse for Carters incarceration, it only originated in his book, the 16th Round. Before the publishing of that book, Carter was generally accepted as having killed the men and woman in the bar and grill. If we take a quick look into the summary of evidence used against carter, we can see that Carter would be seen as guilty at the time. Two witnesses identified Carter’s car, live ammunition that matched that used at the crime scene was found, Carter failed the polygraph test given to him the morning of the crime, Hazel Tanis’ police-aided sketch matched Artis’ profile, minutes before the murders Carter was only 1320 feet away in another bar and finally, and finally, Marins told his brother that Carter was the one, despite the fact that he said he didn’t know the night of the shootings. With this evidence in hand, it is almost impossible not to assume that Carter was the killer. This is why today, many believe that Carter was not framed, but convicted of a crime he did not commit.
Carter’s book was misleading in some areas, and because of amount of falsified facts, it cannot be trusted as as evidence. On the other hand, Mrs. Valentine’s confession was much more reliable. Mrs. Valentine did not know Rubin Carter, and according to relatives, had no knowledge of the boxer other than his name. Her confession was always constant even after several questioning sessions with Rubin’s highly paid lawyers. Valentine gained nothing from the conviction of Carter except the odd death threat. Because of this, one is more likely to trust to consistency of Mrs. Valentine over the inconsistency of Carter.
(Analysis – 562 words)
Section E: Conclusion
To this day, the real killers of that night in the Lafayette Grill have not been caught. Basing my conclusion solely on the evidence presented, and bound by no socio-political issues, it can be concluded that Carter was guilty of the crime. It seemed that at the time, Carter was able to take advantage of a small loop-hole in the American judicial system: racism as an excuse for his prosecution. Carter’s use of an American judicial system fuelled by racism is arguably what brought him back as a free man. He was convicted at a time when African-Americans all over the country were demanding more rights, and Carter’s story was seen as another time where a racial judicial system would use the African population as scapegoats. Aside from this, it is quite clear that Bob Dylan’s “Hurricane”, and the motion picture “The Hurricane” sway from the truth. Carter did have evidence against him, such as bullets in his car that matched those used at the crime scene, and a polygraph tests that swayed in the favour of the Paterson Police. The first trial of Carter was home to an all-white jury, and with xenophobia plaguing the United States at the time, racism was definitely an issue in Carter’s trial. Though Carter did serve 20 years in a maximum security prison for a crime that the evidence says he committed, he did finally gain freedom. This time, Carter would not be in the headlines as the Hurricane, but simply as Rubin Carter.
(Conclusion – 235 words)
Bibliography:
Books used:
• James S. Hirsch, Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000)
• James S. Hirsch, Hurricane: The Life of Rubin Carter, Fighter (Fourth Estate, 2001)
• Jeremy Roberts, Bob Dylan: Voice of a Generation (Twenty-First Century Books, 2005)
• Ken Alexander & Avis Glaze, Towards freedom: the African-Canadian experience (University of Virginia
• Digitized Feb 6, 2008)
• Paul B. Wice, Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and the American Justice System (Rutgers University Press, 2000)
• Rubin Carter, The Sixteenth Round: From Number 1 Contender To #45472 (Penguin Global, may 1991)
• Sam Chaiton &Terence Swinton, Lazarus and the Hurricane: The Freeing of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter (St. Martin's Griffin, 2000)
Other sources used:
• Patterson Police Department, ‘Arrest of Carter and Artis, 17 September 1966’ Paterson Arrest Report Archive.
• Patterson newspaper excerpts
To What extent had the Zambian leadership been the source of conflict in the year 1990?
A. A Plan of the investigation
To what extent had the Zambian leadership been the source of conflict in the year 1990?
Zambia is a South Eastern African country which has never had any massive battles or wars in its history but there have been small conflicts such as food riots and coup attempts. This internal assessment will focus on one year, 1990. The aim of this investigation is to find out to what extent had the Zambian leadership been the source of conflict in the year 1990. The investigation will cover the causes of the riots in 1990, the cause of the coup attempt conducted by Lieutenant Luchembe and also the causes and effect of inflation in the year 1990. An analysis of these sections should indicate the main source of conflict in 1990. The research will use sources such as the internet to gather more information about the topic in question, Zambian newspapers from 1990, political songs and interviews from witnesses and political books. In section B I will give information about the background of the Zambian political history, and I will give the reason why both Lusaka and the Copperbelt riots took place. I will also show the economic issues which caused inflation and therefore rise in the price of food. In section C I will evaluate two main findings, in section D the analysis of the findings and finally a conclusion in section E.
B. Summary of evidence
Government
Zambia, formally Northern Rhodesia, was colonized by the British from 1924 to 1964(1). On October 24 1964 it took its independence. When Zambia took its independence, its first president was Kenneth Kaunda and he served the country from 1964 to 1991, His party was known as United National Independence Party (UNIP). In 1972, Kaunda declared a one-party state and all the other parties were banned. 'Kaunda's socialist policies and autocratic style prevented the realization of his expressed goals.' (3) His goals were to built homes and schools, and health care facilities. 1990 was a 'tumultuous year' (4) it included riots in the capital city and a coup attempt conducted by Lieutenant Mwamba Luchembe. According to an article by Phillip Chirwa(5 newspaper article by Phillip Chirwa, Coup plotters planned to try Kaunda) a Zambian Daily mail newspaper reporter in the paper of 1990 said that the reason why Luchembe conducted the coup was because he felt that his seniors including the government were using up all of the money in country which everybody below them were suffering. The coup first started with an argument between the liuetanent and his senior and then it developed to a more serious situation. The argument took place at a "Squash Club" (6 newspaper article by Phillip Chirwa, Coup plotters planned to try Kaunda) and then later the lieutenant ended up house arresting everybody in the club and the threaten the government. According to the article Luchembe and his men "accused their seniors of having obtained huge sums of money to entertain themselves and their families on cheaper Mosi(7) beer while ordinary soldiers were subjected to buying expensive spirits." There at this point it can be seen that Luchembe was saying that the government was paying the people less money but yet they were expected to buy expensive things but the government officials were pay a huge sum of money but yet they cold buy cheap things when they desired. Brian Chilala, a Zambian musician wrote a song about the government and it was banned as soon as it was released to the public. The song spoke about why the government does not care about the people after they vote for them and as soon as the government become wealthy they turn their backs to the people.(8. song by Brian Chilala)
Economy
The Zambian economy is based primarily on its state controlled copper industry (6) and when there was a decline in world copper prices in 1975, it caused problems for the Zambian economy. Because the "economic situation in Zambia was"(7) it caused "low standards of living, lack of basic food stuffs, rising unemployment, poor social infrastructure and the rapid depreciation of the Zambian Kwacha."(8)(Kwacha is the national currency) The government in late 1982 "reduced government subsidies, raised farm-producer incentives, and devalued the currency, first by fiat and then by introducing a foreign-exchange auction system in 1985." (8) In December 1986, there were riots in response to the rise in the prices of staples and food shortages, rioting started in the copper producing region, known as Copperbelt, and at least 15 people were killed in the riots(9). There were more riots in 1990 in the Capital city, Lusaka and at least "27 people died."(9 newspapers rioting Death Toll reaches 27 by mail reporter, 28-6-1990).
Riots
This then brings us to the issue about riots. The rioting was developed from the anger about the "increased mealie meal prices." (10. Enemies fan riots-KK, 28-6-1990 by mail reporter) These riots lasted for about a week. Many people were hurt and some even lost their lives. "two people were injured at Kabwe's Kasanda mine market where the police opened fire after hundreds of people broke into Kabwe Milling company depot at the market and ransacked the shop" (11 Rioting death tolls reaches 27, by mail reporter, 28-6-90) When some of the rioters were arrested, it was said by the government that "it is to investigate reports that children aged 10 were detained as suspected rioters while others had their bones broken during the first two days of rioting,"(12.Rioting death tolls reaches 27, by mail reporter, 28-6-90) This image showed the government so brutal and savage that they would go as far as hurting children to stop them from having power, one reason that a rumor like this was be made is because the government is not liked among the people and they are trying their best to over throw the government. At this point the main source of the riots was the government. It was later announced by General Masheke, that "the government had not become so brutal to start breaking bones of children involved in riots" (13. Rioting death tolls reaches 27, by mail reporter, 28-6-90). The riots that started as cry for decrease in food prices were seen as "evil". (14. Enemies fan riots-KK)the president said that these evil actions would fail. According to the President (15. Enemies fan riots-KK) the people were mislead by the enemies that want to get rid of the government, the president also said that "the motives for inciting the people to displace the party was in the hope of taking over claim credit for the prospective economic recovery now in sight as the nation has embarked on its last phase" (16. Enemies fan riots-KK) among the riots, there was a coup attempt from within the lower ranks of the military, conducted by Lieutenant Mwamba Luchembe,On June 30, 1990 At least 24 Zambians died. 'Between June and October of 1990, 23,000 workers took part in illegal strikes and the government alleged that ZCTU was playing a politically motivated role in them.' (10). Faced with growing social unrest, the president finally signed legislation in December 1990 allowing the existence and organization of other political parties. In June 1990, the government, in order to meet IMF's conditionality, reduced maize meal subsidy. There were food riots for two weeks which spread from Lusaka to Kafue and Kabwe, and 26 civilians and a policeman died. There was little the government could do to help the people.
C. Evaluation of Sources
Sources used for evaluation are:
African Media and Conflict. A Harvest of Treason Trials by Goodson Machona.
The article "A Harvest of Treason Trials" by Goodson Machona was based on how the Zambian leadership had been the source of conflict. It starts from the years when it was colonized by the British until the year 1997. But even though it talks about many events, the year 1990 and it events will the focus. It says that "In May 1990, government increased the price of mealie meal, triggering a wave of riots in Lusaka and the Copperbelt." (11). It is saying that the cause of the riots in 1990 was due to the fact that the government increased the price of a common and traditional meal named mealie meal. Because the source of the increase of the price was the government, therefore it was the government that was the source of the riots that occurred. During this same time an army an army lieutenant, Mwamba Luchembe took the advantage of the situation and he conducted a coup attempt of his own in order to over throw the government. Even though the lieutenant was working for his own country, he believed that there was a wrong government in charge and so he wanted to overthrow them. He tried to do so on July 29, 1990. But he did not have any success because his coup attempt only lasted for four hours in Fact he was seen as an embarrassment by the chief of his tribe. (12)and then he was arrested. There was a "politician, Chiko Bwalya" who was celebrating the coup attempt and he was arrested. Because a political, an army Lieutenant showed that they did not like their leadership shows that there was something wrong with this government and it also shows that it might have been the source of conflicts that occurred inside the country. The value of this source is that it shows many events that were happening and it shows why they happened. The limitation of this source is that it was written by an editor of a newspaper called the ''The Post"
A Song of the Strong by Mary Namakando. November 1991.
This article was written about the cause of the food problems in the country. Mary interviews a Zambian woman named Joyce Kayaya who has been a farmer for many years. When she was asked about what she thought about the food riots, she replied, "the food riots we heard about in the towns were simply a result of laziness, laziness in the sense that if there are so many other people like me who produce so much maize, why is there such a shortage that the Government has to buy from other countries?"(12) The article says that Joyce is not the only on who asks this question but many Zambians. Joyce believes that Zambia has so much land to farm on and grow food to feed the family, so people should not go to the city when they don't have money to take care of themselves or a job. But they should say in the countryside and farm to produce food. Then food riots would not be a problem. So Joyce does not understand why people are complaining about the food prices when they are not producing enough food for themselves. The value of this source is that it based on a Zambian woman who has lived life a hard way. She is a farmer and so when she is talking about food she knows what she is talking about. But the limitations are that farms are expensive to get so some people do not have farms and therefore they would not have a choice but to go to the cities. And also there are many reasons why people go to the cities. And Joyce is only talking from her point of view. And also she is only talking about the food and not the coup attempt.
D. Analysis
The riots started according to Zambian newspaper articles because the people were angry about the increase of mealie meal, the most consumed meal by Zambians. But the newspaper does not mention why the prices increased, it does not even show any blame on the government at all. The reason that, newspaper does not have negative reactions towards the government is because it a government owned newspaper. But it does show the reactions of the people. The newspaper slogan is "we serve the country without fear or favour"(12), which can be seen as propaganda at this point. But the government can also be given credit according to Joyce Kayaya the people of Zambian are also the source of the riots that occurred. And also according to president Kaunda, there was evil in the country that was starting all these riots. (14) Both these sources are political, and therefore it can be understood why they made these claims.
E. Conclusion
To a Large extent was the Zambian leadership the source of conflict. The riots in the Capital, Lusaka, and in the Copperbelt were to due to the fact that the food prices were increased. The people of Zambian blamed the government for the increase in food prices. Due to inflation the price of the maize meal, one of the most consumed meals in Zambia was increased by price the people's wages were changed, at this point some people could not afford to buy food to feed their family or themselves, this looked like a road to starvation. Because the people were rioting to fight for their own rights, a coup attempt conducted by Lieutenant Mwamba Luchembe, was also another action to show that the people were not happy with what was happening in the economy and in the country and not even the government itself. The coup was an attempt to over throw the government but it only lasted four hours. Lieutenant Luchembe was not happy with the way that his seniors treated him and his men.
1. Nevertheless, the Luchembe and 'Solo' coup attempts were a reflection of serious political tensions. The general view was that the failure by government to respond to political demands by opposition politicians in the political arena influenced some soldiers to seek changes using unconstitutional methods. It is important to point out that the response by Zambians to the two coup attempts was different. The Luchembe coup attempt received a lot of support from the civilians because it came at a time when Zambians wanted President Kaunda out of State House. Zambians greeted the 'Solo' coup attempt with contempt. CIVIL CONTROL OF THE ZAMBIAN MILITARY SINCE INDEPENDENCE
Implications for democracy
B J Phiri
Senior lecturer at the History Department, University of Zambia
Published in African Security Review Vol 10 No 4, 2001
Although there were some misgivings over the 1996 Presidential and parliamentary elections, boycotted by UNIP, there was a general feeling that a coup was not the answer. Even Lieutenant Luchembe, leader of the failed coup attempt in 1990, joined those who condemned the 1997 coup attempt. In his view, the era of military take-overs was long gone. He argued that there was no cause for them because democracy was in place.17
2. When the World Bank and Fund demanded an increase in prices they wanted to devalue the kwacha (the local currency) in December 1986,
book
In 1990, the regime was forced to agree to hold a multi-party election. In October 1991, UNIP was swept from power by the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), the party of the coalition, page 72, Publication Information: Book Title: The Politics of Cultural Performance. Contributors: Lionel Caplan - editor, Humphrey Fisher - editor, David Parkin - editor. Publisher: Berghahn Books. Place of Publication: Providence, RI. Publication Year: 1996. Page Number: 72..
3. 24 October 1964: The Republic of Zambia was accorded full independence within the Commonwealth. Dr Kaunda became the first President, and his UNIP party won a legislative majority. Publication Information: Book Title: A Political Chronology of Africa. Contributors: David Lea - editor. Publisher: Europa Publications. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2001. Page Number: 484.
14-17 March 1990: The Government party rejected proposals for the creation of a multi-party political system.
29 May 1990: The national council of UNIP proposed a referendum on the introduction of a multi-party
25-29 June 1990: Anti-government rioting occurred in Lusaka, following an announcement that the price of maize meal was to increase by more than 100%.
30 June 1990: A junior army officer, Lt Mwamba Luchembe, attempted a military coup d'etat; he was arrested, although later released.
1 November 1990: The Government was reorganized.
17 December 1990: President Kaunda assented to constitutional amendments terminating the political monopoly of UNIP
Thanks go to Mr. David Heath, who has been a massive help in the writing of this essay, and Mr. John Schuster, who has directed me and helped me in the prevalent search for resources .
Abstract
Woodrow Wilson has been described as an idealist with a surreal, or ‘metaphysical’ as Lenin claims, idea of self-determination. But who has established that it was originally Wilson’s idea? Jean Jacques Rousseau had theorized in his Political Writings the idea of sovereignty. Starting in 1845 with the establishment of Althing, Jón Sigurðsson, an Icelandic scholar and politician, lead a movement, which struggled for Iceland’s eventual independence putting the idea in practice. To what extent does Iceland provide a separate classification of self-determination?
Having focused particularly on the theory behind Sigurðssonian and Wilsonian policies, and their practicalities, the exploration of Iceland’s self-determination and of Czechoslovakia’s self-determination took place. A piece of paper that brought “peace for our time”, as Neville Chamberlain claimed, which is often linked with betrayal will be taken into consideration; The Munich Agreement of 1938 is scrutinized and setting the scope to only the reason for why it happened, and not its consequences, which included arguably the second World War. The treaty will be justified using the theory behind self-determination.
Interviews with leading scholars at the University of Iceland and tours in Munich have helped come to the conclusion, that Sigurðssonian self-determination is a separate classification of self-determination, and possibly the most pure example of such a policy. Iceland’s geographical isolation in contrast to Europe’s complex situation, which Wilson had to face, may create gaps between the two theories. The Munich Agreement is fully justified when judging the situation by Sigurðssonian standards in regards to its causes, not consequences.
Word Count: 251
To what extent does Iceland provide a separate classification of self-determination through the example of Czechoslovakia?
Introduction
China is the third largest economy in the world and has fifth of the world’s population under one government. One may argue that the May 4 movement in 1919 in front of Tianan Gate encouraged to become Communist. the what? On one side there was the idealistic western Wilsonianism, named after Woodrow Wilson, which encouraged self-determination. This view was protested against in these demonstrations due to the fact that the Chinese Shandong region, a region of 94 million people to this day, was handed to Japanese state control. The prospect of ridding China of foreign powers because of Wilson’s presence in the peace-talks excited the Chinese people, but China’s population was cheated by the peacemakers. The actions were not quite in line with what Wilson had promised. It was as if the West had refused to, “extend the principles of democracy and self-determination in China.” According to Michael Lynch, the movement gave, “a sense of direction to radicals and revolutionaries,” such as the Communists. However, this sense of direction could have been changed had Wilson’s policy of self-determination been applied differently because the effect Self-Determination had on History was significant.
Bringing one closer to Jón Sigurðsson and the policies he lead to encourage self-determination of Iceland will be attempted by considering To what extent does Iceland provide a separate classification of self-determination? Self-determination was a great success in Iceland, possibly because of Iceland’s geographical isolation, but Lenin questioned the policy’s pragmatism as he said the practicality for every nation to gain self-determination was metaphysical. But was this idea so original? Was it Woodrow Wilson who was the idealist behind the policy? Was there someone more successful in applying self-determination?
This essay will consider Wilsonian self-determination, Leninist self-determination, and thirdly, Sigurðssonian self-determination in order to examine Iceland’s situation as well as Czechoslovakia’s status after the First World War. Lastly, the Munich Conference will be justified, as a legal act by Hitler’s Germany.
Wilson defined his policy as an “establishment of peace through formulation of security, culturally and collectively, in Europe,” while Lenin claimed “that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.“ Sigurðsson established it through the development of economy and nationality of a particular nation. Lastly, to see self-determination from somewhat of a neutral point of view, the United Nations define self-determination in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the exact same way. Article 1 reads, “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.“,
Sigurðssonian policy
Jón Sigurðsson was born 17 June 1811, which is to this day the national day of independence for the Icelandic nation. His would-be 200th birthday is coming up soon, and it is therefore appropriate to scrutinize his work. Although Historian Ragnheiður Kristjánsdóttir believes that if it had not been Sigurðsson, it would have been someone else who had taken the role of leading Iceland in their independence movement, she does believe that, “Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for [his policy] and of others who agreed to him was what was most important,” in order to achieve independence. Iceland has been neutral in wars ever since their existence. Jón Sigurðsson entered politics around the 1840s, about 80 years before Wilson held his speech on the 14 points. Jón Sigurðsson was the real creator of the policy of self-determination and carried it out successfully, whereas Woodrow Wilson followed in Sigurðsson’s footsteps, and failed. Vladimir Lenin followed a similar policy, but with a different ideology in mind as he freed Russia from Tsarist rule.
Jón Sigurðsson had worked in Iceland’s parliament, the Althing, since it was first assembled in 1845 after a long time without it. Iceland has the oldest parliament in the world dating back to 930, but it was abolished when Norwegian King Håkon annexed Iceland in 1262 agreeing to the old covenant, which submitted the Icelandic people to the King of Norway. In this treaty between the Norwegian royalty and Icelandic farmers, clause 8 read the Icelandic people were „free of all obligations“ if the covenant is broken. Therefore, when Frederik VII renounced his absolute rule in 1848, Sigurðsson began struggling for eventual independence. „Iceland was a domain of the King, not of Denmark.“ Jón Sigurðsson felt that the Danish government had no right to rule over Icelandic territory, not only because of the history behind the relationship between Denmark and Iceland, but also because of the distinction between the two. In his works, Um Alþingi and Hugvekja til Íslendinga, he speaks of the „organization of government“ in Iceland and anticipates the separation between the two, for example when he very explicitly mentions the difference between the organizations of Iceland and Denmark. Sigurðsson further mentions the difference in languages as a barrier between the two countries, as Icelandic should be the main language used in Althing. The two countries were of different ethnicities, spoke different languages and came from a different culture. Jón Sigurðsson believed Iceland must move on and determine their own future.
Sigurðsson thus formulated a plan and policy in how to apply self-determination in Iceland. The problem was that Iceland was a rudimentary agricultural country of 60,000, mostly uneducated, people. One may interpret that Sigurðsson saw that he did not have enough time in his life to bring about a change to Iceland’s international status. This can be seen in how he compares Iceland with a growing child. Maturity will not happen in a fortnight or six months, but it is inevitable. Sigurðsson further believed that trade, education, and national unity had to be considered, established, and consolidated before self-determination could be seriously considered.
Iceland only gained full control over its trade in 1874 as Denmark released its control limiting foreign trade to subjects of the Danish Crown. As an example of the growing economy, consider the 262 shops in Iceland in 1903, the year before Iceland gained home rule, compared to the 58 shops in 1855. Of those 58 shops, the majority of them were foreign-owned, and only 9 of them were both Icelandic-owned and in Reykjavik. Furthermore, there were 25 decked fishing vessels in Iceland in 1853. The number had risen to 140 in 1890s. In the early 20th century, the industrial revolution hit Iceland. 20 motorized trawlers operated by 1920, a harbour was constructed 1913-17 and electricity ran in houses from hydroplants in 1915. Jón Sigurðsson thus had a clear goal and anticipated this economic progress.
Sigurðsson did not have the health to see all the economic changes as he died in December 1879. He was, however, an active part in the education of Icelanders. His idea of a „representative assembly“, which became Althing reinstated in 1845, became „a kind of National School of the People, for them to get used to thinking and speaking with intelligence about those issues which concern everyone.“ This was essential for his self-determination policy to work, because, as Kristjánsdóttir explains, self-determination would not have happened, “if they had not themselves decided that they wanted [it to be applied]. And who helps the Icelandic people come to that conclusion? Men like Jón Sigurðsson.” As a scholar, president chair of the parliament, and publisher of political journals, Jón Sigurðsson not only educated the people, but also unified the people and made them more aware of their national identity. In 1871 when the first political party of Iceland called The Icelandic Society of the Nation’s Friends (Hið Íslenska Þjóðvinafélag) was created, there was no difficulty in picking the chairman of the party. Jón Sigurðsson was elected; He had become a “symbol of unity”,
From an agricultural community, Jón Sigurðsson was beginning to form something in the shape of a ‚state’ through progress. He knew that formulating the Republic of Iceland would be a lengthy process, but he believed in it.
for him therefore self-determination was simple: EXPLAIN
Wilsonian policy
Wilson had exclaimed in a speech in 1916 that all countries deserved sovereignty. This too was a simple definition wherein.... Once at war, he elaborated by stating thatin 1918 that a policy of self-determination must be pursued to achieve peace, and in 1919, he signed the Treaty of Versailles which attempted to offer countries self-determination.
Countries or regions held by rulers of different ethnicities should be granted independent national security in order to avoid future aggression. This reasoning was the fundamental part to Wilson’s policy. There should be international unity to protect domestic unity. Wilson also portrayed his views in his speech about the 14 points. This was also acted on after the Great War when countries’ borders were restructured to draw or redraw Austria’s, Hungary’s, Romania’s, Czechoslovakia’s, Yugoslavia’s, Israel’s borders and the list goes on. Germany annexed Austria and other regions in 1938, Yugoslavia broke up 1992, Czechoslovakia split 1992, Hungary and Romania still dispute over Transylvania, and the Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and Palestine is a large topic in international relations to this day. It seems as if Wilson’s efforts were not fruitful. Not only were his efforts not fruitful, but he also had no right to strut into Europe and draw new borders for every East European country he liked. Jón Sigurðsson was voted into the Icelandic parliament, but the people of Europe had no choice in terms of who their liberator would be. Woodrow Wilson assumed the role of a peacemaker, which he did not do a very good job at in any case. Wilson spoke of the First World War as the ‘war to end war’, but his attempt to make long-lasting peace ended. His policy of self-determination actually caused war in 1939
As the Great War was reaching its conclusion, Woodrow Wilson held a speech establishing the 14 points that needed to be achieved in order to sustain international peace. Point 10 included the well-known policy of self-determination where Balkan states, Czechoslovakia and Romania were to have their „economic independence and territorial integrity“ guaranteed.
In 1910, about 49 million people lived in Austria-Hungary from seven different major ethnic groups. Minor ethnicities were suppressed in Hungary where Magyar became compulsory in schools, even where there were no Hungarian nationals. One may be able to establish the urgency of self-determination for some of these ethnicities. A result of the splitting up of the Hapsburg Empire was the creation of Yugoslavia. The old joke follows that within Yugoslavia there is “one leader, two alphapbets, three languages, four religions, with five nationalities, living in six republics, bordered by seven neighbors, in a country of eight national minorities." The logic seems to be failing. How can Austria-Hungary be split up to ensure nationalities gain self-determination by grouping ethnicities together into a different country. However, Wilson obviously failed since he neither guaranteed long-lasting peace, nor self-determination for the Yugoslav nations as he planned.
Leninist policy
Lenin's approach was, perhaps naturally, different. Vladimir Lenin concluded „that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.“ While we must consider that his writing of The Right of Nations to Self-determination was intended to oppose Rosa Luxemburg, one may still see the modest approach Lenin has towards the topic, as he is not too specific, and not too exaggerating in his terminology. Lenin explains that „secession in the case of every nation... is absurd”. “The recognition of the right to secession for all; the appraisal of each concrete question of secession from the point of view of removing all inequality, all privileges, and all exclusiveness.“ By this, Lenin means that by making all equal, a nation can demonstrate its right to secede.
When Lenin applied self-determination to Russia, he applied it according to his interpretation. This is why his claim that every state’s secession is absurd makes sense. If a country were to interpret a region of its neighbor to be populated by its own culture’s people, they would have full right to annex this area. This would absolutely undermine Wilson’s aim of attempting to make countries in Europe feel secure, and instead of creating peace, it would rather establish continent-wide anarchy.
Iceland vs. Czechoslovakia
Ethnic conflicts also caused the Yugoslav Civil War in the 1990s, but the creation of Czechoslovakia was also a failure. In 1918, Czechoslovakia was formed and it was the longest lasting constitutional democracy of the successor states of the peace talks post World War One, but it shows Wilson’s hypocrisy as he created a new state of different ethnicities and cultures, which is what he was aiming to avoid. It seems as if he wanted to create different imperialist states to replace the imperialist Hapsburg Empire. Wilson was maybe only interested in the protection of the west. Was he simply trying to overpower the Central Alliance by surrounding them with supporters of the Triple Entente? The Little Entente was included Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia. It was created possibly for that exact purpose. Maybe self-determination was not so much for the benefit of the people of Europe, but rather the people of western society.
The new state of Czechs and Slovaks was an “artificial state”, but inherited most of Austria Hungary’s industry. From 1893 to 1913, Bohemia’s steel production increased by 261%. This massive growth shows the importance of the region to any country that was in possession of it. Bohemia, in 1919 a region of Czechoslovakia, was a kingdom in 1526, but had not been independent since. How could Czechoslovakia manage to handle its own economy, if they were lacking 400 years of experience? How was Czechoslovakia meant to handle its foreign affairs with a bitter neighbor such as Germany? Czechoslovakia inherited a lot of Austria-Hungary’s resources, for example the railway network. As this network was designed for its predecessor’s use, Czechoslovakia was left with a railway system, which was from their perspective, in one word, random.
Consider the defeated: How could Austria, or Hungary, without most of its industry survive? Surely it would need an economic union with its closest friend, Germany. The Treaty of Versailles strictly forbade this. It seems as if Woodrow Wilson had not thought about the consequences of his self-determination policy thoroughly for all parties, and the pressure this would create for Czechoslovakia. Woodrow Wilson may be found guilty for not grasping the complexity of the situation.
The difference between how Wilsonian, and Sigurðssonian self-determination took place, was that Sigurðsson published his first journal explaining some of his hopes and policies, translated to New Social Review, in 1841 while Iceland gains executive power in 1904 and self-determination in 1918, whereas Czechoslovakia gained full executive power in November 1918, after explaining his aims on 8 January 1918 when he addressed the United States Congress. Jón Sigurðsson understood the process it took for self-determination to be applied. The civilization had to be educated, be aware of their national identity and unify, and have a strong economy.
Wilson acknowledged that many peoples were aware of their national identity, as nationalism was, in fact, one of the main causes of the Great War, and therefore assumed that he could group the ethnic groups together. In Czechoslovakia’s case, he grouped Czechs and Slovaks, as well as Poles and Hungarians, gave them the majority of Austria’s industry and expected the Czechoslovak government to take it from there. This is a surreal solution to a complex problem.
While rule over Czechoslovakia moved from Vienna to Prague in 1918, rule over Iceland moved gradually from Copenhagen to Reykjavik. As Historian Guðmundur Hálfdánarson says it, „nationality is not automatic, it is based on a political choice.“ With this he means that the people must have a choice when it comes to act in favor of the nation. They must deserve the status of being a nation. Jón Sigurðsson was important to the extent where he created the movement for independence, and other politicians jumped onto his bandwagon. Kristjánsdóttir claims, „ Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for” was the most important factor in Iceland’s gain of Independence.
Sigurðsson, Wilson, and Lenin all had a clear goal, but Sigurðsson stood out because he knew exactly how to reach his goal. He expected, “that Icelanders would have to factor in, after having combated 20 years with the [Danish] government, expecting a 30 year struggle with the [Danish] parliament,” and thus implying that in 1869 there were still 30 years to go until Icelandic Independence. He was not that far off, because 35 years later, 1 February 1904 they gained home rule. Woodrow Wilson seemed to be establishing states which population was not sure what they wanted. The Czechoslovaks’ first president, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk was only persuaded that Czechoslovakia should become independent once the war started. Before this time, he was certain that, there should be „post-war reorganization of the Habsburg empire into a democratic confederation of the hitherto subject provinces.“ Based on Davenport’s conversations with Tomas´ son, Jan.
The civilization’s education and increasing awareness of their national identity increased in Iceland. However, the economic progress the country went through from 1841 until 1904 was even more significant. In 1905, there were 543,312 sheep located in Iceland whereas in 1837, there were 270,419. The figure had doubled. In the fishing industry 1867, 130 tonnes of herring were fished in Iceland’s waters. The figure grew to 9,500 tonnes in 1904. Czechoslovakia may have had a strong steel industry in Bohemia along with coalmines, but they had a new inexperienced government with an insufficient communications system. It was irresponsible of Wilson not to consider the process required to establish Czechoslovakia as a state that had an ability to make itself strong and more equal among its neighbors in central Europe. Hitler exploited this weakness as he invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 to gain Lebensraum for the German peoples.
The process of establishing a nation had been simplified and the land had been handed to Czechoslovakia for them to do with it as they wished. In relation to Jón Sigurdsson’s comment on the relationship between Denmark and Iceland being as one between a parent and a child, he would most likely claim that Wilson made a bold move by offering an infant a machete to cut a coconut. This was definitely not an easy task, and it was irresponsible for Wilson to hand this task prematurely to the Czechoslovaks, as the potential risks of anything happening were too high.
Wilson aimed to achieve long-term peace, as he described the war to be the „war to end war.“ Ignoring the hypocrisy of the statement, one may see the positive and idealistic meaning to the phrase. Wilson further aimed to reach this peace by creating a level of domestic security within Europe. This security would be achieved by self-determination and secondly, the theoretical collective security of the League of Nations. Wilson seems to have failed to thoroughly organize either of them.
The peace and security did not last long because Czechoslovakia was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938 and became a Communist state in 1948, where „rigged elections brought a communist victory.“
Munich Conference 1938
When Germany claimed the Sudetenland in 1938. The Munich Conference “spoiled my entry into Prague”, claimed Hitler. Even though Hitler would annex Czechoslovakia, regardless of the existence of the Munich Agreement, the Munich Agreement still raises questions whether it was justified or not in terms of the claim for self-determination, but this of course depends on interpretation.
The Agreement is linked with betrayal, and Winston Churchill describes the Agreement as, “only the first sip, the foretaste of a bitter cup.” This may be true, but according to self-determination, the Munich Conference was fully justified. Keith Eubank argues, that Western powers should have sought help from Stalin and the Soviet Union. Jón Sigurðsson would not have thought help would be needed. But how can the self-determination be justified when it lead to Hitler’s misconception that Chamberlain would not interfere in Hitler’s Eastern European affairs.
Lenin would have probably said that this was absolutely not in order, regardless of his opposition against Germany as a Bolshevik. His belief that Czechoslovakia had just as much right to the land as Germany would complicate things, although the majority of the population was German. It would all depend on the interpretation.
Wilson would also disagree according to his interpretation of self-determination, as an evacuation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland would disturb the long-term peace and the transfer of the mountains in Sudetenland would remove the physical barrier between Germany and Czechoslovakia causing a drop in the level of domestic security that Czechoslovakia had., The Munich Agreement would thus undermine the Wilsonian reform despite the cultural differences between the inhabitants of Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland.
Let us consider more of an isolated example, a pure example, if you will: Icelandic Sigurðssonian self-determination. Iceland’s self-determination was unique in a way where no borders were changed, the form of government was not changed, and no neighboring countries applied pressure on it. It could be compared to the general lab experiment performed in a vacuum void of external factors. Sigurðsson would have said that the Munich Agreement was justified, because it is an agreement, which promised an ethnic group to decide its own future for itself. Not only that, but the citizens of Sudetenland showed particular interest in becoming citizens of Nazi Germany. The Sudetenland region was the most active region in Politics. This can be seen where 17.34% of people signed up to be a part of the Nazi party. In the same time, 7.85% of all Germans took part in NSDAP relations. This difference shows the unity amongst Sudetenland inhabitants to join Nazi Germany and how this unity justified the Munich Agreement as a whole.
Conclusion
Sigurðsson’s efforts in the movement of Icelandic independence are reflected in the Wilsonian method, as both are willing to free ethnic groups from their culturally different rulers and provide certain internal security. Wilson interprets security by providing peace whereas Sigurðsson provides economic development.
Sigurðsson cannot be categorized with Wilson as an idealist, and not with Lenin as a theorist. Sigurðsson was very practical and made sure his ideas would be put into practice. His theory found in the development of economy and nationality strongly agrees with the United Nations’ definition of self-determination as people have the right to “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.“,. This shows the importance Sigurðsson has had in History in defining the very important policy of self-determination.
Lenin’s interpretation that self-determination’s practicality is absurd is true if all nations are willing to take what they believe is rightfully theirs. However, Sigurðsson would probably disagree. As Historian Hálfdánarson describes Sigurðsson’s policy he claims, “Nationality is therefore not automatic, but built on political choice,“ and shows that Sigurðsson’s theory of progression and development correctly portrays true self-determination. Sigurðsson should be portrayed as the midwife of self-determination. Even though Jean-Jacques Rousseau had probably established the theory before in his Political Writings, “it is making fools of people to tell them seriously that one can at one’s pleasure transfer peoples from master to master, like herds of cattle, without consulting their interests or their wishes”, Sigurðsson was the first to put he theory in practice.
Because of Sigurðsson’s influence on Wilson’s ideas, Sigurðsson had a significant role in the creation of the self-determinant nations after the Great War, but Wilson’s ideas were his own with his own interpretations, and they did not work as well as Sigurðsson’s Iceland showing Sigurðsson was not responsible for their failure. Iceland’s economic development was so significant in the 19th and 20th Century that small Iceland is in the top 20 for the GDP per capita.
After all, Iceland is still a Republic to this day, whereas Czechoslovakia is now split in two, and Yugoslavia’s Serbia has disputes with a region of its own, Kosovo, which claims self-determination. It will be interesting how they will achieve this, and whether a new interpretation of self-determination will be applied. References
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
CIA World Factbook. "CIA - The World Factbook – Country Comparison :: GDP – Per Capita (PPP)” Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2010..
CIA World Factbook. "CIA - The World Factbook -- Country Comparison :: National Product." Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2010..
Cooper, John M. Woodrow Wilson: a Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Print.
Davenport, Marcia. Too Strong for Fantasy. New York: Scribner, 1967. Print.
Ebrey, Patricia B. The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
Eubank, Keith. The Origins of World War II. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 2004. Print.
Friðriksson, Guðjón. Jón Sigurđsson: ævisaga. Vol. I-II. Reykjavík: Mál Og Menning, 2003. Print.
Hagstofa Íslands. Hagskinna. Economic Report. Reykjavík: Hagstofa Íslands, 1997. Print.
Hálfdánarsson, Guðmundur. "Jón Sigurðsson." Letter to Arnór Bragi Elvarsson. 12 Oct. 2010. MS. Reykjavik. See Appendix 2.
Jóhannsson, Valdimar. Öldin sem Leið: Minnisverð tíðindi. Comp. Guðmundsson, Gils. Reykjavík: Forlagið Iðunn, 1982. Print.
Júlíusson, Árni D., Jón Ó Ísberg, and Helgi S. Kjartansson. Íslenskur Sögu Atlas. Vol. 2. Reykjavik: IĐUNN, 1992. Print.
Karlsson, Gunnar. A Brief History of Iceland. Trans. Anna Yates. Reykjavik: Mál Og Menning, 2000. Print.
Karlsson, Gunnar. The History of Iceland. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2000.
Print.
Kristjánsdóttir, Ragnheiður. "On Jón Sigurðsson and Independence." Personal interview. 8 Apr. 2010. See Appendix 1.
Lenin, V. I. The Right of Nations to Self-determination. Moscow: Progress, 1967. Marxists.Org. 2000. Web. 13 Dec. 2010..
Lynch, Michael. China: From Empire to People's Republic: 1900-49. London: Hodder Murray, 1996. Print.
Noakes, J., and G. Pridham, eds. Nazism 1919 - 1945. Exeter: Univ. of Exeter, 2006. Print.
Pánek, Jaroslav, and Oldřich Tůma. A History of the Czech Lands. Prague: Charles University, 2009. Print.
Reisser, Wesley J. "SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE DIFFICULTY OF CREATING NATION-STATES: THE TRANSYLVANIA CASE." Geographical Review 99.2 (2009). World History Collection. Web. 11 Dec. 2010..
Sigurðsson, Jón, and Sverrir Kristjánsson. Hugvekja Til Íslendinga. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning, 1951. Print.
United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By United Nations. Web. 14 Dec. 2010..
United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By United Nations. Web. 14 Dec. 2010..
Unknown. "The Wilsonian Response: Principles and Practice - Self-Determination." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Web. 11 Dec. 2010..
Wallis, B. C. 1916. Distribution of Nationalities in Hungary. Geographical Journal 47 (3): 177-187.
Waugh, Steven. Modern World History. 1st ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2001. Print.
Wilson, Woodrow. "Modern History Sourcebook: Woodrow Wilson: Fourteen Points, 1918." FORDHAM.EDU. 22 Sept. 2001. Web. 09 Dec. 2010..
Wolfson, Robert, and John Laver. Years of Change: European History, 1890-1990. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001. Print.
Þorleifsson, Heimir. Ágrip Af Íslandssögu 1830-1918. Reykjavík, 1969. Print.
Further Bibliography
Kristjánsson, Aðalgeir. Endurreisn Alþingis Og þjóðfundurinn. Reykjavík: Sögufélag, 1993. Print.
Sigurðsson, Jón. Rit Jóns Sigurđsson. Ed. Sverrir Kristjánsson. Vol. I. Reykjavík: Menningarsjóđur Og þjóđvinafélagiđ, 1961. Print.
Sveinsson, Hallgrímur. The National Hero of Iceland: Jón Sigurdsson, a Concise Biography. Trans. Hersteinn Pálsson. Hrafnseyri: Vestfirska Forlagið, 1996. Print.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Extract from a personal interview with Ragnheiður Kristjánsdóttir, Historian and Adjunct at University of Iceland
Interviewer: Jón Sigurðsson was the leader of the struggle, and the Danish Kings agreed to the demands of the Icelanders. But do you feel that what Jón Sigurðsson did for Iceland was more important than the opinion of the King as well as the effect that the World War had on the independence?
Interviewee: Firstly, this is a simplified question to a complex situation, but if the question would be „What was the most crucial factor in the struggle for independence?“ As a Historian, I have to say it is too easy of a question, but I will still attempt to answer it by saying, that Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for [his policy] and of others who agreed to him was what was most important. This is because the Icelandic people probably never would have become indpendent if they had not themselves decided that they wanted to. And who helps the Icelandic people come to that conclusion? Men like Jón Sigurðsson. I would also like to add that I would hesitate, as a Historian looking at the whole History and its events, to say that only one person had influence. And that is why Jón Sigurðsson and men who agreed with him are the main reason. He is simply a symbol of the policies of the time. If Jón had not been born at Hrafnseyri at that time, it would possibly have been some other man who would have come up with the ideas. I would say, though, that Jón Sigurðsson policy and those of others was what was the most crucial.
Interviewer: So he formed the struggle?
Interviewee: Yes, I would say so.
Appendix 2 – Extract from a letter with Guðmundur Hálfdánarson, Historian and Professor at University of Iceland.
... All of this aided the independence claims of Iceland. But, as I said in the beginning, had Iceland not demanded independence, then they would have never become independent. Nationality is therefore not automatic, but built on political choice. Jón Sigurðsson played a large role to that extent, and we can say he was key to Iceland’s independence.
Appendix 3 – Photos of the Führerbau, Munich, Germany, the location, where the Munich Agreement
To what extent does Iceland provide a separate classification of self-determination through the example of Czechoslovakia?
Introduction
China is the third largest economy in the world and has fifth of the world’s population under one government. One may argue that the May 4 movement in 1919 in front of Tianan Gate encouraged to become Communist. the what? On one side there was the idealistic western Wilsonianism, named after Woodrow Wilson, which encouraged self-determination. This view was protested against in these demonstrations due to the fact that the Chinese Shandong region, a region of 94 million people to this day, was handed to Japanese state control. The prospect of ridding China of foreign powers because of Wilson’s presence in the peace-talks excited the Chinese people, but China’s population was cheated by the peacemakers. The actions were not quite in line with what Wilson had promised. It was as if the West had refused to, “extend the principles of democracy and self-determination in China.” According to Michael Lynch, the movement gave, “a sense of direction to radicals and revolutionaries,” such as the Communists. However, this sense of direction could have been changed had Wilson’s policy of self-determination been applied differently because the effect Self-Determination had on History was significant.
Bringing one closer to Jón Sigurðsson and the policies he lead to encourage self-determination of Iceland will be attempted by considering To what extent does Iceland provide a separate classification of self-determination? Self-determination was a great success in Iceland, possibly because of Iceland’s geographical isolation, but Lenin questioned the policy’s pragmatism as he said the practicality for every nation to gain self-determination was metaphysical. But was this idea so original? Was it Woodrow Wilson who was the idealist behind the policy? Was there someone more successful in applying self-determination?
This essay will consider Wilsonian self-determination, Leninist self-determination, and thirdly, Sigurðssonian self-determination in order to examine Iceland’s situation as well as Czechoslovakia’s status after the First World War. Lastly, the Munich Conference will be justified, as a legal act by Hitler’s Germany.
Wilson defined his policy as an “establishment of peace through formulation of security, culturally and collectively, in Europe,” while Lenin claimed “that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.“ Sigurðsson established it through the development of economy and nationality of a particular nation. Lastly, to see self-determination from somewhat of a neutral point of view, the United Nations define self-determination in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the exact same way. Article 1 reads, “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.“,
Sigurðssonian policy
Jón Sigurðsson was born 17 June 1811, which is to this day the national day of independence for the Icelandic nation. His would-be 200th birthday is coming up soon, and it is therefore appropriate to scrutinize his work. Although Historian Ragnheiður Kristjánsdóttir believes that if it had not been Sigurðsson, it would have been someone else who had taken the role of leading Iceland in their independence movement, she does believe that, “Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for [his policy] and of others who agreed to him was what was most important,” in order to achieve independence. Iceland has been neutral in wars ever since their existence. Jón Sigurðsson entered politics around the 1840s, about 80 years before Wilson held his speech on the 14 points. Jón Sigurðsson was the real creator of the policy of self-determination and carried it out successfully, whereas Woodrow Wilson followed in Sigurðsson’s footsteps, and failed. Vladimir Lenin followed a similar policy, but with a different ideology in mind as he freed Russia from Tsarist rule.
Jón Sigurðsson had worked in Iceland’s parliament, the Althing, since it was first assembled in 1845 after a long time without it. Iceland has the oldest parliament in the world dating back to 930, but it was abolished when Norwegian King Håkon annexed Iceland in 1262 agreeing to the old covenant, which submitted the Icelandic people to the King of Norway. In this treaty between the Norwegian royalty and Icelandic farmers, clause 8 read the Icelandic people were „free of all obligations“ if the covenant is broken. Therefore, when Frederik VII renounced his absolute rule in 1848, Sigurðsson began struggling for eventual independence. „Iceland was a domain of the King, not of Denmark.“ Jón Sigurðsson felt that the Danish government had no right to rule over Icelandic territory, not only because of the history behind the relationship between Denmark and Iceland, but also because of the distinction between the two. In his works, Um Alþingi and Hugvekja til Íslendinga, he speaks of the „organization of government“ in Iceland and anticipates the separation between the two, for example when he very explicitly mentions the difference between the organizations of Iceland and Denmark. Sigurðsson further mentions the difference in languages as a barrier between the two countries, as Icelandic should be the main language used in Althing. The two countries were of different ethnicities, spoke different languages and came from a different culture. Jón Sigurðsson believed Iceland must move on and determine their own future.
Sigurðsson thus formulated a plan and policy in how to apply self-determination in Iceland. The problem was that Iceland was a rudimentary agricultural country of 60,000, mostly uneducated, people. One may interpret that Sigurðsson saw that he did not have enough time in his life to bring about a change to Iceland’s international status. This can be seen in how he compares Iceland with a growing child. Maturity will not happen in a fortnight or six months, but it is inevitable. Sigurðsson further believed that trade, education, and national unity had to be considered, established, and consolidated before self-determination could be seriously considered.
Iceland only gained full control over its trade in 1874 as Denmark released its control limiting foreign trade to subjects of the Danish Crown. As an example of the growing economy, consider the 262 shops in Iceland in 1903, the year before Iceland gained home rule, compared to the 58 shops in 1855. Of those 58 shops, the majority of them were foreign-owned, and only 9 of them were both Icelandic-owned and in Reykjavik. Furthermore, there were 25 decked fishing vessels in Iceland in 1853. The number had risen to 140 in 1890s. In the early 20th century, the industrial revolution hit Iceland. 20 motorized trawlers operated by 1920, a harbour was constructed 1913-17 and electricity ran in houses from hydroplants in 1915. Jón Sigurðsson thus had a clear goal and anticipated this economic progress.
Sigurðsson did not have the health to see all the economic changes as he died in December 1879. He was, however, an active part in the education of Icelanders. His idea of a „representative assembly“, which became Althing reinstated in 1845, became „a kind of National School of the People, for them to get used to thinking and speaking with intelligence about those issues which concern everyone.“ This was essential for his self-determination policy to work, because, as Kristjánsdóttir explains, self-determination would not have happened, “if they had not themselves decided that they wanted [it to be applied]. And who helps the Icelandic people come to that conclusion? Men like Jón Sigurðsson.” As a scholar, president chair of the parliament, and publisher of political journals, Jón Sigurðsson not only educated the people, but also unified the people and made them more aware of their national identity. In 1871 when the first political party of Iceland called The Icelandic Society of the Nation’s Friends (Hið Íslenska Þjóðvinafélag) was created, there was no difficulty in picking the chairman of the party. Jón Sigurðsson was elected; He had become a “symbol of unity”,
From an agricultural community, Jón Sigurðsson was beginning to form something in the shape of a ‚state’ through progress. He knew that formulating the Republic of Iceland would be a lengthy process, but he believed in it.
for him therefore self-determination was simple: EXPLAIN
Wilsonian policy
Wilson had exclaimed in a speech in 1916 that all countries deserved sovereignty. This too was a simple definition wherein.... Once at war, he elaborated by stating thatin 1918 that a policy of self-determination must be pursued to achieve peace, and in 1919, he signed the Treaty of Versailles which attempted to offer countries self-determination.
Countries or regions held by rulers of different ethnicities should be granted independent national security in order to avoid future aggression. This reasoning was the fundamental part to Wilson’s policy. There should be international unity to protect domestic unity. Wilson also portrayed his views in his speech about the 14 points. This was also acted on after the Great War when countries’ borders were restructured to draw or redraw Austria’s, Hungary’s, Romania’s, Czechoslovakia’s, Yugoslavia’s, Israel’s borders and the list goes on. Germany annexed Austria and other regions in 1938, Yugoslavia broke up 1992, Czechoslovakia split 1992, Hungary and Romania still dispute over Transylvania, and the Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and Palestine is a large topic in international relations to this day. It seems as if Wilson’s efforts were not fruitful. Not only were his efforts not fruitful, but he also had no right to strut into Europe and draw new borders for every East European country he liked. Jón Sigurðsson was voted into the Icelandic parliament, but the people of Europe had no choice in terms of who their liberator would be. Woodrow Wilson assumed the role of a peacemaker, which he did not do a very good job at in any case. Wilson spoke of the First World War as the ‘war to end war’, but his attempt to make long-lasting peace ended. His policy of self-determination actually caused war in 1939
As the Great War was reaching its conclusion, Woodrow Wilson held a speech establishing the 14 points that needed to be achieved in order to sustain international peace. Point 10 included the well-known policy of self-determination where Balkan states, Czechoslovakia and Romania were to have their „economic independence and territorial integrity“ guaranteed.
In 1910, about 49 million people lived in Austria-Hungary from seven different major ethnic groups. Minor ethnicities were suppressed in Hungary where Magyar became compulsory in schools, even where there were no Hungarian nationals. One may be able to establish the urgency of self-determination for some of these ethnicities. A result of the splitting up of the Hapsburg Empire was the creation of Yugoslavia. The old joke follows that within Yugoslavia there is “one leader, two alphapbets, three languages, four religions, with five nationalities, living in six republics, bordered by seven neighbors, in a country of eight national minorities." The logic seems to be failing. How can Austria-Hungary be split up to ensure nationalities gain self-determination by grouping ethnicities together into a different country. However, Wilson obviously failed since he neither guaranteed long-lasting peace, nor self-determination for the Yugoslav nations as he planned.
Leninist policy
Lenin's approach was, perhaps naturally, different. Vladimir Lenin concluded „that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.“ While we must consider that his writing of The Right of Nations to Self-determination was intended to oppose Rosa Luxemburg, one may still see the modest approach Lenin has towards the topic, as he is not too specific, and not too exaggerating in his terminology. Lenin explains that „secession in the case of every nation... is absurd”. “The recognition of the right to secession for all; the appraisal of each concrete question of secession from the point of view of removing all inequality, all privileges, and all exclusiveness.“ By this, Lenin means that by making all equal, a nation can demonstrate its right to secede.
When Lenin applied self-determination to Russia, he applied it according to his interpretation. This is why his claim that every state’s secession is absurd makes sense. If a country were to interpret a region of its neighbor to be populated by its own culture’s people, they would have full right to annex this area. This would absolutely undermine Wilson’s aim of attempting to make countries in Europe feel secure, and instead of creating peace, it would rather establish continent-wide anarchy.
Iceland vs. Czechoslovakia
Ethnic conflicts also caused the Yugoslav Civil War in the 1990s, but the creation of Czechoslovakia was also a failure. In 1918, Czechoslovakia was formed and it was the longest lasting constitutional democracy of the successor states of the peace talks post World War One, but it shows Wilson’s hypocrisy as he created a new state of different ethnicities and cultures, which is what he was aiming to avoid. It seems as if he wanted to create different imperialist states to replace the imperialist Hapsburg Empire. Wilson was maybe only interested in the protection of the west. Was he simply trying to overpower the Central Alliance by surrounding them with supporters of the Triple Entente? The Little Entente was included Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia. It was created possibly for that exact purpose. Maybe self-determination was not so much for the benefit of the people of Europe, but rather the people of western society.
The new state of Czechs and Slovaks was an “artificial state”, but inherited most of Austria Hungary’s industry. From 1893 to 1913, Bohemia’s steel production increased by 261%. This massive growth shows the importance of the region to any country that was in possession of it. Bohemia, in 1919 a region of Czechoslovakia, was a kingdom in 1526, but had not been independent since. How could Czechoslovakia manage to handle its own economy, if they were lacking 400 years of experience? How was Czechoslovakia meant to handle its foreign affairs with a bitter neighbor such as Germany? Czechoslovakia inherited a lot of Austria-Hungary’s resources, for example the railway network. As this network was designed for its predecessor’s use, Czechoslovakia was left with a railway system, which was from their perspective, in one word, random.
Consider the defeated: How could Austria, or Hungary, without most of its industry survive? Surely it would need an economic union with its closest friend, Germany. The Treaty of Versailles strictly forbade this. It seems as if Woodrow Wilson had not thought about the consequences of his self-determination policy thoroughly for all parties, and the pressure this would create for Czechoslovakia. Woodrow Wilson may be found guilty for not grasping the complexity of the situation.
The difference between how Wilsonian, and Sigurðssonian self-determination took place, was that Sigurðsson published his first journal explaining some of his hopes and policies, translated to New Social Review, in 1841 while Iceland gains executive power in 1904 and self-determination in 1918, whereas Czechoslovakia gained full executive power in November 1918, after explaining his aims on 8 January 1918 when he addressed the United States Congress. Jón Sigurðsson understood the process it took for self-determination to be applied. The civilization had to be educated, be aware of their national identity and unify, and have a strong economy.
Wilson acknowledged that many peoples were aware of their national identity, as nationalism was, in fact, one of the main causes of the Great War, and therefore assumed that he could group the ethnic groups together. In Czechoslovakia’s case, he grouped Czechs and Slovaks, as well as Poles and Hungarians, gave them the majority of Austria’s industry and expected the Czechoslovak government to take it from there. This is a surreal solution to a complex problem.
While rule over Czechoslovakia moved from Vienna to Prague in 1918, rule over Iceland moved gradually from Copenhagen to Reykjavik. As Historian Guðmundur Hálfdánarson says it, „nationality is not automatic, it is based on a political choice.“ With this he means that the people must have a choice when it comes to act in favor of the nation. They must deserve the status of being a nation. Jón Sigurðsson was important to the extent where he created the movement for independence, and other politicians jumped onto his bandwagon. Kristjánsdóttir claims, „ Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for” was the most important factor in Iceland’s gain of Independence.
Sigurðsson, Wilson, and Lenin all had a clear goal, but Sigurðsson stood out because he knew exactly how to reach his goal. He expected, “that Icelanders would have to factor in, after having combated 20 years with the [Danish] government, expecting a 30 year struggle with the [Danish] parliament,” and thus implying that in 1869 there were still 30 years to go until Icelandic Independence. He was not that far off, because 35 years later, 1 February 1904 they gained home rule. Woodrow Wilson seemed to be establishing states which population was not sure what they wanted. The Czechoslovaks’ first president, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk was only persuaded that Czechoslovakia should become independent once the war started. Before this time, he was certain that, there should be „post-war reorganization of the Habsburg empire into a democratic confederation of the hitherto subject provinces.“ Based on Davenport’s conversations with Tomas´ son, Jan.
The civilization’s education and increasing awareness of their national identity increased in Iceland. However, the economic progress the country went through from 1841 until 1904 was even more significant. In 1905, there were 543,312 sheep located in Iceland whereas in 1837, there were 270,419. The figure had doubled. In the fishing industry 1867, 130 tonnes of herring were fished in Iceland’s waters. The figure grew to 9,500 tonnes in 1904. Czechoslovakia may have had a strong steel industry in Bohemia along with coalmines, but they had a new inexperienced government with an insufficient communications system. It was irresponsible of Wilson not to consider the process required to establish Czechoslovakia as a state that had an ability to make itself strong and more equal among its neighbors in central Europe. Hitler exploited this weakness as he invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 to gain Lebensraum for the German peoples.
The process of establishing a nation had been simplified and the land had been handed to Czechoslovakia for them to do with it as they wished. In relation to Jón Sigurdsson’s comment on the relationship between Denmark and Iceland being as one between a parent and a child, he would most likely claim that Wilson made a bold move by offering an infant a machete to cut a coconut. This was definitely not an easy task, and it was irresponsible for Wilson to hand this task prematurely to the Czechoslovaks, as the potential risks of anything happening were too high.
Wilson aimed to achieve long-term peace, as he described the war to be the „war to end war.“ Ignoring the hypocrisy of the statement, one may see the positive and idealistic meaning to the phrase. Wilson further aimed to reach this peace by creating a level of domestic security within Europe. This security would be achieved by self-determination and secondly, the theoretical collective security of the League of Nations. Wilson seems to have failed to thoroughly organize either of them.
The peace and security did not last long because Czechoslovakia was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938 and became a Communist state in 1948, where „rigged elections brought a communist victory.“
Munich Conference 1938
When Germany claimed the Sudetenland in 1938. The Munich Conference “spoiled my entry into Prague”, claimed Hitler. Even though Hitler would annex Czechoslovakia, regardless of the existence of the Munich Agreement, the Munich Agreement still raises questions whether it was justified or not in terms of the claim for self-determination, but this of course depends on interpretation.
The Agreement is linked with betrayal, and Winston Churchill describes the Agreement as, “only the first sip, the foretaste of a bitter cup.” This may be true, but according to self-determination, the Munich Conference was fully justified. Keith Eubank argues, that Western powers should have sought help from Stalin and the Soviet Union. Jón Sigurðsson would not have thought help would be needed. But how can the self-determination be justified when it lead to Hitler’s misconception that Chamberlain would not interfere in Hitler’s Eastern European affairs.
Lenin would have probably said that this was absolutely not in order, regardless of his opposition against Germany as a Bolshevik. His belief that Czechoslovakia had just as much right to the land as Germany would complicate things, although the majority of the population was German. It would all depend on the interpretation.
Wilson would also disagree according to his interpretation of self-determination, as an evacuation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland would disturb the long-term peace and the transfer of the mountains in Sudetenland would remove the physical barrier between Germany and Czechoslovakia causing a drop in the level of domestic security that Czechoslovakia had., The Munich Agreement would thus undermine the Wilsonian reform despite the cultural differences between the inhabitants of Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland.
Let us consider more of an isolated example, a pure example, if you will: Icelandic Sigurðssonian self-determination. Iceland’s self-determination was unique in a way where no borders were changed, the form of government was not changed, and no neighboring countries applied pressure on it. It could be compared to the general lab experiment performed in a vacuum void of external factors. Sigurðsson would have said that the Munich Agreement was justified, because it is an agreement, which promised an ethnic group to decide its own future for itself. Not only that, but the citizens of Sudetenland showed particular interest in becoming citizens of Nazi Germany. The Sudetenland region was the most active region in Politics. This can be seen where 17.34% of people signed up to be a part of the Nazi party. In the same time, 7.85% of all Germans took part in NSDAP relations. This difference shows the unity amongst Sudetenland inhabitants to join Nazi Germany and how this unity justified the Munich Agreement as a whole.
Conclusion
Sigurðsson’s efforts in the movement of Icelandic independence are reflected in the Wilsonian method, as both are willing to free ethnic groups from their culturally different rulers and provide certain internal security. Wilson interprets security by providing peace whereas Sigurðsson provides economic development.
Sigurðsson cannot be categorized with Wilson as an idealist, and not with Lenin as a theorist. Sigurðsson was very practical and made sure his ideas would be put into practice. His theory found in the development of economy and nationality strongly agrees with the United Nations’ definition of self-determination as people have the right to “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.“,. This shows the importance Sigurðsson has had in History in defining the very important policy of self-determination.
Lenin’s interpretation that self-determination’s practicality is absurd is true if all nations are willing to take what they believe is rightfully theirs. However, Sigurðsson would probably disagree. As Historian Hálfdánarson describes Sigurðsson’s policy he claims, “Nationality is therefore not automatic, but built on political choice,“ and shows that Sigurðsson’s theory of progression and development correctly portrays true self-determination. Sigurðsson should be portrayed as the midwife of self-determination. Even though Jean-Jacques Rousseau had probably established the theory before in his Political Writings, “it is making fools of people to tell them seriously that one can at one’s pleasure transfer peoples from master to master, like herds of cattle, without consulting their interests or their wishes”, Sigurðsson was the first to put he theory in practice.
Because of Sigurðsson’s influence on Wilson’s ideas, Sigurðsson had a significant role in the creation of the self-determinant nations after the Great War, but Wilson’s ideas were his own with his own interpretations, and they did not work as well as Sigurðsson’s Iceland showing Sigurðsson was not responsible for their failure. Iceland’s economic development was so significant in the 19th and 20th Century that small Iceland is in the top 20 for the GDP per capita.
After all, Iceland is still a Republic to this day, whereas Czechoslovakia is now split in two, and Yugoslavia’s Serbia has disputes with a region of its own, Kosovo, which claims self-determination. It will be interesting how they will achieve this, and whether a new interpretation of self-determination will be applied. References
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
CIA World Factbook. "CIA - The World Factbook – Country Comparison :: GDP – Per Capita (PPP)” Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2010.
CIA World Factbook. "CIA - The World Factbook -- Country Comparison :: National Product." Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2010.
Cooper, John M. Woodrow Wilson: a Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Print.
Davenport, Marcia. Too Strong for Fantasy. New York: Scribner, 1967. Print.
Ebrey, Patricia B. The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
Eubank, Keith. The Origins of World War II. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 2004. Print.
Friðriksson, Guðjón. Jón Sigurđsson: ævisaga. Vol. I-II. Reykjavík: Mál Og Menning, 2003. Print.
Hagstofa Íslands. Hagskinna. Economic Report. Reykjavík: Hagstofa Íslands, 1997. Print.
Hálfdánarsson, Guðmundur. "Jón Sigurðsson." Letter to Arnór Bragi Elvarsson. 12 Oct. 2010. MS. Reykjavik. See Appendix 2.
Jóhannsson, Valdimar. Öldin sem Leið: Minnisverð tíðindi. Comp. Guðmundsson, Gils. Reykjavík: Forlagið Iðunn, 1982. Print.
Júlíusson, Árni D., Jón Ó Ísberg, and Helgi S. Kjartansson. Íslenskur Sögu Atlas. Vol. 2. Reykjavik: IĐUNN, 1992. Print.
Karlsson, Gunnar. A Brief History of Iceland. Trans. Anna Yates. Reykjavik: Mál Og Menning, 2000. Print.
Karlsson, Gunnar. The History of Iceland. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2000.
Print.
Kristjánsdóttir, Ragnheiður. "On Jón Sigurðsson and Independence." Personal interview. 8 Apr. 2010. See Appendix 1.
Lenin, V. I. The Right of Nations to Self-determination. Moscow: Progress, 1967. Marxists.Org. 2000. Web. 13 Dec. 2010.
Lynch, Michael. China: From Empire to People's Republic: 1900-49. London: Hodder Murray, 1996. Print.
Noakes, J., and G. Pridham, eds. Nazism 1919 - 1945. Exeter: Univ. of Exeter, 2006. Print.
Pánek, Jaroslav, and Oldřich Tůma. A History of the Czech Lands. Prague: Charles University, 2009. Print.
Reisser, Wesley J. "SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE DIFFICULTY OF CREATING NATION-STATES: THE TRANSYLVANIA CASE." Geographical Review 99.2 (2009). World History Collection. Web. 11 Dec. 2010.
Sigurðsson, Jón, and Sverrir Kristjánsson. Hugvekja Til Íslendinga. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning, 1951. Print.
United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By United Nations. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By United Nations. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Unknown. "The Wilsonian Response: Principles and Practice - Self-Determination." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Web. 11 Dec. 2010.
Wallis, B. C. 1916. Distribution of Nationalities in Hungary. Geographical Journal 47 (3): 177-187.
Waugh, Steven. Modern World History. 1st ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2001. Print.
Wilson, Woodrow. "Modern History Sourcebook: Woodrow Wilson: Fourteen Points, 1918." FORDHAM.EDU. 22 Sept. 2001. Web. 09 Dec. 2010.
Wolfson, Robert, and John Laver. Years of Change: European History, 1890-1990. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001. Print.
Þorleifsson, Heimir. Ágrip Af Íslandssögu 1830-1918. Reykjavík, 1969. Print.
Further Bibliography
Kristjánsson, Aðalgeir. Endurreisn Alþingis Og þjóðfundurinn. Reykjavík: Sögufélag, 1993. Print.
Sigurðsson, Jón. Rit Jóns Sigurđsson. Ed. Sverrir Kristjánsson. Vol. I. Reykjavík: Menningarsjóđur Og þjóđvinafélagiđ, 1961. Print.
Sveinsson, Hallgrímur. The National Hero of Iceland: Jón Sigurdsson, a Concise Biography. Trans. Hersteinn Pálsson. Hrafnseyri: Vestfirska Forlagið, 1996. Print.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Extract from a personal interview with Ragnheiður Kristjánsdóttir, Historian and Adjunct at University of Iceland
Interviewer: Jón Sigurðsson was the leader of the struggle, and the Danish Kings agreed to the demands of the Icelanders. But do you feel that what Jón Sigurðsson did for Iceland was more important than the opinion of the King as well as the effect that the World War had on the independence?
Interviewee: Firstly, this is a simplified question to a complex situation, but if the question would be „What was the most crucial factor in the struggle for independence?“ As a Historian, I have to say it is too easy of a question, but I will still attempt to answer it by saying, that Jón Sigurðsson‘s formulation of what Icelanders should aim for [his policy] and of others who agreed to him was what was most important. This is because the Icelandic people probably never would have become indpendent if they had not themselves decided that they wanted to. And who helps the Icelandic people come to that conclusion? Men like Jón Sigurðsson. I would also like to add that I would hesitate, as a Historian looking at the whole History and its events, to say that only one person had influence. And that is why Jón Sigurðsson and men who agreed with him are the main reason. He is simply a symbol of the policies of the time. If Jón had not been born at Hrafnseyri at that time, it would possibly have been some other man who would have come up with the ideas. I would say, though, that Jón Sigurðsson policy and those of others was what was the most crucial.
Interviewer: So he formed the struggle?
Interviewee: Yes, I would say so.
Appendix 2 – Extract from a letter with Guðmundur Hálfdánarson, Historian and Professor at University of Iceland.
... All of this aided the independence claims of Iceland. But, as I said in the beginning, had Iceland not demanded independence, then they would have never become independent. Nationality is therefore not automatic, but built on political choice. Jón Sigurðsson played a large role to that extent, and we can say he was key to Iceland’s independence.
Appendix 3 – Photos of the Führerbau, Munich, Germany, the location, where the Munich Agreement
Did the reading of ENIGMA have a decisive effect on the defeat of Nazi Germany?
Superior intelligence in war has always been the secret weapon of any army or nation willing to invest the time and resources to acquire and interpret it correctly. As with the many conflicts before it, this was also true for the Second World War. The first ENIGMA-machines, or rather the machines later used to encrypt and decrypt the secret German military codes, was invented in the 1920’s and was very soon discovered to be ideal for hiding the content of a radio transmitted message. Ironically, the secret codes and sequences that the Germans put this machine to use de- and encrypting would not long stay secret. Soon after the German armed forces started employing these machines, cryptanalysts of the neighboring Polish Army acquired one of these machines (surprisingly they were sold commercially in Germany at the time!) and started work on mathematically solving the riddle of ENIGMA’s extremely complex and stunningly complicated encryption system using a mixture of human mathematical genius and mechanical aids in the form of machines that were basic forerunners to computers. Surprisingly, this effort was in part very successful and although the Polish Army itself never got as far as fully deciphering Germany’s encoded transmissions, useful information was attained and passed on to Poland’s allies Britain and France. This information gained by Polish mathematicians, especially after the occupation of Poland in 1939, was to be the foundation on which Britain would build its installation at Bletchley Park and the full cracking of the ENIGMA codes. Having acquired this information and having done much work in the field of cryptology themselves, the British in early 1940 had built a much bigger and more powerful computing-machine compared to that of the Poles. The Luftwaffe’s ENIGMA codes were the first to be broken (May 1940). The Kriegsmariene’s set of codes were broken the first time in March 1941 and the Wehrmacht’s codes were broken last in early 1942. The question at hand though is how decisive was the contribution of ULTRA (the codename given to deciphered German messages) to the defeat of Germany and her armed forces? Eventual Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and future American President Dwight Eisenhower called ULTRA’s contribution to the allied victory “decisive”. Looking at the entire course of World War Two and how it unfolded, finally ended and paying attention to when ENIGMA was broken, one can see it was indeed decisive. To prove this point I will be using only two examples: The campaign in North Africa and the stopping of Rommel before Egypt, and the “Battle of the Atlantic”. After Erwin Rommel’s stunning successes in Libya his Afrika Corps seemed virtually unstoppable. It seemed he was sure to take Egypt before 1943. One more obstacle stood in his way; the 8th Army’s defensive positions at Alam el Halfa. Rommel’s plan involved enveloping the 8th Army through a breakthrough in the supposedly weakly defended southern sector of the defensive line. Unfortunately for the “Dessert Fox”, ENIGMA messages had forewarned General Montgomery of this plan and he strengthened the defenses in the southern sectors to repulse the German armored advance. As a result the attack was foiled and Egypt and perhaps Britain’s position in the Mediterranean was saved from German occupation. The second example being the defeat of Germany’s U-boot’s in the Atlantic. This is most likely the clearest evidence for ULTRA’s decisiveness in the outcome of the war. Before March 1941, Germany’s U-boot’s and surface raiders had wrecked havoc on allied shipping in all parts of the world, not just the Atlantic. Britain’s very survival depended on oversea shipping. Russia in 1941 was also very reliant on western aid in the form of shipping carrying war materials. As a result when the German naval code was finally broken in May 1941 shipping losses went down drastically as the allies were very often able to pinpoint the precise location a German submarine or surface raider was going to be operating in and then avoid that area or better yet dispatch forces to destroy it. Coupled with numerous other examples and the fact that every German spy that was sent to Britain was used as a double agent or executed, pinpoints to the conclusion that the successful cracking of ENIGMA during World War Two had a decisive effect on the Allied Powers winning the war.
