Category: Europe

The Iraq War

The millennium dawned and, that November, a new President was to be elected. Bill Clinton served his two terms as allowed in the 22nd Amendment the Democrats needed a new candidate to lead them this election. The obvious choice fell to Clinton’s VP, Al Gore, who had Joe Lieberman, a Senator and former Attorney General from Connecticut, as his running mate. Whilst the Republican Primaries were a lot more competitive, George Bush, son of George H. W. Bush and Governor of Texas, came out on top, choosing Dick Cheney from Wyoming, the Secretary of Defence for his father and a former House Minority Whip, as his pick for VP. A lot of both the campaigns focused on domestic policy as, at the time, the United States was not involved in a single conflict.

I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.

George Bush, Second Presidential Debate, 2000
A photo of a debate between Gore (left) and Bush (right)

Election day came and no-one won. The states were relatively evenly divided, with Gore having 266 Electoral Votes and Bush having 246, out of the 270 needed to win. However, the problem was Florida. Their problem was that the ballots were designed to cater to old people, a large part of Florida’s population and especially in the county of Palm Beach, wherein a hole would be punched in the ballot as many could not hold a pen properly. Which seems reasonable enough until you see how the ballot was formatted.

A photo of the Florida Ballot for Palm Beach

Some punched two holes in a ballot, some punched a hole that wasn’t even in one of the designated holes and some suspected that many Gore supporters were attempting to vote for him but voted for Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party by mistake, as Buchanan occupied the second hole whilst Gore occupied the third which doesn’t quite make sense as Gore was the candidate for the second largest party in the country. In the end, the whole thing was a disaster. At one point it seemed like Gore had the lead, which would mean he would win. At others, it seemed as though Bush had the lead, meaning he would win.

Eventually the results came through and Bush won. However, the margin was so narrow that a recount was demanded. Once the recount came through, Bush still won but the margin was even smaller than before, with now only a 300 vote difference. Eventually, Gore ended up going to the Supreme Court to demand another recount. After 5 weeks of proceedings, Gore eventually conceded the election, with the official count standing at 570 votes in favour of Bush in Florida, meaning he won the election and became the 43rd President of the United States, with only 271 Electoral Votes. Gore still won the popular vote on a national scale by a 0.52% margin. This election was one of if not the closest in history. And it was an election that would change the world.

For the first few months of George Bush’s Presidency, he was considered relatively fine. He didn’t do much to change any of what had come before and mostly stuck to his campaign promises. However, all that changed one fateful day.

A photo of Flight 175 hitting the Second Tower of the WTC

In a response to 9/11, Congress, through the Authorisation for Use of Military Force, gave Bush the right to go to war against terrorism anywhere in the world, effectively declaring a War on Terror. With the Taliban removed from power and al-Qaeda weakened but not destroyed, senior officials increasingly turned toward a second objective. Much of the foreign policy of the Bush administration in the 2000s was centred around neo-Conservatism, the belief that the United States not only has the capacity but the duty to shape geopolitics. Under Ronald Reagan, it largely targeted communist militias. However, under Bush it morphed into a different force.

Following 9/11, Congress passed the Authorisation for Use of Military Force, granting the President broad powers to wage what became known as the “War on Terror.” Although the initial campaign focused on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, attention within the Bush administration soon shifted toward Iraq. Senior officials, including Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Deputy to Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz, argued that Hussein represented a continuing threat to international security. This view was shaped partly by Iraq’s previous use of chemical weapons against Iran and its own population, its obstruction of United Nations weapons inspectors in the 1990s, and its defiance of earlier UN Security Council resolutions. Although no operational link was ever found between Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda or any other terror group, members of the administration increasingly framed Iraq as part of the wider terrorist threat. Officials warned that Iraq could be supplying WMDs to extremist groups, a claim that did not rely on actual confirmed evidence in any capacity. Cheney asserted there was “no doubt” that Iraq possessed such weapons, while Rumsfeld suggested that Iraq’s failure to account fully for past programmes implied the existence of hidden stockpiles. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush declared Iraq part of an “axis of evil” between itself, Iran and North Korea, accusing Hussein of creating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

A photo of Cheney (left) and George W. Bush

Britain played a central role in reinforcing this narrative. Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair strongly supported the American position and committed Britain to a close alliance with Washington. His director of communications, Alastair Campbell, was instrumental in shaping the public presentation of intelligence. In September 2002, the British government published a dossier claiming that Iraq possessed WMDs that could be deployed within 45 minutes. This document was later criticised for overstating the certainty of its conclusions and for using unverified intelligence reports. A second dossier, released in early 2003, drew heavily on plagiarised academic material and outdated sources, earning it the nickname the “dodgy dossier” in the British press. Some of the claims published in the dossier were suggested to have been sourced from popular action films according to a public inquiry into Iraq. The inquiries also found that political pressure had encouraged intelligence to be presented with greater confidence than the underlying evidence justified.

It was pointed out that glass containers were not typically used in chemical munitions; and that a popular movie [The Rock] has inaccurately depicted nerve agents being carried in glass beads or spheres. […] The questions about the use of glass containers for chemical agents and the similarity of the description to those portrayed in The Rock had been recognised by [MI6]. There were some precedents for the use of glass containers but the points would be pursued when further material became available.

A transcript from the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War
A photo of Tony Blair (right) and Downing Street Director of Communications, Alastair Campbell

By early 2003, more than 700 inspections by the UN had failed to uncover any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Hans Blix, head of the UN Inspection Commission, stated that, while Iraq had previously possessed such arms, there was no conclusive evidence that they still existed. Nevertheless, the United States and Britain argued that Iraq’s incomplete cooperation and past concealment justified military action.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council, presenting satellite photographs, intercepted communications, and testimony from defectors as proof of hidden weapons facilities. One of his most memorable demonstrations involved holding up a small vial to illustrate the lethal potential of anthrax. He said that the small vial contained one teaspoon of a substance and claimed the same amount of anthrax shut down the US government. This conclusion was based on the Anthrax Attacks that took place throughout the autumn of 2001, including one letter sent to Senator Tom Daschle’s office on Capitol Hill. When it was discovered that over a hundred people had inhaled a lethal dose of anthrax, due to spores that had reached the air vents, the Capitol building, the seat of the US Government, was shut down and Congress was temporarily adjourned, at the height of debate regarding the controversial Patriot Act. In all, 5 people were killed and 17 were injured across Washington DC, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut due to letters sent containing anthrax. Whilst it was later revealed that the culprit was a domestic threat, according to the FBI’s report on the case, the killer used fake jihadist messaging, allowing the Bush administration to claim it was a biological islamic terror attack. He then claimed that Hussein had “enough to fill tens of thousands of teaspoons,” and that Hussein had supplied jihadists with the anthrax used in the attacks.

Powell showing the vial

When it became clear that the Security Council would not authorise force, Washington and Westminster chose to proceed without UN approval. On March 19th 2003, coalition forces led by the United States and Britain launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. The invasion was publicly justified as a necessary act of pre-emption to prevent Iraq from deploying or transferring weapons of mass destruction, and later as part of a strategy to reshape the Middle East in the name of security and democracy. Hussein was eventually captured in late 2003 and executed. On May 1st, 2003, Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in a now infamous speech declaring that the invasion was a success and that Iraq would never be a problem again.

The collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 did not bring stability to Iraq. Instead, it created a political and security vacuum. The rapid dissolution of the Iraqi army and the Baʿath Party left hundreds of thousands of armed men unemployed and excluded from the new political order. Many former soldiers and officials joined local resistance groups, motivated by nationalism, fear of marginalisation, or hostility toward foreign occupation. At the same time, weak border controls allowed foreign Islamist fighters to enter Iraq, transforming what began as a largely nationalist insurgency into a hybrid conflict involving sectarian militias and transnational jihadist organisations.

A photo of Iraqi insurgents

One of the most significant developments was the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Sunni jihadist organisation sought to provoke civil war by deliberately targeting Shiite civilians and religious sites, hoping to destabilise Iraq and undermine the US-backed government. Sectarian violence escalated sharply after the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in 2006, triggering widespread killings between Sunni and Shiite militias. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombings, and ambushes became defining features of the conflict, causing heavy casualties among coalition forces and Iraqi civilians alike. What had initially been presented as a swift regime change evolved into a prolonged and chaotic asymmetric counter-insurgency war.

Although Zarqawi was killed in a US airstrike in 2006, his organisation survived and adapted. During the late 2000s it split from the main al-Qaeda command and rebranded itself as the Islamic State of Iraq, attempting to present itself not merely as a terrorist organisation but as a state claiming territorial authority. The withdrawal of most US forces in 2011, combined with continued political exclusion of Iraq’s Sunni population by the Shiite-led government, allowed the group to build its strength. The outbreak of civil war in neighbouring Syria after 2011 further accelerated this process, providing new territory, recruits, and resources. By 2014, the organisation had expanded across borders and declared itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, more commonly and infamously known as ISIS. During its time in power, ISIS became one of the most brutal terror organisations and became a symbol abroad for the evils of fundamentalist Islam.

A photo of Brussels Airport in the aftermath of a bombing by ISIS in 2015

The insurgency had major political consequences at home. In the United States, rising troop deaths and the failure to locate any WMDs steadily eroded public support for the war. Revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison further damaged the credibility of the intervention, reinforcing the perception that the occupation was poorly planned and morally compromised. Although George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, the worsening situation in Iraq contributed to growing distrust with the Republican Party and fuelled large scale anti-war protests across the country. By the 2006 midterm Congressional elections, public frustration over Iraq helped deliver control of Congress to the Democrats and later the White House by 2009. In the United Kingdom, the insurgency undermined confidence in the war and in the government that had supported it. British forces were heavily involved in southern Iraq, particularly around Basra, where they faced sustained and brutal resistance from Shiite militias. As casualties mounted and instability persisted, criticism of Blair intensified. The exposure of flaws in the government’s intelligence claims led to public inquiries and long-term damage to trust in official statements about national security. The war became deeply unpopular, contributing to declining support for Blair’s New Labour and reinforcing scepticism about future British military interventions alongside the United States.

“[The Iraq War] divided parliament and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. […] It was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. […] By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a catastrophe. The decision to invade in 2003 on the basis of what the Chilcot report calls “flawed intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction has had a far-reaching impact on us all. It also led to a fundamental breakdown in trust in politics and our institutions of government.”

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party Leader at a speech in Westminster in 2016

When Barack Obama entered office in 2009, he inherited two active wars and a populace whose opinion on foreign intervention was deeply skeptical at best and downright opposed at worst. His campaign had criticised the invasion of Iraq as a strategic error and promised a shift away from large scale occupations toward diplomacy and limited military engagement. In practice, however, Obama pursued a mixed approach of reducing America’s physical footprint in the Middle East while expanding indirect forms of warfare. In Iraq, Obama oversaw the withdrawal of most US combat troops by 2011, fulfilling a key campaign pledge. However, the fragile political settlement left behind proved unstable. The Shiite government marginalised Sunni communities, and unresolved sectarian tensions created space for militant groups to reemerge. These conditions enabled the rapid rise of ISIS, which captured large parts of Iraq and Syria by 2014. The United States was drawn back into the conflict through airstrikes and support for local forces. Whilst nowhere near the levels of troops sent in 2003, it was still perceived as too much by the public.

Overall, the Iraqi insurgency transformed the meaning of the war. What had begun as an invasion justified by weapons inspections and regime change became a prolonged struggle against decentralised militant groups, and ultimately gave rise to a new extremist movement in the form of ISIS. At home, it reshaped political debate in both Britain and America, weakening confidence in political leaders, deepening public distrust of intelligence based justifications for war, and leaving caution toward foreign intervention that would influence policy for years to come.

The 1991 Soviet Coup

Mikhail Gorbachev was a farmer and later member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He ascended to become secretary of the party Central Committee and was eventually appointed to the Politburo Executive Committee, the highest executive committee within the party and the de facto ruling body of the country. Following the death of Konstantin Chernenko, he was eventually elected President of the Soviet Union and General Secretary of the Committee by the Politburo in 1985.

An image of Gorbachev

Gorbachev, unlike his predecessors, realised where the issues of the Soviet Union had come from, as he was the only leader to have been born and grown up after the revolution. Much of government economic policy was centred around a command economy, in which many economic activities were planned centrally by the government, who prioritised machinery and large projects over consumer goods and quality. The inefficiency and bureaucracy of the Soviet economy also began to show. Many Soviet projects involved the government setting a goal and throwing as much money at it until it happened. This meant that less efficient, and thus longer, processes received more funding over the quicker ones, even if they both achieved the same goal.

They also spent far too much on weapons in order to compete with the United States as a superpower whilst also prioritising policies that were “communist” regardless of whether it worked or not. This disregard for pragmatism and solely prioritising ideological loyalty meant mass housing projects had extremely poor living standards, a free healthcare system was notoriously poor and cheaper food came at the cost of an unhealthy diet. Gorbachev was one of the only few to realise this, and began implementing mass reforms, constraining the power of the secret police, known as the KGB, bringing about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and returning power to the people instead of the tight grip on power at the top. What was important to note was that Gorbachev was not opposed to communism, but instead believed that the Soviet system, established by Lenin, tightened by Stalin and enforced by Brezhnev, was a bastardisation of communism and had become nothing more than a bloated bureaucracy that did not serve the people like the initial ideology was founded upon.

There is plenty of everything: land, oil and gas, other natural riches, and God gave us lots of intelligence and talent, yet we lived much worse than developed countries and keep falling behind them more and more. The reason could already be seen: the society was suffocating in the vise of the command-bureaucratic system, doomed to serve ideology and bear the terrible burden of the arms race.

Gorbachev in his resignation speech
An image of the famous Soviet Apartment Blocs

One of the key steps in delivering his change was replacing the hardline Stalinists in government with those more open to change. One notable member of this group was Boris Yeltsin, the chair of the Communist Party in Moscow. He began improving diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, by opening up foreign investment, opening up trade opportunities and ceasing production of weaponry in order to bring an end to the Cold War, strongly contrasting with American policy of increasing military spending to combat the “evil empire.” He also transformed the Soviet economy from the command economy to a mixed economy, which incorporated more free market elements. Whilst businesses had to make a minimum amount set by the government to give to the state, they could also go above the minimum and sell that for profit.

The government stopped propping up failing businesses and introduced limited private ownership and reduced state control over enterprises. However, this shift from a far-left centralised economy to a left-wing or centre-left mixed economy faced hardships. Whilst many expected this stark change to create a temporary and small economic downturn, the downturn extended much longer than was anticipated. Firstly, Gorbachev overestimated how mismanaged the economy actually was, as when they withdrew funds from failing businesses, wide gaps in the market opened up, leading to rationing of resources and overcrowding of shops and infamous massive queues. In addition, tax breaks combined with increased spending in certain areas led to a massive government deficit. This wouldn’t have been an issue if the transition was faster, but, as Gorbachev stated in his resignation speech, the old system had collapsed too quickly and did not give enough time for the new system to build.

A queue outside a Soviet shop during Gorbachev’s Presidency

Meanwhile, social reforms were improving too. Many in the Soviet leadership believed that democracy should take a more important factor in communism, holding them to account when they were voted out by the people that communism claimed to serve. With the restriction of the secret police, the publishing of government documents and the permission to publish previously banned books an intellectual renaissance was created within the Soviet Union and its client states. However, this did not go the way the government intended. Instead of people seeing the transparency of the government and thinking of ways to fix the communist system, they instead decided to remove communism altogether.

In Poland, a trade union rebellion instigated the first democratic elections in Poland since the 1930s, in which the anti-Soviet liberal Solidarity Citizens’ Committee won a 99 out of 100 seat majority in the Polish Senate. The very notable thing that the Soviet Union did, however, was nothing. Unlike prior revolutions in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the Soviet Union did not strike back against the trade unionists with military force. All of a sudden multiple protests occurred across Eastern Europe in 1989, all of which resulted in democratic elections and the end of communist rule for the first time in nearly 50 years. Most notably Hungary opened up its fenced off border with Austria, allowing the first citizens to cross the Iron Curtain.

A photo of a Polish polling station

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, many other European nations began to reject communism. In Bulgaria, the Communist Party agreed to free elections after mass protests, while in Czechoslovakia the Velvet Revolution saw huge, peaceful demonstrations force the government to resign. In Romania, however, the collapse of communism was far more violent, as armed clashes in the streets led to the overthrow and execution of dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, footage that was later broadcasted on TV. Together, these events showed that Soviet control over Eastern Europe had fatally weakened, feeding a wave of anti-communist sentiment that eventually reached Moscow.

By 1991, the reforms had fatally weakened the political foundations of the Soviet state. Mass protest movements across Eastern Europe and within the Union’s own republics had already dismantled Communist rule beyond Moscow’s control. These pressures converged with institutional decay within party leadership. Economic decline, declining faith in Marxist ideology and the erosion of censorship under Gorbachev deprived the Communist Party of its claim to political necessity. When Gorbachev permitted competitive elections in the Republics that made up the USSR in 1990, the Union’s authority was further fractured by creating a dual structure of power. Gorbachev had remained President of the Union, while the Russian Republic elected Yeltsin as its own president, challenging the supremacy of the Soviet state from within.

A photo of Yeltsin after winning the Presidency

This unresolved constitutional conflict culminated in August 1991. A group of senior Party officials, military commanders, and KGB leaders formed an emergency committee and placed Gorbachev under house arrest while he was on holiday in Crimea. Declaring that reforms had endangered socialism and national stability, they announced a state of emergency and attempted to restore central control through force. Tanks entered Moscow and surrounded the Russian parliament building, the “White House,” where Yeltsin and his supporters established a barricade to resist the oncoming army. The coup plotters proved incapable of securing loyalty from either the armed forces or the public. After three days of mass demonstrations, military defections, and administrative paralysis, the coup collapsed. Its failure discredited the Communist Party beyond recovery and destroyed what remained of Soviet authority.

In the weeks that followed, republics including Ukraine and Belarus declared full independence. The Communist Party was banned in Russia, its assets seized, and the Union reduced to a powerless committee. In December 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus formally dissolved the Soviet Union. The Cold War ended not through military defeat, as many had expected, but through political implosion. A system built on ideological unity collapsed when it could no longer reconcile reform with authority, or central control with national self-determination. Unlike the Third Reich, the Soviet Union did not come crashing down in a burning wreck but merely fizzled out.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall

For 26 long and arduous years, the Berlin Wall stayed up. Anywhere between 130-200 people attempted to cross the wall and died trying. Many Presidents and Soviet Leaders came and went, until two very divisive figures showed up.

One of them was Ronald Reagan, a film star turned Governor of California and later POTUS, who had a very tough stance on communism compared to his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. Whilst no-one wanted communism to spread, Reagan was harder on it than most. He advanced technology, especially in the space programme and computers. In order to stop the spread of communism in South America, he actively traded with Iran, who had an embargo due to their war with Iraq who was a US Ally, in order to fund anti-communist militia forces in Nicaragua, in the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

A photo of Reagan

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

Ronald Reagan, National Association of Evangelicals, 1983

The USSR believed much of what Reagan was doing was an intentional prep for war. Whilst tensions rose, the unthinkable happened. Leonid Brezhnev died. He was replaced by Yuri Andropov, who also died. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko, who also died. He was replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev, who did not die. He believed that the reason the Soviet system was failing was because people were not satisfied with the outcome of their hard work, due to the lack of free speech in the country.

A photo of Gorbachev

His changes were enacted quickly. People were allowed to criticise the government, they were allowed to enjoy Western pop-culture and food and the media were allowed to interview western politicians, most notably the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. He also began de-escalating the arms race with the West, most notably stopping the production of Intermediate Ballistic Missiles. Where many others in the Eastern Bloc saw reform, Reagan saw an opportunity.

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. . . . Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. . . . As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. […] General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Ronald Reagan, Brandenburg Gate, 1987
Reagan making his famous “Tear down this wall” speech

With all these reforms, many began to question what would become of the Eastern Bloc, an idea that crossed the Prime Minister of Hungary’s mind. He visited Moscow, and asked Gorbachev about reforms he wanted to enact. Gorbachev said that he did not agree with them but would not stop them from happening either.

Many countries in the Eastern Bloc began carrying out free and fair elections, with Poland’s anti-Soviet party winning 99 out of 100 seats in the Senate. Barbed wire began to come down in Hungary and the Iron Curtain was crumbling. One country that did not enact such reforms was Germany, run by hardline Stalinist, Erich Honecker. The still destitute Germans realised that if transport was permitted out of Hungary, then they could get to Hungary and move to the West that way. Tens of thousands practiced this before Honecker stepped in and banned all transport to Hungary. However, the Freedom Fever kept going as the Czech Embassy for East Germany was opened to civilians and political unrest began occurring in East Germany. Honecker was ousted by the Politburo whilst the unrest continued. One target on their minds was the wall.

On November 9th, 1989, in order to quell the chaos, the East German Government held a press conference led by Günter Schabowski, where it was announced that the travel ban from East to West Germany would be lifted. Towards the end of this hectic conference, he was asked when this would take effect he said that “As far as I know, it takes effect immediately, without delay”. This was a mistake. The ban was meant to be lifted the next day. But, the German people had heard what they wanted to hear and, later that day, thousands of Germans came to the wall. The guards, overwhelmed, allowed the people through, whereupon the Berlin Wall was torn down.

A photo of the fall of the wall

The tearing down of the Berlin Wall is considered to be one of the great stepping stones in Eastern European freedom and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Families and friends who had been separated for nearly 3 decades partied into the night. The next year, Germany reunified into one German State.

The Chernobyl Disaster

In 1932, in Cavendish University, J. D. Cockcroft and E. T. S. Walton bombarded lithium with protons from a particle accelerator. The protons caused the lithium atom to split. Many scientists realised that if they continued to split uranium and plutonium atoms, with the protons from one atom splitting another and the process repeating in a process called fission, they could make a new source of energy. Much of this energy was harnessed in Nuclear Power Plants. By 1986, there were 389 power plants, 37 of which resided inside the Soviet Union.

Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was constructed in 1983, with Viktor Bryukhanov, manager of construction of the plant, telling higher ups in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that a test had been conducted in order to ensure the safety of the reactor. However, this was false. Bryukhanov would later defend this saying that completing work ahead of schedule entitled party members to significant bonuses. Despite the lack of the safety check, the plant went into operation.

A photo of the plant before the explosion

Eventually, Nikolai Fomin, Chief Engineer, authorised the test to go ahead on April 25th, 1986 and the test would be performed by the workers of the afternoon shift. However, party officials from Kyiv requested that the test be delayed to late that night, as they did not want citizens to lose power in the middle of the day. Despite the workers of the afternoon shift being debriefed on what to do, the night shift workers were tasked with going ahead with the test instead.

Anatoly Dyatlov, deputy Chief Engineer, was monitoring the test, with the nightshift foreman, Alexander Akimov, and the Senior Reactor Control Engineer, Leonid Toptumov, who was only 25. Toptumov had only been operating the reactor for 2 months before the test, whilst neither Akimov or Toptumov had ever done the test before and weren’t properly briefed, with the test manual being heavily annotated and thus hard to follow. This meant that the two men were relying entirely on Dyatlov, as he was the most experienced in nuclear energy. In order to conduct the test, the reactors power levels had to be reduced to around 700 MW. However, an error was made by Toptumov.

A diagram of a Nuclear Reactor

Control rods help moderate the fission reactions, which heat up the water, which spins the turbines that generate the electricity. Toptumov’s mistake was that he had put these control rods in far too deep and the reactor practically went offline. Dyatlov was infuriated at the error but still insisted that the test go through anyway, despite the lack of power that was required to do so. He ordered that the control rods be raised, in an attempt to bring the power back up. The workers did what they were told and raised all but 8 control rods, whilst the minimum amount for safety is around about 30.

Many debate what happened next. Dyatlov claimed that everything was going as planned and part of the test was to press the emergency shut down button. However, many others testified that the power levels began to rise incredibly fast to dangerous levels. Whatever the case may be, what we know for certain is that Akimov pressed the AZ-5 emergency shut down button, which re-inserted every single control rod into the core.

Logically, this was supposed to immediately shut down all power. However, due to cutting cost, the rods were tipped with graphite, which got stuck at the heart of the core due to steam pressure. Graphite, when reacting with the radioactive elements, causes an increase in energy, before the control rods shut it down. The levels of energy rose higher and higher and, with the added steam pressure, the 1000 ton lid of the reactor was blown clean off. Then, once the core was exposed a second, undetermined, reaction occurred, causing and even larger explosion that blew the roof off the factory.

At 1:23 in the morning, the explosion echoed around the nearby city of Pripyat. Decimeters in the plant, that were only capable of detecting 3.6 roentgen per hour, broke due to the overload. The reactor was actually emitting over 15,000 roentgen per hour. Firefighters quickly arrived on the scene, many of whom succumbed to radiation sickness. Once they arrived at Pripyat Hospital, their highly radioactive clothes had to be taken off and we thrown into the basement, where they still rest to this day.

A photo of the firefighters clothes in the basement of Pripyat Hospital

Over 45,000 residents from Pripyat had to be evacuated. Eventually, a large sarcophagus was built over the reactor to contain the radiation, which was replaced by the Chernobyl New Safe Containment in 2016.

Dyatlov was sentenced to 10 years in prison for criminal negligence and failure to comply with the safety regulations of the test. He was released after serving only 4 years due to health concerns and died in 1995, aged 64 of bone marrow cancer, likely caused by his exposure to the plant’s radiation. Tomin, despite attempting to commit suicide multiple times, was also sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was also released from prison early and, as far as we’re aware, he is still alive today, living with his family in Udomlya. Bryukhanov sentenced to 10 years also, for gross violation of safety regulations, creating conditions that led to an explosion, mismanagement by understating the radiation levels after the accident, administrative negligence and sending people into known contaminated areas. He was released for good behaviour in 1991 and died in 2021 from an undisclosed disease, although we know he had Parkinson’s later in life.

Bryukhanov (left), Dyatlov (centre) and Tomin (right), on trial for their negligence at Chernobyl

To this day, the Russian Government still claims that only 31 people died from the disaster, whilst UN estimates claimed that 50 deaths were caused as a direct result of the explosion, with a further 4,000 succumbing to radiation sickness or other illnesses related to exposure such as cancer. Many scientists cite the Chernobyl Disaster as the worst disaster in the history of nuclear energy.

The Falklands War

In 1494, a line was drawn on a map by the Pope. This line dictated what would rightfully be owned by Spain or Portugal. On the Spain side of the line, there was a small cluster of islands, which would later go on to be named the Falkland Islands

A map of the Pope’s line

In 1765, Anthony Cary, Viscount of Falkland, tasked a mariner by the name of John Strong to look for the wreck of a Spanish ship off the coast of Chile. On his way down, he discovered the islands and claimed them in the name of Britain. However, one year earlier, the French had found the Eastern most island. France, finding out about the British setting up a colony on the western island, called upon Spain to assist. Spain informed France about the line on the map, and, as they were allies, France peacefully handed over their colony to Spain. They warned the Spanish about the British on the Western Island. Once Spain had gone over there, the British claimed that the island was theirs as they were Protestants who did not care for the opinions of the Catholic Pope, but were threatened into leaving the island. Fearing a war with the British over this island, Spain attempted to call upon France, who could not join as they were not ready for war. That meant Spain had to give the colony back to the British. Eventually, British soldiers had to leave the region in order to deal with the American Revolution but left a plaque claiming their territory.

The plaque left by the British

Once Napoleon had gotten into power, he invaded Spain, capturing King Ferdinand. This instability within Spain led to many South American Spanish colonies wanting independence, meaning that Spain had to leave the islands to deal with the crisis. The islands were left practically uninhabited for many years, except for penguins, fishers and gauchos, essentially Spanish cowboys.

Luis Vernet, a Merchant from Hamburg had recently moved to the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, modern day Argentina. He heard about the cows on the islands and had wanted to make some money through cattle farming. He got permission from both Rio de la Plata and the British government to set up a port on the Eastern Island. Eventually, some American ships came down and began whaling in the region, which angered Vernet. Vernet requested assistance from Rio de Plata, who gave him some weapons and appointed him governor of the islands. He seized the ships and arrested the crew. The US, learning of this, came down and bombarded the harbour.

Britain, finding out that Vernet had been appointed governor of the islands, pointed to the plaque claiming that the island was theirs. Britain came down with weapons, kicking them off the island. The island became a crowned colony in 1840, sheep were imported in 1851, two world wars came and went and the now Argentina was still claiming that they should own the islands.

It’s now 1982, and Leopoldo Galtieri was the ruler of Argentina under a right wing dictatorship. The economy was on the ropes and decided to recolonise the Falklands to distract the Argentinians from their economic crisis.

A photo of Galtieri

He decided that then was the time was to do it, as Britain was planning on cutting their military spending and the HMS Endurance had been withdrawn from the region. The Argentinians captured South Georgia Island before 600 troops were sent to the Falklands. The British Garrison at Port Louis put up resistance but were ultimately crushed by the much larger Argentine force. They assumed the British would do nothing about the invasion. They were incredibly wrong about this. Enter Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher was a love her or hate her Prime Minister, with rarely a person having a middling opinion on her. But she was very well known for being tough, creating her nickname “The Iron Lady”

A photo of Thatcher

Thatcher declared an exclusion zone around the island, sending down a task force to deal with the islands. The UN weren’t happy with Argentina’s invasion, but every Latin American country other than Chile supported Argentina and the US had toppled the communists in 1976, which led to the dictatorship being established that Galtieri ruled over. Reagan requested that Thatcher not attack the Falklands, who obviously denied such a request. Reagan instead armed thatcher with some American guns.

A map of the Falkland Islands

Having travelled 8000 miles, the Argentinian troops had time to entrench themselves, setting up defences and mines. The Royal Navy made easy work of obtaining Naval superiority. The British sank and Argentine Cruise ship outside the exclusion zone. After the sinking, the Argentinian navy withdrew. Due to their Air Bases on the Island, the Argentinians managed to maintain air superiority, sinking the HMS Sheffield on May 4th. The Argentinian air force would carry out raids on the Navy, whilst naval Harriers attempted to take down the Argentine Planes. As the aerial battles raged on, San Carlos was declared as the best landing spot. An SAS raid was carried out on Pebble Island whilst ships engaged on skirmishes, taking out the Argentine Naval Presence.

The landings began on May 21st. Argentinian aircraft would fly over the ships, damaging a few and sinking others. The Fleet Air Arm and the Anti-Air guns made quick work of the Argentine Air Force, allowing a beach head to form. Forces began pushing East and South, towards Port Stanley and Goose Green respectively. Despite having a smaller army deployed in the area, the British would usually win battles, with the larger Argentinian Forces surrendering. After 14 hours of battling, Goose Green was captured by the British, taking 900 Argentinian POWs. The British began preparing for battle at Port Stanley, eventually taking control of the hilly and mountainous areas around the Capital. The Argentinians retreated into the town, where they were bombarded by the Royal Navy. Surrounded, the Argentinians surrendered on June 14th, ending the war.

Around 200 British lives were lost, with around 600 on the Argentinian side. The Islands were firmly British. In 2013, a referendum was held, wherein there was a 99.8% support for British Ownership. Only 3 people voted in favour of Argentina.

The Soviet-Afghan War

In 1973, Mohammad Daoud Khan overthrew his own first cousin, the King of Afghanistan, establishing an autocratic one party nation. Despite his many economic reforms, similar to those of his cousins, Khan’s foreign policy strained tension with neighbours and factions within his own country. Eventually, Khan was overthrown and killed by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan lead by Hafizullah Amin in 1978, making Afghanistan a Communist nation.

Insurgent cars arriving at the Presidential Palace, 1978

Soon, the new Communist Afghanistan, with new President, Nur Muhammed Taraki, began facing struggles. They tried to reform women’s rights, mainly to education, make the state more secular and enacted some awful land reforms. Anyone who spoke out about these reforms would be arrested. Soon, uprisings from Islamic Rural areas began occurring and Taraki began losing control of his nation. During the violence, Taraki was killed by Amin, allowing Amin to ascend to power

Meanwhile, Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Soviet Union, and the rest of the Kremlin did not trust Amin and decided that in order to secure their next door neighbour, not wanting yet another fundamentalist Islamic country on their doorstep like Iran before it, Amin had to die. On December 27th, 1979, Soviet forces raided the palace, killing Amin, putting a Soviet puppet in his place, Babrak Karmal. Whilst Soviet forces did manage to capture key military forts in cities and urban areas, they were unable to secure the insurgents in the mountainous countryside, who would use the mountainous terrain to wage brutal guerilla warfare. These insurgents were called the Mujahideen. And this was just the ticket, the US needed.

Outside of the Warsaw Pact, the international community strongly opposed the invasion, with many other Communist nations such as China, Muslim majority countries such as Pakistan and many more opposing the occupation. However, no-one was a stronger opponent than the United States, who imposed a trade embargo on Soviet products, boycotted the Olympic Games, which were being held in Moscow that year, and, most importantly funded the Mujahideen.

It was the height of the Cold War, and, after the Iran Hostage Crisis, Jimmy Carter had not won a second term. The new “tough on Communism” Ronald Reagan wanted to limit Soviet expansion as much as possible, whilst also wanting to give the Soviets their own Vietnam.

2/2/1983 President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters in the Oval Office to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan

We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.

Reagan in his 1985 State of the Union address.

Over six years, in Operation Cyclone, the CIA would funnel $3.2 billion worth of weapons, economic help and military training towards the Mujahideen. Pakistan was also a large supporter of the Mujahideen’s efforts against the Soviets, serving as an operational base for the Mujahideen. The British were also a key supplier of finances and weapons, with MI6 assisting from their base in Islamabad.

During the war, atrocities were committed by both sides, with the Soviet Forces engaging in chemical warfare and airstrikes on civilian targets, whilst the Mujahideen brutally tortured captives. These acts forced 4 million citizens to seek asylum and did nothing to help either side.

Soon, the USSR, under the new leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, realised that there was no winning this conflict. It began to slowly withdraw whilst stabilising a Communist government under their new puppet, Mohammad Najibullah, who, despite his decent reforms, did not help the trust in the communist government. They also restricted direct involvement, only training and funding a new Communist Afghan Army, which ultimately resulted in failure.

The Soviet-Afghan War was an absolute catastrophe for the Soviets. It showed the weakness in the Belly of the Bear, and proved that, with time, the Soviet Union could be defeated. Many historians cite the war as laying the groundwork for the collapse of the Soviet Union, only 2 years after the end of the war. The Communist regime eventually collapsed, thrusting Afghanistan into civil war, with one of the factions of the Mujahideen, the Taliban, taking control of the country in 1996 and were not deposed until 2001 during the War in Afghanistan, starting a terrorist insurgency that would last 2 decades, eventually returning to power in 2021 after the American withdrawal from the country. By many scholars, the Taliban and the rule they imposed over Afghanistan, as well as their insurgency, is currently considered to be one of the greatest enemies to the United States and the world at large

A modern day photo of Taliban Insurgents in Afghanistan

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan […] but we condemn the Taliban regime.  […] It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.  By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.  

George W. Bush addressing Congress

The Assassination of Lord Mountbatten

Lord Louis Mountbatten was a Statesman, Naval Officer and the 1st Earl of Burma. He was the uncle of Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark. Louis was a great influence on the young Phillip so he ended up taking Mountbatten’s surname. When Phillip married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947, Louis ended up becoming an honorary member of the royal family.

A photo of Lord Mountbatten

Meanwhile, a group of radical Irish Republican Catholics began believing that Ireland was meant to be united as one, instead of split between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This group would call themselves the IRA or the (Provisional) Irish Republican Army

One of their members was Thomas McMahon. Not much is known about McMahon, other than he was one of the most skilled bomb makers in the IRA.

A photo of McMahon

On the night of August 26th, 1979 in Mullaghmore Harbour in the Republic of Ireland, McMahon is reported to have slipped onto a boat, the Shadow V, and left undetected.

The next morning, Mountbatten went out fishing on the Shadow V with his grandsons, Nicholas and Timothy Knatchbull, his daughter and son-in-law, Patricia and John Knatchbull, his mother-in-law, Doreen Knatchbull, and a crew boy named Paul Maxwell. A few hours after they set sail, they were off shore, when all of a sudden…

A large explosion erupted from the boat. The explosion was allegedly so powerful that Mountbatten’s legs were nearly torn clean off. He was found in the water alive and pulled to shore, but succumbed to his injuries before he reached the shoreline. Paul and Nicholas were also killed in the explosion. All other occupants of the boat were seriously injured, with Doreen dying in hospital from her wounds soon afterwards.

The remnants of the Shadow V

The IRA claimed responsibility for the attack. McMahon had gone onto the boat to plant a bomb made of gelignite. He was arrested for suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle. Traces of the paint from Shadow V and nitroglycerine were found on his clothes, connecting him to the attacks, so he was sentenced to life in prison. The IRA claimed that the attack was “a discriminate act to bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country”. This day was the deadliest attack in IRA history, as that same day a British Military convoy was attacked by the IRA in a guerilla ambush, killing 18 men. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time, ramped up SAS involvement in the Troubles, ordering them to kill any known IRA volunteers. She was also the victim of a bombing at a hotel she was staying at in Brighton, but was left only lightly injured. McMahon was eventually paroled in 1998, in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement

In the aftermath of the bombing, many head of states, including Jimmy Carter, US President, and Pope John Paul II sent their condolences to the royal family, the US State Department saying that “Americans will especially recall his great contribution to our common cause in World War II as well as his many services to this country and to the world since then.” Many others regard Mountbatten as a war hero for his service in World War 2, defending against the axis powers. A 3 day period of mourning was observed in Burma. His state funeral was held on September 5th, 1979

Mountbatten’s State Funeral

The Rhodesian Bush War

In the late 19th century, resource rich territories in Northern and Western territories in what is now Zimbabwe caught the eye of Cecil Rhodes, a British Mining Magnate. Using his royally chartered company, the British South Africa Company (BSAC), he was able to force his way into the area, despite resistance from native tribes. Eventually, British settlers began coming en-masse to find work and land. BSAC was henceforth given full control of the region which would later become known as Rhodesia, named in honour of BSAC’s founder.

A cartoon comparing Cecil Rhodes to the Ancient Wonder of the World ‘The Colossus of Rhodes’

However, land disputes between the British settlers and the indigenous population soured racial tensions between the two groups. Much of Rhodesia’s domestic policy relied on a segregationist system, similar to the Jim Crow South, that favoured the white minority population. Despite only making up 5% of the Rhodesian population, they controlled all aspects of government, with only 15 seats of the 65 seats in the Rhodesian Parliament being allocated to black politicians in the 1962 election by Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith. Whilst the black population were given the right to vote, the registration process required a higher education, something that was systematically made much more accessible to the white population than the black population.

As anti-monarchist and anti-colonial sentiment in British life began to make waves, the decolonisation efforts of Harold Wilson’s Labour Government began to be enforced. Their policy was simple. “No independence before majority rule.” The white ruling class of Rhodesia began to panic, fearing a similar fate to the mass upheaval that befell the Congo upon its independence from Belgium. In this panic, the government unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965. Smith stated that:

Rhodesia did not want to seize independence from Britain. It was forced upon us.

Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith
Ian Smith signing the declaration of independence

This was condemned at large by the international community but Rhodesians saw this as an act of survival. From this date forth, they were privately funded by South Africa and Portuguese Mozambique. However, many Rhodesian Black Nationalists, wanting a majority rule, saw this as an opportunity. The black majority population of Rhodesia saw the Rhodesian declaration of independence as a move in order for the white majority government to secure more power for themselves and undermine the black population and their rights even more than they had before.

The two notable factions of the black nationalists were the Zimbabwean Africa People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), both of whom adhered to communism. Whilst ZAPU adhered to Marxist-Leninist doctrine and preferred traditional open warfare, ZANU, a splinter group of ZAPU, adhered to Maoism and received backing from China, whilst practicing guerilla fighting. However, both these groups had been banned following the 1964 killing of Andrew Oberholzer by ZANU insurgents. Largely condemned as a political crime against an innocent foreman, key figures from both groups, such as Joshua Nkomo, head and co-founder of ZAPU, Ndabaningi Sithole, co-founder of ZANU, and Robert Mugabe, head of ZANU, were sentenced to ten years in prison, whilst their paramilitary branches went into exile. Eventually, insurgent operations conducted from exile eventually devolved into an asymmetric bush war.

A photo of Muagbe (left) and Nkomo (right)

When the declaration of independence escalated conflict between black nationalist cells and the Rhodesian government, Rhodesia was not fully alone in the conflict. Despite a UN embargo, the secret pipelines through South Africa and Portuguese Mozambique kept them supplied. Despite their vast advantage over the enemy, with the highly trained SAS and air superiority, many of the ZANU and ZAPU forces had taken extensive training in Cuba, the USSR and North Korea. In addition, the Rhodesians could not secure their borders from the guerillas, who were being actively assisted by insurgents from Mozambique. Most of the fighting took place trying to secure the North eastern border. However, the insurgents were becoming much more resilient to Rhodesia’s efforts. Much of this led to both sides committing great atrocities. The black nationalists abducted children into their cause to fight and conducted raids on white farms whilst the Rhodesian army often tortured and executed insurgents extrajudicially.

When Portugal’s African colonies claimed their independence, the Rhodesians began working with South Africa for a ceasefire, unintentionally allowing the resistance to regroup. However, by 1975, ZANU and ZAPU had resorted to infighting, including the assassination of leaders and targeting each other as much as they did with the Rhodesian army. ZANU was eventually forced into retreating to a headquarters in Mozambique before resuming the fighting by early 1976, much more brutally than before. In response, the Rhodesians began conducting operations outside of Rhodesia’s borders in order to crush external militia help. Most notably, a group of Rhodesian soldiers disguised as Fromila (Mozambique black nationalist) soldiers entered Nyadzona in Mozambique, and began opening fire on a camp just outside the city. This drew mass controversy as the camp did not just consist of insurgents but also refugees, including the elderly, women and children. The raid killed over 1000 people, according to Amnesty International. Due to this, South Africa withdrew its support. Rhodesia was now completely isolated.

Rhodesia soldiers donning Fromila uniform and blackface in order to infiltrate Mozambique

Eventually, peace talks between the black nationalists and Smith’s administration began. Bishop Abel Muzorewa, leader of the United African National Council, began talks with Smith, establishing Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as a transitional government to stable majority rule, whilst still allowing white representation. This angered many guerilla forces, seen as appeasing the white minority rule. The fighting escalated, leading to more atrocities committed by the Black Nationalists, such as the infamous Elim Mission Massacre, where ZANU forces killed 12 Christian missionaries, including a child in its pyjamas, and raped 4 of the 5 women at the mission. As ZANU marched west and ZAPU marched east, their fighting often focused more on each other than Rhodesian security forces, desperate to stop the skirmishes turning into all out civil war.

Eventually, the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 eventually marked a shift towards peace. Under temporary British rule, Rhodesia collapsed and Zimbabwe took its place. In the subsequent 1980 elections, allegations of voter intimidation and a potential military coup were rife. As a result, Robert Mugabe rose to become Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and later President, positions that he would control for almost 40 years. Whilst his administration expanded healthcare and education opportunities, it was also mired by mass political suppression and the violent seizure of land from white farmers, which led to decreased food production and a famine. The former guerilla fighters became a private militia for Mugabe by 2000, who killed more than 100 people in violent election campaigns. Mass hyperinflation was a large problem under Mugabe’s regime, leading to the introduction of a Z$100 trillion note, that only made the economy worse. Currently, £1 in the UK (worth about $1.34 USD) is worth over Z$87,100. He was eventually ousted in a coup in 2017 and replaced by Emmerson Mnangagwa, a regime change that has merely led to even more political suppression. Mugabe passed away in 2019. As of 2025, Zimbabwe is still not a member of the Commonwealth, despite its efforts to be readmitted.

A photo of Mugabe at the United Nations General Assembly

The reputation and legacy of both Rhodesia and the black nationalists are controversial. Whilst Rhodesia’s economy prospered greatly despite the international sanctions, its foundational systematic racist segregation policies has led to the flag being embraced as a symbol by modern white supremacist movements. Many perceive the black nationalists as liberators from colonial rule, whilst some focus on their brutality during the war and the political suppression, corruption and dire economy once in power to condemn them. The Rhodesian Bush War has been described by many as Africa’s equivalent to the Vietnam War.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

In 1959, the Cuban communist revolutionary, Fidel Castro with the help of Che Guevara toppled the US Backed military dictator, Fulgencio Batista. He immediately began mass land reforms, giving land taken by the Americans back to the Cuban people, before he aligned himself with Nikita Khrushchev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

A photo of Castro (left) and Khrushchev (right)

Fearing the communism in his own backyard, President Dwight D. Eisenhower cut off all diplomatic relations with Cuba and issued a trade embargo. He also requested, on his way out, that some Jupiter Class Nuclear Missiles be place in Turkey and an invasion would go ahead against Cuba, using 1400 trained CIA Trained Cuban exiles. The next President, the young and charming John F. Kennedy was told that the US involvement could be covered up and that the invasion would cause an anti-Communist uprising in Cuba.

Unfortunately, the plan went awry very quickly, with poorly disguised bombers missing their targets and immediately being identified as American. The invasion was an absolute disaster, with hundreds of American lives being ended and thousands captured.

American Operatives being captured in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs

Sensing weakness from America, Khrushchev took this opportunity to erect the Berlin Wall in August of that same year. Kennedy spoke on the wall in his famous speech, where he said:

[D]emocracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in.

Kennedy speaking in Berlin in 1963

Not long after that, Khrushchev was on his boat in the Black Sea, thinking about the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. Whilst the missiles weren’t highly effective, Khrushchev still believed the missile’s presence to be an act of aggression. And slowly, an idea began to brew in Khrushchev’s head.

Day 1 – October 16th, 1963

At around 8 in the morning on October 16th, 1962, NSA, McGeorge Bundy arrived at the White House, informing President Kennedy of a photograph taken by a U2 Spy plane over Cuba. The photographs clearly showed Soviet Medium Range Ballistic missiles, with a range far enough to destroy most of the Eastern Seaboard.

Labeled photographs taken by the spy plane

Within minutes, Kennedy gathered his foreign policy team, including Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor, Speech Writer, Ted Sorenson and ambassador Lewin Thompson. As the crisis developed, the committee would soon become known as the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, or ExComm for short.

They agreed to secrecy and not to let anyone else know about the crisis. However, the secrecy could not really be broken, as no-one really knew specifics. Would the missiles launch and, if so, when? Could there be more missiles? But, amidst the uncertainty and speculation, Kennedy was firm. He could not allow Soviet missiles in Cuba and they had to be removed immediately. There were 4 main options considered, either a limited airstrike on the missile bases, a wider strike which would include other Cuban military facilities, an even larger airstrike which would then be followed up with an invasion or a blockade of Cuba.

Day 2 – October 17th, 1962

A photo of an ExComm meeting

They eventually ruled out just the airstrikes, insisting that if an airstrike were to be conducted it must be backed by an invasion, lest Khrushchev send more missiles. However, this was under the pretence that the missiles were not ready to fire, which they, in fact, were. More U2 Spy planes discovered even more sites, with the number now totalling 32 Soviet missiles in Cuba. However, Kennedy had to keep up appearances, having a dinner with the Libyan Crown Prince and supporting Democratic Congressional candidates in Connecticut.

Day 3 – October 18th, 1962

Kennedy decided to take action and had a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko, who denied that any Soviet offensive weapons were in Cuba.

A photo of the meeting with Gromyko

 As to Soviet assistance to Cuba, Mr. Gromyko stated that he was instructed to make it clear, as the Soviet Government had already done, that such assistance, pursued solely for the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba and to the development of Cuba, toward the development of its agriculture and land amelioration, and training by Soviet specialists of Cuba nationals in handling defensive armaments were by no means offensive. If it were otherwise, the Soviet Government would have never become involved in rendering such assistance.

An excerpt from a memorandum from the meeting with Gromyko

Kennedy was specific to not mention the missiles specifically, but did recall his public warning that he made on September 14th, that in response to any offensive weapons being put into Cuba by the Soviets, there would be the “gravest consequences”

Day 4 – October 19th, 1962

Still attempting to keep up appearances, Kennedy attended campaign events in Ohio and Illinois, whilst the rest of ExComm discussed plans to move forward. During this time, another spy plane managed to capture photos of an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Site. This would mean that if missiles were to fire from Cuba, the only safe major city in the United States would be Seattle.

A map with the range of the missiles highlighted in red

Day 5 – October 20th, 1962

Kennedy ended up having to lie to the American people so they would not panic, saying he had a cold, in order to return home to Washington instead of continuing his six state tour. After 5 hours of deliberation, ExComm came to the conclusion that a blockade must be enforced. However, they could not exactly call it a blockade, as that would be an act of war, so they very subtly decided to call it a “Quarantine”

Day 6 – October 21st, 1962

The military advisors, fearing their planned invasion would not go ahead, attempted to convince Kennedy one more time of an air strike. However, they could not guarantee that all the missiles would be hit. This was too much of a risk for Kennedy, who decided to go ahead with the quarantine.

Day 7 – October 22nd, 1962

Kennedy contacted Truman and Eisenhower, the two presidents before him, about the situation, before contacting British Prime Minister, Harold McMillan. He then wrote to Nikita Khrushchev before addressing the nation on national television.

Kennedy addressing the nation

This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet Military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.

[…]

Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.

Acting, therefore, in the defence of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:

First: To halt this offensive build-up, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948.

Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military build-up. The foreign ministers of the OAS, in their communique of October 6, rejected secrecy in such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned in continuing this threat will be recognized.

Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Fourth: As a necessary military precaution, I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby alert basis.

Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements–and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted.

Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted.

Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction–by returning to his government’s own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba–by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis–and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions.

[…]

My fellow citizens: let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can see precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead–months in which our patience and our will will be tested–months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.

The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are–but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high–and Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.

Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right- -not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.

JFK’s address to the nation

Day 8 – October 23rd, 1962

Kennedy signing the authorisation for the quarantine

Kennedy once again wrote to Khrushchev, requesting the stop of all Soviet ships towards Cuba. However, this writing would often take an obscenely long amount of time, with them having to be shipped halfway around the planet, translated, having a response written up, sent back and translated again. Sometimes, messages were not given responses for 12 hours at a time.

Day 9 – October 24th, 1962

Khrushchev wrote back to Kennedy regarding his letter. Whilst he did not actively threaten Kennedy, he also did not say he wouldn’t back down either.

You, Mr. President, are not declaring a quarantine, but rather are setting forth an ultimatum and threatening that if we do not give in to your demands you will use force. Consider what you are saying! And you want to persuade me to agree to this! What would it mean to agree to these demands? It would mean guiding oneself in one’s relations with other countries not by reason, but by submitting to arbitrariness. You are no longer appealing to reason, but wish to intimidate us.

An excerpt of Khrushchev’s letter to Kennedy

The DEFCON level was moved to DEFCON 2, one step short of all out war.

Day 10 – October 25th, 1962

Photos from the missile sites being shown at the UN

Kennedy once again urged Khrushchev to back down, whilst at the UN, United States Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, verbally attacked Valerian Zorin, Soviet Ambassador to the UN, presenting photos of the missiles.

Stevenson: Mr. Zorin, I remind you that you didn’t deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today — again, if I heard you correctly — you now say they don’t exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist. […] Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don’t wait for the translation: yes or no?

Zorin: I am not in an American courtroom, sir, and therefore I do not wish to answer a question that is put to me in the fashion in which a prosecutor does. In due course, sir, you will have your reply. […]

Stevenson: You are in the court of world opinion right now and you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist. I want to know […] if I’ve understood you correctly. [shows the photos] These weapons, gentlemen, these launching pads, these planes — of which we have illustrated only a fragment — are a part of a much larger weapons complex, what is called a weapons system. To support this build-up, to operate these advanced weapons systems, the Soviet Union has sent a large number of military personnel to Cuba — a force now amounting to several thousand men. These photographs, as I say, are available to members for detailed examination in the Trusteeship Council room following this meeting. There I will have one of my aides who will gladly explain them to you in such detail as you may require.

Day 11 – October 26th, 1962

A Soviet Freighter was stopped at the quarantine line and was searched for contraband. No such contraband was found and it was allowed to pass into Cuba. Castro sent a letter to Khrushchev, urging him to initiate a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States.

Day 12 – October 27th, 1962

A letter arrived from the Kremlin, requesting that in exchange for removing the missiles from Cuba, Kennedy had to withdraw the Jupiter Missiles from Turkey. Many in ExComm saw this as outrageous, with some even comparing it to Chamberlain’s appeasement before WW2, an appeasement which Kennedy’s father strongly supported. This option is opposed even more when Cuban Anti-Aircraft guns shoot down a U2 Spy Plane, killing the pilot. An American man had been killed because of this, and many military men in ExComm sought war. Kennedy resisted this pressure to invade strongly. Later that night, Bobby Kennedy met with a Soviet Ambassador to negotiate the terms of the missile withdrawal.

Day 13 – October 28th, 1962

The thirteen most tense days in human history were over, as both nations withdrew their missiles from Turkey and Cuba respectively as the world blew a massive sigh of relief. In addition, the United States pledged to never invade Cuba again.

Kennedy was eventually shot in a motorcade in Dallas in November of the next year. Some suspect that Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis undermined the CIA, who many believed ordered his assassination. Khrushchev was ousted from the communist party in 1964 and replaced by Leonid Brezhnev. Khrushchev then died of a heart attack in 1971. A hotline was set up between the two nations via a famous red phone in each of the leader’s offices, to ensure such delays in communication would never happen again. However, the United States and Cuba never sought diplomatic reconciliation until 2016, when Barack Obama became the first President to visit the country since 1928.

President Obama meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro

Many say, to this day, that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest humanity ever came to ending the world via nuclear annihilation. Whilst many, at the time, saw the two leaders of the two superpowers as traitors to their people for seeking a diplomatic solution, many today see them as brave men for doing such things and many in the West cite them as some of the greatest leaders of their respective countries.

The Construction of the Berlin Wall

After the end of World War 2, the 4 major powers that defeated the Nazis, the Americans, French, British and Soviets gathered together to discuss the matter of Germany. The powers feared that if Germany were to be reunited, at least immediately, the ideas of Nazism and Fascism could make a rise once more. An idea was proposed, that Germany be divided into West and East as a temporary measure, the West being occupied by the USA, UK and France and the East being controlled by the USSR.

However, soon the question of Berlin came up. Being around 200 miles into East Germany, logic dictated that Berlin fell into the hands of the Soviets. However, whoever controlled the capital practically controlled the country so a subdivision was set up, wherein France, Britain and America made the Western side of Berlin a part of West Germany, whilst the Eastern half was controlled by East Germany.

A contemporary map of post-war Germany

Soon, this temporary measure became somewhat permanent. The city of Berlin soon became divided into East Berliners and West Berliners. The West promoted the values of the countries occupying such as democracy and liberal market economies whilst the East promoted communism, not just in East Germany but other countries surrounding themselves. Trade from West to East was banned and a practically impenetrable border was made across East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone — Greece with its immortal glories — is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation.

Winston Churchill speaking at a Midwestern College, 1946

Whilst East Germans weren’t strictly allowed to leave East Germany to West Germany, the East Berliners, could simply walk across the road to West Berlin and were allowed to move from there. By 1961, 3.5 million people had followed this practice. This open border posed a problem to the Soviets. The Soviets had been portraying the West as a continuation of Nazism and their citizens were soon finding that wasn’t the case.

Whilst the Western Allies were promoting the reconstruction of Germany after the war, Soviets were extracting resources as war reparations, making the economic situation dire. Many East Berliners sought jobs in the West due to the more stable currency, whilst West Berliners bought products for cheaper prices in the East. Whilst education and healthcare were free in the East, consumer goods, salaries and general freedoms were better in the West, in no small part to the Eastern Secret police, called the Stasi, who would report on and arrest anyone accused of Anti-Soviet behaviour. Eventually, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev had enough of the emigration.

On August 13th, 1961, Berliners woke up to a large fence surrounding West Berlin. With 43km (27 miles) across Berlin and a further 112km (69.5 miles) in East Germany, Berlin was permanently divided. Before further construction could continue, some chose to leap over the barbed wire into the West but, before long, the Berlin Wall was fully constructed.

Map of the Berlin Wall

By 1975, large concrete barricades, rising to 3.6m (11ft) in height replaced the fences, with a smooth pipe to prevent climbing on the West Side. 302 watchtowers were set up in a new area called the Death Strip, a 100m (328ft) wide area in between the main wall and a less developed wall on the Eastern side. This area was littered with landmines, guard dogs and spike traps. Families were divided, friends separated and the ultimate symbol of the Eastern Bloc had been built, an authoritarian impassible wall that represented everything the West believed about Communism.

A photo of the Death Strip in Berlin

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was “civis Romanus sum.” Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

[…]

There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. […] While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. [This] generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people.

[…]

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

John F. Kennedy speaking at the Rudolph Wilde Platz in Berlin, 1963
JFK making his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, 1963