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 1920s was an era known for its trends of excessive consumer culture. Although this is often exaggerated, there is still some truth to this assessment, as material goods gained increasing popularity during the decade. Such atypical purchases were also more affordable to the general public, and many were eager to purchase them.³ One such item that gained popularity amongst the 1920s consumer culture crowd was the banana, which was not part of the typical American diet until after the United Fruit Company (U.F.C.) vigorously advertised it. The company began advertising bananas in 1917, at which time they already had established plantations in Central and South American countries, and they used the typical “logic” form of advertising to sell the exotic fruit. For this reason, they had scientists promote the nutritional value of bananas, and banana sales began to increase. However, it would only truly reach its peak in the 1920s, when Edward Bernays changed American advertising forever as he targeted people’s emotions as opposed to using logic. One of the largest projects the U.F.C undertook with Bernays as advertising director was the launch of the “Great White Fleet” cruiser that brought Americans to tour United Fruit’s plantations in Latin America. This endeavor would prove to be very successful in increasing the banana market. However, the visitors only saw a theatrically created plantation that aimed to portray it as a humane and peaceful place. In reality, U.F.C. plantations were corrupt and the laborers were subjected to terrible work conditions.⁴

Colombia was home to a number of United Fruit plantations, where the banana workers were subjected to long hours and low pay. Laborers from the U.F.C.’s Magdalena plantation organized a strike on October 6, 1928, in which they issued nine demands to the company.⁵ Their demands included receiving real money payments and transitioning to a six-day work week.⁶ The strike lasted two months, and on December 5th, the Governor of Magdalena summoned the strikers to Ciénaga in order to settle the strike. Strikers gathered in the thousands and, at the same time, the government issued Decree Number 1 that ordered the military to open fire on the unarmed strikers and their families.⁷ It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 2,000 people were killed in Ciénaga’s train station that night.⁸ Despite this, once daybreak came around, only nine bodies were left behind. Some strikers theorized that the nine bodies were symbolic of the nine demands of the strikers. The Colombian military did not end there, with them killing over 1,000 strikers. Laborers responded by destroying a number of United Fruit’s buildings.⁹

This massacre was not the effort of just the Colombian government. In fact, the United Fruit Company leveraged their power in the United States government to ensure that the strike was brought to an end. Considering that the strikers’ demands would have resulted in higher operation costs for the company, U.F.C. utilized their ties with the United States government to have the Marine Corps threaten to invade Colombia if the Colombian government did not protect the company’s interests and bring an end to the strike.¹¹ Such corporate interference in international relations would not have been possible prior to World War I, when there was a greater amount of suspicion of corporate power. However, by the 1920s, corporations and businessmen were idealized, as the American public viewed them as instrumental parts of the war effort.¹² The American government in the 1920s therefore supported corporations like the United Fruit Company to expand their markets and acquire raw materials through applying economic, diplomatic and military pressure. This was particularly common in Latin America. The pressure could be subtle or indirect. However, in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Santo Domingo, the U.S. government took more direct and bold action to protect corporations’ interests by sending troops.¹³ The Banana Massacre was the direct result of American military threats and pressure against the Colombian government. 

Justifying such violence and anti-union activity required the use of fear-mongering, with the most effective tool being the apparent threat of the spread of communism. The strike in Colombia did in fact occur in alliance with the Colombian Communist Party, which helped mobilize the poor and small business owners to provide support for the strikers and their demands.¹⁴ Prior to the massacre, from 1919 to 1920 the United States was the site of a Red Scare, which was the successful result of the Bolshevik Revolution in what became the Soviet Union. During the Red Scare, the American public feared that communism would create a revolution in the United States. Due to this, significant hysteria spread throughout the United States, with people such as organized laborers falling under intense scrutiny.¹⁵ For this reason, corporations that suppressed strikes were viewed as safeguards against communism.¹⁶ This was not coincidental, as corporations, with the help of the press, made it seem as though all strikes were part of a larger communist plot.¹⁷ Furthermore, companies like the United fruit Company hired public relations firms to ensure that such bloody stories like that of the Banana Massacre did not reach the American public.¹⁸ Despite these efforts, the memory of the massacre has remained deeply ingrained in Colombian culture, with it even inspiring a scene of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ Nobel Peace Prize winning book One Hundred Years of Solitude.¹⁹

Citations

Footnotes

1.  “Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See,” Visualizing the Americas, accessed March 31, 2025, https://visualizingtheamericas.utm.utoronto.ca/1928-massacre-1. ︎
2.  Handling Bananas, Backing the Bunch, Colombia, 1924., ReVista (Baker Library Historical Collections, Harvard Business School, 1924), https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/making-a-difference-repatriating-photographs-revista/. ︎
3.  Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, ed. Eric Foner (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1995), 77. ︎
4.  Lindsey Morey, “Blood For Bananas: United Fruit’s Central American Empire,” Roots of Contemporary Issues, 2014, https://history.wsu.edu/rci/sample-research-project/. ︎
5.  “Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See.” ︎
6.  Mariana Ramirez Cabal, “The Dark Side of Bananas: Imperialism, Non-State Actors, and Power,” Harvard International Review, June 9, 2023, https://hir.harvard.edu/the-dark-side-of-bananas-imperialism-non-state-actors-and-power/. ︎
7.  “Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See.” ︎
8.  Aviva Chomsky, “Globalization, Labor, and Violence in Colombia’s Banana Zone,” International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 72 (2007): 901–115, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27673094, 95. ︎
9.  “Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See.” ︎
10.  Comisaría de La United Fruit Company En Ciénaga, 1928., 1928, Wikimedia Commons, 1928, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comisariato_cienaga.jpg. ︎
11.  Ramirez Cabal, “The Dark Side of Bananas: Imperialism, Non-State Actors, and Power.” ︎
12.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 31-32. ︎
13.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 36. ︎
14.  Chomsky, “Globalization, Labor, and Violence in Colombia’s Banana Zone,” 95. ︎
15.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 218. ︎
16.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 32. ︎
17.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 220. ︎
18.  Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 31. ︎
19.  “Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See.” ︎

Bibliography

Chomsky, Aviva. “Globalization, Labor, and Violence in Colombia’s Banana Zone.” International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 72 (2007): 901–115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27673094. 

“Colombia: A Photograph We Were Not Supposed To See.” Visualizing the Americas. Accessed March 31, 2025. https://visualizingtheamericas.utm.utoronto.ca/1928-massacre-1. 

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. Edited by Eric Foner. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1995. 

Handling bananas, backing the bunch, Colombia, 1924. ReVista. Baker Library Historical Collections, Harvard Business School, 1924. https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/making-a-difference-repatriating-photographs-revista/. 

Morey, Lindsey. “Blood For Bananas: United Fruit’s Central American Empire.” Roots of Contemporary Issues, 2014. https://history.wsu.edu/rci/sample-research-project/. 

Ramirez Cabal, Mariana. “The Dark Side of Bananas: Imperialism, Non-State Actors, and Power.” Harvard International Review, June 9, 2023. https://hir.harvard.edu/the-dark-side-of-bananas-imperialism-non-state-actors-and-power/.

stefanieviera

Stefanie Viera is a 3rd year History and Humanities & Global Studies double major who is taking the Discovering Digital History course in the spring of 2025. She currently work at the Jane Addams Papers Project as an Editorial Assistant.

Going into the 1920s, the world had been shocked by the horrors of World War I due to the gruesome and horrifying nature of the weapons used. This includes the use of chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gases, all of which were used heavily by both sides during the war and were responsible for an estimated 100,000 deaths and 1.3 million injuries.¹ In response, many countries were looking for a solution to prevent further suffering in conflicts. On June 17, 1925, the Geneva Protocol was signed, prohibiting the use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, Bacteriological, and other dangerous gases. ²The Geneva Protocol and its effects on the 1920s and future decades, while seldom studied, provides a look into how the impact of the “Great War” was felt in the years following it. The Geneva Protocol as a response to World War I also provides an insight into how those at the forefront of the war, both diplomatically and physically, were able to shape its creation and set a standard for anti-war sentiment in the 1920s. This article analyzes the contents of the Geneva Protocol, as well as its effect on the 1920s and its importance in the future Geneva Convention.

Background of Chemical Weapons Used in World War I

The context of the time period that led to the creation of the Geneva Protocol is a reaction to the damage caused by World War I as a whole and specifically the use of chemical weapons. World War I differed from any war that had arose before it, partially due to new inventions. While new vehicles such as tanks and planes were being implemented in war for the first time, one of the most dangerous weapons for a soldier on the battlefield was the many new chemical weapons, such as the infamous mustard gas, which would quickly and efficiently put an end to a soldier’s life, given they did not have a gas mask. These gases would seep into the soldier’s lungs and burn them until they were unable to breathe, all the while causing immense pain the moment, they breathed in even a small amount of it.³

History Prior to the Geneva Protocol

After World War I and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, many countries began to turn their attention to other aspects of the war that made it so horrifying. In the case of the U.S., the Conference on the Limitation of Armament was held in Washington D.C., which confirmed many of the sentiments that the U.S. government felt came out of the war. The conference showed that most of the American people were strongly against the use of poisonous gases in war, with 385,170 of Americans voting in favor of gas warfare abolition, and only 169 in favor of allowing it. The voices of the people were so prominent that the U.S. decided to ignore the advice of a chairman representing the country in the Subcommittee of Chemical Warfare and ratified the treaty⁵. While the U.S. had ratified the In the United States, France, who also had two members in the committee, declined to ratify the treaty due to its provisions on submarine use.⁶ The idea of ratifying a treaty that banned chemical weapons would lay dormant for three years until 1925. Prior to this, the League of Nations would classify chemical agents into three categories: toxic agents, asphyxiating gases, and irritant gases, and would also study their effects on plant life, but no talk of ratifying anything yet.⁷ In 1925, there were talks about implementing a treaty that would ban the use of chemical weapons in war. At the Conference for the Supervision of International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, the Geneva Protocol was first drafted. The first draft would not include certain details, like the control of exports of chemical weapons, but these details would be added into future iterations.⁸

Contents of the Geneva Protocol

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the “Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare”, contains simple yet important declarations and demands for the world. ¹⁰The Geneva Protocol calls for the prohibition of asphyxiating and poisonous gases, as well as any other gas or liquid that “has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world.¹¹ Also written in the Geneva Protocol is a request for its demands to become accepted as international law, and to be upheld as such in the future.¹² The implementation of the Geneva Protocol as “International Law” is very interesting, as the idea of international programs such as the League of Nations was new, making this one of the earliest attempts at trying to enforce something internationally. The Geneva Protocol could have been a landmark event in the history of international law, had it had been followed in World War II. An important point to note is that the prohibition of all chemical weapons only applies during war, and the use of chemical weapons outside of war is allowed by the Geneva Protocol. The Geneva Protocol also outlined how it would deal with international conflict come a situation where two or more countries were to wage war, if there were signs of conflict. Article 12 of the Geneva Protocol states that countries in a dispute that may lead to a war “will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council” and are only allowed to fight each other as long as they have an award from the arbitrators or from the council that allows them to fight.¹³ In Article 15 of the Geneva Protocol, it states that two countries that do not reach out to arbitration who are on the verge of a war will have a full investigation of their situation performed.¹⁴ The Geneva Protocol extended past a simple ban of chemical weapons and also acted as a system to prevent wars between countries that signed off on the Geneva Protocol, all of which were also in the League of Nations.

While there were many fewer countries that ratified the Geneva Protocol in the 1920s, the ones that did were at the center of global conflict at the time. Countries who signed the Geneva Protocol had to meet a few requirements before they were able to sign it. Firstly, any country that wanted to sign the Geneva Protocol had to be a member of the League of Nations, as it would be impossible for a country not to agree with and be a member of the League of Nations while also agreeing with the Geneva Protocol. If the Geneva Protocol were to pass, then countries would be split into three groups: members of the League of Nations who signed the Geneva Protocol, members of the League of Nations who have not signed it, and countries who are not members of the League of Nations.¹⁵ The majority of the ratifications come from Europe, with major countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Russia, and Turkey ratifying during the 1920s. There are also a few ratifications from countries outside of Europe, such as the U.S., Egypt, Liberia, and Venezuela. () There was a collective consensus from countries across the world to set some limit on the weapons that are used during war to prevent the suffering of soldiers to some degree, though the restrictions that came along with said agreement may have been too much for some countries at first, as it took a while for many countries to be in agreement with the terms of the Geneva Protocol.

The Importance of the “Lost Generation” to the Geneva Protocol

The Lost Generation is the youth that had to fight in World War I. The way of life of the Lost Generation was completely altered after World War I, and this can be seen through the writings and ideas that began to gain traction among the new generation. One example of this among the Lost Generation is the interest that they took in the writings of Sigmund Freud, an author whose ideas on concepts such as the unconscious brought him to popularity to the point where he became a household name.¹⁷ There was also an increase of popularity in certain forms of psychology, one of which being behaviorism, or the study of human behavior, which claimed that humans were shells that were molded from their environment.¹⁸ The connection between a generation that was torn apart by chemical weapons in warfare and ideas of humans being formed by their environment is very sound, though these ideas were unpopular among the older generations. Lastly, the acceptance of science by this generation was at an all-time high, with Einstein’s theory of relativity being published and positively received, even though it was a reality-changing theory that would reshape the way humans looked at the world around them.¹⁹ This new “Lost Generation” was very interested in ideas that were seen as troubling to previous generations due to the horrific circumstances that World War I brought about.

Not only was the Lost Generation more interested in sciences and psychology more than any generation before them, but they were also very vocal against the implementation of chemical weapons in war. Both those from the Lost Generation and those from other generations gave their thoughts on chemical weapons in warfare during the previously mentioned Washington Conference, which was a big motivator for the creation of the Geneva Protocol. The people also reacted very positively to announcements on the creation of the Geneva Protocol, with multiple newspaper issues being published with articles stressing the importance of the Geneva Protocol and giving updates on the countries that wanted to sign it.²¹ While the lack of proper implementation of the Geneva Protocol itself makes gathering reactions from people hard, it can be assumed that the those affected by the chemical weapons of World War I would have reacted positively, had the Geneva Protocol been put into action, it would have definitely been received positively.

Significance

The Geneva Protocol served not only as the first attempt at implementing a ban on weapons of war but also served as one of the first forms of international law. The Geneva Protocol represents the initial response to the shock that World War I brought to the world, and even though the Geneva Protocol did not hold up, it acted as a steppingstone to future implementations of international law. The Geneva Protocol also contains many declarations hidden in the lines of its many articles that justify its standing as one of the earliest attempts at international law. While the Geneva Protocol acted as a treaty to ban the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, and bacteriological gases, it also contained many restrictions on those who signed that resemble modern forms of international governing systems such as the United Nations (UN). Ideas such as having a council to deal with conflicts being written into a treaty on the banning of chemical weapons in war is very interesting, as it is a form of international law that was, and still is, ahead of its time. While these ideas were ahead of their time, they would have proved to be unsustainable if there was any attempt to implement the Geneva Protocol, especially during World War II.

               The existence of the Geneva Protocol itself stands as a signifier of just how much the times had changed from the previous century, as the concept of something like the Geneva Protocol would have been very fringe in the late 19^th century, and non-existent at any time before that. The change from weapons that were meant to kill, to weapons that were meant to efficiently incapacitate and kill soldiers in the most painful way imaginable was one that the entire world was not ready for. While the finer details of the Geneva Protocol may have seemed extreme for a treaty meant to ban chemical weapons, it was an attempt by international law to ensure a better future for the next generation.

Timeline

Bibliography

Footnotes

1. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare: A Legal and Political Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 430. ︎
2. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2. ︎
3. “Gas Warfare.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 3828 (1934): p. 903 ︎
4. “Types of Gas Masks Used by the Various Armies During the World War.” Bulletin of the United States Chemical Warfare Association, April 15, 1925, No. 10. ︎
5. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 428 ︎
6. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 429 ︎
7. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 456, 465 ︎
8. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2 ︎
9. Ewing, Harris &. “[The Conference on Limitation of Armaments, Washington, D.C.].” Library of Congress, January 1, 1970. ︎
10. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
11. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
12. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
13. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 18 ︎
14. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 19 ︎
15. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 13 ︎
16. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎
17. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
18. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
19. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 147 ︎
20. Martin, William. “Geneva Protocol Success Declared in Hands of U.S.” The Evening Star. March 10, 1928. ︎
21. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

While researching the Tulsa Race Massacre, I learned about other terrible hate crimes like the Rosewood Massacre in Florida. Like the Tulsa Massacre, the death toll remains highly disputed with the official count being 27, but some estimates being as high as 150. I had no idea about this incident, I only knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre, because of the crazy fact that American planes dropped bombs on America. Lynchings were also very common in this era as well as other notable events like the Harlem riots. In Ireland, the English government tried setting up a puppet government, and by successfully installing them, rekindled hostilities. The puppet Provisional Government enacted England’s will more or less with the illusion of autonomy. Infighting occurred among countrymen and it wasn’t limited to IRA against the Provisional Government, but there was infighting in the IRA as well. Across the English Channel, Germany was trying to rebuild their society, economy, and culture. War reparations bled out the German treasury after they had to shovel over 132 gold marks (around 33 Billion in current USD) France, those who were being paid the reparations desperately needed them. The four-year war was fought heavily inside of Frances’s border, crippling its economy, and agricultural and industrial productions. Manpower all over Europe was hampered so badly, plus the ongoing Avian flu, the generation of men and women who were alive in that era, was dubbed “The Lost Generation.”

It wasn’t all negative, there were advancements in technology and day-to-day life was improved. Affordable cars become more commonplace in America thanks to Ford. Washing machines, radios, and refrigerators also entered American households all in one decade. The quality of life was becoming more convenient as each year passed. As mentioned in Casey’s article about Delta, airlines became a new method of transportation. Consumerism graced the American market, which isn’t a shock given the era known as “The Roaring Twenties”;  it is definitely interesting to see how new amenities and commodities made people’s lives much easier.

In conclusion, I left this course with way more knowledge of the period than expected. I always was uninterested in 1920s history, but I feel as if that’s because the subject matters weren’t bought up in an entertaining manner. Given the general autonomy of the course and how much of the learning was independent, I was able to learn about subjects I didn’t imagine I would be able to cover.

jbennis

Joe is a Sophomore at Ramapo and a Global Communications major enrolled in Discovering Digital History.

Overview 

Marie Coleman is a lecturer in history and a professor of twentieth century Irish history at Queen’s University Belfast. She has written multiple books and journal articles related to the Irish Revolution which is her research interest. Coleman splits County Longford and the Irish Revolution, 1910-1923 (2006) into two parts: politics and war. In addition to her examination of politics and war during the Irish Revolution, she includes related abbreviations, an introduction and primary sources. 

Summary 

Coleman’s monograph explores two ideas. The first thesis explains the significance of Irish Republican Army activity in Longford. The second contest she puts forth is an exploration of the actions of the Irish Republican Army by analyzing its members and the members of its women’s auxiliary. 

Coleman focuses on the Irish Revolution on a regional level during the period of 1910-1923. She focuses on County Longford, Ireland. During the early twenties until 1923, County Longford experienced heavy activity related to the revolution. Coleman recounts these events in a timeline. 

In part one, Coleman evaluates the political activities in County Longford. Her chapters cover: the decline of the home rule movement, the South Langford by-election of 1917, Sinn Féin and the Irish Volunteers, and the Republican administration. She asserts that County Longford is among the most important areas of the Irish Revolution. By 1920, Sinn Féinn, the republican and democratic socialist party, nullified British administration in Ireland by taking control of the local government and justice system. The Sinn Féinn overtaking had been made possible by the Irish Republican Army’s guerilla campaign in 1919-1921. 

In part two of her book, Coleman analyzes the violence in County Longford. She covers the War of Independence (1919-1921), the men who comprised the IRA, and the women and their role in the Cumann na mBan.

 This violence is associated with the IRA and its women’s auxiliary, Cumann na mBan. In the period of 1917-1923, County Longford consistently experienced the most violence in the Leinster province. In 1920-191, County Longford was second in violence level in Cork County. 

Coleman creates a timeline of crucial events in Longford, many of which occurred in the early years of the 1920s. These events include political and military (IRA and guerrilla) campaigns, the violence of Longford compared with other areas of Ireland

Historiography 

Coleman contests that Longford is an important theater of the revolution. Another regional analysis of an Irish county was published in David Fitzpatrick’s Politics and Irish Life (1977). Additionally, in other monographs, there was a focus other regions, such as the Munster region, and not a focus on County Longford. 

Coleman, similar to other contemporary authors, writes about women. Lynn Dumenil, author of “The New Woman and the Politics of the 1920s” ( 2007) and Kathleen Blee’s Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s (2008) both look at women in history. This shows an increase in the discussion related to women’s contributions in history.

Coleman offers a clear historical account of the Irish Revolution to readers who have little understanding of the war. Ireland was one of the many countries who experienced political and civil unrest after World War I. Coleman offers a look into the after effects of World War I and a specific case of political and civil unrest. 

Bibliography

Coleman, Marie. County Longford and the Irish Revolution, 1910-1923. Irish Academic Press, 2006.

Google Books. “County Longford and the Irish Revolution, 1910-1923.” Accessed March 14, 2023. https://books.google.com/books/about/County_Longford_and_the_Irish_Revolution.html?id=sYIiAQAAIAAJ.

Queen’s University Belfast. “Marie Coleman.” Queen’s University Belfast. Accessed March 14, 2023. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/persons/marie-coleman.

mkukan

Michelle Kukan is a spring 2023 student of Discovering Digital History at Ramapo College. She is a sophomore studying history, American studies and museum & exhibition studies. She is a volunteer for Mahwah Museum’s Veterans Project and works on the Jane Addams Paper Project.

After The Great War, now known as World War 1, the League of Nations had assembled to draft and ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Although the treaty was signed by the German government on June 28, 1919, it did not go into effect until January 10, 1920. The German government, the Weimar Republic, had asked Woodrow Wilson to draft an armistice treaty. The armistice of The Great War declared that [Germany] accepted the Fourteen Points that he had formulated and presented to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 as the basis for a just peace. ¹ While the United States and Germany accepted these terms, other nations did not believe Germany was punished harshly enough for the four years of war they had caused. The Allied Powers had demanded compensation from Germany for all of the damages to the civilian population. Wilson’s original Fourteen Points for world peace called for peace, independence of occupied nations, and a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. ² However, it did not mention any financial reparations from Germany to the Allied nations. This, and a few other added points, is where the Treaty of Versailles comes into play

The War Guilt Clause

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was known as the War Guilt Clause. In Germany, it was more popularly known as the ‘War Guilt Lie”. Article 231 was generally interpreted in Germany at the time as charging Germany with having caused the War. ³ Despite Germans calling this a lie, most of the Allied nations, and even all of the German public, just accepted it as a fact – Germany was responsible for causing The Great War. From Part VIII Reparations §1 General Provisions, Article 231 of the Treaty states The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. ⁴ With this clause, Germany unconditionally accepted all guilt for all of the damages, loss, casualties, and loss of civilian life as a result of the War, and are deemed the aggressors. On top of that, the German army began using mustard gas in 1917, which resulted in over 2,000 casualties.

Financial Reparations

Although President Wilson’s Fourteen Points was agreed on by the Allied Powers, there was a big element that was missing which they wanted to be included – financial reparations from Germany for all of the damages they caused over the last four years. When the Treaty was first drafted in 1919, it was impossible to compute the exact sum to be paid as reparations for the damage caused by the Germans, especially in France and Belgium. ⁵ In 1921, The damages were assessed at approximately 33 billion dollars; that equates to $551,542,458,100.56 in 2023. When the Treaty was written, economists around the world had deemed it unfeasible for Germany to pay this large sum of money without causing financial problems worldwide. Despite this, the Allies still insisted Germany pay this beyond massive debt. Not only did they still insist this sum of money be paid, the Allies also included in the treaty a section that allowed Germany to be further punished if they could not make their payments. Article 233 of the Treaty states how the Commission shall concurrently draw up a schedule of payments prescribing the time and manner for securing and discharging the entire obligation within a period of thirty years from May 1, 1921. If, however, within the period mentioned, Germany fails to discharge her obligations, any balance remaining unpaid may, within the discretion of the Commission, be postponed for settlement in subsequent years, or may be handled otherwise in such manner as the Allied and Associated Governments, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Part of the present Treaty, shall determine. ⁶

Reparations and its Impact on the German Economy

Due to the astronomical amount Germany had to pay, the Weimar Republic began to print more money. While it did seem like printing more money would help the country pay back their reparations faster, there’s one major problem that was not accounted for – inflation. According to Dictionary.com, inflation is “a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency”. This is exactly what the Weimar Republic, Germany’s post-war government, was doing. The more German Marks were printed, the less they were worth. In a 1920 newspaper article by the Omaha Daily Bee, the author wrote how the Germans probably will have to work four times as hard, however, to meet this cost ⁷ In 1923, Germany reached the apex of the hyperinflation of its currency. With the amount of money that was printed, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper⁸

Significance of the Treaty

The Treaty of Versailles had a very negative impact on both German morale, as well as the country’s economic stance. With inflation causing the German Mark to be essentially worthless, people were literally burning money to heat their homes, using it as wallpaper, and although the country functioned again, the savings were never restored, nor were the values of hard work and decency that had accompanied the savings. ⁹ After the Mark had peaked its inflation rate, a new leader of the Reichsbank, Horace Greely Hjalmar Schacht, had taken over and introduced a new form of currency – the new Rentenmark, which had the value of one billion traditional German Marks. With this new glimpse of prosperity came a new political party in the country. The Nazi Party had promised change in favor of the German public. After a failed coup in 1923, they won 32 seats in the next government election. Along with the Nazi Party, the German Nationalist party won 106 seats in that same election with similar promises as the Nazis; 100 percent compensation to the victims of inflation and vengeance on the conspirators who had brought it. ¹⁰ In a way, the Treaty of Versailles could be seen as one of the factors that lead to the start of World War II, as Adolf Hitler used the extremely harsh punishment of Germany for World War I, and the state it left the country in, to start another war, and gain back everything they had been stripped of in the Treaty.

Citations

“American Trade With Germany Is Unchanged As Yet.” The World-News, 1 Jan. 1920.

Hacken, Richard, and Jane Plotke, eds. “Peace Treaty of Versailles, Articles 231-247 and Annexes, Reparations.” Brigham Young University, November 11, 1998. https://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versa/versa7.html.

Rosewater, Victor, editor. “Why The German Mark Has Fallen.” Omaha Daily Bee, 1 Jan. 1920.

Smith, Adam. “Commanding Heights : The German Hyperinflation, 1923 | on PBS.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service. Accessed February 22, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html#:~:text=In%201923%2C%20at%20the%20most,surprise%20by%20the%20financial%20tornado.

Temperley, Harold. “‘WAR GUILT’ IN THE PEACE TREATY.” History 17, no. 67 (1932): 231–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24400824.

“Treaty of Versailles.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., January 6, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Versailles-1919.

Wilson, Woodrow. “President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918).” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, February 8, 2022. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points.

Woodrow Wilson. 1918. Pencil shorthand draft of ‘The Fourteen Points’ Address. https://library-artstor-org.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/asset/LOCEON_1039801439.

Jacob Gonzalez

Jacob is a Communication Arts student at Ramapo College. Although creating custom merchandise and promotional products is his passion, he has a soft spot for discovering interesting and obscure history.

jgonzalezdesigns.myportfolio.com

Many new nations were created after World War I due to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires. These new nations were faced with many problems. The economic situation in many of these countries were not good due to them not being used to having their own economies, formally being a part of a larger empire. Many of these countries would constantly be changing governments due to revolutions and counter-revolutions. The existence of many of these new nations, particularly ones in Central and Eastern Europe, came under threat as new, powerful, tyrannical governments got their start in the 1920s.

World War I had not treated the “victors” well either. These countries found themselves in bad economic standing due to the war and were faced with political upheaval. Italy was a country that was faring particularly badly, and this meant that people were willing to take action in an attempt to fix what was wrong with the country. This is what Mussolini and the fascist party did when they took over Italy in 1922. If the victors were faring badly, then the losers of World War I were doing even worse. Germany was in shambles following the war. Every issue that the other countries had, Germany had as well, only worse. Once again, this inspired radical groups to take action. Hitler and the Nazis attempted to take over in 1923. While this failed, it showed the fragility of Germany at time, and the situation in Germany would not improve.

World War I changed the world forever. Just because the war ended did not mean that people felt that it was over. Many radical political groups of the 1920s were made up of World War I veterans, who felt that their government had betrayed them. Communism and Fascism started to creep into the governments of many countries, with many countries panicking to prevent these ideologies from taking over. Other countries would easily fall to these ideologies, and they would often stay in power for the next few decades. Rivalries and tensions between countries still existed, and some got worse during the 1920s. Often, the only thing preventing countries from going to war was the very recent and painful memory of World War I, but sometimes even that was not enough.

While large scale political maneuvers and conflicts became more common in the 1930s, it got its start in the 1920s. Nearly every major event in the 1930s can trace its roots back to the 1920s. The 1920s might not be as grand as some other decades in the 20th century, it is nevertheless extremely important. The 1920s demonstrate the legacy of World War I, one of failure. World War I failed to achieve or end anything. All it did was set the stage for a new conflict 20 years later, one that would prove to be far more destructive and deadly.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Otherwise known as Annex VIII, part of the Treaty of Lausanne which ended the Greco-Turkish War, the Declaration of Amnesty addresses the atrocities committed by both sides during the war. The Armenian genocide was still ongoing during the war, and the Greeks enacted a scorched-earth policy on Turkish settlements at the end of the war. The more conservative estimates of the number of dead are in the hundreds of thousands, but it is more commonly believed that millions were killed. However, it would be more accurate to say that the annex lacks any addressment of the atrocities such as the Armenian genocide. Instead, the annex states that no one will be criminally charged for any acts that occurred during this time, on both the Greek and Turkish sides. This is a rather eye-opening document and shows off a trend that will continue of countries covering up their more despicable acts. This document is still relevant today, as Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide to this day and President Biden just recently formally recognized the Armenian genocide.

Document Text

The Powers signatory of the Treaty of Peace signed this day being equally desirous to cause the events which have troubled the peace in the East to be forgotten¹,

The Under-signed, acting in virtue of their full powers, have agreed to make the following Declaration:

I

No person who inhabits or who has inhabited Turkey, and reciprocally no person who inhabits or who has inhabited Greece², shall be disturbed or molested and reciprocally in Greece, under any pretext whatsoever, on account of any military or political action taken by him, or any assistance of any kind given by him to a foreign Power signatory of the Treaty of Peace³ signed this day or to the nationals of such Power, between the 1st August, 1914, and the 20th November, 1922.

II

Similarly no inhabitant of the territories detached from Turkey under the said Treaty of Peace shall be disturbed or molested either on account of his political or military attitude against or in favour of Turkey during the period from the 1st August, 1914⁴to the 20th November, 1922, or of the determination of his nationality under the said Treaty.

III

Full and complete amnesty shall be respectively granted by the Turkish Government and by the Greek Government for all crimes or offences committed during the same period which were evidently connected with the political events which have taken place during that period.

IV

Turkish nationals, and reciprocally nationals of the other Powers signatory of the Treaty of Peace signed this day who may have been arrested, prosecuted or sentenced by the authorities of the said Powers or by the Turkish authorities respectively, for reasons of a political or military nature previous to the 20th November, 1922, on territory which remains Turkish in accordance with the said Treaty of Peace, shall benefit from the amnesty, and, if they are detained, shall be handed over to the authorities of the States of which they are the nationals. This stipulation is similarly applicable to Turkish nationals arrested, prosecuted or sentenced by the authorities of the Powers who have occupied a portion of the above mentioned territory even for a transgression of the ordinary law committed before that date⁵, and even if they have been removed from Turkey, excepting those who have committed, against a person belonging to the armies of occupation, an assault which has entailed death or a grievous wound⁶.

V

All sentences pronounced for the above reasons shall be annulled, and any proceedings already instituted shall be stayed.

VI

The Turkish Government, sharing the desire for general pacification with which all the Powers are animated, declare their intent in not to contest the measures carried out under the auspices of the Allied Powers during the period between the 20th October, 1918, and the 20th November, 1922⁷, with the object of re-establishing families scattered owing to the war and or replacing legitimate proprietors in possession of their goods.

However, this intention does not exclude the possibility of any revision of the above-mentioned measures in the event of a request to that effect being made by the interested parties. Claims respecting persons and goods shall be examined by a Commission composed of a delegate of the Red Crescent and a delegate of the Red Cross. In the event of a dispute, these delegates will choose an umpire, if they are unable to agree as to such choice the umpire will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

VII

The British, French, and Italian Governments, acknowledging the importance of the measure of pacification which forms the subject of Article 5 of the Agreement concluded on the 30th January, 1923⁸between the Greek Government and the Turkish Government relating to the return of interned civilians and to the exchange of prisoners of war, declare that they are prepared to adopt, subject to reciprocity on the part of the Turkish Government, the same measures for the benefit of such Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians as may still be in their hands, with the exception of those who may have committed crimes and offences against the ordinary law since the 20th November, 1922⁹.

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923.

Horace Rumbold

Pellé

Garroni

G.C.Montagna

K.Otchiai

E.K.Veniselos

D.Caclamanos

Const.Diamandy

Const.Contzesco

………………..

M.Ismet

Dr.Ryza Nour

Hassan

Protocol

It is understood that, in spite of the terms of paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Declaration, the Turkish Government reserves to itself the right to prohibit sojourn in and access to Turkey to 150 persons included in the category of persons referred to in the said paragraph. Consequently, the Turkish Government will be entitled to expel from its territory such of the persons in question as may be there at the present time and to prohibit such as are abroad from returning. The names of these persons shall be annexed to the Amnesty Proclamation which, on the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace signed this day, shall be promulgated by the said Government in order to give effect, in so far as that Government is concerned, to the above-mentioned declaration. It is further understood that, in the event of the Turkish Government deciding, as it has expressed the intention, that the said persons must liquidate their property and other goods in Turkey, they shall be granted a period of nine months as from the date of the above-mentioned proclamation to effect this liquidation of their own accord, and in the event of liquidation by the Turkish Government after the expiry of this period the whole of the proceeds shall be paid to the said persons.

It is similarly understood that paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Declaration in no way affects the right of the Greek Government to prosecute non-Moslem Greek subjects belonging or having belonged to its army for acts which constituted failure in respect of their military duties during the hostilities between Greece and Turkey¹⁰.

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923.

Horaca Rumbold

Pellé

Garroni

………..

K.Otchaiai

E.K.Veniselos

D.Caclamanos

Const.Diamandy

Const.Contzesco

……………

M.Ismet

Dr.Ryza Nour

Hassan

Source

“VIII. Declaration of Amnesty”. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/viii_-declaration-of-amnesty.en.mfa.

More Resources

Full Treaty of Lausanne, World War I Document Archive.

Armenian Genocide, Armenian National Institute.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

This book demonstrates a change in how historians were viewing post World War I Europe. Many historians had a view that at the end of World War I, a light switch was flicked and now all the countries were different due to the Treaty of Versailles and no real significant change occurred until Hitler took power. Maier challenges this view, arguing that not only was change in the 1920s more gradual, but it was a continuation of trends occurring before and during World War I. The impact that the 1920s had on the coming decades was not considered much by historians. Maier once again challenges this view, not only arguing for the impact the 1920s had on the build up to World War II, but also beyond, with his claims that corporatism was the foundation for modern capitalism. Over time, Maier’s view of the 1920s would become more accepted, with historians beginning to understand the true importance of the decade.

Recasting Bourgeois Europe provides to the reader the context of the post World War I era. While the subject matter Maier is discussing in this book is not as flashy as say the fascist takeover of Italy, it is nevertheless just as important. It is important because it is giving the context for that event. By understanding the changing economies and government policies of these nations during this time, it becomes easier to understand why right-wing radicals were dissatisfied with the current situation and felt the need to take action. Context is always important in history. There’s no point in memorizing names and dates if one does not understand the greater context of those names and dates, why they are significant, and how they became significant. That is what Maier achieved with this book.

Bibliography

Jacobson, Jon. “Is There a New International History of the 1920s?” The American Historical Review 88, no. 3 (June 1983): 617-645.

Maier, Charles S.. Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade After World War I. Germany: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Background

Adolf Hitler was a German soldier during World War I. After the war, he remained in the army. In he 1919 was ordered to infiltrate a radical right-wing group known as the German Worker’s Party (DAP). However, Hitler liked what he was hearing from these people so much that he left the army and joined them. By 1921, Hitler would become the leader of the party, which was now known as the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP), which was soon simplified to the Nazis¹. The Weimar Republic, the German government during this time, was very unstable. Many radical groups were vying for power, including the NSDAP, various other nationalist groups, and communists. The nationalists were often made up of young men who felt that the older generation had betrayed Germany during the war. They wanted some chance to take action to “save” Germany from the weak Weimar government². Hitler would soon give these men that very chance.

One of the most important factors motivating the Putsch was the state of the German economy at the time. Massive unemployment, reduced trade with foreign countries, and war debts were primary causes of the downfall of the German economy³. Massive inflation ensued. By the fall of 1923, the mark, the German currency, was almost worthless. An American dollar was worth over 2 million marks. These circumstances caused many Germans to lose faith in the government, and they felt that it was up to them to change things.

The Putsch

In October 1923, Hitler and his officials, inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome in the previous year, planned out a similar event. They planned to march on the Bürgerbräukeller, a beer hall in the city of Munich, the capitol of the region of Bavaria. Prominent members of the Bavarian government planned to be at the beer hall on November 8 holding an event. The Nazis would march into the hall, take those leaders hostage and force them to support a Nazi government. There was a particular interest in persuading Gustav von Kahr, the State Commissioner of Bavaria, as well as Otto von Lossow and Hans Ritter von Seisser, who collectively were known as the “triumvirate” to join them. Then they would use Munich and Bavaria as a base to take over the rest of Germany.

On the evening of November 8, Hitler and a couple hundred of his SA “brown shirts”, the equivalent of Mussolini’s black shirts, which included a few individuals would later become prominent members of the Nazi government, such as Rudolf Hess and Hermann Göring, surrounded the beer hall. Hitler entered the auditorium of the hall and fired and shot from a pistol into the ceiling, proclaiming his new government⁴. He then held Kahr, Lossow and Seisser at gunpoint and demanded that they support his new government. They initially refused to give in to any of Hitler’s demands. Despite being fairly radical far-right politicians, they had their own plans for the future of Germany, ones that did not involve Hitler. However the triumvirate would soon give in. After this, the Nazis allowed them to leave the beer hall, a strange decision that would prove to be a mistake⁵.

While the events in the beer hall were taking place, SA troops were active throughout the city. They attempted to take police, army and government installations, but would mostly fail. Often the SA troops were unwilling to commit to violence, and would give up trying to take a location if it was clear the occupants would resist. As an example, when army cadets who supported the putsch attempted to take the General State Commissariat building, the police met them. Both sides were armed with loaded and bayonetted rifles. The cadets did not initiate any violence and withdrew⁶. Despite these setbacks, the Nazis still felt optimistic about the whole ordeal, and perhaps relaxed their guard a bit too much.

During the night of November 8, Bavarian officials, police and the army scrambled to respond to what had transpired. They did not have enough manpower to repel the putsch. The triumvirate arrived at the General State Commissariat and began to help the police and army. While they had told Hitler that they would support him, they did not actually mean it⁷. The Vice Prime Minister of Bavaria, Franz Matt, took control of the situation and under his leadership the police and army began to organize themselves for a counterattack.

By the morning of November 9, the Nazis had not achieved much. The had seized control of neither Munich nor the Bavarian government. They also learned that the triumvirate were not actually going to support them. The Nazis then marched out of the beer hall some 2,000 strong ,although at this point they lacked any sort of true objective or purpose⁸. They were confronted by police and army in the city square, who were ready for them. The two sides clashed, resulting in the Nazis being defeated. Although the fighting only lasted for a few minutes, four police officers and sixteen Nazis were killed⁹. It is unkown who fired the first shot due to conflicting reports and testimonies. After this defeat, Hitler realized that the putsch had failed so he and the other Nazi leaders fled the city. The police caught up with Hitler two days later and arrested him.

Aftermath

Hitler was arrested and put on trail for treason. Hitler used his trail as a way to spread his name and message across Germany and was able to garner up some sympathy for what he had done. Still, Hitler was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. However, Hitler would only serve eight months and would get out on good behavior. During those eight months, Hitler wrote his infamous book Mein Kampf. Hitler would leave prison a far more popular figure than when he entered.

Timeline link: https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1ZcVFtMUSAVj9xDuc8zPIJhLEeTiN7w-zCo8IuEh3S-4&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650 (embedding is not working)

Significance

The Failure

Why did the Beer Hall Putsch fail where the March on Rome succeeded? There are certainly a number of reasons. Mussolini was a far more popular figure in Italy at the time of the march than Hitler was in Germany during the time of the putsch. Mussolini had thousands of more men at his disposal. The March on Rome was the victory lap of a much larger event in Italy that saw the fascists take over practically every major Italian city. The Beer Hall Putsch was intended to be the starting point of a much larger movement. Another important factor was the willingness of the particpants to undertake in violence. In Italy, the black shirts were fully expecting and willing to fight, and did not hesitate to do so when they met resistance. In Germany, the SA and other supporters were often unwilling to fight. They gave up on taking places where the police and army refused to surrender to them. The fighting that did take place in the city square ended very quickly with the Nazis fleeing after a few minutes of gunfire. While Hitler was inspired by the March on Rome, he did not seem to understand what had made that event such a success for the fascists.

However could it really be said that the putsch failed? Hitler was relatively unknown throughout Germany before this, the putsch made Hitler known throughout all of Germany. He was able to get his message out, to let people know why he was doing this, and it would turn out that many would agree with him. On the tenth anniversary of the putsch, shortly after Hitler had become chancellor of Germany, he would say on the putsch:

“Well, we lost, but what mattered was that millions of Germans had been aroused to action and were given a new idea and a new flag around which to rally.”

Wireless to The New York Times. “Hitler Celebrates His Putsch Of 1923: Stresses To Nazi ‘Old Guard’ That Germany Is Now Prepared To Defend Honor. Explains Munich Uprising Chancellor Asserts He Had To Use Force To Win Support Of Courageous, Determined Men.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Nov 09, 1936. http://library.ramapo.edu:2048/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/historical-newspapers/hitler-celebrates-his-putsch-1923/docview/101670395/se-2?accountid=13420.

This is in all fairness a pretty accurate assessment of what happened. The Nazis would never have had become as popular as they did if the putsch did not happen. Their short-term failure breed long-term success.

Fitting into the 1920s

The Beer Hall Putsch demonstrates how events are not isolated to a single nation, especially in Europe. This event happened because the March on Rome happened. Much like the March on Rome, this happened due to the instability following World War I, and people wanting to act to change their governments. The Nazis are generally considered a World War II phenomena, and while they would not take power for another 10 years, here they are a mere five years after World War I in 1923 making substantial moves. The 1920s would continue to be shaped by unrest and violence, paving the way for the decades to come.

Citations

Bibliography

• Gordon, Harold J.. Hitler and the Beer Hall Putsch. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972.
• Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261-88. Accessed March 23, 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1429723.
• Wireless to The New York Times. “Hitler Celebrates His Putsch Of 1923: Stresses To Nazi ‘Old Guard’ That Germany Is Now Prepared To Defend Honor. Explains Munich Uprising Chancellor Asserts He Had To Use Force To Win Support Of Courageous, Determined Men.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Nov 09, 1936. http://library.ramapo.edu:2048/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/historical-newspapers/hitler-celebrates-his-putsch-1923/docview/101670395/se-2?accountid=13420.
• Featured Image: Hitler-Putsch, München, Marienplatz. November 9, 1923. Accessed February 16, 2021. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-1486,_Hitler-Putsch,_M%C3%BCnchen,_Marienplatz.jpg

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.