The Pancho Villa Expedition

The United States and Mexico historically have not been the best of friends with numerous full-scale wars and smaller incursions, invasions, raids, border skirmishes, and interventions peppering their history as neighbors. The Pancho Villa expedition is but just one of these incursions from the United States into Mexico and fits in the broader history of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). This article will detail the U.S. “Punitive Expedition” led by General John “Black Jack” Pershing and its place in the wider legend of Pancho Villa’s life.

Pancho Villa was born José Doroteo Arango Arámbula in 1878 in the northwest of Mexico. Much of Villa’s life is contradictory and is debated, mostly due to Villa himself telling different stories for his early life. Supposedly he first turned to banditry after his sister was raped by the owner of a Hacienda, leading Villa to track down and kill the man. Through the late 1890s, he roamed the hills of northern Mexico with a bandit gang, stealing goods and livestock. In 1902 he was arrested and sentenced to death but was spared due to political connections he had cultivated through black market dealing of his stolen goods, instead being conscripted into the Federal Army. Villa deserted the army at the first chance he saw, leaving the ranks within just a few months and fleeing to the Mexican state of Chihuahua. It was around this time he adopted the name Francisco “Pancho” Villa and again turned to full time banditry. In the early 1900s, he attempted more legitimate pursuits like becoming a butcher and mining but supplemented his income with his bandit habits.

In 1910, the Mexican Revolution kicked off, with maximum chaos as a result. Mexico experienced a series presidents come and go through coups from 1910-1915. During this initial revolution in 1910, Villa became politically active, joining the revolution against President Porfirio Diaz in support of Francisco Madero. He believed his banditry activity could be used to hurt the rich Hacienda owners and saw himself as a Robin Hood like figure, undertaking performative acts of stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor, making him a folk hero in Northern Mexico. Pancho Villa fought on several sides during the revolution, at times supporting or fighting against various winners of power. Of note is Villa fighting the forces of dictator like President Victoriano Huerta, who despised Villa. Villa led the most powerful revolutionary army against Huerta, giving him sizable influence and prestige in his march to oust Huerta, alienating some ambitious allies or forcing an uneasy truth with others. Villa was accompanied by famous American journalist and writer, Ambrose Bierce, in his fighting against Huerta. Bierce was present at the battle of Tierra Blanca, which Villa won in 1913. The American press fed into and helped portray the image of Villa as a larger-than-life folk hero, a rag to riches, or a robin hood figure. Villa was elected provisional revolutionary governor of the state of Chihuahua by his fellow combatants in the fight against Huerta and was regarded as a good tactician and political operative. By 1915, Venustiano Carranza, a former ally of Villa turned vitriolic enemy, had ascended to the presidency in the wake of Huerta’s defeat - the 3rd president since 1910. Villa sided with Emiliano Zapata, another larger-than-life revolutionary figure, against Carranza in the struggle for the direction of Mexico. Both Villa and Zapata resented the power and influence of wealthy landowners like Carranza and feared he would become a dictator. After a struggle that looked like Villa and Zapata would come out on top, even occupying Mexico City at one point, they were defeated by superior tacticians aligned to Carranza.

Villa, now on the wrong side of the revolution, found himself isolated in the north and unable to raise substantial enough forces to challenge Carranza properly, instead turning to his usual bandit like behavior with raids, horse stealing, and other means to make money. Villa’s reputation began to shift from a folk hero to a sociopathic bandit who only cared about his image and enriching himself and his followers, thanks to a PR blitz by Carranza helped along by some dark incidents of murder, kidnapping, and rape committed by Villa’s forces throughout Northern Mexico. It seemed, at least publicly, that Villa had ditched his previous method of only targeting the rich, to targeting anyone that he felt was against him. The United States, which previously supplied arms and material to Villa, revoked their support in the wake of Carranza’s victory and Villa’s bad press, enraging Villa. In response, Villa and his men stopped a train traveling through northern Mexico, ordering foreign workers off the train, finding 18 Americans amongst the foreigners. Villa ordered the execution of these 18 men as retaliation for the loss of American support and throwing their weight behind Carranza. Villa began to plan a raid on U.S. soil, coupled with the previous execution of American citizens, that would have drastic consequences for Villa.

In March of 1916, Villa ordered several hundred soldiers aligned to him to cross the border with the U.S. and attack the town of Columbus, New Mexico. The goal of the raid was to acquire American arms and equipment to keep his men supplied in their fight against Carranza, but some historians believe it was more of an idealistic move against the U.S. who he saw as betraying him and meddling in Mexican affairs. Further, there was resentment amongst Villa’s men who blamed the Americans for previously selling them “defective” ammunition that they attributed to being a major factor in a previous defeat against Carranza forces.

On 9 March, Villa and his forces attacked a group from the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment, burned large chunks of the town of Columbus, seized around 100 horses, and captured ammunition and machine guns. Around 19 (this number is disputed amongst sources, even papers of the time report different numbers) Americans were killed in the raid, but Villa took substantial losses of around 70-80 men KIA. It is not known if Villa himself was present at the attack on Columbus or even if he ever crossed over into U.S. soil for the attack. There at least three other raids that took place on US soil between march and July 1916, but they cannot be definitively attributed to Villa, but added to the furor in the U.S. The U.S. responded in a way that Villa was not expecting, cross border raids were relatively common by Mexican bandits, but the reputation of Villa meant the U.S. could not let this one slide. President Woodrow Wilson ordered a “punitive expedition” launched to go capture Pancho Villa and bring back to the U.S. for trial, or kill him if necessary. The man tipped to the lead the expedition, General John “Black Jack” Pershing was privately told that he could declare “victory” even without the capture of Villa, if Villa’s forces were crushed.

Pershing put together an “expeditionary” force that was mostly made up of horse-mounted soldiers and artillery but were outfitted with some of the U.S. latest weaponry like the famous M1911 Semi-auto pistol and the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifles. Around 5,000 men in all were dispatched to Mexico to capture Villa, with a variety of infantry, cavalry, mechanized, and arial units participating. It was one of the first instances of the U.S. using airplanes in a military expedition, primarily using them as reconnaissance aircraft.

Villa had a six-day head start on the U.S. forces, breaking his men into smaller bands to evade the large groups of U.S. forces with ease. Villa and his forces knew the terrain intimately, so they were able to slip American groups by using their knowledge to devise escape routes if cornered. This was used with effectiveness after Villa was nearly caught by a large force of around 400 American cavalry at the town of Guerrero (400 miles deep into Mexican territory), where Villa had been celebrating the successful attack of a nearby garrison loyal to Carranza. Villa, who had been wounded with a shot to the kneecap in fighting the day before, was caught off guard by the rapid appearance of the American flying column of cavalry. The Americans quickly surrounded Guerrero and executed a large cavalry charge (with some historians calling this the last true cavalry charge) that inflicted substantial losses on Villa and his forces, killing 56 of Villa’s men to the loss of no American forces. Amongst the dead was Villa’s good friend, General Elicio Hernandez. Villa himself was able to escape by slipping into the mountains with a small group of his men and the Americans came so close to his hiding position that he could hear the soldiers singing a marching song as they passed. This would be the closest the Americans came to capturing Villa during the year-long expedition. Villa was able to hide out in mountain caves whilst his wound healed, and plot the rebuilding of his forces along with his next move.

As the year went on, Villa’s forces continued to be cornered and break up into smaller bands to avoid large scale engagements with the Americans, as they correctly realized they would be outgunned and out maneuvered by the American’s use of advanced weaponry and tactics. Several skirmishes would unfold that would inflict casualties on Villa’s forces, but they rarely came close to a large-scale engagement like the skirmish at Guerrero and Villa would remain elusive. Politically the expedition began to run into problems with the new Carranza government. Carranza, although actively fighting Villa and supported in this by the U.S., was alarmed at how deep the Americans were pushing into Mexico and decided to fight back. In April 1916, a group of 500 Carranza forces attacked a much smaller 128-man group of Americans as they withdrew from the town of Parral (500 miles into Mexico), resulting in the deaths of two Americans and up to seventy Carranza soldiers. This engagement forced the Americans to withdraw closer to the U.S. border and begin extensive diplomatic talks with Carranza’s government to limit further bloodshed, buying Villa and his forces more time to rebuild and breathing room, although the Americans would continue to inflict casualties on Villa’s forces in skirmishes, sometimes with devastating effect to Villa and little to no losses for the Americans. The Americans wouldn’t stray so far south, allowing Villa and his forces to have an easy way to evade trouble when they encountered it, essentially kneecapping the success of the Expedition from spring 1916 to its conclusion in February 1917. To add a further complication, although diplomatic talks were occurring at the highest levels between the Americans and the Mexicans, there continued to be bloody engagements between Mexican Carranza government forces and U.S. soldiers, resulting in men KIA on both sides.

Pershing, after being unable to launch any meaningful offensive actions in Mexico beyond May 1916, was ordered to withdraw from his base in Northern Mexico in February 1917, declaring success at the break-up of Villa’s forces and limiting his ability to wage war. The Americans killed or captured around 300 of Villa’s men, capturing 650 weapons, and 140 horses. Villa mocked the American’s failure to capture him saying that “Pershing came in like an eagle and leaves now like a wet chicken.” Pershing privately complained that his expedition failed as President Wilson placed too many restrictions on his forces. But the one success for the Americans is that the expedition helped ready it’s military apparatus for its entry into the First World War eight months later. It allowed the U.S. Army to test its readiness, equipment, and weapons, along with implementing new rapid movement tactics and the use of airplanes on the battlefield. It also gave the chance for army officers, who would eventually become leaders in the next World War, to lead men in combat, with officers like 2nd Lieutenant George S. Patton seeing action for the first time. In fact, Patton lead the American’s first mechanized combat action, using three Dodge vehicles to engage enemy forces.

Villa’s reputation as a national leader and his ability to influence Mexico politics never recovered in the post expedition world, even after thwarting an American military. Instead he was relegated to a regional power player with minimal influence even on Chihuahua. He evaded Carranza and his forces for a further 3 years, still engaging in guerilla actions against the government but sued for peace after Carranza’s assassination in 1920. Villa declared his support for the new president, Adolfo de la Huerta, and received amnesty for his past rebellion, retiring to a 25,000-acre hacienda in Chihuahua. Villa was ambushed and killed by the forces of yet another president, Alvaro Obregon, in 1923 at the age of 45. Black Jack Pershing would go on to be supreme commander of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during the First World War and is considered – even today – to be the second highest ranking American military officer in the nation’s history, second only to George Washington.

Elphinstone’s Retreat

In 1839, Britain did what any self-respecting empire does - invade Afghanistan. This invasion was part of what is euphemistically called “The Great Game” between the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Great Game was the world’s first (modern) Cold War, and had all the hallmarks of the later 20th century version including copious amounts of spies, proxy wars, diplomatic threats, and using unaligned countries as their playground. One of these unaligned countries, Afghanistan, lay between the Russian Empire and British India, so in order to shore up their defense of India, the British invaded Afghanistan due to the belief that at any moment the Russians would pour across the border and use Afghanistan as an invasion route to India. The British goal was to secure a friendly and cooperative state in neighboring Afghanistan as to create a buffer state between the two feuding empires.

During what is now known as the First Anglo-Afghan War (the first in a trilogy of wars), the British East India Company (EIC) invaded Afghanistan from India with around 20,000 soldiers. These 20,000 were a mix of British soldiers and Indian Sepoys, or Indians in service of the EIC. The EIC is different than a modern company, as it was essentially state controlled, directly governed large land holdings in Southeast Asia, and had its own armed forces (at times actually larger than the British Army). Initially in 1839, the British were somewhat welcomed into Kabul, by the leader of the city, Dost Mohammed. but the British began to distrust him and suspected he was playing both sides. As a result of this distrust, the British used their army to oust Dost Mohammed and replaced him with more friendly, yet ineffective, Shah Shuja, and mostly withdrew from the area, believing their mission accomplished. However, they did leave behind two brigades and two political aids to guide the Shah, Sir William Macnaghten and Sir Alexander Burns. In 1841, with tensions flamed by the Shah’s rule and the British occupation, a full rebellion in Kabul erupted with Macnaghten and Burns being murdered by the local populace. The two British brigades were still intact in a fortified camp outside the main city but were completely surrounded. By December of ’41, the British were able to negotiate a safe retreat from Kabul for their surrounded forces and their families (not just wives but children as well) as well as any camp followers and personnel. This negotiated agreement meant that the British had to leave behind the sick and wounded, all their gunpowder reserves, their newest muskets, and most of their artillery, but would have an Afghan escort provided by the leader of the uprising against the Shah, Akbar Khan. Additionally, the Afghans would provide fuel and food to the British to aid in the cross of the snowy Hindu Kush mountains. In total, around 16,000 people were being evacuated in a retreat lead by General William Elphinstone, departing on the 6th of January, 1842, for the British garrison in Jalalabad, around 90 miles away.

The retreat encountered hostility almost immediately, despite the agreement of safe evacuation, with the rearguard encountering hostile fire after leaving the fortified camp. Once the Afghans hostile to the British entered the fortified camp, they massacred everyone left behind and set fire to the structures. The promised escort by Akbar Khan’s forces never arrived nor did the aid they promised. Elphinstone resisted calls from his subordinate officers to turn back and take control of the fortress in Kabul but Elphinstone refused and the march to Jalalabad continued. On the second day of the march, the long column of soldiers and civilians began encountering sniper fire from the hillsides, with the British soldiers being ineffective in returning fire as they were hindered by the slow movement of the column and the chaos of the civilians trying to seek shelter from the snipers. To further complicate matters, the British engaged in several skirmishes with the Afghans resulting in the capture or destruction of most of the remaining British artillery, leaving the British with just three artillery pieces.

Akbar Khan met with Elphinstone on the afternoon of the second day to say that the British were at fault for his escort failing to appear as they left too soon and that the British should wait while he negotiates their safe passage through the pass out of Kabul. By this point, the column had only traveled 6 miles. Despite evidence of Khan’s treachery, Elphinstone agreed to wait and move slowly. On the third day, it became obvious, even to Elphinstone that Akbar Khan betrayed the British and stalled to allow the Afghans time to set up more effective ambushes along the passes. Progress was slow despite being constantly under musket fire and by the end of 9th of January (the fourth day) and only 40 miles, 3,000 people had been killed. Most of these were killed by sniper fire, skirmishes, frozen to death, or committed suicide, but some were massacred by the Afghans after they fell wounded and unable to continue. Frostbite set in for the survivors and the freezing conditions rendered most military equipment unusable. British cohesion fell apart and desertions began to occur, with some few hundred Indian troops attempting to return to Kabul but they too were massacred and the survivors enslaved. A large group of the soldier’s wives and families were captured and promised protection by Abkar Khan, but instead the wives of the Indian Sepoys were all murdered along with any Indian servants captured, leaving only white prisoners alive. Elphinstone’s psyche collapsed and he stopped giving orders, he just kept silently moving forward atop his horse.  

By the end of the 11th of January (the sixth day), it is estimated that only around 200 soldiers remained and a fierce rearguard action began under the command of Brigadier General John Shelton at the village of Jagadalak. The resistance was so fierce that the Afghans requested Elphinstone and John Shelton to begin negotiations with Akbar Khan. Elphinstone and Shelton dined with Khan but quickly realized they had actually been captured, with the Afghans refusing them the ability to return to their men. On the 12th of January (the seventh day), the column moved forward despite losing Shelton and Elphinstone and suffering 12,000 casualties, in the dead of night to limit their exposure to sniper fire. However, the remains of the column found themselves blocked in a by a barrier erected at the narrow pass, with most people being shot as they scaled the barrier. Small groups survived crossing the barrier but most were either cut down shortly after or killed as they attempted to escape, with very few of these small groups being able to make it. Scattered and isolated, these surviving groups attempted to reach Jalalabad by any means. The largest of these groups made a heroic last stand at the village of Gandamak, despite being either exhausted or wounded and lacking proper ammunition and working equipment to make a survivable defense. Refusing offers to surrender, this group of 20 officers and 45 men, were mostly all killed after an intense series of attacks and waves of men rushing their position. Of the 65 men, only 1 officer, 1 sergeant, and 7 privates were captured.

On the 13th of January (the final and eighth day), a lone officer rode into Jalalabad. This lone survivor, Assistant Surgeon William Brydon described his ordeal to reach Jalalabad, having survived multiple ambushes that wounded himself and his horse. When asked what happened to the army, Brydon famously replied with “I am the army.” Over the coming weeks, Brydon would be the only European officer to arrive from the column although a number of Sepoys arrived after surviving by hiding themselves in the mountains.

Britain was absolutely humiliated and shocked by the loss of Elphinstone’s column, with immediate calls for revenge and retribution against Akbar Khan and Kabul. The news was so shocking to the EIC that the man in charge of it, Lord Auckland, suffered a stroke. A punitive expedition marched into Kabul later in 1842, leveling the Grand Bazaar and any large building in Kabul, rescuing or securing hostages (including the European soldier’s wives), and attacked the forces of Akbar Khan where they were able. In all, only over 2,000 people from the column would be rescued from captivity, escaped, or were released. Elphinstone himself died a captive of Akbar Khan in April of 1842 and his leadership during the evacuation has been thoroughly panned in the 182 years since. Akbar Khan took control of Afghanistan until being ousted by Dost Mohmmed in 1843, and died of cholera in 1847.

The Expedition of the Thousand

The island of Sicily has been conquered, captured, occupied, or subjugated by almost every single power in recorded history. The Ancient Greek colonists, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Normans, the Spanish, The French, the British, the French again, the Spanish also again, and finally their fellow Italians, all have occupied or used Sicily’s strategic location in the Mediterranean to their advantage. The Sicilian people as a result have a unique Italic language and culture compared to mainland Italy. Their language (although mistakenly considered a dialect but still similar) is distinct from Italian as it is an amalgamation of different languages from the people who conquered and occupied them. In only very recent history (1860) has Sicily joined the Italian mainland as a unified state, the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Italian expedition to unite Sicily with Italy is a fascinating and dramatic tale of revolution and local uprising being used by a greater power. This article will detail the uniting of Sicily with the boot peninsula and the factors that led to its success.

In the 1850s-1860s, the Italian peninsula was in the throes of a revolution against greater European powers after centuries of oppression and control. The House of Savoy, a royal house originally hailing from Sardinia, started to spread its control from the north of Italy, pushing a message of a united Italy being the only way to prevent meddling European powers from engaging in Italian misadventure. This unification process became known as the Risorgimento, or Italian for resurgence. At the same time, the Sicilians were under the control a despised regime situated in Naples. This kingdom, known as the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, was a Spanish-Bourbon monarchy that acted with impunity in Sicily, causing widespread resentment from the population. In 1848, while the rest of Europe engaged in widespread revolution against monarchy and centuries old powers, Sicily attempted to do the same against the regime in Naples, only to be met with brutal repression and a violent put down of the Sicilian independence movement. This was not forgotten by the people in 1860, when Italy started to be united under the House of Savoy in the north of the peninsula. Guiseppe Garibaldi, a charismatic leading figure in the Risorgimento movement of Italy, set his eyes on the Kingdom of Two Sicilies once most of the north was united. Sicily and the south of the peninsula, while wanting to be rid of the dynasty in Naples, were less interested in the anti-clerical pro-industrial message being pushed by the House of Savoy and instead launched an internal struggle separate from the movement in the north.

Garibaldi was a young upstart that attached himself to the Savoy early on and helped lead the struggle against the Austrians in the north. Once the Austrians were defeated, Garibaldi, more nationalistic than most of his allies, wanted to keep pushing south until Italy was fully united under the Savoy banner. Garibaldi decided to launch an audacious expedition to conquer Sicily, raising a small force of around 1,000 men. These 1,000 volunteers (the Mille) consisted of soldiers, young nationalists, workers, and opportunists, extremely loyal to Garibaldi himself. Garibaldi had his work cut out of him, while the Sicilians chaffed under the yoke of the Bourbon Neapolitans, they were a different people than the northern Italians. Mostly agrarian and uninterested in industrialization, they were also deeply religious and loyal to the catholic church. The House of Savoy was used to uniting people under a pro-industrialization message and a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church and its clerics. This message had to be modified if Garibaldi was going to succeed. Garibaldi would especially drop the message of anti-church and employed priests (some of whom even fought) in his columns of men to put an image of church support of his cause. In advance of the expedition, representatives and agents were sent to Sicily to stoke the population’s support and an uprising broke out in Palermo on 4 April 1860, which was violently and brutally suppressed by the Neapolitan Bourbon forces there.

Garibaldi set sail from Genoa on 5 May, 1860 with his around one thousand volunteers and landed at Marsala in Western Sicily on 11 May. His landing was aided by good timing as the Bourbon navy, trying to stop Garibaldi before his landing, were afraid to engage Garibaldi’s ships at Marsala due to the coincidental presence of two British Royal Navy vessels. Fearful of sparking a wider war, they let Garibaldi land unopposed, although the British remained neutral in the expedition, denying aid and supplies to both sides. Initially, Garibaldi’s prospects didn’t look great, most of his men were untrained and ill-equipped for the task at hand, but planned on tapping into the Sicilian people’s resentment to bolster their forces. This surging of his manpower with Sicilian volunteers however didn’t appear right away. The Thousand, with their flashy red shirts and grey trousers, were not taken seriously at their landing.

Garibaldi found little interest from the Sicilians to support his cause, as they were hesitant to support his tiny force against 20,000 Neapolitan forces loyal to King Francis II. Garibaldi declared his intention to liberate the island from Naples, while also declaring himself dictator of the island in the name of King Victor Emmanual II of Savoy and began his march towards Palermo. He was met by a force of Neapolitans twice his size at the three-hour long Battle of Calatafimi, resulting in a mostly inconclusive engagement. However, the battle was a massive moral blow to the Neapolitans as they retreated upon running out of ammunition, leaving Garibaldi’s thousand to press towards Palermo. Only at this point did the Sicilian people and partisans see that Garibaldi may have a chance, but he had a large obstacle to overcome, the Sicilian capital city, Palermo. Palermo had around 18,000 forces loyal to King Francis II but were led by an incompetent 75-year-old commander. Once Garibaldi laid siege to the city on 27 May, the population of Palermo (around 180,000) rose up and aided the Thousand, allowing Garibaldi to enter the city and capture portions on the first day. The Bourbons retreated and shelled the lost sections of the city, killing hundreds of civilians in the process that further stoked resistance by the population. By May 28, the Bourbon troops found themselves cornered and began to fight back against the resisting population but they were unable to gain momentum against the Thousand and the popular uprising. Two battalions of well-trained Bavarian mercenaries employed by the Bourbons arrived and began to push back the Mille. Although Garibaldi began to lose ground and men, the Bourbons started facing uprisings in Catania and other parts of Sicily, and quickly realized that with the population uniting against them and the morale of their men beginning to collapse, they would have to surrender the city and retreat eastwards back to the mainland. On 30 May, they surrendered Palermo and retreated fully on 6 June 1860.

While Garibaldi’s Thousand is the most well-known expedition, he did not conquer the island alone. In all, around 20,000 volunteers began to arrive from other parts of Italy to aid the Mille and land around various areas of Sicily. It was these new arrivals that ultimately convinced King Francis II’s forces to abandon the island and return to defend their holdings in mainland Italy, allowing Garibaldi and the Savoy forces to march east, fighting retreating Bourbon forces and gaining more troops from Sicilian partisans in the process. Finally on 1 August, the Bourbons surrendered the whole of the Island after losing engagements in Messina and Syracuse, allowing Garibaldi to establish a dictatorial government under the authority of King Victor Emmanual II and uniting Sicily to Savoy Italy.

The Crabb Affair: The Missing Frogman

In 1956, the Cold War was in its first phase - the USSR had successfully tested a series of nuclear weapons, the berlin blockade of 1948-49 sowed distrust and hostility on both sides, and the death of Stalin only three earlier had caused confusion and chaos in diplomatic relations between the West and the USSR. In this atmosphere, a World War 2 Royal Navy veteran and professional scuba diver employed by MI6, Lionel Crabb, disappeared off the coast of England, leaving behind more questions than answers and a riveting cold war mystery to this day.

Lionel “Buster” Crabb, born in 1909 London, started serving at sea at a young age, holding several positions with the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy Reserve in the years prior to World War 2. With the outbreak of war, he transitioned to active duty in the Royal Navy, originally disarming Axis mines removed by British divers, or “frogmen.” After some time in this role, he learned to dive and joined a team of underwater mine clearers in Gibraltar. These divers were focused on counteracting mines, manned torpedoes, and diver attacks by the Italians. In 1942, two Italian frogmen were killed by the British and their Italian made equipment was taken and then used by Crabb (this will feature later). Later in the war, he served in Italy where he worked to remove mines in various Italian ports, and investigated the mysterious death of a Polish general whose aircraft crashed into the water. In the years following the war, he served in Palestine where he removed mines from several harbors, eventually leaving the navy in 1947, becoming a civilian wreck diver. In his capacity as a wreck diver, he dove on various sites including a Spanish galleon from the famous 1588 Armada before returning to the Navy to dive on Royal Navy submarine wrecks to search for any signs of life, finding none in both cases and in 1955 was retired from the navy due to his age and health. Crabb had been a lifelong smoker and heavy drinker and by this time, both habits began to affect his health. He was recruited by MI6 to conduct secret dives focusing on examining and investigating Soviet ships after his retirement.

In 1956, the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze arrived in Britain carrying Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. This ship intrigued the British who wanted to know more about the design and capabilities of the Soviet Navy’s vessels. MI6 deployed Crabb on 19 April to dive in Portsmouth Harbour and investigate the propeller of Ordzhonikidze, and this is the last anyone ever saw of Lionel Crabb. The British immediately covered up the vanishing of Crabb, releasing a statement that Crabb had gone missing and presumed dead after testing some new diving equipment. The Soviets cried foul, stating that their sailors reported seeing a diver by the cruiser on 19 April. The British sent a message to the Soviets elaborating that his testing of this equipment in Portsmouth Harbour was unauthorized, sticking to their public story. This cover up and scandal became known as the “Crabb Affair.” Prime Minister Anthony Eden was outraged at MI6, as he never authorized the mission on British domestic soil, which is usually reserved for MI5.

A body missing its head and hands, was recovered in June 1957. The body has never been positively identified as its decomposition (along with missing hands and head) due to the amount of time spent in the water, makes it difficult to ID even for those close to Crabb. The corpse, reported to be the same height as Crabb, and supposedly wearing an Italian Pirelli diving suit along with Royal Navy fins, was examined by Crabb’s wartime friend and later diving partner, along with his ex-wife, and girlfriend. All three failed to positively identify the corpse as Crabb. There are numerous theories we will explore on what happened to Crabb using declassified materials and statements from various Soviet sources.

The first theory is that Crabb’s smoking and drinking habits made him unfit for the mission and he died from either health issues exacerbated by the diving, or that he had catastrophic equipment failure, resulting in death by oxygen starvation or carbon dioxide poisoning. It is reported that Crabb died on his second dive near the ship, as he had to surface from his first dive due to equipment problems, lending some credence to this theory. This view is held by several diving experts and Crabb’s MI6 handler, Nicholas Elliot (side note: Elliot is famously tied to Kim Philby of the Cambridge Five).

The next explanation for Crabb’s disappearance we will explore is a combination of multiple theories involving the Soviets. There are various explanations given by former Soviet personnel that attempt to explain the vanishing of Crabb, the first of which states that he died under interrogation after capture. According to a former British double agent that spied for the Soviets, Crabb was captured by underwater sentries stationed to prevent the British from getting close to the cruiser, knocking Crabb unconscious after an underwater physical altercation. He was dragged onboard to receive medical treatment where he passed out again, eventually recovering enough to be interrogated. During this interrogation, he passed out a third time and died. The Soviets feared the diplomatic repercussions so they released his body in the water in way that it would be loose once the Soviet cruiser began to leave the harbour but it became tangled underwater, preventing its recovery until the next year. A former Soviet diver put forward another theory in 2007, stating that Crabb had been intercepted underwater by him and his oxygen line was cut in an altercation, leading to his death. A third Soviet theory put forward in the 90’s by a former Naval Intelligence Officer, states that Crabb was seen from the cruiser and shot by Soviet snipers.

Our last theory (and most far-fetched) is that Crabb survived his mission and either defected to the Soviets or was captured and “brainwashed.” This theory has several aspects to it, such as Crabb living under an assumed Russian name to train the Soviet’s frogmen, that he was held as a prisoner for years in a Soviet gulag before being brainwashed to train divers, or that he defected voluntarily and lived out his days in Russia.

Here at Seeking History, we believe that the most likely scenarios explaining Crabb’s vanishing is equipment or health failure during the dive. The former Soviets have a history of making claims regarding Cold War actions that don’t always line up with the historical evidence. While Lionel Crabb’s unfortunate disappearance in the early years of the Cold War is still a mystery and little closure to this case can be found, it’s a fascinating tale of Cold War espionage nonetheless. Documents related to the Crabb Affair will not released by the UK until 2056.

The Roman Question

When you think of Italy, you of course think of Rome. Rome, known as the “Eternal City,” was not the eternal capital of Italy, however. For 1,394 years, Italy was a divided peninsula with various city states and petty kingdoms populating the peninsula. Greater European powers also fought over and captured whole swaths of the “boot” more times than we can breakdown in this article. It was not until the 1870 unification of Italy that Rome became the capital of the peninsula again for the first time since 476 CE. In this article we will outline the capture of Rome from the Papal States in 1870 and its effect on the Italian peninsula.

By the Western Roman Empire’s fragmentation in 476, Rome had already ceased to be what it once was and was a depopulated remnant. At its height, the city boasted a population of between 1-2 million people but was reduced to a mere 30,000 after the Imperial collapse. Rome would eventually recover due to the presence of the Catholic Church and the Popes calling it their home (for most of the Papal office’s history), with the city becoming the capital of the Papal States in 756 CE. The Papal States would continue to expand, grabbing territory in the modern Italian regions of Lazio, Marche, Umbria, and Emilia-Romagna. However, by the start of the 17th century, the Papal states started to erode with various European powers seizing chunks in their bid to dominate Italy. This eventually culminated in the dissolution of the Papal States in all but name by 1859, with only Rome and some surrounding territory remaining under temporal control of the Pope.

The new Kingdom of Italy, under the Sardinian house of Savoy and King Victor Emmanuel II, wished to crown its achievement of uniting the peninsula for the first time since the Roman Empire by making Rome their capital, but in their way was Pope Pius IX, who considered Rome his sovereign right and territory. The debate over Rome’s ownership became to be known as the Roman Question. This resulted in a standstill between the two factions as Italy did not want to storm Rome and oust the Pope, fearing a sharp religious backlash from its staunchly catholic population and an international public relations disaster. Additionally, a French garrison defended the city, preventing Italy from seizing it however this did not prevent the Kingdom from declaring in 1861 that Rome was its capital.

In 1870 the Franco-Prussian War erupted forcing Napoleon III to remove his troops from Rome, leaving an opportunity for Italy to seize the city. Fearing the backlash mentioned earlier of violently taking Rome from the Pope, King Victor Emmanuel II offered to “protect” the Pope in place of its previous French garrison, with the true aim of peacefully taking the city once Italian troops arrived. The Pope saw through this ruse and declined the offer of protection, causing Italy to formally declare war in September of 1870, besieging the city later that month. Although Pius IX knew that his greatly outnumbered could not successfully defend the city, he ordered his forces to put up some resistance to emphasize to the world that the Pope was not giving up Rome willingly. Pius IX did instruct his forces in their resistance however to not push back too hard in order to limit bloodshed on both sides, resulting in 12 dead amongst his men and 32 amongst the Italian forces. The city fell to Italian forces on September 20th, 1870, and the Pope entered a phase referred to as the “Prisoner in Rome.”

While a “prisoner” in Rome, the Pope confined himself to Vatican hill and the Apostolic Palace, still conducting diplomacy as if he was a sovereign. He further rejected any deal with the Italians to become an Italian subject or to negotiate any church holdings within the city away. This status existed until 1929, with the Pope refusing to leave Rome until then. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 ended this self-imposed house arrest, establishing Vatican hill as Vatican City, a wholly separate 17 sq mile nation from Italy and providing financial restitution to the Church for the seized territory of the Papal States, officially ending the “Roman Question.”

Today, Vatican City is the smallest nation on earth and is the smallest by population, with only around 750 residents. The Pope remains head of state of Vatican City and an easy peace/relationship has been maintained by Italy and Vatican City ever since, with the Pope giving up sovereign claim of Rome outside his territory.

Boudicca’s Revolt

The island of Britain was a consistent sore spot for the Roman Empire, causing problems in one way or another throughout its occupation. The Romans, realizing they could never conquer or occupy Britain as a whole, decided to wall off the northern side with two large walls that spanned the width of the island in the north. However, this didn’t mean that south of the walls was pacified and Romanized in its entirety, with the occupied portions experiencing revolts, tribal incursions, invasions, and civil war. One of these revolts, the Boudicca Revolt, has gone down in history and is vividly remembered along with its eponymous leader.

The most historically accepted cause of the revolt is that in 60-61 CE, a chieftain named Prasutagus of the tribe Iceni died, leaving his tribe’s holdings to his two daughters and the Roman Emperor Nero. The Iceni were a friendly tribe to the Romans and were one of the six tribes that welcomed Julius Caesar on his expedition to Britain in the 50s BCE, so leaving part of his holdings to Nero was not a radical gesture. However, the Romans chose to ignore this will and seize all the holdings of the Iceni instead, stripping the Iceni of their status as allies and declared them subjugated instead. To add more insult and injury to the Romans flogged the wife of Prasutagus, Boudicca, and raped her two daughters, causing her to of course seek revenge against the Romans.

Boudicca rallied her tribe, using the behavior of the romans to also rally her neighbors, the Trinovantes, and smaller tribes around them. Her message of rebellion spread from the Trinovantes to other tribes, both allies and enemies of Rome. By the time Boudicca was ready to begin her rebellion, she had amassed a reported 100,000 native Britons under her command. Boudicca’s first move was to attack the former capital of the Trinovantes, modern day Colchester – then known as Camulodunum. The city was populated by Roman legionary veterans, who further angered the locals by building a massive temple to the late Roman emperor Claudius (paid for by the native Britons). Boudicca marched on Colchester whilst a reliving Roman legion, the famed Legio IX Hispania, marched to intercept her army. The Romans were soundly defeated, with massive losses to the legion. Reportedly, every infantry soldier was killed or captured, with only the legions commander and a small number of calvary escaping. The inhabitants of Colchester appealed to the Romans for further assistance but only 200 auxiliary forces arrived, essentially dooming the city to Boudicca, and were massacred, with the last forces holing up the temple of Claudius for two days before they were killed. Next, Boudicca marched on London, then known as Londinium. London was not the capital of Roman Britan but was a town centered around trade and travel, making it important. Roman general Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, who had been campaigning in the north of the province, had received word of Boudicca’s movement and began marching his forces south, quickly arriving in the city ahead of Boudicca’s forces. However, after assessing the situation and determining he would be defeated if he fought the rebels at London, he opted instead to withdraw and leave the city to Boudicca’s vengeance. Although Paulinus opted to not defend London, he did take as refugees those citizens who opted to flee. Those who did not flee were killed and massacred by Boudicca’s force and the city burned. Lastly, Boudicca and her army marched to Verulamium (modern St. Albans) and repeated what they had done in Colchester and London. It is estimated that between the three cities and the legion, 70,000-80,000 Romans and Roman-allied Britons were killed in the revolt.

Paulinus began to prepare to fight Boudicca and her forces on his own terms, although exactly where the battle took place is unknown. Paulinus had around 10,000 men under his command, consisting of Legio XIV Gemina and detachments from Legio XX Valeria Victrix. Legio II Augusta was also requested to join but their commander disobeyed orders and did not march to join Paulinus’ forces. Boudicca had an estimated 200,000 but as with all ancient military numbers, this should be taken with extreme skepticism, however it is thought her forces were lightly equipped due to previous disarming of the native Britons in the preceding years. Boudicca was confident in her success and allowed the families to pool their baggage wagons to the edge of the battlefield and watch her impending victory, but this proved to be a disastrous decision. The Roman historian Tacitus describes the battle like this:

“At first, the legionaries stood motionless, keeping to the defile as a natural protection: then, when the closer advance of the enemy had enabled them to exhaust their missiles with certitude of aim, they dashed forward in a wedge-like formation. The auxiliaries charged in the same style; and the cavalry, with lances extended, broke a way through any parties of resolute men whom they encountered. The remainder took to flight, although escape was difficult, as the cordon of wagons had blocked the outlets. The troops gave no quarter even to the women: the baggage animals themselves had been speared and added to the pile of bodies. The glory won in the course of the day was remarkable, and equal to that of our older victories: for, by some accounts, little less than eighty thousand Britons fell, at a cost of some four hundred Romans killed and a not much greater number of wounded.”

 The rebellion suffered a total defeat and was not able to continue its rampage although Boudicca’s fate after is unknown with sources saying she either committed suicide by poison or she fell ill and died after. The rebellion almost caused the Romans to recommend to Emperor Nero that Britain should be abandoned. Her burial site is also unknown and today is hunted for by archeologists. However, the legacy of Boudicca is still felt today, with a statue of her in Westminster, London (across from Westminster Palace at the entrance to the tube station) and her rebellion is taught to all students in Britain as they go through their schooling. Further, she is celebrated as one of Britain’s first national heroes and her rebellion is written and discussed positively.

The Sinking of the USS Maine

If you are not American, you may not be familiar with the Spanish-American war and a principal cause, the sinking of a US warship, the USS Maine. If you are American, there is a term that goes together with the sinking of the ship, “yellow journalism” that may immediately spring to mind. We will be exploring both the sinking of the Maine and the impact the press had on the US government’s 1898 decision to declare war on Spain in the aftermath of the sinking.

In the late 19th century, the United States was mirroring behavior of western European empires but with a focus on its own hemisphere, specifically intervening in affairs in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. This behavior was an extension of the American concept of “Manifest Destiny” or the belief that the United States should and would dominate the North American continent from east to west coast. Once the western frontier was “won” those Americans turned their focus beyond the North American coastline and focused on the Pacific, Central, and South America, including countries and territories like the Philippines, Cuba, Puerta Rico, and Hispaniola. In their way however was the Spanish Empire, who controlled large chunks of the Caribbean and swaths of the Pacific. At the same time, the American press industry was undergoing a dramatic shift. Within the American constitution, the first amendment protects and enshrines press editorial freedom, allowing news corporations to be creative in their delivery of the news if the information being delivered to readers is not libelous towards the subjects of the stories, and in the late 19th century, newspapers started to push beyond the limits of what is factual news. William Randolph Hurst and Joseph Pulitzer, both newspaper magnates, became known for delivering exaggerated, solacious, fabricated, distorted, or sensationalized stories and headlines in their respectively owned papers. This reporting behavior became known as “yellow journalism” in America. Today it is still very much an active practice in use by tabloid journals and magazines in the US, the UK, and around the world.

The Spanish Empire was a dying power in the 19th century, having been heavily weakened by centuries of sustained conflict with other European powers. Further eroding the power of the empire was a century of territorial instability with civil wars and overseas rebellion, crippling the Spanish economy. Lastly, the Spanish now had to contend with a burgeoning power threatening its interests, the United States. With America’s focus on expanding power beyond its borders and Cuba being only 90 miles away from the US mainland, it became a natural target of American expansionists. In 1895 Cuban revolutionaries launched an armed rebellion against the Spanish, kicking off the Cuban War of Independence. This rebellion was not the first, as Cuba had been in a state of on and off rebellion since the 1860s and garnered the sympathy of Americans, who only a century before had shaken off their own colonial overlords. Additionally, American economic interests were tied to Cuba, as they were a leading sugar importer to the US, with increased American government and economic concern growing as the instability in Cuba continued. Further damning against the Spanish was their use of concentration camps in this war and previous Cuban uprisings (the first use of this term and type of internment) and exploited by the American press for attention grabbing headlines. The United States under President William McKinley, attempt to act as a 3rd party negotiator to end the conflict, but the Spanish would promise reforms and routinely fail to deliver on them, trying the patience of the United States. The American public began to believe that war between the United States and Spain was justified to protect American interests and to aid the Cuban cause.

As the Spanish cracked down in Cuba and no end to the conflict in sight, in 1898 the American government dispatched a cruiser, USS Maine, to Cuban waters to “protect American citizens and interests.” This also served as a signal to the Spanish that the United States was willing to use naval and military power to get their way. The Maine arrived in Havana harbor on January 25th, where it stayed until suffering a large explosion on the 15th of February. The explosion ignited a powder store for the ship’s guns, nearly vaporizing one third of the ship. The explosion killed 261 sailors and marines out of the 355 total crew, only leaving 16 uninjured of the surviving 94.

Conflicting information immediately came out regarding the cause of the explosion, with President McKinley first being told it was an accident, along with numerous high ranking naval and civilian officials being told the same. One initial belief was that coal fire ignited the ship, causing the explosion and this was communicated to the Department of the Navy. Although a different narrative quickly overtook this, that a Spanish mine had caused the sinking of the Maine. The “yellow” press seized upon the perceived Spanish offensive action narrative, printing weeks’ worth of sensationalized headlines demanding revenge for the American deaths or reimbursing the US for its loss by granting Cuba independence. The public, after being bombarded by the overly biased headlines and coupled with often exaggerated news of concentration camps and Spanish atrocities (concentration camps and atrocities by the Spanish did occur but the American press often fabricated or exaggerated key details or incidents), advocated for war between America and Spain. War was declared on Spain by the United States two months later, with the rallying cry of “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain” entering the American lexicon, joining “Remember the Alamo” as one of the most memorable phrases in US 19th century history, being taught in American textbooks to this day. The press and those with economic interests in Cuba got exactly what they desired, forcing a confrontation for their own interests by utilizing bias and misinformation. The Spanish were quickly defeated and humiliated in the subsequent war, with the conflict lasting just 16 weeks. In victory, the US took possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, with Puerto Rico and Guam still being held as US territories to this day.

The United States and Spain each conducted their own investigations to understand what happened in the interim between the sinking and war, with Spain concluding that an internal explosion - likely from a coal bunker caused the sinking, with the US concluding that an external force, like a torpedo or mine was the cause.

But do we know the actual cause of the explosion over 120 years later? Numerous investigations have been launched to uncover the true cause of the explosion, as the naval mine or torpedo narrative is greatly disputed. The initial US inquiry in 1898 used testimony from the surviving crew and wreck divers to conclude that the ship was struck by a naval mine that ignited its forward magazine, as many survivors reported hearing two explosions. But this study had detractors within the navy who argued that a coal fire was the cause. In 1911, the Maine was raised from Havana harbor in a large operation where she was studied before being sunk again. This investigation concluded that an external explosion had indeed caused damage to the Maine and likely detonated its powder magazine. This investigation also was able to recover most of the sailors who went down with the ship and intern them in the US national military cemetery, Arlington. However, in 1974 another investigation led by US Admiral Hyman Rickover using photographs and wreckage pieces, with a book being released of the Rickover team’s findings in 1976. This study concluded that the explosion was not caused by an external explosion, but instead was caused by an internal explosion due to a buildup of methane and other gasses produced by the US Navy’s switch over to a more volatile coal type, igniting the magazine. To further muddle the investigation into the Maine’s sinking, National Geographic conducted an investigation of their own in 1998, using computer graphics for the first time. Their investigation was inconclusive, with differing opinions amongst the members as to the cause. The NatGeo team concluded that a small mine COULD have caused the blast but that an explosion due to coal gas build up could also be the cause. In 2002, an investigation by the US television network, the Discovery Channel, concluded that a coal bunker fire and explosion was the cause, with a design flaw in the metal separating the coal bunker from the magazine showing that a fire could have penetrated the barrier and led to a massive explosion.

The cause of the sinking of the Maine, whilst still disputed to this day, may never be fully known but the ship’s sinking and the American press’ sensationalism of the incident is absolutely a main cause of the Spanish-American war. Although ensuring protection of editorial integratory and news reporting is key in today’s 21st century America and the UK, looking back on the press’ actions around the Maine’s sinking and the subsequent US declaration of war provides us with one of history’s greatest example of government policy being affected by public sentiment and opinion being galvanized by a biased press.

The 1953 Iranian Coup

You will often hear people dispute the importance of studying history, with detractors claiming that it is boring, it focuses on just “great men,” or that studying history means you live in the past and are ignorant of the present. But here at Seeking History, we believe that studying history helps unlock a greater understanding of our current world, and a prime example of this is to explore how a 1953 coup in Iran led to the Islamic hardline regime that is currently in place and has been since 1979. Operation Ajax or Operation Boot, a joint venture by the American CIA and the British SIS/MI6, targeted the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and resulted in Mosaddegh’s ouster as Prime Minister of Iran, in favor of bolstering the Shah of Iran. This western sponsored and orchestrated coup is still resented by Iranians today as many believe it deprived them of a popular leader who could have changed or altered the path of Iran, with an Islamic revolution never occurring if he had not been removed. While Britain has never, and probably never will, admit it’s role in the Iranian coup, the United States publicly admitted to their role in 2023 for the first time.

              Iran, for most of its recent history, was a monarchial state with a king known as the Shah. While by the mid-20th century, most Iranians did not resent or regard the Shah with hostility, they were looking for a more modern Iran. Iran had strong ties to the West, and in return the West pumped large amounts of money into the country to ensure their economic interests and petroleum supply lines were protected and uninterrupted. Numerous companies sprouted in Iran as joint ventures between the Iranians and Western nations like Britain and the United States, leading to a sense amongst Iranians that the West was stealing or siphoning Iran’s natural wealth. One of these companies, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP), and its resistance to Iranian state oversight, became a core cause of the coup.

             The foundations of the coup were laid in the 1940s, when the British and Soviets invaded, and then subsequently occupied Iran during the Second World War to ensure a constant flow of petroleum for the war effort. In the process, the Shah, Reza Shah, was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It is not conjecture to assume that Mohammad Reza, after witnessing the downfall of his father due to his resistance against the Allies, understood that he should hitch his fate to the wagon of Western power, and especially to the newly emergent power of the United States. In the wake of the war, and the eventual withdrawal of Anglo-Soviet forces in 1946, Reza began to radically change the culture of Iran, adopting western ideals and grandiose plans for a westernized Iran as a middle eastern industrial powerhouse that he began to implement through the 1940s and early 1950s. However, nationalists in Iran, whilst nominally backing the Shah, believed that Iran could only achieve this plan with a reduction of reliance on foreign investment and industry, with Iranian domestic industry filling the gap. Foreign investment, especially in the petroleum sector, had been prevalent in Iran since at least the early 20th century, when Britain dominated Iran’s oil industry through multi-national corporations and exclusivity contracts on Iranian oil. However, due to the contracts and these British corporations, Iranian domestic industry was severely lacking and uncompetitive. In order to quickly push Iranian domestic industry forward, a nationalist camp emerged that advocated for the nationalization and seizure of foreign companies operating in Iran, primarily focused on the petroleum industry.

               In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah’s life changed his outlook even further, he started to increase his involvement in politics, amending the constitution to increase his own power and creating a national Iranian senate, filling around half the seats with men sympathetic to the Shah’s goals. This power grab eroded public sympathy for the Shah, initially high in the wake of the assassination attempt, and created opposition to his new political interest. Many believed that he should rule in the style of a constitutional monarchy, reigning but having little direct control over the standard political process. A new political party emerged within the Senate, called the National Front, that adopted the ideals of nationalization of industry and increased industrial control by Iranians - not foreign investors or companies. The debate around the role of the Shah and the future of Iran’s oil created a dangerous and violent political process, culminating in the assassination of the Prime Minister, Haj Ali Razmara, in 1951. Razmara was against the nationalization desire and backed the Shah in his goal to westernize Iran, making him a target of hardline Islamists and nationalists. The National Front was able to secure enough votes to replace Razmara with Mohammad Mosaddegh, a widely popular politician who was heavily in favor of nationalization. Fadaiyan e-Islam, the hardline Islamic faction within Iran at the time and responsible for the assassination of Razmara, aligned themselves with Mosaddegh. The combination of the National Front of Mosaddegh and the Fadaiyan movement, caused widespread disruption in the Iranian political world. Mosaddegh was aiming to remove British and foreign investment, while the Fadaiyans used masses of religious zealots to attack those against nationalization and the National Front. Unlike the Fadaiyans and Mosaddegh, the Shah and Mosaddegh did not see eye to eye for three main reasons: Mosaddegh had ancestral ties to the previous ruling dynasty of Iran and considered the Shah to be a usurper of the Iranian throne, that Mosaddegh was too popular, and that Mosaddegh was a strong believer in the Shah ruling as a constitutional monarch, although both believed in an Iran that should be modern and progressive. This belief by Mosaddegh that Iran should be progressive and a secular state, led to a cooling of ties between the Fadaiyans and the National Front by 1952.

               Tensions came to a head in 1952 when Mosaddegh and the Shah began to fight over the Shah’s role in Iran. Mosaddegh used the National Front, and his popular support, to make blocking attempts at the Shah’s political power. Mosaddegh’s public support of oil nationalization (something the Shah also supported, but less aggressively) led to Mosaddegh becoming so popular amongst the people that the Shah was limited in his ability act against him or the United Front. The Shah learned this the hard way when he decided to fire Mosaddegh later in ’52, but was forced to quickly reinstate him after widespread public outrage.  

               With Mosaddegh’s power cemented, he took on the British and their control over Iran’s oil, demanding better contracts. In these new contracts, countries like the United States would receive a share of Iranian oil, reducing Britain’s share. Additionally Iran wished to divide profits by 50/50. Of course Britain resisted this measure with great gusto, even against the strong advisement by its ally, the United States. Realizing that Mosaddegh was becoming a legitimate challenge to British interest, they began planning to overthrow his government. Further negotiations between the British and Iranians, with the United States acting as a third party, ensued but those failed, and the British seized their main oil field (but not the refinery) from Iranian management, the Abadan Oil Fields, in response. The British then enacted an embargo of Iranian oil produced with the remaining refinery.

               Due to the effectiveness of the British embargo and the collapse of his support from the Fadaiyan (this occurred because the Mosaddegh was a firm believer in separation of church and state and resisted Fadaiyan pressure to pass more religiously hardline policies), Mosaddegh found himself in a challenging position. To shore up his support Mosaddegh entered into an unofficial alliance with the communist party of Iran, the Tudeh, replacing the Fadaiyan. With economic uncertainly and political turmoil enveloping Iran, Mosaddegh clung to power using emergency measures, generating even more controversy, and alienating political allies. The support from the communist party, Mosaddegh becoming more autocratic as his power waned, and the political upheaval began to cause the United States to worry that a communist takeover of Iran was possible. A further blow to Mosaddegh occurred in 1953 when supporters in parliament resigned in mass due to Mosaddegh leveraging emergency powers. In response, Mosaddegh passed a referendum to dissolve parliament and instead give him powers to make laws himself, causing an uproar and accusations of treason.

               The United States, up to this point, had actively resisted Britain’s persistence in bringing the US on board for a coup. President Truman had other concerns, namely the Korean War, but when Dwight D. Eisenhower took over the British were successfully able to convince the United States that a communist takeover was possible and that the Soviets were really behind this push for nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. While this claim was mostly false, it played on the growing American fears of a Soviet controlled world. HThe US took over from Britain as the chief planner of the coup and approached the Shah for his support. Initially, he was reluctant, but was convinced when the CIA informed him that he would also be removed from power if he did not back their efforts. The CIA representative who handled most of the communication and conversations with the Shah was the grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. Roosevelt was instrumental in convincing the Shah to back the plan and for him to issue royal directives, or firmans, to start the coup, and cultivated a large network of military and civilian supporters for the Shah.

               Now that MI6 and CIA had the backing of the Shah, selection for a replacement for Mosaddegh began, landing on General Fazlollah Zahedi. Zahedi being a loyalist to the Shah and having support of the army made him a natural choice. The plan drawn up would unfold like this, due to Mosaddegh’s dismissal of Parliament, the Shah would issue a royal decree firing Mosaddegh and replacing him with Zahedi, using the army to block any dissent. The Shah and his wife left to go on “vacation” in northern Iran in anticipation of the coup. The coup was approved by Eisenhower and set to commence in mid-august. On August 15th, when the commander of the imperial guard arrived to inform Mosaddegh that he was being dismissed, Mosaddegh, who had advanced knowledge about the coup, ordered the commander arrested. Mosaddegh’s supporters, upon hearing the news, took the streets to protest the army’s actions, resulting in mass demonstrations. Fearing an overthrow in the wake of the Mosaddegh’s defiance of the dismissal order, the Shah and his wife fled to Baghdad then to Italy. Meanwhile a standoff occurred between Zahedi and Mosaddegh, with each side attempting to order the arrest of the other and claiming to be the rightful prime minister, with Mosaddegh succeeding in arresting dozens of coup plotters. Mosaddegh, believing the coup to have failed, ordered his supporters to head home and the CIA to leave the country. However, Roosevelt received the order to leave well after it was delivered, likely slowed by MI6, and went to work to plan a second coup to quickly follow the first.

               Four days after the first coup failed, Zahedi was still on the run but popular opinion began to turn against Mosaddegh due to his banning of all demonstrations, arrest of political opponents, and his lean into autocratic tendencies. Fears of communism also spurred upper class Iranians to turn against him and religious fundamentalists rallied in defiance of his rule. Large street demonstrations began (likely first organized by the CIA) that turned into street fighting between the Tudeh and anti-Mosaddegh supporters. More and more citizens took to the streets against Mosaddegh, believing rumors that he was attempting to seize the throne (also likely spread by the CIA), and armed themselves against the Tudeh and Mosaddegh supporters. Zahedi, ordered the parts of the army still loyal to him to leave their barracks and put an end to the chaos. The army stormed Tehran, drove off the Tudeh, seized government buildings, and secured Mosaddegh’s arrest after firing a tank shell into his home that forced him to come out. Upon hearing the success of the second coup, the Shah returned from Rome (with the director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, on his plane) and Zahedi took his position as prime minister.

               Mosaddegh was tried and sentenced to death but had his sentence commuted to prison then house arrest for the rest of his life. In the aftermath of the successful coup, the United States (and Iran) agreed to restore the status of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and reverse its nationalization but also broke their monopoly in favor of American and French oil companies, along with Shell Corporation. The tactics that Kermit Roosevelt Jr and other CIA operatives used to launch the second coup would be replicated in other countries where the United States had interests. Resentment of American influence over the country and the Shah grew in the coup’s wake culminating in a difficult 1970s for the Shah. Nearly thirty years after Mosaddegh’s removal, the Fadaiyan movement’s successors would launch the 1979 Islamic revolution and one of the core tenants of the revolution would be reversing the “damage” of foreign and American interference of Iran’s internal affairs, namely the support for the Shah and meddling in Iran’s political process, partly referring to Mosaddegh’s ouster. Mosaddegh, while controversial during his tenure as Prime Minister of Iran, has become a symbol of Iranian democracy, even to this day.

The Easter Rising of 1916

The history of Ireland is not for the faint of heart, the island has a past that is so tragic and depressing, few nation states can compare. From Oliver Cromwell’s brutal subjugation, numerous English invasions, to genocidal famine, Ireland has been the subject, or target, of almost any historical category of catastrophe that can be applied. However harsh its history though, the Irish spirit has never diminished and tales of resistance and hope can be found peppered between the tragedy and repression. While not a tale of hope, the Easter Rising of 1916 is one of resistance against the English 700-year occupation. Although the uprising itself failed, it can be argued that it convinced the powers in London that it was time to sunset its domination over the Emerald Isle. No longer able to see the benefits of control in the aftermath of the uprising, London eventually agreed to relinquishment of a majority of the Island to the “Irish Free State” in 1922, finally granting Ireland its independence (after a war of independence). This article will detail the failed 1916 uprising, its aftermath, and how it fits into the broader struggle of Irish independence.

To understand the uprising of 1916, one must also understand that this was far from the first uprising against English dominance, nor was it surprising to those who were aware of the feelings in Dublin at the time. Three rebellions in just the 19th century proceeded the 1916 event, also all failures. But with each rebellion, England was reminded of the cost it had to pay in order to maintain its hegemony over the island. What made the 1916 action different was that it arrived at a time of a global war, a war that England was a leading participant in, tying up British resources and manpower away from its dominions both close to home and remote. The British Empire’s armies, made up of subjects and citizens from its domestic and colonial possessions – including Ireland, were suffering tremendous casualties in the First World War, stoking factions that advocated for independence from Britain in Ireland and in other colonial nations. The longer that Britain fought in WWI, the more Irish independence and republican factions used the mounting casualties to advocate separation from their colonial overlords, calling attention to the irony of Irish men dying for a British government that actively repressed their homeland. These factions, seeking to use the distraction of WWI to their advantage, made the bold step of asking Britain’s enemy in the war, the German Empire, for its help.

The planning for the rebellion began in 1915, principally led by a teacher and lawyer named Patrick Pearse, and a lifelong Irish revolutionary named Thomas J. Clarke. While far from the only leaders, Pearse and Clarke are the most commonly known names associated to the event but other leaders include James Connolly, Eamon de Valera (future president of Ireland), Seán Mac Diarmada, Eamonn Ceannt, and Joseph Plunkett – amongst others. Most of the men involved in the uprising were from the Irish Volunteers, essentially a precursor to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) - a more radical group within the Irish Volunteers, and The Irish Citizen Army. The Rising of 1916 also saw the involvement of a radical republican political party and group called Sinn Féin, which would go on to be a household name in British and Irish 20th century history. The IRB advocated for full independence of the entire island of Ireland and aimed to achieve it through armed means while the Irish Volunteers were more focused on only resorting to violence if the situation called for it, like a full conscription movement by the British of Irish men to bolster their ranks in WWI.

The IRB had begun secret talks with the German Imperial government in as early as 1914 to determine German appetite towards support of the Irish cause, and successfully convinced the Germans to declare their support behind Irish Independence. The IRB drafted plans to recruit Irish POWs from the British ranks being held by the Germans into a unit, calling it the “Irish Brigade.” This brigade was to launch an assault of liberation on Ireland, supported by a German “expeditionary force” (GEF) to take Dublin, with IRB and the Volunteers rising up from within the island. Of course this Irish Brigade, nor a German expeditionary force, ever materialized or came to fruition but the Germans did agree to supply arms and ammunition to the IRB and the Volunteers. Additional support was courted from groups of American sympathizers, Irish expats, and descendants of Irish immigrants, securing about $100,000 from one of these groups. With the promise of arms and ammo from Germany, the amassing of Irish domestic arms and ammo, and monetary support from American sympathizers, by early 1916 it was decided that a rebellion would be launched on Easter Sunday that same year.

Patrick Pearse, as one of the principal leaders of the Irish Volunteers and IRB council member, declared that three days of parading (after a period of increased training) would begin on Easter Sunday. Those IRB members within the Volunteers aware of the plans knew this meant the rebellion would begin, while those without knowledge of the plans would take these parading orders as no more than what they appeared to be. At the same time, in early April, a German ship disguised as a Norwegian vessel, set sail for Dublin with 20,000 rifles, over a million bullets, and a large number of explosives. One of the Irish revolutionaries that had been negotiating with the Germans since 1914, Roger Casement, was separately dispatched to Ireland aboard a German U-boat, however he had intentions of trying to delay or stop the rebellion due to the lack of an Irish Brigade or GEF.

British Intelligence had suspected an action could occur for some months, realizing that tensions were extremely high in the Irish capital. They had been able to find out about the German ship, the planned rising date, and the return of Roger Casement through radio cables between Ireland and Germany. When the German ship, the SS Libau, arrived in late April off the coast of Ireland, it was intercepted by the Royal Navy, causing the captain of the Libau to destroy or scuttle the ship, with Roger Casement captured when he landed in Ireland. With the loss of the German arms and the capture of Casement, the uprising was cancelled for the time being. After reviewing the situation further and realizing that, due to British knowledge of events, their window to act was rapidly closing, the military council within the Volunteers (made of up almost all IRB members) informed the IRB and the Volunteers again that the rebellion would move forward but now for the Monday after Easter, using the arms they had available.

When Easter Monday, April 24th, arrived, the call to muster went out to the IRB, The Irish Volunteers, and the Irish Citizen Army. 1,200 men and women responded and mustered at several locations, dressed in various uniforms and civilian attire, and armed with rifles, revolvers, some semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and explosives. This 1,200 was less than anticipated due to the changing of orders and the short notice. The plan involved taking this force and occupy the main city center of Dublin, with groups spreading out and hitting different locations simultaneously.

A large group of about 400 Irish rebels, led by Pearse, Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, and Joseph Plunkett, targeted and occupied the General Post Office (GPO), making it their new headquarters while the rebellion unfolded. Other groups of rebels dug trenches and created defensive positions, set up check points and barricades, captured various buildings, bridges, communication, and government structures such as a telegraph station, using the station to declare that an Irish Republic has been created. A small group was able to secure the city hall of Dublin and attempted to capture Dublin Castle but were unsuccessful, killing a British solider in the process. While rebels were able to size key locations quickly, due to a lack of man power they were unable to gain full control of the city center and failed to cut off communications in its entirety, leaving the British government able to contact loyal forces within the city and elsewhere. Another failure on the rebel’s part was that they did not cut off transportation routes into and out of the city center, with rail lines and bridges remaining open.

Combat began in pockets around the seized areas, such as gun fire exchanging between the soldiers remaining in Dublin Castle and the captured buildings around it, leaving one rebel dead. Civilians also tried to resist some of the rebels, with Volunteers killing multiple civilians after they attempted to overpower barricades. But a coordinated British response was lacking, even though they were aware of planning and an imminent rebellion. It is now considered a tremendous intelligence failure that the British assumed that any real threat was delayed due to the seizing of the Libau. Due to a lack of offensive action by the British, combat was light on the first day, with isolated fighting breaking out between scattered Unionist (British or Irish loyal to the Crown) and rebel forces, killing small numbers on both sides, as well as some innocent civilians and unarmed police officers. Unionist forces didn’t push back further for the remainder of the day.

Tuesday, April 25th, saw British forces in the area starting to take offensive action to retake the buildings seized. Their first efforts were focused on securing the area around Dublin Castle, which they believed the rebel headquarters to be near, successfully retaking Dubin city hall in the process. However, the British were unable to advance in some areas, being pushed back by heavy rebel fire as they tried to advance from the railway station, with some British soldiers captured. The British brought in artillery and began to shell rebel positions, forcing a rebel retreat from some of the previously established barricades. On Tuesday evening, martial law was officially declared, with Unionist reinforcements being called to muster from Belfast and other parts of Ireland and England, using the rail stations that the rebels had failed to secure. Pearse was able to speak to a large gathering of Dublin residents and implored them and all Irish to rise up in support of the rebels and the newly declared republic.

On Wednesday, April 26th, British artillery moved into position and fired on rebel positions around the city center, shocking the rebel command staff who did not believe that the British would actually shell Dublin. The British began to either shell or advance on rebel positions scattered all over, with some positions surrendering to the British after heavy fighting or burning their occupied buildings as they retreated, rather than let the British take them. More British forces arrived from England, now with thousands of unionist forces either in Dublin or arriving shortly. The rebels, while surrendering in some areas, were able to successfully resist in others, inflicting heavy casualties on the British, with one British unit suffering 240 casualties as they made repeated attempts to cross the Grand Canal, with just 4 rebels being killed in that fighting.

Over the next three days, from Thursday, April 27th to Saturday the 29th, the Brits steadily captured rebel position after rebel position. However, the urban fighting was brutal, with the British having to employ the use of armored cars, machine guns, and artillery to make gains against the entrenched rebels, at some points only able to secure buildings by tunneling through the walls of neighboring buildings to break into occupied structures. Innocent civilians trapped in the city center were caught in the crossfire, with groups being killed and outright executed by the British army for suspected assistance to lthe rebels.

Finally, the GPO was evacuated by the rebels on the 28th, after heavy shelling and gunfire made the position untenable. The decision to surrender was made by Pearse and the rest of the IRB council (except for Clarke) on the 29th, realizing rebel forces were surrounded and outgunned, ordering all rebel positions to give up. By the surrender, 260 civilians, 143 Unionist or British soldiers, and 82 rebels were dead, with thousands of civilians and hundreds on each side wounded. Nearly 3,500 people were arrested, some for looting in the chaos of the rebellion, but around half were rebels. The British tried just under 200 people in secret military courts, against British law, with conflicts of interest being outright ignored. 29 of the around 200 were sentenced to death, some of which were not leaders or did not kill anyone. Due to tension and growing outcry, bordering on levels of further rebellion, the British executed only 16 out of the 29 by firing squad or hanging and commuting the rest to prison - in an attempt to quiet the dissent. Of the 16 executed, most of the leadership of the Rising were among them, including Pearse, Clarke, and the rest of the aforementioned leadership, except Eamon de Valera due to his possessing of American citizenship.

While the British hoped to crush anti-unionist sentiments with the execution of the Easter Rising leadership, the opposite effect occurred. The Irish people were originally outraged by the violence and disruption of daily life caused by the uprising and turned against the rebels but as British atrocities during the rebellion, like massacres of unarmed male citizens, the use of human shields, summary executions, and the executions of the leadership after secret trials with no chance of defense came to light, public opinion shifted towards the rebels with massive public outcry occurring after the executions. Post execution of the leaders, support for republicanism and independence in Ireland grew, instead of declining like the British intended. These growing political feelings in the aftermath of the Rising, further stoked by the massive loss of Irish born soldiers in the Battle of the Somme later that year, are credited with leading directly to the Irish war of Independence in 1919-1921, which resulted in Irish victory and full independence from the British after 700 years.

The Children’s Crusade

What comes to mind first when you think of the Crusades? Is it a knight clad in chainmail or plate armor covered in a white tunic with a bright red cross? You wouldn’t be wrong to think of a Templar knight first, they are ubiquitous with the pop cultural ideal of the Crusades. However knights played a small part of these crusades, forming a small but important core of any medieval crusading force. In reality, a Crusade was a confluence of people from many walks of life within Europe. During the Medieval period, it was all the rage to pledge oneself to a crusade, from elderly people, high born nobles and knights, kings and princes, all the way down to common or destitute people, and even children taking up “the cross.”

               But what is a crusade? A crusade in this context, is a Roman Catholic religious movement in the form of a military expedition, to retake or conquer territory held by non-Christian groups. Officially, a movement can only be called a crusade when it was called into existence or sanctioned by the Pope himself. There were officially eight crusades from 1095 to 1291, focusing on the capture and securing of the Holy Land or Outremer (today made up of mostly Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) for Catholics, but crusades also focused on North Africa, specifically Tunisia and Egypt. However, there were many “popular” or unofficial crusades that cannot be excluded from what historians now call collectively “The Crusades.” In this collective, you have popular movements and military expeditions focusing on the modern states of Poland, Lithuania, Spain, France, Czechia, and Germany, as well as the traditional target of Outremer. The Children’s crusade was two movements that have been combined into a singular example of these popular but unofficial crusades.

               Let us first start by stating the Children’s crusade may not have happened at all, and if it did happen, it may not have been led or made up of children. There is debate amongst historians regarding translations of medieval sources on whether these were religiously fanatic children or just common people. This debate hinges on the words infante and parvuli which some historians translate as “wandering poor,” not children. Additionally, the sources we do have are hostile to the popular movements, with concern from the Church at the message and methods of the children crusaders. But the majority of primary and secondary sources contest that children led two large mass movements, which we are going to explore in depth.

               In 1212, two separate movements emerged that would collectively come to be known as the Children’s Crusade. The first was led by Stephen of Cloyes, a French shepherd boy, and the second by Nicholas of Cologne, a German youth. Both claimed to have received divine visions or messages urging them to lead a crusade to the Holy Land.

Starting with the French movement, Stephen of Cloyes was a 12 year boy who claimed he met Jesus Christ. In this meeting with Jesus, who was appearing to the boy as a poor pilgrim begging for bread, Stephen was given a letter from Jesus to give to the King of France, Phillip II. This claim attracted the attention of people and he quickly surrounded himself with a large group of like-minded youth and impressed adults. Some of these young people claimed to also possess spiritual and religious powers from God and could work miracles. Eventually, a total of 30,000 began to follow Stephen on his journey to deliver the letter to Phillip however, Phillip would not receive the crowd and implored the people to return to their homes. Stephen, with the vigor of youth, refused to give up and began preaching and traveling around France, losing over half his flock by the time he declared they were going to Jerusalem via Marseilles to convert Muslims to Christianity. The travel through France was tough on many of the followers, who were forced to survive by begging for food, convincing most that they were better off returning to their homes, as Phillip originally requested. Those left in Stephen’s crusade were able to secure passage from Marseilles to Tunisia but met a disturbing fate upon their arrival: they were sold into slavery by the merchants who had ferried them across the Mediterranean, ending the movement.

               The second movement, either starting in the spring or summer of 1212 was led by a German boy, Nicholas of Cologne. Like Stephen of Cloyes, Nicholas claimed to have received a divine vision or message from God, instructing him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. The exact nature of this revelation is not well-documented, and much of what we know comes from later accounts that may blend fact with legend. He reportedly attracted a significant following, including many children and young people who were drawn by his message and the promise of a divine mission. Nicholas’ crusade had peaceful aims, intending to convert the population of the holy land through message and scripture. Nicholas and his followers, after massing in Cologne, split into two groups in order to reach the Holy Land, with both traveling through different parts of Switzerland. The journey through the alps for both groups was brutal, with 2 out of 3 people on the journey dying or returning home. Nicholas had assured his followers they would not have to take ships to the Holy Land as the sea would divide for them and clear the way, however when the remaining 7,000 people arrived in Genoa, the were bitterly disappointed when the sea did not part as promised. Some left, accusing Nicholas of being a fraud and betraying them, while others implored patience that God would divide the sea and support them. Of course the sea never parted and the group remained in Genoa, although the local authorities were so impressed by the faith of the group that they offered Genoese citizenship to the remaining followers. Most of the remaining “crusaders” took up this offer but many others refused to give up, including Nicholas. He traveled with those who refused the Genoese offer first to Pisa (where some claim that a few ships departed for the Holy Land) and then onto the Papal States, with the group splintering further with each stop. In Rome, Nicholas met with the Pope, Innocent III, who asked him and his remaining followers to be good Christians and to return home. Unfortunately for Nicholas and his followers, the journey back proved to be just as perilous as the first, with Nicholas himself and many of his remaining members, dying in the Alps. The family members of those who perished in Nicholas’ crusade were so enraged that they found his father and lynched him as retribution.

               An image of thousands of children marching to Jerusalem is conjured when one hears the name “Children’s Crusade,” but more than likely it was a movement of adults, elderly, and children caught up in the religious fervor of the Crusading period, if it even happened at all. With both of these histories ending in such dramatic fashion, involving slavery and or death, one should absolutely approach this topic with skepticism. However, if they are accurate in their basic telling, the Children’s Crusade is a fascinating example of religious fanaticism gone wrong.