Before insulin existed, diabetes was one of the deadliest diseases in the world. Many children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes died only months or years after learning they had the disease. Doctors understood that diabetes affected blood sugar levels, but they had no reliable way to treat it. Instead, patients were placed on extremely strict diets that often left them weak and starving.

The article History of Insulin explains, “Before the availability of insulin, the life expectancy of children with diabetes mellitus was short and the prognosis for the adult onset diabetes was very poor.” Because doctors had no effective treatment, “physicians Allen and Joslin endorsed fasting and calorie restricted diets for diabetes.” These starvation diets sometimes delayed death, but they could not cure the disease. Patients often became dangerously thin because they were forced to eat very little food in order to survive longer.

Scientists knew that the pancreas played an important role in diabetes, but they struggled to isolate the substance responsible for controlling blood sugar. According to the Diabetes UK article, “Attempts had been made to extract insulin from ground up pancreas cells, but they’d all proved unsuccessful.” The problem was that other tissues inside the pancreas destroyed the insulin before it could be used.

During the early 1920s, however, a small group of researchers in Canada changed medical history forever. Frederick Banting, Charles Best, John Macleod, and James Collip worked together to isolate insulin and develop it into a treatment that could save human lives. Their discovery quickly became one of the most important medical breakthroughs of the twentieth century.

Diabetes Before Insulin

Before insulin was discovered, diabetes was extremely difficult to treat. Patients with severe diabetes often experienced constant thirst, rapid weight loss, weakness, and exhaustion. Children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes almost always died because their bodies could no longer produce insulin naturally.

Doctors understood some parts of the disease, but they did not know how to stop it. Most treatments focused only on reducing symptoms instead of curing the condition. Starvation diets became one of the main methods used by doctors because reducing food intake sometimes lowered blood sugar levels temporarily.

The History of Insulin article explains that these treatments “resulted in some improvement of glucosuria and acidosis, decreased coma, and delayed death among children with diabetes.” Even so, patients still suffered greatly, and most eventually died from the disease.

Scientists continued studying the pancreas because they believed it released a substance that controlled blood sugar. The article explains, “Long before the discovery of insulin, it was hypothesized that the pancreas secreted a substance that controlled carbohydrate metabolism.” Researchers spent years attempting to isolate this substance, but impurities and toxic materials inside pancreatic extracts caused experiments to fail repeatedly.

Frederick Banting and the Beginning of Research

The breakthrough finally began in 1920 when Frederick Banting developed a new theory about how insulin could be isolated safely. Banting was a Canadian surgeon rather than an experienced scientist, but he became interested in diabetes research after reading medical articles about the pancreas.

The Diabetes UK article explains that Banting read research suggesting “insulin producing cells in the pancreas are slower to deteriorate than other pancreas tissue.” Banting realized that this discovery might allow scientists to destroy harmful pancreatic tissue while preserving the cells that produced insulin.

The article explains, “Banting realised that this might allow for the removal of insulin by breaking down the pancreas in a way that would leave just the cells that produce insulin intact.” 

Although Banting believed strongly in his idea, he knew he needed scientific support to test it. On November 7, 1920, he met with John Macleod, a professor at the University of Toronto who specialized in diabetes research. Macleod agreed to provide laboratory space, experimental dogs, and a student assistant named Charles Best.

The History of Insulin article explains that Macleod “granted him laboratory space, ten dogs for his experiments, a student research assistant (Charles Best), and provided supervision and guidance.” 

This partnership became the beginning of one of the most important scientific discoveries in modern medicine.

Early Experiments and Insulin

The insulin experiments officially began in May 1921. According to the Diabetes UK article, “On 17 May 1921 Banting, Best and Macleod first got together to begin their research.” 

The researchers worked mainly with dogs. They tied off pancreatic ducts to destroy parts of the pancreas while keeping the insulin producing cells alive. Afterward, they created pancreatic extracts and tested them on diabetic dogs whose pancreases had been removed.

The History of Insulin article explains that “the experiments began on May 17, 1921.” By September, the experiments began showing successful results. The article explains that “intravenous injection with their pancreatic extract, which they named isletin, lowered the blood glucose.” 

These results were extremely important because they proved that pancreatic extracts could lower blood sugar levels in diabetic animals. For the first time, researchers had strong evidence that insulin could become a treatment for diabetes.

The experiments were difficult and time consuming. Many failed completely, but Banting and Best continued working every day in the laboratory. According to the Diabetes UK article, “Progress was initially slow.” Still, the researchers noticed regular improvements in blood sugar levels during successful experiments.

The article explains that “By November, they’d successfully treated a dog with diabetes with their insulin extract for 70 days.” This achievement demonstrated that insulin could keep diabetic animals alive much longer than before.

James Collip and Purifying Insulin

Although the experiments on dogs were successful, another major problem still existed. The insulin extract was not pure enough for use in humans. Impurities inside the extract caused dangerous side effects and made the treatment unreliable.

To solve this problem, biochemist James Collip joined the research team in December 1921. The Diabetes UK article explains, “James Collip, a biochemist, joined the group to work on purifying insulin so it would be safe enough to be tested in humans.” 

Collip worked constantly to improve the insulin extract. His goal was to remove impurities while keeping the insulin effective. According to the article, “With his help, a more concentrated and pure form of insulin was developed.” 

This purification process became one of the most important parts of the entire discovery because insulin could not be safely tested on humans without it.

Leonard Thompson and the First Human Injection

In January 1922, the researchers attempted one of the most important medical experiments in history. A fourteen year old boy named Leonard Thompson became the first human patient to receive insulin treatment.

The Diabetes UK article explains, “In January 1922, Leonard Thompson, a 14 year old boy dying from type 1 diabetes, became the first person to receive an injection of insulin.” 

Leonard was extremely sick and close to death because of diabetes. Doctors hoped the insulin extract might save his life.

The first injection showed both promise and problems. According to the History of Insulin article, “The first injection of the pancreatic extract to a 14 year old boy by Banting and Best on January 11, 1922, caused a sterile abscess.” The injection lowered blood sugar somewhat, but the extract still contained impurities that caused complications.

Collip immediately continued purifying the insulin. He worked day and night to improve the extract before another injection was attempted.

Later in January, Leonard received a second injection. This time the results were historic. The Diabetes UK article explains, “This time it was a complete success and Leonard’s blood sugar levels become near normal, with no obvious side effects.” 

The article then states, “For the first time in history, type 1 diabetes was not a death sentence.” 

The successful treatment of Leonard Thompson changed medicine forever. Doctors now had a treatment capable of saving patients who otherwise would have died.

The International Announcement of Insulin

After the successful human treatments, news about insulin spread quickly throughout the medical world. Researchers and doctors recognized immediately that the discovery could transform diabetes treatment permanently.

The Diabetes UK article explains, “On 3 May 1922, Macleod announced the discovery of insulin to the international medical community.” Macleod presented the research at a meeting of the Association of American Physicians in Washington.

The article also explains that this was “the first time the team used the word ‘insulin’.” 

Doctors and scientists responded with excitement because the treatment offered hope to diabetic patients around the world.

Insulin Belongs to the World

As insulin became more successful, questions arose about patents and ownership. Banting and the other researchers believed insulin should remain available to everyone who needed it instead of becoming a private source of profit.

The Diabetes UK article explains, “On 23 January 1923, Banting, Collip and Best were awarded U.S. patents on insulin and the method used to make it.” However, instead of keeping the patents for themselves, the researchers sold them to the University of Toronto for only one dollar each.

The article explains, “Banting famously said, ‘Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.’” 

This decision helped insulin become widely available much more quickly.

Mass Production and Worldwide Expansion

As reports of insulin’s success spread, demand increased rapidly. Pharmaceutical companies began working with the researchers to produce insulin on a much larger scale.

According to the Diabetes UK article, “Eli Lilly become the first manufacturer to mass produce insulin.” In October 1923, the company began shipping commercial insulin supplies.

The History of Insulin article explains that early insulin production still faced challenges. “Eli Lilly began producing insulin from animal pancreas but fell short of the demand, and the potency varied up to 25% per lot.” 

Scientists continued improving insulin production methods to make the medicine more reliable and more widely available. The article explains, “The development of an isoelectric precipitation method led to a purer and more potent animal insulin.” 

Insulin also spread internationally during 1923. The History of Insulin article explains, “In 1923, August Krogh, from the University of Copenhagen, met with Banting and Macleod to learn more about insulin because his wife had diabetes mellitus.” 

Krogh later helped establish insulin production in Scandinavia, allowing the treatment to reach even more patients.

The Nobel Prize

The discovery of insulin quickly became recognized as one of the greatest medical achievements in history. In 1923, Frederick Banting and John Macleod received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

The Diabetes UK article explains, “In recognition of their life saving discovery, Banting and Macleod were jointly awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.” 

The Nobel Prize helped make the insulin researchers internationally famous. Banting shared part of his prize money with Charles Best, while Macleod shared his portion with James Collip. This reflected the teamwork involved in the discovery.

The Significance of Insulin

The discovery and development of insulin during the 1920s completely transformed medicine. Before insulin, severe diabetes almost always led to death. After insulin became available, millions of people gained the chance to survive and live much longer lives.

The History of Insulin article explains, “The discovery of insulin in 1922 marked a major breakthrough in medicine and therapy in patients with diabetes.” 

The development of insulin also demonstrated the importance of scientific cooperation. Banting, Best, Macleod, and Collip all contributed different skills to the project. Without their combined efforts, insulin might not have been discovered when it was.

The success of insulin encouraged future medical research as well. Scientists realized that diseases once considered hopeless could potentially be treated through careful experimentation and teamwork.

Today, historians continue studying the discovery of insulin because it remains one of the most important medical breakthroughs in modern history. Millions of people around the world still rely on insulin every day, and the events of the 1920s permanently changed diabetes treatment forever.

Timeline of Events

1918 – Doctors mainly use starvation diets to treat diabetes.

7 November 1920 – Frederick Banting meets John Macleod to discuss insulin research.

17 May 1921 – Banting, Best, and Macleod officially begin insulin experiments.

September 1921 – Researchers discover insulin extracts lower blood sugar in dogs.

10 November 1921 – Scientists successfully treat a diabetic dog for 70 days.

12 December 1921 – James Collip joins the research team to purify insulin.

11 January 1922 – Leonard Thompson receives the first insulin injection.

23 January 1922 – Purified insulin successfully treats Leonard Thompson.

3 May 1922 – Insulin is officially announced to the medical community.

23 January 1923 – Banting, Best, and Collip sell insulin patents to the University of Toronto for $1 each.

15 October 1923 – Eli Lilly begins mass production of insulin.

25 October 1923 – Banting and Macleod receive the Nobel Prize.

Works Cited

DIABETES UK. 2024. “100 Years of Insulin.” Diabetes UK. 2024. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/our-research/about-our-research/our-impact/discovery-of-insulin.

Quianzon, Celeste C, and Issam Cheikh. “History of insulin.” Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives vol. 2,2 10.3402/jchimp.v2i2.18701. 16 Jul. 2012, doi:10.3402/jchimp.v2i2.18701

Professional football was nothing like it is today as the sport was actually influenced by the much more popular college football. This occurred because the working class and some middle class fans of college football wanted to engage with the sport in a more direct way, rather than read about in the newspaper. As a result, by the late 1890s hundreds of amateur teams were formed. The players were mostly working class amateurs. It was not hard to see these games as in many cases they were free to attend.¹. 

By the 1910s things had begun to change. There was now an established rivalry between the Canton Bulldogs and the Massillon Tigers that put pro football on the path to forming a national league, as it represented a blueprint for pro ball to make more serious profits. The addition of star athlete Jim Thorpe to Canton, represented that rivalries need star players. Thorpe was well beyond what the average star was, due to his versatility. This versatility was clear as he was an Olympic star athlete, baseball player, and football player. His impact was certainly felt, as attendance for the two games against Massillon went up from averaging 1,200 people to 6,250. Other rivalries in pro football formed and were successful as well. Despite this, some teams ended up with deficits by year’s end. This was because non rivalry games made little profit, teams were paying their collegiate players more, and teams were backed by sponsors that were simply trying to break even.².

As the sport became more complicated executives were left with two main options. One they could reduce team payroll, weaken team strength, and revert to a lower semipro status. The other option was that executives could pour money into teams to improve the teams performance, and to draw larger crowds. Neither of these options were viable. As debts for teams continued to increase, executives believed that a league could improve this situation through the regulation it would bring. For example under a league format teams could control the salaries of players. Under this format the luster of a national champion would be present. The best teams from the Northeast and Midwest would match up with each under the format as well. ³.  

Early days

By late 1919 it was becoming clear that professional football was moving in the direction of forming a league, as it was starting to take a firm hold on the public. This was seen as something that would create issues for college football. For one, the idea was floated that many promising football players would skip college and go straight to the pros. It was also thought that even if players did go to college, some would leave early to join the professional league. These concerns were financially based. They were backed by the fact that owners from the pros could offer college players inducements that in college were not available. College players for instance had to work their way through school, which did not leave them with much money, whereas a college aged player who became a star could make 500 dollars a game in pro football.⁴. 

Despite the concerns from the college level, pro football still decided to move forward in creating a league. Vague talk about doing this had been common for 15 years. The man who helped spearhead these efforts was Ralph Hay. Hay, the owner of the Canton Bulldogs, invited representatives from three other teams in the state to an organizational meeting at his showroom on August 20, 1920. At the meeting these men agreed upon a broad outline of a new association. After this the other team managers instructed Hay to get in touch with executives of other strong teams from the midwest and western New York. Nearly a month later a deal was ready to occur. Hay followed the advice he received, as he gathered  representatives from 11 professional football teams from across Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and New York. This meeting occurred inside of the Jordan and Hupmobile autoshop in downtown Canton Ohio. Since Hay’s office was not big enough to fit everyone, these football pioneers sat in the showroom, on the running boards and fenders of 3,000 dollar cars.⁵. ⁶.  

Once the Massillon Tigers withdrew due to severe financial strain , a league known as the American Football League (AFL) was formed on September 17, 1920 at this next meeting between executives. The league of course needed a president, this choice proved to be an easy one, as the team representatives unanimously picked Jim Thorpe, not for his administrative skills but because he was universally recognized, and someone who could bring instant credibility to the league. These reasons were proven correct as the selection of Thorpe garnered more media attention than the creation of the league itself. A membership fee of 100 dollars for each team was also established. Teams despite this did not come up with any money. Well known player, coach and later owner George Hallas said about the meeting “I doubt that there was a hundred bucks in the room.” ⁷. ⁸.  

One of Thorpe’s first moves as commissioner was that he appointed a three man committee to draft a constitution and by-laws that would be adopted in 1921. As part of this constitution several major motions were approved. One of such motions was that all teams had to send A. F Ranney, the secretary of the league, a list of players they used during the 1920 season by January. The reason for this was so clubs could sign the same players for 1921, if they wished. Another motion said that all teams had to add to their letterheads “Member of the American Professional Football Association.”⁹.

Football in the 1920s

When the AFL was born, football on the field had some familiarities with today’s game, while many other aspects were extremely different. The field itself, like today, was 100 yards in length and had 10 yard deep endzones. However the goal posts stood on the goal line rather than on the end zone back line. This made field goals and extra points easier. Hashmarks did not exist during this infancy stage. This meant that the next play began where the last one concluded, even if it was a foot from the sideline. If a player was knocked out of bounds the ball was placed at the area inbounds where he went out. The result of this was that the teams that this happened to had to waste a play, simply to get the ball into operating territory. Passing the ball also had some differences. The passer had to throw from 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, which greatly reduced potential deception. In addition if a pass fell incomplete in the end zone it was a touchback, and the opposing team was given the ball on their 20 yard line. Due to this the average team during the league’s first season likely passed only 5 times a game. Coaching was also extremely limited as coaches were surprisingly enough, not allowed to coach from the sidelines. As a result of this the quarterback and or team captain had to devise strategy during a game. ¹⁰.

Besides just different rules teams during this infancy stage had different strategies. Offensively teams were very conservative. For example unless a team was near the opponents endzone a punt was almost certain on third down. The idea behind this was that if there was a bad pass from the center or if the punter fumbled, the punter could recover the ball, thus giving the team another chance to kick on fourth down. This ideology of conservatism was so prevalent that on occasion a punt returner who caught the ball on his goal line would punt the ball right back to the other team. The general concept for this conservatism was that the opposing team would make a mistake that could be capitalized on.¹¹.

Equipment during 1920 was of course nowhere near the same quality of today. However it had improved slightly from a decade prior. The best helmet courtesy of A. G. Spalding and Brothers now had elastic webbing in its crowns to absorb blows. Some simpler headgear was so soft and pliable that a player could fold it up into his pocket. All players wore wool jerseys which absorbed sweat that for better or worse increased a players weight during a game. ¹². 

The Role of Walter Camp

The rise of Pro Football was supported by the founder of football at large, Walter Camp. Camp’s positive view on the sport influenced his take that the sports world needed to prepare for the sports rise. He believed that this preparation should be done through giving the sport a clear position and place in the overall sports landscape of the nation. Camp believed that once this perspective was gained, by the pro player the pro game could “grow and expand”. He then closed by saying the only way that pro football would fall would be if players stopped playing the game after college. Camp said this was unlikely as players still have their football ability when they graduate between the ages of 22 to 25.¹³. 

Despite Camp’s endorsement and the formation of a new league, not everything was going smoothly for pro football. For one, Jim Thorpe’s vision of having the league take its place among other big league sports was not going well. To Thorpe this meant expanding teams into larger markets such as New York. The idea’s potential unreliability became clear, when a game between Canton and Buffalo which was a trial for the concept did poorly audience wise. For one only 6,000 fans showed up to the game at the Polo Grounds in New York. These fans that were in attendance lacked enthusiasm, as there was no loud cheering. This proved to be a stark contrast to the 30,000 people that attended a Rutgers Nebraska game a few weeks later at the same stadium. Teams tried to create interest in the sport in other ways. Some of these ways included sponsoring gimmick teams, and creating circuslike off- field activities. Games that featured these additions drew profitable crowds but did not create loyal fanbases because pro football itself lacked meaning.¹⁴. ¹⁵.

Black Players in the league

The league, despite its initial issues, was ahead of its time in a major way, black players were able to partake. Although still very different from today’s league from 1920 to 1926 there were nine African American players. In 1920 Fritz Pollard and Bobby Marshall became the first players to break the color line. He was not only a player but was a coach as well. This progress unfortunately was short lived, as after 1926 all five black players that were still in the league departed now known as the NFL since 1922. The combination of the league losing teams that season coupled with the large number of talented white players resulted in black players being the first to get axed never to return. While there were a few cases of black players in the league after this, most owners would not pay black players during the great depression. This is because they thought it would be a negative look to employ blacks while there were white players who were suffering. ¹⁶.

The founding and the subsequent years of the NFL in some ways represent key themes of the twenties, while other aspects of this represent older themes. The theme of sports becoming more culturally prominent is one of these ways, as the NFL despite not having the same success as other sports such as Baseball and Boxing did still enjoy a limited amount of rising relevance. The struggles of the sport initially represent the old theme of young sports leagues going through growing pains. The early years of the league represented the liberalism of the twenties black players were included. However the racism of the twenties also was represented as black players by the end of the decade were essentially shut out from the league. Most broadly the founding of the NFL and the subsequent years after this represents the core theme that the twenties was dominated by businessmen from the private sector.

Historical Significance

Citations

Bibliography

“Black players in Professional American Football.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Last modified May 5, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_Professional_American_Football.

Coenen, Craig. From the Sandlots to the Super Bowl: The National Football League, 1920-1967. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2005.

The Dispatch. “Professional Football Is Peril To Life of Pastime in Colleges.” November 27, 1919.

Klein, Christopher. “The Birth of the National Football League.” History.com. September 4, 2014. https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-the-national-football-league.

Peterson, Robert. Pigskin: The Early Years of Pro Football. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

The Spokane Press. “Pro Football Fails to Get Going Strong.” December 14, 1920.

The Springfield Daily Republican. “Pro Football Coming Sport Says Mr. Camp.” December 1, 1920.

Who Flew?

The two pilots tasked with the ambitious journey were General Sir Helperus Andreas “Pierre” van Ryneveld and Air Vice Marshal Sir Christopher Joseph Quintin “Flossie” Brand. Both men were highly decorated military veterans and had lengthy aviation experience that made them uniquely suited for the expedition. Pierre and Flossie were each highly decorated earning awards such as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), the Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB), the Distinguished Service Award (DSO), and the Military Cross (MC) during their careers. After their successful flight each man was officially knighted by the British Empire. 

General Sir Helperus Andreas van Ryneveld (aka Pierre van Ryneveld)

Despite Pierre van Ryneveld’s impressive military career, he is most notably known for the trans-African flight. During the first world war Pierre originally served as a part of the North Lancashire Regiment before he transferred to the Royal Flying Corp, and then to the Royal Air Force. After the war, and in addition to his other awards Pierre was given the Chevalier of Legion of Honor by the French government. Part of the reason Pierre was chosen to take on such an ambitious flight was to establish the first South African Air Force (SAAF) on behalf of the British government. Following the success of the flight Pierre established the SAAF and became the director of such until 1933, after which he became the Chief General Staff until his retirement in 1949. 

Air Vice Marshal Sir Christopher Joseph Quintin Brand (aka Flossie)

Commonly referred to as Quintin Brand or Flossie, although did not begin his career within the air force he still managed to accumulate an impressive career. Originally Flossie joined the CID Inspectors Unit (Criminal Investigation Department) in Johannesburg, and only a few years later in 1913 he joined the South African Defense Force, which included the air force at the time. In 1915 Flossie traveled to England to join England’s Royal Flying Corps, and earned several medals of honor which also included the Distinguishable Service Order. After his successful flight to Cape Town, Flossie continued his military career during the second world war and was made a commanding officer with several different air force regiments. 

Jan Smuts
Although Smuts did not personally take to the sky, he was a significant driving force behind the financial and political support for the flight. Before becoming one of the more influential prime ministers of his era, Smuts was a decorated military officer, statesman and philosopher. He took office as the prime minister of the Union of South Africa between 1919-1924 and 1939-1948. His government fueled a large majority of expeditions, and viewed it as a technological opportunity and as a symbolic gesture to link South Africa to the British Empire. 

Reasons for Flight

The origins of the flight were rooted in both competition and imperial ambition. One contemporary report suggested that The Times of London had offered a £10,000 prize for the fastest flight from London to Cape Town. Smuts, eager to demonstrate South Africa’s modernity and its place within the British imperial network, authorized the purchase of the Vickers Vimy for £4,500 and selected Pierre and Flossie to undertake the mission. However several other accounts emphasize the fact that Pierre was also tasked with establishing the South African Air Force after landing in Cape Town.

The only reason the flight was deemed feasible was because of the significant innovation made in aviation technology during the first world war. Such innovations included advancements in propellers, engines and turbines which allowed for longer flight times and more stability while in flight.  

Innovations in Aviation

Although the first world war resulted in mass casualties, violence, and the collapse of several empires, it also provided the world with several innovations in technology. Despite the fact that many of these innovations were a part of destructive machines and weaponry, there were several other developments made that greatly improved modern life. Such as innovations made within aviation. These improvements included the modernization of communication between pilots and those on the ground, within the early years of the first world war these communications mainly occurred through Morse code, however by the end of the war radiotelephone communication made it easier, faster and clearer to communicate. Additionally innovations were made so that planes were able to endure more types of weather conditions, as well as allowed pilots to fly for long times and distances. The installation of oxygen systems allowed for the long-range flights, and several German pioneers created liquid-oxygen systems for extended altitude missions. The development of the Gyroscopic instruments enabled safer night and cloud-covered flights. Several other innovations in engines and propellers, as well as in the very design of aircrafts themselves made flight, and especially long-distance flights more possible. Without these modernizations in aircraft the first trans-African flight would have never occurred, and it’s likely that modern flight would have been different than what many know today. 

The Events of the Flight

The journey itself began on February 4th  1920, when Pierre and Flossie departed from Brooklands in the United Kingdom. They aimed to reach Cape Town, completing a direct air route that had never before been achieved. Their arrival on March 20th 1920 marked the end of a 45‑day odyssey that included multiple crashes, mechanical failures, and aircraft changes. 
The original Vickers Vimy, named The Silver Queen, was forced to land in Wadi Halfa after crossing the Mediterranean and was ultimately deemed beyond repair. A second Vimy, The Silver Queen II, carried them from Cairo until a crash in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) on March 5th-6th. The final leg of the journey was completed in an Airco DH.9, renamed The Voortrekker, provided by the South African government. In total, the flight required 109 hours and 30 minutes of actual flying time. In May of 1920, both aviators were knighted for their achievement. 

The map below is interactive, and details the flight path taken by Pierre and Flossie, the purple pins are confirmed stops within official reports and the blue pins illustrates the flight path Leo Walmsley detailed in his report from March 1920.

Public Reactions

There were several different reactions to the success of the first trans-African flight. Although the majority of the public, both in London and in South Africa, had very positive and hopeful reactions there were also several groups of people who reacted negatively to the flight’s success. 

The divided reactions between populations revealed deeper political and social tensions within Africa, and especially within South Africa and Cape Town. The public’s reactions were sharply drawn by racial and social differences that were already deeply rooted within their society.  For the better half of a century South Africa, and especially Cape Town was colonized by Britain, therefore it’s unsurprising a large population of white people lived within the settlements. The majority of this population was very proud of this achievement, since it not only demonstrated Western superiority in aircraft technology but it also connected the British Empire in ways never before seen. This reaffirmed their connections to their home country. Simultaneously these triumphant feelings exposed racial anxieties of the white population who felt political unrest and resistance from black South Africans even before the flight. The celebration of the flight thus became entangled with efforts to assert control and reinforce racial hierarchies. 
 On the contrary the native and black populations of the settlements often viewed and met the success of the flight with much skepticism and even indifference. Rather than the flight symbolizing progress, it represented a deepening entrenchment of imperial power and the strengthening of settler authority. The aircraft itself, descending from the sky, and bearing the symbols of the empire, became a metaphor for the technological and political imbalances that defined colonial rule. In this sense, the flight encapsulated the contradictions of the early 20th century: extraordinary technological innovation paired with profound social inequality. 

How this reflects themes of the 1920s

The significance of the 1920 trans‑African flight extended far beyond its technical accomplishment. It demonstrated the rapid advances in aviation technology that had emerged from the First World War and showcased the growing ability of aircraft to shrink imperial space. Before this moment, travel between Britain and South Africa required long sea voyages along the western coast of Africa. The flight symbolically collapsed this distance, reinforcing the idea that the empire could be connected through modern technology. It also positioned Britain, and by extension its dominions, as leaders in global aviation. The flight also stands as a representation of the broader themes of the early 1900s and the 1920s in particular. It highlights the transformative impact of wartime technological development, the imperial ambitions of Britain and its dominions, and the racial tensions that shaped South African society. It was both a triumph of engineering and a reminder of the unequal world in which such triumphs were celebrated. 

Conclusion

The 1920 trans‑African flight ultimately stands as far more than a remarkable feat of early aviation. It was a moment in which the technological momentum generated by the First World War collided with the political ambitions of the empire and the deeply hierarchical social realities of South Africa. Pierre van Ryneveld and Quintin Brand’s journey demonstrated how wartime innovations which included stronger engines, improved communications, oxygen systems, and more reliable aircraft designs, had transformed the possibilities of flight, shrinking imperial space and redefining the limits of human mobility. Yet the public responses to their achievement revealed that technological progress did not translate into social unity. Instead, the flight exposed the fractures within South African society: the pride and imperial enthusiasm of white settlers contrasted sharply with the skepticism and apprehension of Black Africans who saw the event as another symbol of entrenched colonial power. In this way, the Silver Queen expedition encapsulated the contradictions of the early twentieth century, an era marked by extraordinary innovation alongside profound inequality. By tracing the story of this flight, its origins, and its reception, we gain insight not only into the development of modern aviation but also into the contested meanings of “progress” in a world still shaped by empire, race, and the legacies of war.

Citations

• Barker, Ralph. “A Brief History of the Royal Flying Corps in World War I : Barker, Ralph, 1917- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 2022, archive.org/details/briefhistoryofro0000bark/page/n5/mode/2up. 
• Barns, T. Alexander. “A Trans-African Expedition.” Journal of the Royal African Society, vol. 24, no. 96, 1925, pp. 272–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/716208. 
• Biddle, Tami Davis. “AIR POWER THEORY: AN ANALYTICAL NARRATIVE FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR TO THE PRESENT.” VOLUME I: THEORY OF WAR AND STRATEGY, edited by J. Boone Bartholomees, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2010, pp. 279–310. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12114.23. Accessed 2 May 2026.
• DEDERING, TILMAN. “Blue Skies into White Space: Southern African Responses to the Trans-African Flight of the Silver Queen, 1920.” Technology and Culture, vol. 59, no. 2, 2018, pp. 289–312. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26804414. 
• Filby, A. E. “A New Trans-African Route.” The Geographical Journal, vol. 93, no. 5, 1939, pp. 419–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1788712. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026.
• Gazette, London. ““The London Gazette” Issue 31900.” The Gazette Official Public Record, 14 May 1920, p. 5480, www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/31900/page/5480.
• Masego Panyane. “University of Pretoria Commemorates 100 Years of Trans-African Flight and Re-Installation of Flight Monument.” University of Pretoria, 2020, www.up.ac.za/news/university-of-pretoria-commemorates-100-years-of-trans-african-flight-and-re-installation-of. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026.
• Stanley, William R. “Trans-South Atlantic Air Link in World War II.” GeoJournal, vol. 33, no. 4, 1 Aug. 1994, pp. 459–463, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00806430. 
• “The Evolution of World War I Aircraft.” Si.edu, 7 May 2025, airandspace.si.edu/explore/stories/world-war-i-laboratory-air.
• Walmsley, Leo. “The Recent Trans-African Flight and Its Lesson.” Geographical Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 1920, pp. 149–60. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/207254.  

madison

Madison is currently a senior at the Ramapo College of New Jersey, who took this course in the spring of 2026. She has a major in Visual Arts, with a concentration in Art History, along with a double minor in Anthropology and Museum and Exhibitions Studies. After graduating Madison hopes to continue her education in order to become an Archaeologist or Museum Educator.

“The Roaring Life of the 1920s” splits its chapter into four parts, detailing the changing mindsets of the time, the women of the 1920s, education and pop culture, and the Harlem Renaissance. When discussing women during the 1920s, they do mention there being a “double standard” and that “many women were pulled back and forth between the old standards and the new.”¹ A discussion of struggle happens in the section on the Harlem Renaissance, writing that “Northern cities in general had not welcomed the massive influx of African Americans. Tensions had escalated… culminating… in approximately 25 urban race riots.”²

This is very important, as the struggles for both women and black Americans during the 1920s are clearly stated in the book, and not sugarcoated so children have an idea that, despite the movements during the time, the past is complicated, especially when it comes to oppressed groups.

Despite this, there is no mention of the hardships immigrants faced, with the most being that they “often ached for home.”³ Additionally, under a chart for the causes and effects of prohibition, the authors write that “native-born Americans developed a hostility to German-American brewers and toward other immigrant groups that used alcohol,” which could easily be glossed over if a child isn’t paying close attention.⁴

On the other hand, “Prosperity’s Promise” has more subtle splits that discuss the presidency and government of the time, the different movements and changes across America, and the economy. 

There is no mention of “flappers” in this textbook, only referring to them as “liberated women” who became less and less modest, with examples such as skirts being “9 inches from the ground! It soon had reached the knee” and “[women cutting] their hair short—and differently, it seemed, every year.”⁵

Any mention of the Harlem Renaissance is within the economic section, as they had moved to cities such as New York City due to labor shortages due to World War I. Despite this, it is only written as “a period of extraordinary creativity for Negro artists and musicians.”⁶

There are very few similarities between these two chapters. Neither chapter discusses the Stock Market Crash, though I figure that topic is saved for their respective Great Depression chapters. They also discuss the culture of the decade, albeit in varying depths. Overall, “The Roaring Life of the 1920s” is better for a general overview of the culture of the 1920s, while “Prosperity’s Promise” is better for a general overview of the 1920s, before the Great Depression.

Based on what Jennifer Fronc writes in “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY,” these chapters fit into the context of what she writes about. “The Roaring Life of the 1920s” doesn’t go into full depth to how women were treated during the 1920s, but does mention how they were trapped between modernity and tradition. In regards to the Harlem Renaissance, it does a does still treat it “as an adjunct to the mainstream narrative of U.S. history,” as they discussed prominent African-Americans, such as James Weldon Johnson and Marcus Garvey and their accomplishments.⁷

On the contrary, “Prosperity’s Promise” Barely touches upon women and black Americans in the 1920s, but does touch upon immigrants. Unfortunately, there is only mention of Jewish and Catholic immigrants and the discrimination they faced.

Understanding when historians write helps evaluate how one could use a source, and understand how trustworthy it is. The different motives historians have during each decade is a huge driving factor that scholars have to take into account. Older sources are not more trustworthy than more modern sources, and trustworthiness depends on the author’s motives rather than the age of a source. Once this is finally understood scholars can more accurately determine which sources are best to use when writing a paper.

Citations

Footnotes

1. Gerald A. Danzer et al., The Americans, 647. ︎
2. Danzer et al., 659. ︎
3. Danzer et al., 642. ︎
4. Danzer et al., 643. ︎
5. Henry Graff and John Krout, The Adventure Of American People, 615. ︎
6. Graff and Krout, 623. ︎
7. Jennifer Fronc, “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY,” 20. ︎

Bibliography

Danzer, Gerald A., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Larry S. Krieger, Louis E. Wilson, and Nancy Woloch. The Americans. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2005.

Fronc, Jennifer. “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY.” Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Graff, Henry and John Krout. The Adventure Of American People. Rand McNally, 1966.

Eryn Argonza

Eryn is a Ramapo College sophomore majoring in History and minoring in Museum Studies.

The Battle was a part of the Soviet-Polish war. The war began in 1919 and ended in 1921. Poland before 1918 was occupied by the Russians, the Germans, and Austria Hungry for over a hundred years. At the end of World War Ⅰ, the Poles were able to gain their independence from Germany on November 11, 1918.¹ During this time, the Russian were going through a Civil War, between the Bolshevik communist and anti-communist front of the Monarchists, Republicans, and other leftist movements. The Communists won the war, to then form the Soviet Union. The leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, wanted a more Communist Europe and wanted Germany as a Communist ally. Poland was the roadblock that stopped them.

The Soviets saw Germany as a potential ally. Germany was a very industrialized county, which would be a perfect communist ally. Lenin did not want to make an ally with the Imperialist Monarchy of Germany, but rather the working class who could overthrow their government. Lenin stated that a Communist Revolution is almost certain in Germany and if they don’t see it coming then they are fools who deserve to be overthrown.² But this was not the only reason why the Soviets wanted Germany. Lenin believed that Germany was the key to the survival of Communism.³ Communism could only work in a society that was industrialized, and Germany was Lenin’s solution for prolonging Communism’s existence. Poland was the only thing that stood in the way of a potential German ally. In July of 1920, the Soviet General Mikhail  Tukhachevsky gave the order to march into Poland. The order read,

“The time of reckoning has come. In the blood of the defeated Polish army we will drown the criminal government of Pilsudski. Turn your eyes to the West. In the West, the fate of World Revolution is being decided. Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to World Conflagration. On our bayonets we will bring happiness and peace to the toiling masses of mankind. The hour of attack has struck! Westwards! On to Wilno, Minsk, Warsaw-Forwards!”⁴

He rallied his men to reclaim old Russian land and march westward to spread communism. He ordered the march of Soviets troops into the region he referred to as the “gates of Smoolensk,” which was the city of Vitebsk in modern day Belarus.⁵ This march began the Soviet’s advance into Poland, and is the reason for the start of the war in the view of some historians.

Some Historians like Adam Zamoyski state the war started in 1919 due to small skirmishes. With the withdrawal of the German army, Lenin created the Army of the West to reclaim Russian land on January 5th of 1919.⁶ The army would go west and clash with Polish irregulars for land. Due to the fact that there was no Declaration of War and that the Soviets were not facing the Army of Poland, historians did not believe the War started in 1919. Over the following years, multiple skirmishes occurred in regions like Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. On April 20th, 1919, Poland sent an army to liberate Belarus from Soviet occupation.⁷ They were led by Józef Piłsudski, the so-called George Washington of Poland. They were successful and routed all Soviets present in the area. Afterward, other small skirmishes happened on the border of Poland and the Soviet Union. These events helped lead to the Soviet’s invasion of Poland.

In the beginning, the condition for the Polish army was not good. The Polish army had just recently begun retreating back into Poland and their spirits were not high. One report from a soldier who was a part of the Poland’s 37th Leczycz Infantry contained the following comment about the retreat: “The heat, the lack of water, the stench of rotting corpses and the forest fires are turning it into a sort of hellish torture.”⁸ Testimonies from Polish soldiers showed that the army’s morale while entering into battle was not high. The public, on the other hand, had not a care in the world about the impending Soviet advancement. Lord D’Abernon, a British ambassador to Poland, who witnessed the battle first hand, wrote in his diary about how amazed he was by seeing the people of Warsaw so detached from the War and them acting like the war was not happening.⁹ Though this did not mean the city was not prepared for the upcoming battle. Poland saw a surge of volunteers shortly before the battle began, and the Polish Socialist Party formed militias to help defend the city.¹⁰ Though not everyone was preparing for the upcoming battle, there were small groups that ensured that the battle would have been a clear Soviet victory. The military also took measures to increase its discipline; repeat offenders of desertion were executed, along with increased surveillance for spies or rats among the army.¹¹ Poland was gearing up for battle, and tried their best to ensure they would not lose.

Days before the battle started, both sides were acting on their own assumptions rather than any real data of enemy movements. Polish aviation could not spot the Soviet army, and the Soviet aviation did not reach the front. Both Polish General Piłsudski and Soviet General Tukhachevsky needed to make major decisions for their armies before the battle began. Piłsudski assumed that Tukhachevsky would send his troops straight to Warsaw. This was not true because Tukhachevsky sent his soldiers more northwest rather than just west. Tukhachevsky had accidentally obtained Piłsudski’s plans due to finding a dead soldier still in possession of his orders, but Tukhachevsky believed it was a trick and chose to ignore it.¹² It actually had everything about Piłsudski’s movements. Tukachevsky decided to head more northward to avoid meeting a massive Polish resistance in Warsaw. Piłsudski decided to plan for a counterattack in the middle right of his flank. He chose the center right flank for the counterattack due it being the only army group not to be outmaneuvered or too far away from the battle to aid.¹³ This single decision would be Poland’s savoir.

The battle was fought in four separate areas: the Vistula Bridgehead, The Wkra, the Wieprz, and the Prussian Frontier. The Vistula was the river right next to Poland. The Wkra line was just above Warsaw. The Wieprz line was southeast. The Prussian Frontier was also in the north. The Vistula bridgehead was commanded by General Franciszek Latinik who led the First Army. The Wkra line was commanded by General Waldyslaw Sikorski who led the 5th army. The Wieprz line was commanded by General Józef Piłsudski who led the 4th army. Lastly, the Prussian Frontier was commanded by Generals Józef Halle and Sikorski. The Prussian Frontier was a joint line with multiple generals giving orders for the line. The Vistula Bridge position was well defended; it had 46,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry, 730 machine guns, 192 artillery guns, along with a few tanks.¹⁴ The worst front to be in was the Wkra’s front. Polish General Waldyslaw Sikorski had the least amount of time to prepare for his operations because his HQ was established in Moldlin on August 10, only two days before the battle. ¹⁵

Men were not the only ones who served in the Polish Army. During the War, Poland opened its policy about volunteers from accepting only men to accepting both men and women. The volunteers were known as Ochotnicza Legia Kobiet (OLK), which translates to Voluntary Legion of Women. They consisted of women who did not want to be hospital nurses, but rathered to be soldiers defending their country.¹⁶ The OLK challenged traditional gender norms of the 1920s. Most women prior to the 1920s were seen as caretakers, pure, and motherly. The OLK were the opposite of that idea. They were a front line infantry unit who fought alongside men for the defense of Poland against Communism. They were similar to Lynn Dumenil’s views of the New Women. The New Women challenged the old ideas regarding the roles and behavior of a woman.¹⁷ The OLK wore short hair, fought alongside men in the defense of Warsaw and helped fight in other battles.¹⁸ These women helped redefine traditional notions of what it meant to be a woman in the 1920s.

The battle began on August 12 as the Soviet soldiers attacked the city of Radzymin. The Soviet’s III army 21st division invaded the city by night. Polish general Haller left the city, which caused the Radzymin to be taken by the Soviets due to fears of fighting a larger army. In the following days, Polish soldiers under Haller made multiple counterattacks to retake the city. They were aided by tanks and fought tooth and nail to reclaim their city. On August 15, the city was retaken; and on August 18 the front was cleared of Soviet presence.¹⁹ This started the beginning of the Polish counterattack.

Sikorski received orders from Haller to make a counterattack. He was ordered to head northeast, crossing the Wkra river, to conduct raids on August 14. During one of Sikorski raids,he captured the city of Ciechanow, which caused the Soviet officers to destroy their own radios. The city was also important to Polish history because it was home to princes, a castle, war with the old Teutonic order, and was the inspiration of some books.²⁰ The morale of the Polish army was greatly boosted by reclaiming this city that was very important to its people. Sikorski also made contact with the center of the Soviet line, revealing the Soviet’s plan to take the Northeast rather than just the city. The Sikorski raid surprised the Soviet generals who then thought more raids would occur. This caused multiple flanks to be thinned out in order to support the Soviet defense against Sikorski’s raids. This distraction ultimately caused Pilsudski’s great counter attack.

Pilsudski’s attack was a huge gamble that changed the tide of the battle, and also the War. On August 16, Pilsudski advanced northwards from the Vistula; and by August 18, he encircled the Soviet Northern army.²¹ If Pilsudski had failed, the front would have been lost and Warsaw could have fallen. If they had succeeded, then the Battle would be won and the Soviets would lose many men. Sikorski also aided Pilsudski during this time by conducting his own attacks. Their goal was to ensure that enough of the Soviet’s attention was on the Prussian front, and to cause them to focus less on Warsaw.²² Pilsudski completed his goal on the 25th by marching his soldiers up north to the East Prussian Frontier, which divided the Soviet army in two, and many were taken as prisoners. The forward momentum of the Soviet Union was lost in a matter of days due to a risky gambit that determined the fate of Poland. Pilsudski’s risky maneuver was the reason why the battle is known as the “Miracle of the Vistula.”

A reason why the Soviets did so poorly was because they did not react in time to the Polish strategies. The Soviets attacked Polish northern cities instead of dealing with the forces pressuring the center front or the Wiepz River. Sergey Kamenev, another Soviet general, warned Tukhachevsky about the Polish not retreating to Modlin but to Warsaw, and that his attacking would endanger the southern front.²³ If the Polish made a maneuver that would attack the undefended south, then the Soviet’s forces would be endangered. With the south front in danger, the entire army could be encircled and be destroyed just as Pilsudski did during his counterattack. Tukhachevsky argued back that Joseph Stalin would handle the southern flank and Sergey was overly reacting to the situation.²⁴ Stalin did not join the Southern flank, but instead went to Crimea by order of Lenin.²⁵ This miscommunication between leaders and generals caused no one to truly know where the Soviet positions were during the conflict. Only after the battle finished and records of the generals surfaced did the reality emerge that the Soviets had mishandled the situation.

The battle was not the final nail in the coffin for the war. The war would continue for another six months after the battle. But this battle was a much needed achievement for the Polish. The battle saw huge casualties for the Soviet side. Tukhachevsky reported that he lost over 100,000 men during the battle. Tukhachevsky had tremendous difficulty trying to replace his officers that he lost.²⁶ Due to those heavy casualties, the Polish army was able to advance into Soviet-controlled Belarus. Belarus would be incorporated into Poland after the war. The war showed that Poland was able to stand for itself and showed the imperialist nature of the Soviets. Due to the communists taking over Russia, some assumed that they would not be imperialist like the Tsarist Russia. But the war showed the world that they were wrong, and that the Soviets were imperialist like their former leaders.²⁷ The battle also showed that communism could be defeated.

During the 1920, multiple countries such as America, Britain, and other Western countries experienced “Red Scares”. This Red Scare was a basic fear that communism would infect their politics and a communist uprising would occur from within. The Red Scare was sparked by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and by the united efforts of the White army, and that foreign aid could not defeat them. The United States’ first Red Scare was directed toward reformers. They were criticized as being communist because their ideas challenged or hindered Capitalism.²⁸ It did not matter if the reformers were actually communist or not; they were labeled as such just to hurt their ideas and reforms. During the war, the Polish Catholic Church was adamant to denounce communism and rally the masses for war.²⁹ Beside the foreign threat of communism, there was internal pressure to save the country from communism. Most countries who had Red Scares also had these internal pressures, whether it be politicians, newspapers journalists, or the church that put pressure on communism. The battle, on the other hand, showed these countries that their fears about Communism should be tamed. Poland proved to the world that communism could not defeat a united people.

The “Miracle of the Vistula” battle was a big source of national pride. Poland proved to themselves and the World that it could defeat a powerful country like the Soviets. The battle tackled the 1920s themes of gender and Communism. The Battle determined the fate of Poland, with Pilsudski shifting the battle in favor of Poland. Due to a lack of cooperation and a large amount of infighting, the Soviets failed to achieve their goal to win the battle. Poland would rise high by beating the number one rival country in East Europe in a war, until World War Ⅱ.

1. Norman Davies, White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20, (London: MacDonalds, 1972) 19. ︎
2. Vladimir Lenin, “War and Revolution”(May 14, 1917) In Lenin Collection Works (Moscow: 1964), 398-421, accessed on March 16, 2026. On Marxists.com ︎
3. Adam Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920: Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe, (London: HarperCollins, 2008), 7. ︎
4. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 53 ︎
5. Richard M. Watts, Bitter Glory : Poland and its Fate, 1918 to 1939 (New York : Simon and Schuster, 1979), 126 ︎
6. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920. 8. ︎
7. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920. 9. ︎
8. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 67. ︎
9. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 188. ︎
10. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 193. ︎
11. Davies, White Eagle Red Star ,193. ︎
12. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 197. ︎
13. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 197. ︎
14. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 200. ︎
15. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 201. ︎
16. Robert M Ponichtera, “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997): 25 JSTOR ︎
17. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 98. ︎
18. Ponichtera . “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers”, 25. ︎
19. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 201. ︎
20. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 203. ︎
21. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 203. ︎
22. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 205. ︎
23. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 80. ︎
24. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 81. ︎
25. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 81. ︎
26. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 110. ︎
27. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 110. ︎
28. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, 22. ︎
29. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 74. ︎

Bibliography and Suggested Readings

“Battle For Warsaw Ends with Retreat of Two Soviet Units Cut Off” The Republican. Mon, Aug 23, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Battle For Warsaw Started” The Idabel News. Thu, Aug 19, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Davies, Norman. White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20. (London: MacDonalds, 1972).

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995).

“Expert French Soldiers Assisting Polish Cause” The Saginaw News. Wed, Aug 18, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Lenin Vladimir. “War and Revolution”(May 14, 1917) In Lenin Collection Works (Moscow: 1964), 398-421, accessed on March 16, 2026. On Marxists.com 

“Peace Parley in on at Minsk; Battle Rages” Buffalo Courier Express. Tue, Aug 17, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Poles Plan the Recapture of Bret-Litovsk; Battle of Warsaw Polish Victory, Not French” The Miami News. Fri, Aug 20, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Polish Capital Gets Prepared For Siege; City in Panic’s Grip” The Buffalo Enquirer. Mon, Aug 16, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Ponichtera, Robert M. “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997). JSTOR

“Russians Only 21 Miles From Warsaw” The Caledonian-Record. Sat, Aug 14, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Soviet Cavalry Retreat After Armies Are Divided By New Attacks of Enemy” The Oklahoman. Wed, Aug 25, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Third Stage In Battle for Warsaw and Poland Is Begun by Red Army” Atlantic City Sunday Press the Sunday Gazette. Sun, Aug 22, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Watts, Richard M. Bitter Glory : Poland and its Fate, 1918 to 1939. (New York : Simon and Schuster, 1979)

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Chapter 1 of The Modern Temper talks about the event leading up to the 1920s and WW1’s affect on the era. One thing that the chapter mentioned was the Red Scare. Historian Lynn states “The optimism of the immediate postwar period did not last long. The Red Scare, with its insistence that Bolshevism posted serious threat to American institution, painted most reform with a radical pigment, and reformers knew early on that they would have to struggle odds to implement their goals”.¹ American reformers had to face a uphill battle against being labeled a communist and having their voice squashed. Poland faced a similar issue, but instead of the Bolshevik threat being a political threat, it was an actual military threat. The threat of communism was a danger for both societies, and they both needed to overcome communism in their own way to prevail in their ideas. Poland wanted to govern their own country since the past 100 years someone else ruled the Poles, but the Soviets wanted Poland for their own goals. Poland needed to fight back against the Soviets, not just to preserve their government, but also to be able to have the opportunity to make their own decisions on how their government should run.

The theme of the New Woman is somewhat connected to the Battle of Warsaw. During the war a new special unit was created known as the Ochotnicza Legia Kobiet(Voluntary legion of Women) or OLK for short. The legion was made up of Polish and Ukrainian women who served as infantry soldiers during the Soviet-Polish War. They helped defend the city of Warsaw during the battle of Warsaw.² In the Modern Temper, women’s identity changed during the 1920’s. In America, women were redefining how a woman should be, act, and look. Due to World War 1, many women joined male dominated fields like factory workers. After the war, though many women were content going back to normalcy, though some wanted to continue working, and with immigration it was harder to deny women from working in factories.³ In Poland, women were allowed to fight which is different from most of Europe and the United States. Prior to the wars in the 1920’s women were not allowed to fight, but due to the conflict, women were able to fight for their country. Though this battle did not start the era of the New Woman in Poland, without the OLK’s help it would have been a more difficult fight for Poland.

Though Modern Temper mostly discusses the themes that America’s 1920 had, Poland shared some of those changes. Both the United States and Poland faced adversities due to a communist presence. The United States had a new age of feminism, with women being more involved in politics and work, while women in Poland were voluntarily joining the war to defend Poland, just like the men. These few connections brought to light the fact that the 1920’s had greater themes that connected to different countries, even if the themes were slightly different for each country.

1. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, (new York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 22. ︎
2. Robert M Ponichtera . “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997): 25. ︎
3. Dumenil. The Modern Temper, 112-113. ︎

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

When looking at pictures of the 1920s, I see people in these flashy outfits partying. That’s about it. I see men in suits and ties, however they wear a polo over their button ups and ties for a different style. Not too different from typical menswear from prior years, but the womenswear is what really changed. When they’re not wearing a hat, women have their hair shown short and somewhat curly, and the dresses they wear expose their backs a little bit, showing just how much more confident they are in their appearances. Hell, they appear really happy in these pictures too, so they really took the look and owned it. They wore shorter heels with their legs showing as well. Typically, it was a little under knee high, but in some dresses you’d be able to see their thighs a little if their skirt was shorter.

The way they dressed wasn’t the only thing that showed up in these pictures. The 1920s made sure to capture just how important the automobile was when it was being manufactured. Because of industrialization, cars were being created way more often and were being made to be affordable so more people could get them and would get them. Because of this, the streets in the pictures seem to be flooded with cars, and I even saw a picture of a little strip with a family saying “everyone owns a car but us”, trying to add fuel to the fire with how important the automobile was for this era. 

I saw pictures of jazz bands especially. Many men and women danced around the band members playing on their brass instruments, and I especially saw a picture of Louis Armstrong, who was a very important figure in jazz. Very talented trumpet player and vocalist, and he left a very important mark for African American musicians during this era and after. Seeing all of these pictures, I’m not very surprised by what I saw. The 1920s were mostly known for its industrialization, “jazz, cabarets, liquor”, and mighty stock crash. It was a very fun time period, but sadly all great things gotta come to an end for the next big thing.

environment was in the workplace during the 1920s. The United States of America during the 1920s was in the revolutionary era when big factories, industrial work, construction, mining, oil rigs, mechanics, soldiers, hard labor, and big-name companies started to rise. All men had to go to work every day to survive and yet most men died at their jobs in the 1920s. Additionally, workplace injuries/deaths were common, and, in many cases, labor conditions were nothing less than grueling. Moreover, the main cause of death was not because of the jobs, they were due to exposure to harsh/deadly chemicals to the body. People were not as knowledgeable as today and many resources we have today they did not have 100 years ago. For example, men who worked in the mines all died due to Tuberculosis and lung cancer for not having the right oxygen mask protection. Mining is one of the deadliest industries, with cave-ins, explosions, and toxic gas exposure causing many deaths.

Factories and manufacturing plants also had unsafe machinery with little to no protective measures, leading to crushing, amputations, and fatal injuries. Additionally, the 1920s had very unsafe workplace safety, leading to early labor protections, but this did not change until stricter regulations and enforcement significantly reduced workplace fatalities, like OSHA, ASSP, ANSI, and CSB. These organizations were designed to protect workers from unsafe work environments. During the 1920s, the jobs were extremely limited when it came to women. Additionally, women were only allowed to work as nurses and teachers during the 1920s but given this, women were not exposed to harsh workplace environments as men did. In the book, The Modern Temper chapter three mentions how the country was expanding to the consumer culture in the late 1920s causing many new jobs to arise for the automobile factories due to its 3.7 million car production number. Chapter 3 mentioned how in the 1930s the American Federation of Labor was extremely focused on the labor movement and making the work environment safer. Furthermore, the AFL association was extremely racist because it did not help Mexicans, African Americans, Asians, and women. The connection this book has with Nixon’s Nitration Work is about the industrial expansion of evolution in factories and construction. The Nixon Nitration Company was founded by Lewis Nixon in 1915. The factories manufacture cellulose nitrate and the production of celluloid and other early plastics.

The nitrate made the material highly flammable, and the cellulose nitrate was supported in large sheets and had been piled in buildings. There was an explosion that started in one of the buildings, and the fire spread taking down a few nearby buildings along with 20 people’s lives. All those chemical materials stored together made the fire spread much quicker. Additionally, this is just one of the many accidents that happened during the 1920s due to unsafe procedures in the workplace.

Many historians and political organizations would say the Nazi Party was one of the most powerful and influential organizations of the 20th century. But did you know it took the Nazi party less than 15 years to have control of Germany? In addition, its mere existence lasted for only 25 years. However, in those 25 years, the Nazi Party was able to take a country that was devastated by World War I and took most of the blame for the destruction of Europe. Was able to turn around another world war, almost taking over the entire world. This paper will analyze and understand how the Nazi party was able to gain so much power in such a short time and explain the events that put the party on the map, as well as the people that supported/influenced the rise of the far-right extremist movement. Adolf Hitler might have been the one to bring the party to its highest potential; however, it was the party that started the ideology of a far-right, extremist anti-Semitic movement.

The Aftermath of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles:

On November 11, 1918, the German army and the country finally surrendered, which would mark the end of the First World War. After four years of bloodshed and destruction, as well as the first time the world has ever seen a world war. The world was at ease when Germany took full blame for the destruction and economic hardship of the other ally countries. Despite other countries starting to rebuild after a devastating world war, Germany was the country most affected by the war and had some of the biggest problems within its nation. Poverty, economic, township, and destruction throughout Germany made the country look like a third-world country with no vision of it getting better or easier for the German citizens. In addition, European countries forced Germany to sign an agreement that would inevitably be the reason some would say that caused World War II. This document would be called the Treaty of Versailles. 

The Treaty of Versailles was presented by other European countries to prevent Germany from causing another world war. This treaty made Germany give up land, population, military freedom, and the German economy to rebuild Europe. “Germany lost 13% of its land and 12% of its population to the Allies. This land made up 48% of Germany’s iron production and a large proportion of its coal production, limiting its economic power.² The German Army was limited to 100,000 soldiers, and the Navy was limited to 15,000 sailors”. This treaty devastated the German economy and brought record inflation and massive unemployment, and Germans struggled to understand their country’s uncertain future.³ 

The German government and politicians tried reassuring their citizens, saying it would take a couple of years for the economy to bounce back and look like pre-war times. However, politicians and government officials had no clear vision or opportunities to fix the German economy and solve the unemployment crisis. “Early in 1922, a dollar was worth 1,000 marks—by November, a dollar bought 6,000 marks. On January 4, 1923, a dollar fetched 8,000 marks; less than a week later, it was worth 10,000 marks, and by January 15, it took 56,000 marks to purchase one US currency unit. From then on, the mark skyrocketed with little relation to anything approaching economic reality, reaching 60,000,000 marks to the dollar by the first week of September. 7 Inflation was such that a typical Hamburg dock worker was paid 17 billion marks a day by fall 1923”.⁵ With record spending by the German government, corrupt politicians, a treaty devastating the German economy, and no clear sign of what Germany’s future will look like—this cost far right and far left groups to start gaining momentum and popularity with citizens. Germany’s status in 1919 ultimately created the German Workers Party (DAP), founded by a far-right politician named Anton Drexler. 

The Start of the Party:

In January 1919, Anton Drexler, a far-right extremist, saw the economic status and corrupt politicians within the German country and wanted to make a change and bring Germany back to prosperity. He was the primary founder of the German Worker Party (GAP), which, at the start, had about 30 members. Drexler oversaw the appointment of the chairman of the DAP, Karl Harrer. Harrer was appointed chairman on January 5, 1919, which would mark the start of the DAP party. “The party met weekly in a beer hall in Munich. After the pressures of the war, Munich was politically unstable. People were inclined to support new ideas that advocated extreme change. The party advocated a range of ideas, including hostility toward the Treaty of Versailles, nationalism, concern about the nation’s moral standards and changing culture, and extreme antisemitism”.⁶ In the first year of the parties, they lacked support from outsiders and local party organizations. However, on September 12, 1919, a man walked into a bar hall where the DAP were having their usual meeting. The man sparked interest in what the DAP was campaigning for in terms of the future of Germany. The man ultimately joined the discussion with the DAP members, and the man’s name was Adolf Hitler. “Hitler entered into a discussion with the main speaker at the event, and Drexler, impressed with Hitler’s points and oratory skills, invited him to join the party”.⁷ 

Anton Drexler:

Anton Drexler was born on June 13, 1884, in Munich. In Drexler’s early life, he was a railway toolmaker and a locksmith in Berlin. Sources suggest that Drexler struggled with financial sustainability and alcoholism. He was also summoned to serve in World War I but was ultimately discharged due to being physically unfit. During the war, he joined the German Fatherland Party, which was ultimately a far-right party. Drexler got involved with the Free Workers Committee, and while working on the committee, he met a journalist named Karl Harrer. Both men shared a lot of the same views on nationalism and antisemitism. Ultimately, Drexler founded a new party, which was called the German Worker Party, and appointed Harrer as Reich chairman. On February 24, 1920, the party saw a complete renaming, and Drexler became the chairman of the party. However, despite Drexler being the leader of the party, he was ultimately removed as chairman after falling out with Adolf Hitler. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was removed as chairman, and his replacement was Hitler. He ultimately left the party in 1923 but rejoined in 1933 after the party’s success in Parliament and Hitler’s becoming chancellor. Anton Drexler died on February 24, 1942, at the age of 57 due to his lengthy illness due to alcoholism. Despite being in the party for only a short amount of time, he is the primary reason why Hitler got into politics and the primary founder of the Nazi party. 

The Beginning of the Nazi (1920-1923)

The German Workers Party has finally been established and, at this point, has been around for over a year. The party’s membership of followers varied throughout the year, getting as high as 35 but as low as only 13. However, this would all change when Adolf Hitler joined the party. Drexler showed Hitler the parties, values, and far-right policies he hoped to spread and gain support from outsiders. Drexler did not realize at first how important Hitler would be to the parties, growth, and popularity within a couple of months. Hitler was a phenomenal speaker and passionate about the policy and future that Germany should take. The way that Hitler preached his policies and rhetoric made people listen and want to learn more about what they could do and how to join. Because of this, the party went through a rebranding on February 24, 1920. The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) or the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This would also be the time when the party came up with the ideology of Nazism, a far-right antisemitic movement. In the years following the rebrand, the party expanded little by little, gaining support from middle-class workers and people who had lost faith in the German government. The following shows how the Nazi party progressed through the years with party membership and how they spread their propaganda: 

“These early days of the NSDAP were unspectacular and gave no promise whatever that it would ever achieve prominence, even within Bavaria, for it was competing for support principally among the most radically minded sections of the middle class along with a score of similar groups such as the Germanen-Orden, the Thule Society, and the Deutschvöllische Schutz-und Trutz Bund. The party, whose membership was only 1,100 in June 1920, lay in the twilight world of local Munich politics and several times might easily have collapsed. Even the advent of Hitler as a party member in September 1919 did not immediately produce a significant improvement in prospects. However, the oratorical and propagandistic skills of Hitler eventually allowed the NSDAP to make something of a minor breakthrough in terms of public recognition, mainly on account of his anti-Semitism, which was vehement even by Munich standards. Membership gradually increased to 3,300 by August 1921, and the party managed to secure a more definite foothold in radical rightist circles. Its innately social darwinistic outlook supplied a basic impetus behind NSDAP activity, but of more specific importance were the changes in the organization, leadership, and direction of the party in July 1921”.⁸

Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723.

The Party’s Takeover of Germany: (1924-1933)

By the middle of 1921, the Nazi parties made a name for themselves and started getting crowds, listening to what they had to say and proposing policies for the future of Germany. Despite Hitler being one of the main reasons why the party was gaining popularity, he still did not have full control. Drexler still was the chairman of the party and still called the shots for what the party should do next. However, Hitler disagreed with most Drexler ideas. One of Drexler’s prominent ideas was to combine forces with another far-right party. In July 1921, Drexler held a secret meeting without Hitler’s knowledge to work with other parties to gain more popularity. Hitler was outraged at Drexler, so the next day he left the Nazi Party. But when other members of the party heard about Hitler’s exit from the party, they were outraged and realized that Hitler was their only hope for the future of the Nazi party. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was kicked out as chairman, and Hitler became the chairman and dictator of the Nazi party. The future of the party was now in Adolf Hitler’s hands.

The Nazi Party’s first attempt to take over the German government was the Beer Hall Putsch. On November 8, 1923, Hitler and his party set up a protest to overthrow the German government. However, Hitler’s plan did not go through as he planned; the next day he was stopped by the German army and arrested for the attempt to overthrow the national government. Yet this did not stop the Nazi party. The party realized that overthrowing the government would take a lot of men and weaponry to have somewhat of a chance. Hitler and the Nazi party realized the popularity his party was getting around Germany. So the party decided to do it the way that all other parties did it: by winning seats in Parliament. The first time the Nazi party gained seats in Parliament was in the election of 1828, where they gained 12 seats. After that election, the Nazis gained momentum and popularity around Germany, and by November 1933, the Nazis had taken over parliament. Despite the Nazi party only being around for about 13 years, the party would get complete control of Germany on January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. By 1934, after the death of President Paul Von Hindenburg, the Nazi party had complete control of the German government and the whole country. After 15 years of the party’s founding, the Nazis completely controlled Germany.

Significance:

The reason why I picked this topic for the 1920s project was because I wanted to understand how the Nazi party got its name, its members, and how it became so powerful so quickly. I always thought that Hitler was the one who started the movement and his own far-right policies. But when researching the Nazi Party, I found that that was not the case where the party originated before Hitler even joined. Most of Hitler’s views on ideology came from joining what was then called the German Workers Party. Despite Hitler being the one who took the Nazis from 30 members to taking over the whole country. If it were not for the party and their rallies, Hitler might have never gotten into politics in the first place. It was the German Workers Party that started the evil, bloodshed, destruction, and immoral beliefs of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, A.K.A. the Nazi Party.

Bibliography

1. “File: Nazi Party Rally Grounds (1938) 3.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_party_rally_grounds_(1938)_3.jpg. ︎
2. “The Aftermath of the First World War – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-effects-of-the-first-world-war-on-germany/. ︎
3. “Aftermath of World War I and the Rise of Nazism, 1918–1933.” n.d. Ushmm.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/holocaust/aftermath-of-world-war-i-and-the-rise-of-nazism-1918-1933. ︎
4. Homeschool History. 2021. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party 1919-1923 | GCSE History.” Youtube. November 11, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkPOpyNVJ8. ︎
5. Pelz, William A. “Economic Collapse and the Rise of Fascism, 1920–33.” In A People’s History of Modern Europe, 127–41. Pluto Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c2crfj.14. ︎
6. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
7. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
8. Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723. ︎
9. Niets. 2023. “Horst Wessel Lied – Co-National Anthem of Nazi Germany.” Youtube. November 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awKecML3GXs. ︎
10. Wikipedia contributors. “Nazi Party.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. May 3, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Election_results ︎