Return of the evil empire and a nation on the brink of civil war: America and Europe look on in fear as violence grips Ukraine
At least 27 people are dead — one of them was decapitated — and hundreds are injured. One man was shot through the eye as police snipers apparently targeted the heads and chests of protesters from city rooftops.
On the ground, heavily armed riot police brandished Kalashnikovs and launched stun grenades against pro-democracy demonstrators who had taken up arms, anything from bricks and bottles to pistols and shotguns.
And all the time, flames soared into the sky from the city’s central square.
What has been happening in Kiev, capital of Ukraine, before the truce late last night could not be further removed from the harmonious atmosphere of the Winter Olympics at Sochi — the most expensive Games in history — in which Russia’s President Putin is basking.
Russia, officially known as the Russian Empire, was a state that existed from 1721 until it was overthrown by the short-lived February Revolution in 1917.[5] One of the largest empires in world history, stretching over three continents, the Russian Empire was surpassed in landmass only by the British and Mongol empires. The rise of the Russian Empire happened in association with the decline of neighboring rival powers: the Swedish Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Persia and the Ottoman Empire. It played a major role in 1812–14 in defeating Napoleon's ambitions to control Europe, and expanded to the west and south.
The House of Romanov ruled the Russian Empire from 1721 until 1762, and its German-descended cadet branch, the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, ruled from 1762.
The ethnic tensions that threaten to tear Ukraine apart
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire extended from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Black Sea in the south, from the Baltic Sea on the west to the Pacific Ocean, and (until 1867) into Alaska in North America on the east.[6] With 125.6 million subjects registered by the 1897 census, it had the third-largest population in the world at the time, after Qing China and India. Like all empires, it included a large disparity in terms of economics, ethnicity, and religion. There were numerous dissident elements, who launched numerous rebellions and assassination attempts; they were closely watched by the secret police, with thousands exiled to Siberia.
Economically, the empire had a predominately agricultural base, with low productivity on large estates worked by serfs (until they were freed in 1861). The economy slowly industrialized with the help of foreign investments in railways and factories. The land was ruled by a nobility (the boyars) from the 10th through the 17th centuries, and subsequently by an emperor. Tsar Ivan III (1462–1505) laid the groundwork for the empire that later emerged. He tripled the territory of his state, ended the dominance of the Golden Horde, renovated the Moscow Kremlin, and laid the foundations of the Russian state. Tsar Peter the Great (1682–1725) fought numerous wars and expanded an already huge empire into a major European power. He moved the capital from Moscow to the new model city of St. Petersburg, and led a cultural revolution that replaced some of the traditionalist and medieval social and political mores with a modern, scientific, Europe-oriented, and rationalist system.
Carnage: Independence Square during on-going anti-government protests in downtown Kiev. It has been reported that an uneasy truce has finally been reached
Much of Russia's expansion occurred in the 17th century, culminating in the first Russian colonisation of the Pacific in the mid-17th century, the Russo-Polish War (1654–67) that incorporated left-bank Ukraine, and the Russian conquest of Siberia. Poland was divided in the 1790-1815 era, with much of the land and population going to Russia. Most of the 19th century growth came from adding territory in Asia, south of Siberia
Smoke rises above Independence Square during anti-government protests in central Kiev in the early hours of yesterday morning
Yet both events have been masterminded by the sinister former KGB officer who is intent on re-establishing the ‘glory’ of the Soviet empire in all but name.
The Games, for which the total bill is expected to reach £31 billion, Putin sees as a gigantic showpiece for his repressive regime, a shameless and extraordinarily expensive publicity stunt to burnish his country’s international reputation.Share
The violence in Kiev, on the other hand, reflected the brutal reality of Putin’s attempt to build up his new empire by effectively forcing Ukraine to join it against the wishes of millions of its people.
This, after all, is the man who described the end of the Soviet Union as the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century’.
But as the flames and smoke billowed from the square, as Europe and America looked on with apprehension and involved themselves in drastic behind-the-scenes diplomacy, the stakes could not have been higher.
Ukraine is historically a deeply divided country — pro-Russian in the east and pro-Europe in the west. And despite the truce, there are fears it could still drift into a bloody civil war as the protesters continue to voice their support for their charismatic leader, former international boxer Vitali Klitschko.
Ring of steel: Police form a barrier in Independence Square. After weeks of calm, violence once again flared between anti-government protesters and police
Pitched battle: Berkut riot police throw stones at anti-government protesters, who threw rocks in retaliation
Open fire: Police fired rubber bullets at the assembled mass of protestors
The disturbances started last November when the country’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovich abruptly spurned what seemed an almost done trade deal with the EU, which would have given the country far closer ties with Europe and might eventually have paved the way towards EU membership.
The deal would have given Ukraine access to Western Europe’s vast market of more than 500 million people and helped modernise what is a relatively backward and predominantly agricultural country.
Huge numbers of Ukrainians welcomed the idea. Those in the west of the country, many of whose families had historically been under Polish, Austro-Hungarian or German rule, were desperate to take advantage of the chances offered by the European Union.
They had seen, for example, how Poland had prospered in the lead-up to joining the EU in 2004.
Back in 1990, the two countries had the same GDP per capita of population. Today, Poland’s GDP is three times greater than Ukraine’s. But if Ukraine allied itself to Western Europe, Putin’s idea of a revived Soviet empire would be in tatters, given the country’s importance to that empire.
So he leaned on his stooge of a president, Viktor Yanukovich, whose dynasty is notoriously corrupt and whose power base is in the east of the country, which is pro-Russian.
A man who was injured during clashes between anti-government protesters and riot police receives medical treatment inside St Michael's Cathedral) in Kiev
People sleep inside St Michael's Cathedral, which serves as a temporary shelter and a first-aid post for anti-government protesters
Bloodied, yet undbowed: A wounded anti-government protester is evacuated during the violence
Putin used offers of cash to make Yanukovich change his mind about signing up to the plan — along with bullying and blackmail.
Ukrainians who were used to driving into Russia without hassle, for example, found their cars were subject to draconian customs checks.
The world-renowned Ukrainian chocolate manufacturer Roshen, whose boss supported the deal with the EU, found that its products, all carefully tailored to Russian tastes, were no longer allowed into Russia ahead of national celebrations.
The Russian natural gas giant Gazprom, which provides Ukraine with 35 per cent of its gas, demanded advance payment for supplies, threatening to cut them off if these payments were not met.
After this Putin switched to bribes. Suddenly, he offered to slash the price Ukraine pays for natural gas and to buy £9.2 billion of Ukrainian government bonds, effectively giving Kiev a massive and ludicrously cheap loan.
The offer was, of course, subject to Ukraine’s president rejecting any advances from the EU.
So why is Putin so obsessed by Ukraine?
Like many Russians, Putin sees this divided nation as integral to Russia’s history. Many say it was, in fact, the first true state of Russia, created in the ninth century.
A protestor wielding a club crouches next to a blaze. The death toll has risen to 27
Molotov cocktails stand ready as protesters prepare their camp for another onslaught
Russian leader Vladimir Putin strongly denied accusations he was acting as Yanukovych's puppet master
Violent confrontation: Protesters positioned amongst burning debris throw cobblestones as they clash with the police
Massed ranks: Ukrainian riot police stand in front of a ring of fire around Independence Square
Makeshift: A protester makes a barbed wire entanglement in front of a fire at Independence Square
So far the only countries that have signed up to this union are two nasty dictatorships, Belarus and Kazakhstan. That is why he is so keen on forcing Ukraine to join.
Not only is it a vast country, stretching from Russia to Poland with a population of nearly 45 million.
It is also essential to Putin’s plans to massively boost the Russian defence budget in coming years, to 20 per cent of federal government spending by 2020 (against just 3 per cent on health or education).
To achieve that, he needs to reassemble the old Soviet-scale defence sector, and Ukraine’s heavy engineering capacity and naval dockyards.
Mr Putin believes that what has been happening in central Kiev 23 years after the dismantling of the Iron Curtain presents a threat to his dreams of a Russian revival.
A pro-EU Ukrainian opposition rebel with a gun takes an aim in the the seized regional Interior Ministry department in the west-Ukrainian city of Lviv early on Wednesday
Take-over: Anti-government protesters clash with the authorities as they storm the main Police City Office in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv
He still cannot shake off his paranoid Cold War thinking that Western powers are deliberately provoking discontent, and all street protest must be crushed.
Putin has stated that the U.S. and EU had been encouraging and even coaching the Ukrainian opposition for this turbulent moment.
For proof of U.S. involvement, Russian intelligence agents have publicised a robust mobile phone conversation they intercepted between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her ambassador in Kiev discussing Ukraine’s opposition politicians as potential leaders.
Whatever happens following the truce, we should be clear this is part of a vast geopolitical power-play between the U.S. and EU and a Russian leader who will stop at nothing to keep Ukraine under his control.
Those 27 deaths are terrible. But given the combination of Putin’s obduracy, a feeble stooge of a Ukrainian president, and the deep divisions in the country, they could yet be the start of something far more calamitous.
Injured: Anti-government protesters left covered in blood after clashing with police
Terrified: An anti-government protester is engulfed in flames while running from the scene in Kiev's Independence Square
The Monroe Doctrine proclaimed an American sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, but the American empire was never limited to that sphere.
In 1854, the United States deployed the Marines to China and Japan, where they imposed our first treaty ports. Somewhat like Guantánamo, these were places in foreign countries where our law, not theirs, prevailed, whether they liked it or not. Also in 1854, U.S. gunboats began to sail up and down the Yangtze River (the jugular vein of China), a practice that ended only in 1941, when Japan as well as China went after us.
The U.S. occupation of the Philippine Islands came about as a result of military operations against the Spanish Empire during the Spanish-American war of 1898-99. The seizure of the Philippines by the United States, however, was not unplanned. American eyes had been set on the Philippines since before the outbreak of war. To many prominent Americans, establishing a colony in the Philippines was a logical extension of the nation's "manifest destiny" to play a leading role on the world stage. An expanded American presence in Asia was also thought to have significant commercial advantages for the nation, since American companies could then participate directly in large Asian markets.
For all the alleged advantages to possessing the Philippines, no thought was given to whether or not native Filipinos would welcome American as opposed to Spanish rule. The Filipinos were of course never informed of American intentions to stay in the Philippines. This turned out to be a serious error. By 1898 Filipinos had already shed a considerable amount of blood since rising up in 1896 to free themselves from Spanish domination. They would not take kindly to a change in colonial administration from Spain to the United States.
The First Philippine Republic and the End of Spanish Rule
On May 1, 1898, an American fleet under Dewey sailed into Manila harbor and quickly destroyed a small force of Spanish ships anchored there. Plans for Dewey to commence offensive operations against the Spanish in the Philippines had originated several months before, in February, when Assistant Secretary for the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, had cabled Dewey to say "Your duty will be to see that the Spanish squadron does not leave the Asiatic coast ... start offensive operations in Philippine Islands."[1]
Because a considerable number of Spanish troops remained stationed throughout the Philippines, including a large force in Manila itself, American diplomats urged resistance leader Emilio Aguinaldo to return to the Philippines from exile in Hong Kong. Before journeying to his homeland, Aguinaldo, who was overjoyed at the American declaration of war on Spain, cabled resistance members the following message, which clearly expresses his belief that the Americans had come to liberate his people:
"Divine Providence is about to place independence within our reach. The Americans, not from mercenary motives, but for the sake of humanity and the lamentations of so many persecuted people have considered it opportune to extend their protecting mantle to our beloved country. ... At the present moment an American squadron is preparing to sail to thePhilippines. The Americans will attack by sea and prevent any re-enforcements coming from Spain. ... We insurgents must attack by land. ... There where you see the American flag flying, assemble in number; they are our redeemers!"[2]
Aguinaldo sent another message several days later expressing the same confidence in American altruism:
"Filipinos, the great nation, North America, cradle of liberty and friendly on that account to the liberty of our people ... has come to manifest a protection ... which is disinterested towards us, considering us with sufficient civilization to govern by ourselves this our unhappy land."[3]
Energized by the seemingly fortunate turn of events, the Filipinos immediately went on the offensive. Within weeks Aguinaldo's insurgents had pushed the Spanish back to Manila. Fighting would continue for another two months, until American forces arrived in enough numbers to complete the defeat of Spanish troops holed up in Manila. Aguinaldo and his men were ecstatic with their victory and on June 12, 1898 they proclaimed Filipino independence. The First Philippine Republic had been founded.
What the Americans Promised the Filipinos
The declaration of a Philippine Republic should not have come as a shock to the Americans. No American military commander or politician had formally promised the Filipinos independence after the end of fighting, but this is not the impression that motivated Emilio Aguinaldo and his men. Statements made by several of the participants in these events suggest that by supporting the armed resistance of Filipinos to the Spanish, the United States was de facto guaranteeing the Filipinos their independence. For example, American Consul Wildman in Hong Kong wrote at the time, "the United States undertook this war [against Spain] for the sole purpose of relieving the Cubans from the cruelties under which they were suffering and not for the love of conquests or the hope of gain. They are actuated by precisely the same feelings for the Filipinos."[4] Admiral Dewey emphasized that during the liberation of the islands the Filipinos had cooperated directly with every American request, as if they were working with an ally and not a ruler. To quote the admiral, "Up to the time the army came he (i.e. Aguinaldo) did everything I requested. He was most obedient; whatever I told him to do he did. I saw him almost daily."[5] Finally, as General T.M. Anderson, commander of U.S. forces in the Philippines, later concluded, "Whether Admiral Dewey and Consuls Pratt (of Singapore), Wildman ( Hong Kong) and Williams ( Manila) did or did not give Aguinaldo assurances that a Filipino government would be recognized, the Filipinos certainly thought so, probably inferring this from their acts rather than from their statements."[6]
American Forces Arrive
The first American soldiers under General Anderson had landed in the Philippines in June 1898 as part of an expeditionary force sent by President William McKinley to secure the archipelago for the United States. They did not participate in military operations until August 1898 when Manila was captured. The overwhelming bulk of the fighting had been carried out by the Filipinos themselves. Nevertheless, once the Spanish signaled their desire to surrender. General Anderson ordered Aguinaldo to keep his men outside of Manila while American troops marched into the city. After Manila was secured, Anderson then told Aguinaldo that his men could not enter Manila. The Filipinos were stunned by this and tensions began to rise between the Americans and Filipinos.
The Americans Double-Cross Aguinaldo
What Aguinaldo and his men had not been told was that the United States never entered the Philippines with the intention of "liberating" the native population and then withdrawing. Filipinos had done the fighting and dying. They had, in fact, liberated themselves from Spanish rule while U.S. and Spanish representatives negotiated an end to the war and the future right to territories that neither the Americans nor the Spanish controlled.
Nevertheless, President McKinley made it explicit in Washington that he did not intend to give up the Philippines once the war with Spain had been concluded: "Incidental to our tenure in the Philippines is the commercial opportunity to which American statesmanship cannot be indifferent. ... The United States cannot accept less than the cession in full right and sovereignty of the island of Luzon."[7]
McKinley later explained his motives in deciding to seize the Philippines out of a sense of Christian mission:
"One night late it came to me this way - I don’t know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them (i.e. the Philippines) back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died."[8]
The missionary zeal of President McKinley, as well as a patronizing sense of the inferiority of the Filipino people, was shared by other leading political figures. For example, Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge argued that "[God] has made us the master organizers of the world. ... That we may administer ... among savages and senile peoples."[9]
Double-Cross Complete: The Treaty of Paris
Tensions between the Aguinaldo government and the U.S. Army in the Philippines simmered between August 1898 and February 1899. There was not yet any general outbreak of violence in the islands. General Aguinaldo continued to hold out hope that the U.S. would reverse its imperialist course and would grant the independence to the Philippines that he thought American involvement in the war had promised. With the formal signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, however, it became obvious that the U.S. intended to stay. One of the treaty's provisions was that the United States purchased the Philippines from Spain for $20 million, this despite the fact that Spain no longer controlled the Philippines and the Filipinos had formed their own republican government months earlier.
President McKinley finally disabused Aguinaldo of his hopes on December 21, 1898 when he issued the so-called "Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation". This proclamation, which McKinley ordered broadcast all over the Philippines signaled once and for all that the United States had no intention of leaving. In the proclamation, McKinley stated:
"The destruction of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Manila by the United States squadron commanded by Rear-Admiral Dewey followed by the reduction of the city and the surrender of the Spanish forces practically effected the conquest of the Philippine islands and the suspension of Spanish sovereignty therein. With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the 10th instant, and as a result of the victories of American arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the Philippine islands are ceded to the United States. In the fulfillment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired and the responsible obligations thus assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands becomes immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained by the United States in the city, harbor and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible dispatch to the whole ceded territory.The authority of the United States is to be exerted for the securing of the persons and property of the people of the Islands and for the confirmation of all private rights and relations. It will be the duty of the commander of the forces of occupation to announce and proclaim in the most public manner that we come not as invaders or conquerors, but as friends, to protect the natives in their homes, in their employment, and in their personal and religious rights. All persons who, either by active aid or by honest submission, cooperate with the Government of the United States to give effect to these beneficent purposes will receive the reward of its support and protection. All others will be brought within the lawful rule we have assumed, with firmness if need be, but without severity, so far as may be possible. ... it should be the earnest and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people, and by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of the benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule."[10]
The Philippines would thus not receive the independence that they had fought so hard to achieve. Instead, it was made apparent to Aguinaldo and his followers that they had simply assisted the transition of rule in the Philippines from one foreign power to another.
War Breaks Out by Mistake: The Americans Deliberately Escalate
Hostilities in Manila between Aguinaldo's resistance fighters and American troops erupted on February 4, 1899. That day, U.S. troops were extending the American perimeter around Manila when a Filipino man who approached U.S. lines was shot by a sentry. After this open fighting between Aguinaldo's men and American soldiers began along the perimeter. According to the Military Governor, General Elwell Otis, this fighting had not been planned:
"An insurgent approaching the picket (of a Nebraska regiment) refused to halt or answer when challenged. The result was that our picket discharged his piece (killing the Filipino) when the insurgent troops near Santa Mesa opened fire on our troops there stationed. ... During the night it was confined to an exchange of fire between opposing lines for a distance of two miles. ... It is not believed that the chief insurgents wished to open hostilities at that time."[11]
Studies have since established conclusively that although the Battle of Manila was deliberately brought on by General Otis. In this context it is worth quoting from one study. According to Lichauco and Storey's, The Conquest of the Philippines,
The next day (Feb. 5) General Aguinaldo sent a member of his staff under a flag of truce to interview General Otis and to tell him that the firing of the night before had been against his orders and that he wished to stop further hostilities. To bring this about he proposed to establish a neutral zone wide enough to keep the opposing armies apart. But to this request Otis replied that the fighting having begun must go on 'to the grim end'. This refusal was followed by an attack on the Filipino forces which lasted all day and resulted in killing some three thousand natives."[12]
The battle was an initial defeat for the Filipinos, but it started a war that lasted until 1913.
The Pacification of the Philippines
At the outset of the fighting, American troops in the Philippines numbered around 40,000, but by 1902 this number had risen to 126,000. During the first phase of the war, Aguinaldo's men fought and lost a succession of formal battles against the U.S. Army. In 1900, however, Aguinaldo abandoned head-on conflicts with the Americans and resorted to the guerrilla warfare tactics that had served him and his men so well against the Spanish.
For all the talk of bringing "civilization" to the Philippines, American commanders responded to the Filipino insurgency with the utmost brutality. Over the course of the next decade, and especially in the first few years of the conflict, it became commonplace for entire villages to be burned and whole populations to be imprisoned in concentration camps. No mercy was accorded to Filipino prisoner, a large number of whom were shot. This certainly was not in keeping with the spirit of "benevolent assimilation" proclaimed by President McKinley.
From Liberators to Killers: American Attitudes Toward Filipinos
The attitudes of American commanders involved in pacifying the Philippines are remarkable for both their disdain for the people they had allegedly "liberated" and their willingness to resort to the most ruthless methods in suppressing resistance. For example, General J.M. Bell, wrote in December 1901:
I am now assembling in the neighborhood of 2,500 men who will be used in columns of about fifty men each. I take so large a command for the purpose of thoroughly searching each ravine, valley and mountain peak for insurgents and for food, expecting to destroy everything I find outside of towns. All able bodied men will be killed or captured. ... These people need a thrashing to teach them some good common sense; and they should have it for the good of all concerned.[13]
That same month, General Bell issued Circular Order No. 3 to all American commanders in the field:
Batangas, Dec. 9, 1901.To All Station Commanders:A general conviction, which the brigade commander shares, appears to exist, that the insurrection in this brigade continues because the greater part of the people, especially the wealthy ones, pretend to desire, but in reality do not want, peace; that, when all really want peace, we can have it promptly. Under such circumstances it is clearly indicated that a policy should be adopted that will as soon as possible make the people want peace, and want it badly.Commanding officers are urged and enjoined to use their discretion freely in adopting any or all measures of warfare authorized by this order which will contribute, in their judgment, toward enforcing the policy or accomplishing the purpose above announced. ... No person should be given credit for loyalty solely on account of his having done nothing for or against us, so far as known. Neutrality should not be tolerated. Every inhabitant of this brigade should either be an active friend or be classed as an enemy....Another dangerous class of enemies are wealthy sympathizers and contributors, who, though holding no official positions, use all their influence in support of the insurrection, and, while enjoying American protection for themselves, their families and property, secretly aid, protect, and contribute to insurgents. Chief and most important among this class of disloyal persons are native priests.The same course should be pursued with all of this class; for, to arrest anyone believed to be guilty of giving aid or assistance to the insurrection in any way or of giving food or comfort to the enemies of the government, it is not necessary to wait for sufficient evidence to lead to conviction by a court, but those strongly suspected of complicity with the insurrection may be arrested and confined as a military necessity, and may be held indefinitely as prisoners of war, in the discretion of the station commander or until the receipt of other orders from higher authority. It will frequently be found impossible to obtain any evidence against persons of influence as long as they are at liberty; but, once confined, evidence is easily obtainable."[14]
Even worse, perhaps, is the fact that the policies instituted by General Bell and other American commanders were endorsed by Secretary of War Elihu Root. In an amazing letter to the Senate dated May 7, 1902, Root argued that
"The War Department saw no reason to doubt that the policy embodied in the above-mentioned orders was at once the most effective and the most humane which could possibly be followed; and so, indeed, it has proved, guerrilla warfare in Batangas and Laguna and the adjacent regions has been ended, the authority of the United States has been asserted and acquiesced in, and the people who had been collected and protected in the camps of concentration have been permitted to return to their homes and resume their customary pursuits in peace. The War Department has not disapproved or interfered in any way with the orders giving effect to this policy; but has aided in their enforcement by directing an increase of food supply to the Philippines for the purpose of caring for the natives in the concentration camps."[15]
Like many of their officers, American troops also showed incredible callousness toward the Philippine civilian population. A man named Clarence Clowe described the situation as follows in a letter he wrote to Senator Hoar. The methods employed by American troops against civilians in an effort to find insurgent "arms and ammunition" include torture, beating, and outright killing.
At any time I am liable to be called upon to go out and bind and gag helpless prisoners, to strike them in the face, to knock them down when so bound, to bear them away from wife and children, at their very door, who are shrieking pitifully the while, or kneeling and kissing the hands of our officers, imploring mercy from those who seem not to know what it is, and then, with a crowd of soldiers, hold our helpless victim head downward in a tub of water in his own yard, or bind him hand and foot, attaching ropes to head and feet, and then lowering him into the depths of a well of water till life is well-nigh choked out, and the bitterness of a death is tasted, and our poor, gasping victims ask us for the poor boon of being finished off, in mercy to themselves.All these things have been done at one time or another by our men, generally in cases of trying to obtain information as to the location of arms and ammunition.Nor can it be said that there is any general repulsion on the part of the enlisted men to taking part in these doings. I regret to have to say that, on the contrary, the majority of soldiers take a keen delight in them, and rush with joy to the making of this latest development of a Roman holiday.[16]
Another soldier, L. F. Adams, with the Washington regiment, described what he saw after the Battle of Manila on February 4-5, 1899:
In the path of the Washington Regiment and Battery D of the Sixth Artillery there were 1,008 dead niggers, and a great many wounded. We burned all their houses. I don't know how many men, women, and children the Tennessee boys did kill. They would not take any prisoners.[17]
Similarly, Sergeant Howard McFarland of the 43rd Infantry, wrote to the Fairfield Journal of Maine:
I am now stationed in a small town in charge of twenty-five men, and have a territory of twenty miles to patrol.... At the best, this is a very rich country; and we want it. My way of getting it would be to put a regiment into a skirmish line, and blow every nigger into a nigger heaven. On Thursday, March 29, eighteen of my company killed seventy-five nigger bolo men and ten of the nigger gunners. When we find one that is not dead, we have bayonets.[18]
These methods were condoned by some back at home in the U.S., as exemplified by the statement of a Republican Congressman in 1909:
You never hear of any disturbances in Northern Luzon; and the secret of its pacification is, in my opinion, the secret of pacification of the archipelago. They never rebel in northern Luzon because there isn't anybody there to rebel. The country was marched over and cleaned in a most resolute manner. The good Lord in heaven only knows the number of Filipinos that were put under ground. Our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records; they simply swept the country, and wherever or whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him. The women and children were spared, and may now be noticed in disproportionate numbers in that part of the island.[19]
The Example of Samar: A "Howling Wilderness"
Early in the morning on September 28, 1901 the residents of the small village of Balangiga (located in the Samar Province) attacked the men of U.S. Army Company C, Ninth U.S. Infantry, who were stationed in the area. While the Americans ate breakfast, church bells in the town began to peal. This was the signal for hundreds of Filipinos armed with machetes and bolos to attack the garrison. Forty-eight U.S. soldiers, two-thirds of the garrison, were butchered, in what is called the Balangiga Massacre. Of the Filipinos who attacked, as many as 150 were killed.[20]
American troops began retaliating as soon as the next day by returning to Balangiga in force and burning the now abandoned village. General Jacob H. Smith, however, sought to punish the entire civilian population of the Samar province. Arriving in Samar himself toward the end of October, Smith charged Major Littleton Waller with responsibility for punishing the inhabitants of Samar. Smith issued Waller oral instructions concerning his duties. These were recounted as follows (see below) in Smith and Waller's court martial proceedings the following year in 1902. These proceedings, indeed attention to the entire matter of U.S. Army conduct in the Philippines, were driven by the appearance of an interview with General Smith in the Manila Times on November 4, 1901. During this interview, Smith confirmed that these had truly been his orders to Major Waller.
"'I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me,' and, further, that he wanted all persons killed who were capable of bearing arms and in actual hostilities against the United States, and did, in reply to a question by Major Waller asking for an age limit, designate the limit as ten years of age. ... General Smith did give instructions to Major Waller to 'kill and burn' and 'make Samar a howling wilderness,' and he admits that he wanted everybody killed capable of bearing arms, and that he did specify all over ten years of age, as the Samar boys of that age were equally as dangerous as their elders."[21]
Smith carried out his mission by having U.S. troops concentrate the local population into camps and towns. Areas outside of these camps and towns were designated "dead zones" in which those who were found would be considered insurgents and summarily executed. Tens of thousands of people were herded into these concentration camps. Disease was the biggest killer in the camps, although precisely how many lives were lost during Smith's pacification operations is not known. For his part, Major Waller reported that over eleven days between the end of October and the middle of November 1901 his men burned 255 dwellings and killed 39 people. Other officers under Smith's command reported similar figures. Concerning the overall number of dead, one scholar estimates that 8,344 people perished between January and April 1902.[22]
The Death Toll of American Occupation
The overall cost in human lives of American actions in the Philippines was horrific. One scholar has concluded concerning the American occupation that "In the fifteen years that followed the defeat of the Spanish in Manila Bay in 1898, more Filipinos were killed by U.S. forces than by the Spanish in 300 years of colonization. Over 1.5 million died out of a total population of 6 million."[23]
A detailed estimate of both civilian and American military dead is offered by historian John Gates, who sums up the subject as follows:
"Of some 125,000 Americans who fought in the Islands at one time or another, almost 4,000 died there. Of the non-Muslim Filipino population, which numbered approximately 6,700,000, at least 34,000 lost their lives as a direct result of the war, and as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the cholera epidemic at the war's end. The U. S. Army's death rate in the Philippine-American War (32/1000) was the equivalent of the nation having lost over 86,000 (of roughly 2,700,000 engaged) during the Vietnam war instead of approximately 58,000 who were lost in that conflict. For the Filipinos, the loss of 34,000 lives was equivalent to the United States losing over a million people from a population of roughly 250 million, and if the cholera deaths are also attributed to the war, the equivalent death toll for the United States would be over 8,000,000. This war about which one hears so little was not a minor skirmish."[24]
Yet another estimate states, "Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 with 16,000 actually counted, while civilian deaths numbered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipinos. These numbers take into account those killed by war, malnutrition, and a cholera epidemic that raged during the war."[25]
That U.S. troops slaughtered Filipino civilians out of proportion to the conventions of so-called "formal" warfare was remarked upon during the Senate investigation of the war's conduct. As one official from the War Department estimated,
"The comparative figures of killed and wounded -- nearly five killed to one wounded if we take only the official returns -- are absolutely convincing. When we examine them in detail and find the returns quoted of many killed and often no wounded, only one conclusion is possible. In no war where the usages of civilized warfare have been respected has the number of killed approached the number of wounded more nearly than these figures. The rule is generally about five wounded to one killed. What shall we say of a war where the proportions are reversed?"[26]
INVESTIGATING WAR CRIMES: THE U.S. SENATE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
The United States Senate Investigating Committee on the Philippines was convened from January 31, 1902 after word of the Army's Samar pacification campaign reached Washington via the Manila Times story of November 4, 1901. Chaired by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the committee heard testimony concerning crimes that had allegedly been committed by U.S. troops and officers in the Philippines. The policies behind the U.S. occupation were also examined.
For six months officers and political figures involved in the Philippine adventure, both pro and anti-imperialists, testified as to the brutal nature of American anti-insurgent operations. Although attempts were made to justify the amount of damage U.S. troops were doing, as well as the number of Filipino lives lost, the evidence provided by several individuals was damning.
Major Cornelius Gardener, for example, a West Point graduate and the U.S. Army's Provincial Governor of the Tayabas province in the Philippines, submitted the following evidence via letter on April 10, 1902:
"Of late by reason of the conduct of the troops, such as the extensive burning of the barrios in trying to lay waste the country so that the insurgents cannot occupy it, the torturing of natives by so-called water cure and other methods, in order to obtain information, the harsh treatment of natives generally, and the failure of inexperienced, lately appointed Lieutenants commanding posts, to distinguish between those who are friendly and those unfriendly and to treat every native as if he were, whether or no, an insurrection at heart, this favorable sentiment above referred to is being fast destroyed and a deep hatred toward us engendered.
The course now being pursued in this province and in the Provinces of Batangas, Laguna, and Samar is in my opinion sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution against us hereafter whenever a good opportunity offers. Under present conditions the political situation in this province is slowly retrograding, and the American sentiment is decreasing and we are daily making permanent enemies."[27]
The letters of American troops home to the U.S. were also introduced as evidence of war crimes. In this case, a letter written in November 1900 by one Sergeant Riley described an interrogation torture procedure used on Filipino captives:
"Arriving at Igbaras at daylight, we found everything peaceful; but it shortly developed that we were really "treading on a volcano." The Presidente (or chief), the priest, and another leading man were assembled, and put on the rack of inquiry. The presidente evaded some questions, and was soon bound and given the "water cure". This was done by throwing him on his back beneath a tank of water and running a stream into his mouth, a man kneading his stomach meanwhile to prevent his drowning. The ordeal proved a tongue-loosener, and the crafty old fellow soon begged for mercy and made full confession. ... The presidente was asked for more information, and had to take a second dose of "water cure" before he would divulge
End of a royal dynasty as Otto von Habsburg is laid to rest... with his heart buried in a crypt 85 miles away
- His body is buried in Austria, his heart interred in Hungar
- Von Habsburg was oldest son of Austro-Hungarian last ever emperor
- His death brings to a close 640 years of European history
As a tradition usually reserved for royals and religious leaders, it was certainly a fitting way to mark the end of a 640-year European dynasty.
The heart of the last heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire was buried in a Hungarian crypt yesterday - a day after a magnificent Austrian ceremony where his body was laid to rest.
Surrounded by a wreath of flowers and leaves in the colours of the Hungarian flag, a silver urn containing the heart of Otto von Habsburg, who died at the age of 98, was interred after a private mass.
It followed Saturday's pomp and ceremony where thousands of Austrians, European royalty and politicians lined Vienna's streets to pay respects as he was buried at the city's Imperial Crypt.
Pomp and ceremony: Members of the Honour Guards marched at the St Stephen Basilica, Budapest, before the interment of Otto von Habsburg's heart 50km south at the Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma
Ceremony: A guard of honour at Budapest's St Stephen Basilica stands in front of a 1916 painting of Otto von Habsburg attending his father's coronation ceremony
And it came just hours after a second funeral service at St Stephen Basilica in the Hungarian capital of Budapest, which was attended by the country's President and Prime Minister.
Von Habsburg's request to have his heart encrypted separately at the Benedictine Abbey in Pannonhalma, central Hungary, reflected the affection he held for the country - Austria's 19th century empirical partner.
His decision was a break from family tradition as many Habsburgs have their hearts kept in copper urns in Vienna's Augustiner Church, a few streets away from the imperial crypt in the Cappuchin Church.
Tribute: A guard of honour holds a picture of Otto von Habsburg (left) whose heart was interred in a silver urn (right) in the Basilica of the Pannonhalma Abbey in Hungary
The heart burial marked an end to a week of ceremonies honouring Habsburg - the son of the last Austro-Hungarian emperor and scion of the oldest noble family in Europe.
After officially renouncing all claims to the Austrian crown in 1961 it meant that Habsburg, despite having children, was the last of his family to officially be deemed royal.
President Pal Schmitt and Prime Minister Viktor Orban attended Sunday's smaller mass ceremony.
But just a day before, political leaders and European royalty, including Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, visited the Austrian capital for the funeral.
They witnessed Lederhosen-clad Tyrollean guardsmen hoisting the coffin onto their shoulders as they carried him to rest in a pomp-filled ceremony evocative of the country's past grandeur as a ruler of much of Europe.
Emotional: Otto von Habsburg's sons Georg (left) and Karl (right) carry the heart urn during the requiem at the Basilica of the Pannonhalma Abbey in Hungary
Austria-Hungary was a multinational state and one of the world's great powers at the time. Austria-Hungary was geographically the second-largest country in Europe after the Russian Empire, at 621,538 km2 (239,977 sq mi),[5] and the third-most populous (after Russia and the German Empire). The Empire built up the fourth-largest machine building industry of the world, after the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.[6] Austria-Hungary also became the world's third largest manufacturer and exporter of electric home appliances, electric industrial appliances and power generation apparatus for power plants, after the United States and the German Empire
Ceremony: Hungarian priests and monks prayed in front of the urn containing the heart of Otto von Habsburg during the requiem
After 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Austro-Hungarian military and civilian rule[9] until it was fully annexed in 1908, provoking the Bosnian crisis among the other powers.[10] Sandžak/Raška, de jure northern part of the Ottoman Sanjak of Novi Pazar, was also under de facto joint occupation during that period but the Austro-Hungarian army withdrew as part of their annexation of Bosnia.[11] The annexation of Bosnia also led to Islam being recognized as an official state religion due to Bosnia's Muslim population.[12]
Austria-Hungary was one of the Central Powers in World War I. It was already effectively dissolved by the time the military authorities signed the armistice of Villa Giusti on November 3, 1918. The Kingdom of Hungary and the First Austrian Republic were treated as its successors de jure, whereas the independence of the West Slavs and South Slavs of the Empire as the First Czechoslovak Republic, the Second Polish Republic and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, respectively, and most of the territorial demands of the Kingdom of Romania were also recognized by the victorious powers in 1920.
Final resting place: Otto von Habsburg's heart is buried in the crypt in the Basilica of the Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma, Hungary
Austria shed its imperial past after it lost World War I. But for six hours, the pageantry, colour and ceremony accompanying the Habsburg burial turned Vienna into the imperial city that was once the hub of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Habsburg, the Crown Prince, was banished with the rest of his family after the collapse of the empire following World War I. The family then scattered across Europe.
Following his abdication, his father Charles I died in 1922, and so, at the age of nine, Otto became the head of the House of Habsburg.
Honoured: Hungarian President Pal Schmitt attended Otto von Habsburg's second funeral ceremony
Mourning: The Habsburg family pictured at the second funeral ceremony in Budapest, including Karl (right) his wife Francesca (third left), their son Ferdinand (second right) their daughter Eleonore (left) and Georg Habsburg (second left)
On Saturday Habsburg gained entry into Vienna's Imperial Crypt, the final resting place of his dynasty, not as emperor but as a mortal stripped of all honours and titles.
Three times the master of ceremonies knocked on the crypt's doors and twice the coffin was denied entry - first when Habsburg was named as emperor and holder of dozens of other royal titles, then when his academic and political achievements and other accomplishments were listed.
Marching: Tiroler Schtzen, the special guards of honour form Tirol, paraded as part of the procession in honour of Otto von Habsburg in Vienna on Saturday
Tribute: The guard of honour at the funeral of Otto von Habsburg on Saturday dressed in Austro-Hungarian uniforms
Honour: On Saturday Vienna was transformed back into the imperial city that was once the hub of the Austro-Hungarian empire with the pageantry, colour and ceremony of Otto von Habsburg's funeral
Respects: Crowds lined the streets of Austrian capital Vienna for the first funeral of Otto von Habsburg
'We do not know him,' was the response from the Capuchin friars within. The doors only opened onto the sun-filled afternoon and into the gloomy half-light of the chapel above the crypt after Habsburg was described as 'Otto - a mortal and a sinner.'
The crypt was the final destination for the crowd of mourners, which stretched back 0.75 miles, who had packed the 1.5 mile procession route from the Gothic cathedral where Habsburg had been eulogised earlier in the day. Police estimated 10,000 spectators lined the route.
Last heir to the empire: Otto von Habsburg died at the age of 98 with his seven children nearby
WHERE THE HEART IS ...
A custom used by a number of medieval European aristocrats:
Richard I (Richard the Lionheart) - The English king's heart is buried at Rouen, France, while his body is in Anjou.
Robert the Bruce (King of the Scots) - His body is in Dunfermline Abbey and his heart is in Melrose Abbey.
Austrian army units in slow funeral march step were followed by a gurney carrying the coffin, covered with the yellow-black Habsburg flag and flanked by the Tyrollean home guardsmen.
Next came close family members, then crowned heads from Europe, Austrian government leaders, clergy, men in fanciful Habsburg regiment colors and others dressed in less spectacular garb
The elaborate ceremony in Vienna's St Stephen's cathedral also evoked the grandeur of the dynasty.
The Gothic church was packed, as colourfully clad guardsmen, light cavalry units called dragoons, Hungarian hussars, sword-bearing members of student guilds and representatives of other uniformed formations harking back centuries mingled with somberly clad mourners.
Two floral crosses of roses were placed on the coffin — one for Habsburg's seven children, the other for his grand- and great grandchildren. Two giant floral arrangements of 500 white roses and 200 red carnations also stood near the coffin.
In another symbolic bow to the Habsburgs, seven bishops from nations of the former Austro-Hungarian empire - seven countries plus parts of modern-day Montenegro, Italy, Poland, Romania and Serbia and Ukraine - assisted Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
Early days: Habsburg with his wife Regina a day before their wedding in 1951
The ceremony included singing the old Imperial hymn praising the emperor - although many in the pews stayed silent, reflecting a widespread critical view of the monarchy in modern-day Austria.
The coffin of Habsburg's wife, Regina, who died last year, was taken to the crypt earlier in the day.
It has been the final resting place for members of the Habsburg dynasty since 1632 and a prime Vienna tourist attraction.
Royal: Otto Von Habsburg became Crown Prince when his father Charles 1 was crowned emperor in 1916. He became head of the House of Habsburg at the age of nine when his father died
While never formally renouncing his right to the throne, Habsburg in his later life became an outspoken supporter of parliamentary democracy and a fighter for a united Europe.
Portrait: Otto von Habsburg as a child
He used his influence in a vain struggle to keep the Nazis from annexing Austria before World War II, then campaigned for the opening of the Iron Curtain in the decades after the war.
In a message read by Papal Nunzio Peter Stephan Zurbriggen, Pope Benedict XVI praised the gaunt, bespectacled scion of the Austrian empire who was also a member of the European Parliament as a 'great European ... who engaged himself tirelessly for the peace and coexistence of peoples and for a fair system on this continent.'
European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek spoke of the special affection his Polish countrymen and others in Soviet-ruled Eastern Europe had for Habsburg because of his efforts to unify the continent during the Cold War.
'It was very important to us ... on the opposite side of the Iron Curtain,' he said.
European royals were among the VIPs in the front pews as incense-swinging clergy and the first chords of Michael Haydn's Requiem in C-Minor signaled the start of the Mass.
Among them were Sweden's king and queen; the ruling grand duke and grand duchess of Luxembourg; Liechtenstein's ruling duke and duchess; the former kings of Romania and Bulgaria, and representatives of the British, Belgian and Spanish ruling houses.
Before the start of the Mass, they and family members stood silently in front of the coffin, heads bowed in respect.
With the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, Habsburg used his seat in European Parliament to lobby for expanding the European Union to include former Eastern bloc nations.
He was a member of the European Parliament for the conservative Bavarian Christian Social Union in southern Germany and also served as president of the Pan-European League from 1979 to 1999.
Karl, the eldest son of Otto and Regina Habsburg, now runs the family's affairs and has been the official head of the House of Habsburg since 2007.
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF HABSBURG
Ruler: The Habsburgs were at their most powerful in the early 16th century under Charles V, who, through diplomacy, marriage, and conquest, ruled one of the largest empires ever created
Otto von Habsburg's death officially marks the end of a 640-year dynasty of Europe's once most powerful royal family that supplied the continent with a nearly uninterrupted stream of rulers.
Also spelled Hapsburg, the name came from the castle of Habichtsburg, meaning Hawk's Castle, built in the 11th century in Switzerland.
The family can be traced back to the 10th century and it established a hereditary monarchy in Austria in the 13th century.
From 1452 it held the title of Holy Roman Emperor almost continuously until the empire was dissolved by Napoleon in 1806.
It reached its greatest extent in the early 16th century under Charles V, who, through diplomacy, marriage, and conquest, ruled one of the largest empires ever created.
In addition to its heartland in central Europe, it included Spain, the kingdom of Naples and other parts of Italy, and most of the Netherlands, as well as vast colonial possessions in the Americas.
When Charles abdicated in 1556 the empire was divided between his son Philip, who inherited Spain, the New World colonies, the Italian possessions, and the Netherlands, and his brother Ferdinand, who inherited the rest (the ‘Austrian’ territories), as well as the title of emperor.
The Habsburgs ruled in Spain until 1700 and in Austria until 1918, when the upheavals of the First World War brought the dynasty to an end.
Otto von Hasburg, whose full name was Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xavier Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius von Habsburg, was born in 1912 in Reichenau, Austria.
He became crown prince when his father, Charles I, was crowned emperor in 1916, during World War I. After Austria and Germany lost World War I, the Austria-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, Charles I had to abdicate and Austria went on to become a republic.
In 1919, Charles and his family had to leave the country for what turned out to be permanent exile in several different countries, including Switzerland, Belgium, and France.
After his father's death in 1922, the nine-year-old Otto officially took over as the head of the House of Habsburg. He tried to negotiate his return to Austria in 1935 and again in 1938 when he even sought to become chancellor to fight the expected invasion by Hitler's troops, but could not gather enough support.
Instead, he found a channel through the U.S. embassy in Paris to contact President Franklin D. Roosevelt and later claimed to have prevented Allied bombings of a number of Austrian cities by pleading with the U.S. military.
He was also credited with having helped about 15,000 Austrians, including many Jews, escape the Nazis. From early in World War II in 1940 to after the Allied invasion of France in 1944, Habsburg lived in Washington DC, before returning to Europe to live in France, and then in Poecking, Germany after 1954.
Still, he was not allowed to return to Austria until 1966, five years after he officially renounced the crown. He later claimed to be baffled by the hostility and criticism he faced in his home country.
Despite his opposition to the Nazis, Habsburg was at times faulted at home for being too right wing. In 1961, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco offered to make him king of Spain after his own death.
Habsburg declined, but later praised the fascist leader for helping refugees, calling him a 'dictator of the south American type ... not totalitarian like Hitler or Stalin.'
More recently he was criticised for remarks in 2008 in which he insisted Austrians were the victims of Hitler - who was Austrian born - rather than accomplices.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[14] At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries
It was once the largest and wealthiest city in Europe, and a series of stunning postcard images now reveals what life was like on its streets.
The ancient architecture of Constantinople, in Turkey, is shown in the pictures, taken in the last years before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and carefully restored to add colour.
Constantinople, before it was renamed Istanbul in 1930, was the Turkish capital and a crucial international trade route, integral to the empire.
A mosque and street in the Scutari district of Constantinople, in a fascinating image which gives and impression of day-to-day life during the latter years of the Ottoman Empire
The neighbourhood of Galata, opposite Constantinople, which was located at the northern shore of the Golden Horn, the inlet which separates it from the historic peninsula of old Constantinople
A stunning view of Fenerbahce on the sea of Marmara in Constantinople, Turkey, between 1890 and 1900, in the last years of the Ottoman Empire
Hundreds of people walk across the Galata bridge in Constantinople, as small boats sail in the water in what was a major trade route into Europe during the Ottoman Empire
The city, on the banks of the Bosphorus, was the biggest and wealthiest in Europe before the fall of the Ottoman Empire
French author Pierre Gilles wrote of the city, where Europe meets Asia, in the 16th century: 'Constantinople alone seems to claim a kind of immortality and will continue to be a city as long as humanity shall live either to inhabit or rebuild it.'
For the first time, colour has been added to the pictures, taken in the 1890s, which show the ancient architecture of a city which controlled vast areas of Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia.
The Ottoman Empire, founded in 1299, collapsed in November 1922, when the last sultan, Mehmed VI, was sent into exile. The First World War had been a disaster for the empire, with British and allied forces capturing Baghdad, Damascus and Jerusalem.
A new government, the Turkish Grand National Assembly, had been set up in 1920 in Ankara, which became the Turkish capital.
The images, which show day-to-day life in the imperial city, had colour added to them using a process named Photochrom.
The Pertevniyal Valide Sultan Camii, Aksaray, in Constantinople, during the late years of the Ottoman Empire (left), and the landmark burnt column in Constantinople (right)
Sultan's Bajazid mosque in Constantinople, Turkey, is one of the landmarks revealed in the stunning set of images
Colour has been added to the postcards using a process called Photochrom, bringing the historic city to life
A view from the bridge in Constantinople, where Europe meets Asia, in a scene which gives a fascinating insight into life just before then end of the 19th century
Constantinople, before it was renamed Istanbul in 1930 , was the Turkish capital and was integral for the empire, as it was once the centre of an international trade route
The fountain of Sultan Ahmed, pictured in Constantinople in the 1890s, is a key landmark shown in colour in the stunning set of images
A scene from the Eyoub cemetery in Constantinople, which was renamed Istanbul in 1930 following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
The banks of the Bosporus when Istanbul was still called Constantinople during the latter years of the Ottoman Empire
An image of the Byzantine wall near Irdikale, in Constantinople, which had colour added to it in a painstaking process
A section of the Eyoub cemetery in Constantinople, between 1890 and 1900 (left), and a man carries baskets on the side of a basket in Top Capou in Constantinople, in a picture taken in the 1890s
A scene from Seraskerat in Constantinople, where a young boy stands in the middle of a square as people go about their business in the largest and wealthiest city in Europe
A lively street in the district of Stamboul, taken between 1890 and 1900, which has been turned into a colour image
Colour was added to bring the image of the famous Yeni Cami mosque in modern-day Istanbul to life. It is pictured by moonlight as small boats row across the water
The landmark Yildirim Beyazit mosque in Bursa, Turkey, is among the postcard images which have been turned into a colour picture
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. While the empire was once thought to have entered a period of decline following the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, this view is no longer supported by the majority of academic historians.[15] The empire continued to maintain a flexible and strong economy, society, and military throughout the seventeenth and much of the eighteenth century.[16] However, during a long period of peace from 1740 to 1768, the Ottoman military system fell behind that of their European rivals, the Habsburg and Russian Empires.[17] The Ottomans consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which prompted them to initiate a comprehensive process of reform and modernization known as the Tanzimat. Thus over the course of the nineteenth century the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organized, despite suffering further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged.[18] The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, hoping to escape from the diplomatic isolation which had contributed to its recent territorial losses, and thus joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers.[19] While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before World War I, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks
Cypresses and the road leading to the cemetery, Scutari, in Constantinople between 1890 and 1900, in one of the images which shows what life was life in the great city
Genocide of the Christians: The blood-soaked depravity exceeded even today's atrocities by Islamic State - now, 100 years on Turkey faces global disgust at its refusal to admit butchering over a MILLION Armenians
- In 1915 the rulers of the Ottoman empire turned their hatred on Armenians
- The Young Turks persecution of the minority turned to unbridled savagery
- Modern Turkey faces disgust over refusal to admit the historic genocide
- WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES
She was in bed when the soldiers came in the middle of the night and dragged her father out of the family home in Diyarbakir, a city in eastern Turkey.
The last thing little Aghavni (her name means ‘dove’ in her native Armenian) heard as she cowered in her room was his shout of defiance: ‘I was born a Christian and I will die a Christian.’
Not until first light did Aghavni dare to creep downstairs on that morning 100 years ago. ‘I saw an object sticking through the front door,’ she later remembered. ‘I pushed it open and there lay two horseshoes nailed to two feet.
the ruling Turks had turned their hatred on the 2 million men, women and children of Armenian extraction who lived within their borders
‘My eyes followed up to the blood-covered ankles, the disjointed knees, the mound of blood where the genitals had been, to a long laceration through the abdomen to the chest.
‘I came to the hands, which were nailed horizontally on a board with big spikes of iron, like a cross. The shoulders were remarkably clean and white, but there was no head.
‘This was lying on the steps, propped up by the nose. I recognized the neatly trimmed beard along the cheekbones. It was my father.
The year was 1915. In the sprawling, beleaguered Ottoman Empire — an ally of the German Kaiser in the world war that had engulfed Europe and parts of Asia for nine months — the ruling Turks had turned their hatred on the 2 million men, women and children of Armenian extraction who lived within their borders.
The Armenians — who lived on the eastern edge of the empire ruled from Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) — were Christians and had been since the year 301, making theirs the first nation officially to adopt Christianity, even before Rome.
But here, among the Islamic Turks, they had long been second-class citizens, a persecuted minority. Now, as power in the land was seized by a junta of nationalist officers known as the Young Turks, persecution turned to unbridled savagery.
A Turkish official teases starving Armenian children during the genocide in Turkey in 1915
Turkey recalled its ambassador to the Vatican and accused the Pope of spreading ‘hatred and animosity’ with ‘unfounded allegations’.
The Turks take objection to the word ‘genocide’ — first coined in the 1940s to describe what the Nazis did to the Jews, but also ever since applied to the 1915 massacre of the Armenians.
Not true, has always been the official response from Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey’s capital.
Hundreds of thousands died in that era, they admit, (though they dispute the numbers are anywhere near as high as claimed).
But this, they maintain, happened as a result of chaotic wartime conditions, civil strife, starvation and in response to Armenian violence, not because of a deliberate, officially organised and systematic plan to eliminate an entire people.
Armenian children caught up in the 1915 genocide which modern Turkey still refuses to acknowledge
None of it, they continue to insist a century on, was sanctioned from on high.
What seems to trouble the Turks is admitting that their country was founded in modern times on a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing.
They may also be concerned that an admission will bring an avalanche of demands for reparations and, at the very least, the return of land and wealth seized back in 1915.
So they protest their innocence of genocide, even though historians who disagree have formed long queues over the years with convincing and detailed evidence that this is precisely what took place.
So, too, have international lawyers, among them most recently Amal Clooney, the glamorous human rights barrister and wife of Hollywood actor George Clooney.
In court in Switzerland earlier this year, she took up Armenia’s case and challenged a nationalist Turkish MP who maintained in public that the Armenian genocide was an ‘international lie’. There should be no doubting the reality of genocide that Armenian people suffered a century ago, she insisted.
In court in Switzerland earlier this year, Amal Clooney (pictured) took up Armenia’s case and challenged a nationalist Turkish MP who maintained in public that the Armenian genocide was an ‘international lie’
Another celebrity rooting for the Armenians over the injustice they have suffered is, perhaps surprisingly, the reality TV star Kim Kardashian, whose ancestors were lucky to flee to the U.S. from Armenia just two years before the massacres.
Showing a serious side not normally seen, she says that ‘until this crime is resolved truthfully and fairly, the Armenian people will live with the pain of what happened to their families’. This week, she visited the country with her family to lay flowers at its memorial to the victims.
In Turkey, to express such views is dangerous. Public debate is stifled by a law that bans ‘insulting Turkishness’ and has been invoked against those who speak out — including a Nobel Prize winner, whose books were burned by protesters.
Another writer was gunned down in the street in Istanbul by an offended ultra-nationalist, who shouted ‘I shot the infidel’ as he delivered the fatal shot.
Turkey has also been accused of belittling the Armenian centenary by bringing forward its commemorations of Gallipoli, the bloody 1915 battle on the Turkish peninsula, from the traditional April 25 date to clash with the April 24 memorial.
Outside of Turkey, the position is strangely confused. Around two dozen countries acknowledge the truth of the Armenian genocide, despite often strong-arm diplomacy by Turkey to dissuade them and put Ankara’s gloss on past events. They will be greatly heartened by the Pope’s stance.
But others have chosen to sit on the fence, notably the United States, unwilling to cross swords with a Nato ally that is geographically so close to Russia.
Before coming to office, President Obama promised his nation’s one million people with Armenian roots that he would recognise that genocide had occurred, but has not yet dared to utter the word, hiding behind the less-damning Armenian phrase ‘Medz Yeghern’ — the great crime or the great catastrophe.
Yet, ironically, it was an American who first made the world aware of what happened. Back in 1915, Henry Morgenthau was the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and on his desk in Constantinople landed reports from American consuls in far-flung Turkish cities, documenting massacres and death marches.
Former Armenian President Robert Kocharian (Left) takes part in the ceremony at the Genocide Memorial complex in Yerevan
He concluded: ‘I do not believe the darkest ages ever presented scenes more horrible.’
Unleashed on the Armenians, Turkish policemen and soldiers ransacked Christian churches and handed bishops and priests over to the mob.
Community leaders such as doctors and teachers were hanged in batches on gallows in town squares. An American missionary reported seeing men tied together with their heads sticking through the rungs of a ladder to be lopped off with swords.
Torture was commonplace, Morgenthau maintained as he studied the evidence. ‘They would pull out eyebrows and beards almost hair by hair, extract fingernails and toenails, apply red-hot irons and tear off flesh with pincers, then pour boiled butter into the wounds.’
Crucifixion was treated as a sport. ‘As the sufferer writhes in his agony, they would cry: “Now let your Christ come and help you”.’
When orders were given to assemble all the Armenians and march them out into the desert, Morgenthau had no doubt that this was ‘the death warrant to a whole race’. Moreover, he said: ‘In their conversations with me, the authorities made no particular attempt to conceal the fact’.
Children, whose parents had been killed for their ethnicity and religion in the brutal genocide here pictured together in 1918
He wrote graphically of how men were taken from their ploughs, women from their ovens and children from their beds to join ‘the panic-stricken throng’. Young men were strung up or shot — ‘the only offence being that they were Armenians’.
Convicts were let out of prison to help with the killings. Locals joined in, too. In Ankara, all Armenian men aged 15 to 70 were bound in fours and led out to a secluded valley, where Turkish peasants hacked them to death with scythes, spades and saws.
‘In this way, they exterminated the whole male population.’
For six months, as the enforced exodus went on, Morgenthau reported, roads and tracks were crowded with lines of Armenians.
Turkish Workers Party IP leader Dogu Perincek speaks to journalists in Switzerland during his trial on denial of genocide
‘They could be seen winding through every valley and mountain-side, moving on they scarcely knew where, except that every road led to death.
‘They left behind the unburied dead, as well as men and women dying of typhus, dysentery and cholera and children setting up their last piteous wails for food and water.’
How many died? Morgenthau reported that, on one particular death march, of the 18,000 who set out, just 150 were alive a week later.
A survivor recalled that ‘death was our constant companion. We fought the threat of panic, hunger, fear and sleepless nights but, in the end, they won. It seemed there was no pity or humanity in the hearts of our captors’. As they crossed the Euphrates river, one witness reported how ‘bloated bodies lay on the bank, black from the sun, tongues hanging out. Bones showed through decaying skin’.
‘The stomachs of pregnant women had been slit open and their unborn children placed in their hands like black grapes. Children were crying next to dead parents. Women were delirious.’
So many dead bodies clogged the river that its course was diverted for several hundred yards. But at least the water gave relief to some. Mothers sank into it gratefully, their babies in their arms, to drown and end their misery.
Women suffered special horrors. Aghavni — that girl whose story of stumbling on her father’s crucified and decapitated body we saw earlier — recalled how, in her home town, a group of 20 Armenian women were forced to dance under a blue, cloudless sky.
‘Turkish soldiers stood behind them shouting “Dance, sluts” and cracking their whips across their breasts, so their clothes would fall off. Some were half-naked, others tried to hold their clothes together.
‘The women were praying as they moved in a slow circle, holding hands. Occasionally, they would drop the hand next to them and quickly make the sign of the cross.
‘When they fell down, they were whipped until they got up and continued their dance. Each crack of the whip and more of their clothing came off.
Over one million of the two million Armenians living within the borders of the Ottoman Empire were murdered
‘Around them stood their children, who were forced to clap, faster and faster. If they stopped, they were whipped.
‘Some were two years old and barely able to stand up. They cried uncontrollably, in a terrible, pitiful, hopeless way.’ All of this was watched by a crowd of delighted Turkish townspeople in smart dresses and business suits, ‘clapping, too, like cockroaches’.
What came next was beyond belief. ‘Two soldiers pushed through the crowd, swinging buckets, and doused the women with kerosene. As the women screamed, another soldier came forward with a torch and lit each woman by her hair.
Armenian widow with 3 children seeking help from missionaries in 1899. Her husband was killed in the aftermath of the Armenian Massacres of 1894-1896
‘At first, all I could see was smoke. Then I saw the fire coming off their bodies, and their screaming became unbearable.
‘The children were being whipped furiously now, as if the burning mothers had excited the soldiers, and they admonished the children to clap faster and faster, telling them that if they stopped they, too, would be set on fire.
‘As the women collapsed in burning heaps, oozing and black, the smell of burnt flesh made me sick and I fainted.’
On the death march out into the desert, Aghavni remembered how women were openly tortured and abused. ‘If a woman would not readily submit to sex, she was whipped and, if she tried to run away, she was shot.’
She could only watch in horror as a girl resisted and a policeman took out his sword, ripped open her dress and then slashed off her breasts. ‘They fell to the ground and she bled to death next to them.’ Aghavni survived her ordeal — one of the few to do so. She lived, eventually making her way to America to give her first-hand account of a genocide that the Turkish authorities are still adamant did not take place.
Armenia survived, too, as a country — becoming independent for a while after the break-up of the Ottoman empire, before being sucked into the maw of the Soviet Union for 70 years, from which it emerged as a state in its own right in 1991.
This week, Turkey’s president declared that Armenians pressing Turkey to recognise massacres as genocide are simply trying to score points against his country.
‘Their aim is not to search for the truth, but to attack Turkey and cause it harm,’ he contends.
But such defiance flies in the face of history. Arnold J. Toynbee, a British intelligence agent at the time (and later a distinguished historian), wrote that ‘all this horror was inflicted on the Armenians without a shadow of provocation’.
People from 12 countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgary, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, UK and Sweden) demonstrate for recognition of the Armenian Genocide
He heard, back then, the Turkish argument that there was a war on and the Armenians were traitors, ‘but such excuses are entirely contradicted by the facts’.
‘None of the towns and villages from which they were systematically deported to their death were anywhere near the hostilities. The Ottoman Government cannot disguise its crime as a preventive measure.’ Toynbee wrote this in 1916.
That in 2015 Turkey is still insisting on rewriting history should concern us all — not least because in a world where Islamic forces are, once again, brutally targeting Christians in the Middle East and Africa, the lessons of the past need to be faced and finally learned.
Fascinating 150-year-old photographs of India after the failed mutiny have sold for almost £8,000 at auction.
The images dating from 1863 to 1870 capture native soldiers with their weapons and picturesque landscapes - and were taken by celebrated 19th century photographer Samuel Bourne.
Together with Charles Shepherd, Mr Bourne set up photo studio Bourne & Shepherd first in Simla in 1863 and later in Calcutta. The album showcases scenes across India from Simla to Kangra and Dhurmsala to Srinuggur.
Other areas pictured include Scinde Valley, Murree, Delhi and Peshawur. In one image natives are travelling along a river in a boat, while another captures a scene of meditation.
The photos were collated by former Bengal Civil Service commissioner Richard Palmer Jenkins who lived in Calcutta at the time Mr Bourne and Mr Shepherd had a studio there. He retired in 1873 and moved to England.
The images went for 6,400 to a private collector from the US who bid online for the set from Dominic Winter Auctions, based in South Cerney, Gloucestershire, with extra fees pushing the overall price above £7,800.
The Indian mutiny of 1857 was a large-scale rebellion by soldiers in northern and central India against the East India Company's rule which was suppressed by the British.
Power was then transferred from the East India Company to the British Crown, which began to govern most of India as a number of provinces. The British Raj invested heavily in canals, railways, telegraphy, roads and ports.
A group of Affreedies, an Afghan tribe from the Khyber Pass, are pictured in one of a series of fascinating 150-year-old photographs of India taken after the failed mutiny which have sold for almost £8,000 at auction in Gloucestershire
A shooting party at a camp in Srinuggur, pictured by celebrated 19th century photographer Samuel Bourne, who said he spent days in 'wanderings in search of the picturesque' and was impressed by what he found in the 'terrestrial paradise'
Together with Charles Shepherd, photographer Mr Bourne (front left) set up photo studio Bourne & Shepherd first in Simla in 1863 and later in Calcutta. The album showcases scenes across India from Simla to Kangra and Dhurmsala to Srinuggur
Temples and a bazaar in Chamba, northern India, in one of many photos collated by former Bengal Civil Service commissioner Richard Palmer Jenkins who lived in Calcutta at the time Bourne and Shepherd had a studio there
A group of Kabulese men in Peshawur. The images went for 6,400 to a private collector from the US who bid online for the set from Dominic Winter Auctions, based in Gloucestershire, with extra fees pushing the overall price above £7,800
An ancient temple at northern Kashmir. The pictures were taken by Mr Bourne following the Indian mutiny of 1857, a huge rebellion by soldiers in northern and central India against the East India Company's rule that was suppressed by the British
A group of Pathans from the Peshawur Valley. Samuel Bourne was one of the most famous photographers of India in the 1860s in an age when taking photos outside was a 'cumbersome and difficult process', auctioneer Chris Albury said
'Mountain with Lake': Mr Bourne went all around India and took photos of the rural and mountain landscapes but also of the people, the auctioneer said. He had to carry around all the equipment and prepare the photos on the spot
The album of Mr Bourne's photos showcases scenes across India from Simla to Kangra and Dhurmsala to Srinuggur (where Poplar Avenue is pictured, above). Other areas pictured include Scinde Valley, Murree, Delhi and Peshawur
The village of Gugangair in the Scinde Valley. According to Mr Albury, the photos were taken 'not long after the mutiny in a transitional time in Indian history while still under Queen Victoria's imperial rule'
A bridge near Srinuggur. After the Indian rebellion, all power was transferred from the East India Company to the British Crown, which began to govern most of India as a number of provinces
The Commissioner's boat at Srinagar in Kashmir. Bengal Civil Service commissioner Richard Palmer Jenkins, who collected the photos, retired in 1873 and later moved to England to serve as judicial officer in Gloucestershire and Monmouthshire
How the Indian Mutiny followed a row over cow fat
The Indian Mutiny, also known as India's First War of Independence, was an uprising by local soldiers against the ruling British East India Company.
In 1857, growing tension was inflamed by rumours that Indian soldiers' rifle cartridges were being greased with pig and cow fat, offending Muslims and Hindus alike. The unrest erupted in May.
The city of Delhi soon fell and there were further uprisings elsewhere. In Lucknow, Chief Commissioner Sir Henry Lawrence fortified his home - the Residency - and prepared for a siege.
Mutineers attacked the Residency and its 1,700-strong garrison in May and by July Sir Henry was dead.Garrison numbers dwindled until a relief force under Major-General Sir Henry Havelock fought its way into Lucknow in September.
The Residency was evacuated in November but was recaptured in March the following year and the uprising was crushed soon after. The East India Company was subsequently abolished and the government of India transferred to the Crown.
- Little know battle between British and Bapedi tribe at Fighting Kopke was a definitive moment in the Zulu War
- Despite being outnumbered more than three to one and having far less weapons, tribe fought to the very end
- Bapedi were finally defeated by Brits and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1879
The remarkable story of an epic battle between British soldiers and a vastly outnumbered African tribe which brought a definitive end to the Zulu War has been revealed in a new book.
The little known Battle at Fighting Kopke was overshadowed by the story of the British defence of Rorke's Drift which took place 11 months earlier and was later immortalised in the film Zulu.
Following the British annexation of land north of the Vaal River in South Africa in 1877, the native Bapedi tribe had been at loggerheads for two years with the British.
The conflict came to a head in a fierce four day battle at Fighting Kopke where the Bapedi were finally defeated by British troops and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in November 1879.
The little known Battle at Fighting Kopke was overshadowed by the story of the British defence of Rorke's Drift which took place 11 months earlier and was later immortalised in the film Zulu. But the battle with the Bapedi tribe, led by Sekhukhune (seated second from left) who was king of the Bapedi of Sekukuniland, brought a definitive end to the Zulu War
Pictured: An artists's impression of the Battle at Fighting Kopke. The Bapedi tribe occupied the Lulu Mountains, which were unique for their cone peaks, steep gorges and numerous cave systems which provided a great challenge for an invading force
The Bapedi had already fought off two other white armies - the Boers in 1876 and the British in 1878 - before they were vanquished.
During the battle at Fighting Kopke the Bapedi, outnumbered at over three to one, held the superior-armed British force at bay for seven hours, refused to surrender and carried on fighting in dribs and drabs literally to their last bullets, four days later.e
It was a bloody battle with both sides sustaining heavy casualties but the British eventually won and captured the Bepali leader Sekhukune.
Historian William Wright has spent the last five years researching this little-known final phase of the Zulu War and Wolseley's role in it for a new book which has now been published.
A guide listens for sounds of the enemy. Following the British annexation of land north of the Vaal River in South Africa in 1877, the native Bapedi tribe had been at loggerheads for two years with the British. The British and Swazi combined force of 12,000 men outnumbered the 4,000 Bapedi three to one, but the Bapedi were resourceful and on familiar terrain
The British and their Swazi allies launched the Kopke offensive in the early hours of November 28 against the Bapedi stronghold of Tsate, a heavily fortified settlement of 3,000 huts at the bottom of the Lulu Mountains.
The British and Swazi combined force of 12,000 men outnumbered the 4,000 Bapedi three to one, but the Bapedi were resourceful and on familiar terrain.
The Bapedi occupied the Lulu Mountains unique for their cone peaks, steep gorges and numerous cave systems which provided a great challenge for any invading force.
Each hut was surrounded by a fence of prickly pear or thorny wood, while in front of Tsate were a series of rifle pits.
The town itself could only be entered by two steep and narrow paths, which were heavily defended.
Sekhukune had even ordered a 15 feet high and 15 feet wide fence be built around the settlement to provide an extra obstacle for the British.
The conflict came to a head in a fierce four day battle at Fighting Kopke where the Bapedi were finally defeated by British troops and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley (right) in November 1879. Cetshwayo kaMpande (left) was the king of the Zulu Kingdom from 1872 to 1879 and its leader during the Anglo-Zulu War. He famously led the Zulu nation to victory against the British in the Battle of Isandlwana
At 4.15am the battle started with a shell being fired into the Fighting Kopke.
Immediately the Bapedi responded with war cries and blasts from their war horns.
The British and Swazi attacked from both left and right, dodging gun fire from Bapedi marksmen concealed in the mountains.
Gradually the Bapedi fire slackened allowing attacking forces to work their way above the town into the Lulu Mountains where the Bapedi had retreated.
However, under the cover of darkness, large groups of Bapedi boldly charged out of the caves in a defiant attempt to stab and shoot their way to freedom.
A newspaper's impression of the morning after the Battle of Isandlwana - but the reality was far worse. It erupted on January 22 1879, 11 days after the British started their invasion. 20,000 Zulu warriors attacked 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and 400 civilians. The Zulus, who had more numbers, overwhelmed the British, killing over 1,300 troops, while around 1,000 Zulu soldiers were killed
Hundreds of Swazi were killed in hand to hand fighting near cave entrances while the British, on the whole, hung back.
Fierce fighting continued with the British soldiers not hesitant to fire down holes in rocks into caves where the Bapedi women and children were hidden away.
Over the course of the four days, under the strain of constant bombardment, women and children gradually left the caves and the final defenders surrendered on December 1.
That night, Wolseley wrote a letter home to his wife Louisa in which he expressed his relief at having defeated the 'strong' enemy and turned his attention to tracking down Sekhukune.
He wrote: 'My dearest little Sandpiper I have cracked the nut thank God and Sikuni's Town (Tsate) is a thing of the past, everything destroyed, his people killed, prisoners or dispersed as wanderers and his property falling into our hands daily.
Wolseley on horseback, a bearded Chelsmford on his left, presents Lieutenant Chard with his Rorke's Drift Victoria Cross. Following the battle at Fighting Kopke Wolseley wrote a letter home to his wife Louisa in which he expressed his relief at having defeated the 'strong' enemy and turned his attention to tracking down Sekhukune
'If we can only kill or catch the chief himself the thing will be the most competent affair possible.
'He is hiding away in a cave somewhere and as the Lulu Mountains are a mass of caves and rocky crannies where fugitives can conceal themselves it will be no easy task matter catching the villain.
'I am very glad I came here with a large force; with a small one I should have failed, for the position occupied by the enemy was strong and easily defended.'
A search party was gathered to find Sekhukune and he was eventually located the next day in a cave 15 miles away from Tsate.
He was offered the chance to hand himself in but a little girl ran out of the cave to say he was prepared to fight.
A tense stand-off ensued. However, the following morning, he had a change of heart and surrendered before leaving the cave with some of his wives by his side.
Charles Commeline, a member of the British forces who was present at the scene, said: 'Sekhukhune was carried out on a stretcher with some of his wives by his side.
'He then squatted with a dozen chiefs around him and shook hands with all the officers as we came up to see him.
Lancers return from burning kraals.Much has been written about the famous British rearguard of Rorke's Drift in January 1879 but there was another significant battle 11 months later - at Fighting Kopke - which has been completely overlooked until now
'After a good strong tot of rum began to get quite chirpy having at first been rather nervous for his personal safety.'
Both sides paid a heavy price in the battle. One thousand Bapedi were killed, one quarter of their force. On the British side, 56 white officers and 600 Swazi were killed.
Sekhukhune was held in Pretoria until 1881. The following year he was assassinated by a rival Bapedi notable.
Mr Wright, 65, who now lives in Budapest, said: 'The importance of this battle is that the Bapedi were the last of three major rivals to British power in South Africa.
'They had destroyed the Xhosa people and wiped them out after nine wars, destroyed the Zulus in 1879 and finally Sir Garnet Wolseley vanquished the Bapedi.
Sir Garnet shown cheering on the Swazis in the final assault on Ntswaneng. At Rorke's Drift, on January 22 and 23 1879, just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 4,000 Zulu warriors
'It could be said this battle against the Bapedi was the culmination of British supremacy against the native people in Africa.
'The Bapedi had amazingly fought off two other white armies (the Boers in 1876 and the British in 1878) before they were vanquished.
'While the British won a decisive victory it must be said that their opponents had fought magnificently.
'The Bapedi, outnumbered over three to one, had held the superior-armed British force at bay for seven hours, refused to surrender and carried on fighting in dribs and drabs literally to their last bullets, four days later.'
At Rorke's Drift, on January 22 and 23 1879, just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 4,000 Zulu warriors.
It was the sole British bright spot in the devastating Battle of Isandlwana which resulted in the British taking a much more aggressive approach in the Zulu War.
A British Lion in Zululand, Sir Garnet Wolseley in South Africa, by William Wright, is published by Amberley Books and costs £25.
An artist's impression of the last stand at the Battle of Isandlwana. Rorke's Drift was the sole British bright spot in the devastating Battle of Isandlwana which resulted in the British taking a much more aggressive approach in the Zulu War
RORKE'S DRIFT: BATTLE CONSIDERED ONE OF BRITAIN'S GREATEST VICTORIES WAS PART OF A WIDER BLOODY CONFLICT THAT COST 8,000 LIVES
The name of Rorke's Drift led to the much-loved film starring Stanley Baker (left) who played Lieutenant John Chard
It was on January 22 1879, on the Natal border with Zululand, in South Africa, that the tiny British garrison of 140 men - many of them sick and wounded - fought for at least 12 hours to repel repeated attacks by up to 4,000 Zulu warriors.
The defence was rewarded by Queen Victoria's government with no fewer than 11 Victoria Crosses.
The name of Rorke's Drift led to the much-loved film starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine.
The movie, which is still celebrated more than 50 years after it was made, saw Baker play Lieutenant John Chard, while Caine played his right-hand man, Lieutenant Goville Bromhead.
After fighting day and night the Zulus eventually retreated after 351 of the men died and 500 were wounded.
It was part of the wider Anglo - Zulu war took place during 1879.
The conflict began because the Zulu kingdom presented an obstacle to British imperial ambitions in southern Africa.
The British invasion of Zululand began on January 11 1879, with the British objective being an eventual federation in Africa.
The battle of Isandlwana erupted on the 22nd of January 1879, 11 days after the British started their invasion. 20,000 Zulu warriors attacked 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and 400 civilians.
The Zulus, who had more numbers, overwhelmed the British, killing over 1,300 troops, while around 1,000 Zulu soldiers were killed.
The battle of Rorke's Drift started almost immediately after, ending on the 23rd.
The Battle of Ulundi on the 4th of July 1879 effectively ended the Zulu-Anglo war, with the defeat of the Zulu forces by the British when over 5,200 British and African soldiers razed the capital of Zululand after defeating the main Zulu army.
The war ultimately ended with a British victory, and Zulu independence.
No comments:
Post a Comment