Search This Blog

Sunday, 29 March 2020

Comics Explained: The Batman Who Laughs


Despite only debuting in 2017 the Batman Who Laughs has made a big impact on DC comics. A mixture of his design, the premise behind him, and his significant presence in the Dark Knights: Metal storyline has made him a quickly popular character. Despite his recent appearance, he has already made a cameo in other media being an alternate skin for a character in Mortal Kombat 11. Created by Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo for their new Dark Knights: Metal story, where they wanted to create Batman's worst nightmare, and Scott hoped that he would be popular enough to remain a constant in the DC Universe. At the moment, his desire has come true. Before we discuss the Batman Who Laughs we have to first set out how this character came to be.

The Dark Multiverse
Barbatos
Many comic books have the idea of the Multiverse - including DC. Prior to the Flashpoint event, when the Multiverse was in existence, there was feasibly an infinite number of realities were an infinite number of variations of characters can exist. After the Flashpoint event the Multiverse was reduced to just 52 realities - among them a world where all crime is gone and the children of heroes live a reality TV show like life, a civil war among superhumans from Injustice, and even a universe where all the characters are anthropomorphic animals. Scott Snyder for Dark Knights: Metal created the Dark Multiverse. Over the course of the event more information was revealed about the Dark Multiverse. The Batman Who Laughs summed it up quite well:
Stop me if you've heard this one... worlds will live, worlds will die... but imagine if your every fear, each bad decision, gave birth to a malformed world of nightmare. A world that shouldn't exist. And desperate as it fights to survive in the light of the true multiverse far above... these worlds are doomed to rot apart, and die, because they are wrong at their core. Welcome to the Dark Multiverse. Home to stories that should never be... It's all one big cosmic joke, except no one on this side is laughing. ...well, almost no one...
As you can tell, the Dark Multiverse was a version of the Multiverse where nightmares and bad decisions lead to the creation of universes who were unstable in their structure. In the past, a being named the World Forger was tasked with having these unstable realities destroyed, and the energy from these destroyed worlds to be used to create new realities. The World Forger used the 'Great Dragon' Barbatos to destroy these worlds, but Barbatos later betrayed the World Forger and destroyed it. Barbatos allowed these universes to germinate with the intention of using them to invade and destroy the Multiverse. When the main reality Batman got transported through time by Darkseid during the Final Crisis event this brought him to the attention of Barbatos, who recognised the similarity between itself and Batman. Barbatos would use Batman to open the gateway between the Dark Multiverse and Multiverse, which is where the Batman Who Laughs comes in.

Origins
The Joker Robins
Although the Batman Who Laughs was introduced thanks to the Dark Knights: Metal event, it was actually in The Batman Who Laughs #1 which explored his origin. In Earth -22, Bruce Wayne and the DC Universe matched the mainstream reality except with one difference - it was based on Batman's fear of becoming like the Joker. In Earth -22 the Joker found out Batman's secret identity, and decided to perform the ultimate attack on Batman as a finale, due to the chemicals which turned him into the Joker now killing him. First wiping out all of Batman's villains, and killing Commissioner Gordon via an acid trap in his notebook, planned to merge the fates of himself and Bruce Wayne. He killed the parents of a few children in front of them, and then introduced them to his Joker Venom - copying the origin of Batman and the origin of Joker. To make his plan complete he had Batman witness the children's turn into 'Joker Robins'. A broken Batman broke free and choked the Joker to death, but the clown had a secret weapon - when he died his concoction would be released infecting whoever killed him. 


Killing the Bat Family
A few days later members of the Bat Family were training with robots programmed by Batman, but they were fighting surprisingly harder this day. When they confronted Batman about this, he revealed that he had been infected by the Joker's toxins, and was slowly becoming the Joker. While Nightwing assumes that the robots were set to harder difficulties so they could beat Batman when the time came; it turned out that the turn had already came. With the robots failing to kill the Bat Family, a now changed Bruce Wayne proceeded to shoot Nightwing, Batgirl, Red Robin, and Red Hood. Turning his son, the current Robin Damien Wayne, into another Joker Robin he soon wiped out the Justice League. Confirming his descent into the Batman Who Laughs, he used a type of kryptonite on Superman and Superboy causing them to kill Lois Lane before dying themselves. Laughing, he drew a smiley face on a window of the Justice League Watchtower in the blood of his former friends. Using the weaponry of the Justice League he soon proceeded to destroy life on the planet, and this is what made Barbatos to approach him to become his right-hand. Barbatos tasked the Batman Who Laughs to recruit the 'Dark Knights' - a collection of the most twisted versions of Batman who take over the Multiverse. 

Dark Knights: Metal

The Batman Who Laughs's major appearance was during the Dark Knights: Metal event, but I don't want to give away too many spoilers for the comic. As it was recently published it is still available in stores, and it's a good story, so I would recommend reading it yourself. Instead, I'll just quickly go over some notable events which the Batman Who Laughs oversaw. Naturally, being the right-hand of Barbatos, he lead the initial attack on the Multiverse, arriving in the main reality and setting the Joker Robins on the Court of Owls. The Court of Owls is a sinister group, and it is difficult to quickly summarise them, but for the purpose of Dark Knights: Metal, they worship Barbatos and worked to use Batman to bring them into the Multiverse. Now, with their purpose fulfilled, the Batman Who Laughs had them killed, and then sent the Dark Knights to attack the home cities of the Justice League. To secure his base in Gotham, he handed out cards which could alter reality to the Riddler, Poison Ivy, Firefly, Mad Hatter, Bane, and Mister Freeze - if someone wished to take down his base, they would have to fight through the warped version of Gotham created by the villains. Through the rest of the story, the Batman Who Laughs tries to wipe out reality and his enemies, but was challenged by a team of alternate reality Batmen led by the main Batman. However, what took the Batman Who Laughs was that the Joker helped in the fight. The Joker simply explained, the Batman Who Laughs still had the planning of Batman so they had to do something which Batman would never expect: fighting alongside the Joker.

After the Dark Knights

The Batman Who Laughs managed to survive the defeat of Barbatos, and was later found to be under the custody of Lex Luthor. The other members of the Legion of Doom, especially the Joker, were uncomfortable having the Batman Who Laughs at their base, and he himself goaded Luthor about knowing the secrets of the Multiverse. It turned out that the Batman could escape whenever he wanted; he was biding his time to see how events were going on the outside. Later, in exchange for information, Luthor released him. He then began his new goal: taking down Batman. To achieve his goal he recruited another Batman from the Dark Multiverse - the Grim Knight. A mixture of Batman and the Punisher, this version of Batman killed Joe Chill, who murdered Batman's parents, when he dropped his gun. This put him on a course to becoming a murderous Batman who turned Gotham into a police state. The Joker, meanwhile, realised that his Batman didn't have the same disregard for human life as the Batman Who Laughs and Grim Knight, so he infected Batman with a diluted version of the Joker Venom. He would become another Batman Who Laughs, but with more control. In the end, a confrontation in the Wayne graveyard main reality Batman defeated the Batman Who Laughs, and Alfred gave him a serum stopping him from becoming a new Batman Who Laughs. Despite his incarceration in the Hall of Justice, he began his new plot to tear apart the Justice League and this reality: infect Superman with the Joker Venom. He came close using an infected Shazam and Blue Beetle to get Superman in position, and he would have succeeded if not for Supergirl grabbing a batarang designed to affect Kryptonians before it could hit him. 

Thank you for reading. For other blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Sunday, 22 March 2020

World History: The First World War


The First World War, the Great War, has earned itself as one of the darkest parts of modern history. It is estimated that 40 million people were killed by the First World War, both military and civilian, through a mixture of conflict, genocide, disease, and starvation. The First World War was not the first global war, nor was it the first total war, but it was the conflict which shaped how we view both global and total wars. This war broke the old world, and set the stage for a new one - however bleak. As the First World War has been so thoroughly discussed we cannot cover everything, and bear in mind what we will discuss today is more of an overview. The origins of the war are so hotly debated that the books written about it available in the University of Edinburgh's library cover at least three shelves. Also, as I am not a military historian, we will not focus as much on the battles and fighting, although we will discuss them regardless.

Origins
As already mentioned, the origins of the war has been hotly debated, and these debates range from who 'started' it, and are the long or short term factors more important in the outbreak. James Joll, for example, holds that more short term factors were more important, whereas Christopher Clark holds that the long term factors were more important. Regardless, we have to discuss both. Following the defeat of France by the Prussians in 1871 it left France isolated diplomatically, so they made an alliance with another diplomatically isolated state - the Russian Empire. This would begin the treaty system where European states made alliances with the intention of these alliances deterring war. By 1900 two alliance blocks had formed: the Entente, (consisting of France, Russia, and Britain), and the Central Powers, (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy). Other alliances meant that when war broke out more states became involved. Britain's treaty with Japan and vow to protect Belgium, as well as Germany building ties with the Ottoman Empire, were just some examples. The rise of nationalism was spelling disaster for the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, something especially troubling with its neighbour Serbia adopting Pan-Slavic ideas, supported by Russia who saw itself as 'the defender of the Slavic peoples'. This was exacerbated by two events: in 1903 a coup in Serbia brought to power a more expansionist government, and in 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia enraging nationalists. The crumbling Ottoman Empire led to two wars in the Balkans, the first in 1912-3 to kick the Ottomans out of the Balkans and the second in 1913 to reduce the size of Bulgaria. The Balkans were a powder keg, but it was not the only powder keg in Europe. Since coming to the throne in 1888 German emperor Wilhelm II wanted to put Germany on equal footing with the British and French Empires. Not only did Germany challenge France's claim to Morocco so Germany could get 'a place in the sun' there was also a rapid increase in naval power. Overseen by Alfred von Tirpiz Germany's navy greatly expanded influencing Britain to expand its navy in an arms race. Although ended by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg in 1911, the arms race was decided in 1906 when the British launched HMS Dreadnought giving them the technological advantage.
Franz Ferdinand and Sophie
These long term factors then fed into one event, which Christopher Clark compared to 9/11 in its importance. On 28 June 1914, while visiting Bosnia's capital of Sarajevo, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne Franz Ferdinand, and his pregnant wife, Sophie, was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a pan-Serbian nationalist part of the group Mlada Bosna. The assassination not only sparked anti-Serbian riots in Sarajevo, but also what is now known as the July Crisis. The July Crisis was the event which allowed war to break out, but it was all behind the scenes. This was such the case that Austria's main paper ran a headline about the growing conflict in Ireland the day before war broke out! Although Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph was glad that his more progressive nephew would now not inherit the throne, he could not stand that Serbian nationalists, likely supported by the Serbian government, had struck at Austria. At the start of July Wilhelm threw his support behind Austria stating that they would back whatever Austria did in the now infamous 'blank check', and Chief of General Staff Moltker wrote that 'Austria must beat the Serbs'. Meanwhile, states began mobilising their armies and navies as diplomats went to work. On July 23 Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia - accept all ten points or war will be declared. Serbia accepted all but one, that Austro-Hungarians would lead the investigation into the assassination, and even then it was very last minute. You can see on the ultimatum prime minister Nikola Pasic had ticked each demand, but hastily crossed out the investigation demand. Even Wilhelm conceded that Serbia's response 'eliminates any reason for war'. Regardless, July 28 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia starting a domino effect as European states became involved - by August 6 Britain (and the Empire), Russia, France, Serbia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary were at war. As British foreign secretary, Edward Grey, said 'The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime'.

The War Begins
An army recruitment line in London, 1914
Fighting began quickly and, contrary to accusations that it was a European war until American entry, it was immediately global. British and German troops clashed first, not in Europe, but in Africa when the British and French invaded Togo and Kamerun on August 6. Japan allied with the Entente and began invading German territories in China and the Pacific, and New Zealand occupied what would become the Solomon Islands. German and British ships further fought one another off the coast of the Falkland Islands early in the war. Germany intended to use the Schlieffen Plan, first created in 1907, to solve the issue of fighting a war on two fronts; it was a bad plan, but it was their only usable plan. The Schlieffen Plan involved invading France through the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium to bypass French defenses; quickly knock out France by taking Paris before they could mobilise their forces and colonial strength; and then turn their attention to Russia, hopefully being pinned down by Austria in the meantime. Despite streamlining the plan by leaving the Netherlands neutral the plan failed. For one, Austria invaded Serbia leaving the Eastern front unguarded, and Germany was hoping that Britain would not want to defend Belgian neutrality, but they did. France and Russia further mobilised faster than expected, and British expeditionary forces managed to land in France by early-August. In what would come to characterise warfare in this period, the fronts soon became bogged down in trench warfare. However, France and Britain quickly hoped to strangle the economies of Austria and Germany, and successfully blockaded them with their navies. Frightening the powers was Ottoman entry on the side of the Central Powers - distrustful of Britain and France's exploitation of the empire, allying with their enemy Russia, and overtures from Wilhelm meant they sided with the Central Powers.
German troops on the way to Belgium
Although there was some resistance to the war, populations were positive towards it being swept along in nationalism and jingoism. Of course, there were splits in society. The Second International saw a split between the Marxists and democratic socialists over support for the war - while members of the German Social Democratic Party voted in favour of war credits, others in the party, like Karl Liebknecht, opposed this and were imprisoned. Generally, the mood was in favour of the war. Many suffragette movements dropped their militancy in favour of supporting the war effort - several in the Women's Social and Political Union advocated giving white feathers to men who weren't fighting in order to shame them into enlisting. Most states did not have to bring about conscription for several years due to the initial wave of support for the war - in British popular memory boys under the age of sixteen were told to have a walk around the street and come back older. Even minorities were willing to enlist, seeing that engagement in the war would prove their worthiness of rights. A 500-strong Maori Contingent, the Te Hokowhitu A Tu, originally tried to join, but were initially rebuked as 'the Maoris should not take part in the wars of the White Race against a White Race'. They were eventually shipped out to Europe in February 1915. The general consensus was that the war 'would be over by Christmas', largely as people looked to European wars over the last century which were short, such as the Franco-Prussian War and the Crimean War. As stated by Eric Hobsbawm, the American Civil War should have been the war which showed the face of modern warfare.

WW1 and Warfare
Entente troops at Gallipoli
The First World War can be seen as the first 'modern' war, and the last war of, what Hobsbawm describes as, the 'Long Nineteenth Century'. Although the often used phrase, 'lions led by lambs', to describe the leaders and soldiers is simplistic, and quite ahistorical, there is some truth to it. It took too long in many fronts of the war for tacticians to adapt to new warfare. New developments in the form of barbed wire and machine guns meant that tactics had to change, and this led to trench warfare. Particularly in Britain and France, trench warfare is what we think of when we think of the First World War, although it was prominent in other fronts. Guarded by barbed wire and machine gun nests it emerged as a way for Entente forces to hold the German lines as they took Amiens and started towards Paris, and for the Germans to hold the territory they took while being attacked. Trench warfare was brutal. Erich Maria Remarque in his famous novel All Quiet on the Western Front, based off of his own experiences in the Western front, shows the drudgery of trench warfare - stuck in squalid conditions and facing shelling from enemy artillery. Disease spread rapidly throughout the trenches - it is no surprise that disease killed more people than actual fighting. In 1915 First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill hoped to avoid trench warfare and take the Central Powers from below. He hoped that landing at the Dardanelles allied forces could move up the Turkish coast and take Istanbul, hopefully knocking out the Ottoman Empire. The Gallipoli Campaign is most famous for the birth of Australian and New Zealand national identity as ANZAC first appeared, and the death of 8,000 Australians alone inspired a national myth to emerge. Indians also fought at Gallipoli, 3,000 fought and around half were killed. The Ottoman forces still had many casualties, again largely through disease, as trench warfare erupted instead of Churchill's desired push to Istanbul. Future Turkish president, and 'father of the Turks', Mustafa Kemal Bey made his mark at Gallipoli by fending off the Entente forces. In January 1916 the campaign was called off as the Entente forces were ravaged by war and disease. The Ottoman forces also suffered, but their connection to supply lines managed to mitigate some of the poor conditions. Although, the Gallipoli Campaign, and the promise of Austrian land, influenced Italian intervention on the side of the Entente - similarly trench warfare broke out on the Italian front.
Troops in German East Africa
The First World War was not simply a case of bringing in new weaponry and failing to adapt. We regularly see innovations being developed, and tacticians working around it. Although it is also due to these innovations that the First World War became so destructive. As early as 1914 tear gas was used to slow down enemy troops, the Germans tried and failed to use bromide against Russian forces outside of Warsaw in January 1915, and at the Third Battle of Ypres in 1917 mustard gas managed wreck havoc on soldiers. Similarly, tanks and planes were first utilised in the war - planes were first used for reconnaissance and later for battles. All Quiet on the Western Front depicts the characters betting on who would win a dog fight, and one of Germany's 'ace-of-war' with 80 confirmed victories was the pilot Manfred von Richthofen, the famous 'Red Baron'. Transport and communication meant that the line between the front and home, in areas unoccupied that is, became increasingly blurred. Soldiers could get access to newspapers and letters from home quickly, and mostly had access to a supply of food - often though at the expense of the civilian population. Even 'backwards' Russia managed to use railways to move around troops and send orders, although German and Austrian advances following the Battle of Tannenburg did hinder this by threatening the railway connections. Guerrilla warfare was even utilised. Although causing great casualties and inspiring his African forces to go AWOL, General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck in German East Africa (modern Tanzania) led a guerrilla campaign hoping this would tie down Entente forces. Called 'Safari ya Bwana Lettow' by his troops, the East African Schutztruppe managed to last until 1918.

Domestic Fronts

With so many states taking part across the world we cannot talk about one singular domestic front. During the First World War we see the entire blurring of civilians and militaries as entire societies and economies went towards the fighting of the war. Propaganda was produced to bolster national unity and support the war effort - the image of Lord Kitchener saying 'We need you' became one of the most famous propaganda posters, which in turn inspired the Uncle Sam variant. Unfortunately, propaganda was also used to demonise minorities within the nation. German propaganda encouraged Germans to avoid Japanese businesses, and many were interned in Ruhleben camp outside of Berlin. Similarly, after US entry propaganda demonised its sizeable German population which, in turn, encouraged Prohibition - many breweries were German-owned so drinking alcohol became a way to help the enemy. Russian Tsar Nicholas II renamed St. Petersburg to Petrograd to make it sound less German, and the British monarchy changed their name to Windsor for this reason as well. Propaganda was also used to encourage buying war bonds, to fund the war effort, and even donate cutlery to be turned into bullets. Even Daylight Savings Time being implemented was a result of the war - states needed to maximise food production, especially Germany and Austria suffering thanks to the naval blockades.
Women in an artillery factory
Where you were in the world determined how the war affected you. If you lived in a German or Russian city you would experience famines due to food shortages as what little food was diverted to the frontline - these shortages were caused by blockades in Germany, and the loss of arable land to invading forces in Russia. Meanwhile, in Japan, life would largely go on unaffected, while you might be occupied by foreign forces in Belgium. The war further caused great demographic shifts. With men off to war suddenly huge areas of the economy became vacant, so women filled in the roles. Female employment skyrocketed during the First World War as many middle and upper class women entered positions which were traditionally barred women - this ranged from bus conductors to armament factory workers. Leading feminists, like Emmeline Pankhurst, encouraged women to enter the workforce and support the war effort based on a mixture of nationalism, and the hope that entering work would dispel notions of female inferiority. Similarly, with the industrial boom to fund the war effort, and racism in the South, encouraged African-Americans to begin moving to the North, which began the 'Great Migration' changing the demographics of American cities. This was not limited to the US. European powers relied heavily on colonial troops, and people rapidly moved across the world. Throughout the war the people of Flanders met troops from the German, American, British, French, Portuguese, and their own empire, and their accounts show bewilderment of the diversity of people from the empires. Jane de Launoy's diary presents a racist depiction of North African and Arabic troops. 

Brutality of War

In popular memory we are left with stories of how brutal the war was on all fronts, ranging from All Quiet on the Western Front to even The Lord of the Rings. J.R.R. Tolkien fought at the Somme, and the destruction he saw made him romantic for a pre-industrialised age where this level of destruction was impossible. It is no surprising, as shown by Irina Davidian, why so many Russian soldiers resorted to drink to cope with the war. To try and break the British naval blockade, and also to starve out the British, Germany would order its U-boats to undertake 'unrestricted naval warfare' which involved sinking all ships around Britain. Land battles were also brutal. We have already discussed Gallipoli, but it was just one of many drawn out battles to claim thousands of lives. The first day of the Battle of the Somme on July 1 1916 was the most devastating day for the British Army in all of its history where it sustained 57,470 casualties, of which 19,240 were killed. Most of those killed in the war were working-class, and a staple of the conflict was that colonial forces would more likely be killed. In Britain, the thousands killed became known as the 'Lost Generation'; and this legacy still impacts Britain today. Consequently, you often see the leaders of the armies - such as Alexander Haig, Erich von Ludendorff etc. - presented as bumbling fools leading thousands to their deaths.

The Enemy Within, and the War against Humanity
Sinking of the Lusitania
It is a myth that until recent wars that civilians were never considered a target, but the First World War meant that whether it was an intention or not, they would be affected. As stated by Eric Hobsbawm, during the Napoleonic Wars Jane Austen could write novels which make no reference to the conflict, but in World War One this was far from the case. Even though propaganda dramatised the 'Rape of Belgium' to turn America against Germany - former president Theodore Roosevelt said that for this the US had to seek justice for them - but there was a serious war against the population. In response to resistance German battalions responded by executing potential offenders. Famously, in 1915 German submarines sank the British cruise liner the Lusitania which caused outrage for the civilian casualties - especially in the US as 128 of those killed were American citizens. However, Germany was not the only state to commit atrocities. British Lieutenant Godfrey Herbert in 1915 had the survivors of the U-27 submarine summarily executed, and the blockade of German ports meant that vital food and medicine supplies were stropped. Somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000 people died of disease and starvation as a result of the blockade. All sides were willing to execute civilians deemed untrustworthy. States were further keen to watch 'the enemy within'. The earlier mentioned cases were just some examples. Minorities deemed to have 'foreign ties' were placed under surveillance, and even colonial forces were treated with distrust. For helping 200 soldiers escape German-occupied Belgium meant that British nurse Edith Cavell was shot by a German firing squad to international condemnation in 1915. Opponents of the war were also imprisoned internationally, many of whom were socialists. Among those arrested for advocating an end to the war including George Bernard Shaw in Britain, Eugene V. Debs in the US, and Rose Luxemburg in Germany.
An Armenian death march
A fear of betrayal and war against humanity intersected in the form of genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in the Ottoman Empire. The embracing of a particularly Turkish and Islamic identity in the 1800s meant that Christians within the Empire became increasingly mistrusted, and this became exacerbated by the outbreak of war. Due to Russian, with its Armenian populace, and Greek entry Christians were seen as having sympathies with those outside the Empire, and a domestic threat. The Young Turks themselves fought the Armenian armies raised by the Russian Empire, so this inspired the implementation of the Deportation Law following the Gallipoli Invasion. Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks were uprooted from their homes, including 200 prominent Armenians in Istanbul from 15 April 1915, and marched to guarded villages in the Syrian desert. This soon became a death march with many being killed via abuse from their Ottoman guards, or they died thanks to a lack of food, water, rest, and medicine. Those who were lucky found refuge in the multi-religious and multi-ethnic Beirut and wider Lebanon, but most were not as lucky. It is estimated that over a million Armenians; 250,000 Assyrians; and over 350,000 Greeks were killed in these death marches. Even today, Turkey, the successor to the Ottoman Empire, denies that a genocide took place, arguing instead that it was simply a 'massacre'. Many Armenians fled to the United States thanks to the genocide where they still live today. Unfortunately, this would not be the last instance of ethnic cleansing to happen in the First World War.

The End of the War
The Arab Revolt
On the centenary of the end of the war we wrote a post about it which I highly recommend reading here. By 1917, all combatants were desperate, and the strain of war was taking its toll. In 1916 Irish revolutionaries rose up in Dublin in the Easter Rising tired of Britain's rule; the ensuing British brutal retaliation destroyed Dublin and started turning Ireland against Britain. With the amount of people volunteering to join the military drying up many states after 1916 started introducing conscription causing a public backlash - a railroad strike organised by the Industrial Workers of the World in Australia brought New South Wales to a standstill. Desertion became prominent, especially in Russia, and executions for desertion turned more people against the war; in April 1917 there was a wave of mutinies within the French army. Empires began crumbling. As early as 1915 the Amir of Mecca Sharif Husayn made contact with British high commissioner in Egypt Henry McMahon offering an alliance - for Ottoman Arabic land he would fight the Ottomans for the Entente. This was difficult because by 1917 the British and French had vowed to carve Ottoman possessions between the two of them, and also promising to open up Palestine to Jewish settlement. Regardless, in June 1916 Husayn's son Faysal attacked the Ottoman garrison at Mecca sparking the Arab Revolt. Aided by Captain T.E. Lawrence, 'Lawrence of Arabia', swept across the Arabian peninsula, through Gaza, and up to Damascus. Meanwhile, discontent following the death of the elderly Franz Joseph meant that the disparate parts of Austria-Hungary started becoming increasingly independent, and a Czech legion was even formed in France. Finally, a strike by women over bread in Petrograd spiralled into the February Revolution in 1917 which deposed Nicholas II, a topic for next time, and issued in a provisional government under Alexander Kerensky which tried to continue the war. German generals, who now ran the government, Erich von Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg wanted to see Russia out of the war thanks to the earlier success of the Brusilov Offensive, so they spirited Marxist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin into Russia. The ensuing October Revolution resulted in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk taking Russia out of the war. However, a new power had just entered: the United States.
Signing the November Armistice
US president Woodrow Wilson had wanted to keep neutral, but German submarine warfare and Entente propaganda made the American public sympathetic to the Entente. A desperate Germany, wanting any ally they could find, sent a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmerman to the Mexican government offering to help Mexico in a war against the US to seize lost Mexican land. British spies managed to get the Zimmerman Telegram, and leaked it. In reality, with Mexico having no clear way to fight the Entente, and being in the midst of a revolutionary period, it would not have sided with the Central Powers. However, it, and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, infuriated the American population, and Wilson declared war. Wilson was hostile to European diplomacy, and was determined for a lasting peace so created his now famous 14 Points calling for an end to secret treaties, self-determination for (European) peoples, peace, free trade, freedom of the seas, and an association of nations. He thought this would make a stable world, and oppose Lenin's recently issued call for peace. Ludendorff and Hindenburg rightly feared that they would lose the war if America managed to mobilise their economy. In an effort to finally knock out the French, and managed to push their way through northern France. However, it did not have the desired consequences. The German supply lines were stretched, so that when the Entente undertook their 100 Days' Offensive their lines folded. Meanwhile, Faysal's forces swept up to Damascus and the Italian navy managed to wipe out the Austrians. In October German sailors mutinied at Kiel sparking the end of the German Empire. An armistice was signed on November 11 1918 bringing the war to an end.

Aftermath
Hitler on the far-right during WW1
The following peace treaties, including the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, shaped the world. From the aftermath of the war various new states came into being including Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Finland. Wilson's desire for the 14 Points were cast aside at Versailles as the victorious Entente wished to punish Germany - France and Belgium both seized German land, Germany was forced to accept war guilt, and had to pay 132 billion gold marks in reparations. Much to the anger of Japan, and the young Vietnamese nationalist who would become Ho Chi Minh, imperialism and Wilson's own racism meant that racial equality was ignored. The remnants of the German and Ottoman Empires were annexed as 'mandates' - a euphemism for colonies. Wartime censorship, and the movement of peoples thanks to the war, allowed the spread of Spanish Influenza which killed up to three times as many people as the war did itself. Similarly, many states were dissatisfied with the aftermath of the war. The German far-right would claim that they were 'stabbed-in-the-back' by Jews and socialists, this myth would help propel Hitler to power in later years. Japan, angered at being treated as a secondary power, would also go down a path towards militarism. The seeds for the Second World War would be planted during the First. Erwin Rommel, Hitler, Tojo Hideki, Mussolini, Charles de Gaulle, Rudolph Hess, and Churchill were just some of the main figures of the Second World War who would fought in the First. A generation of writers and artists, including a key figure of the Harlem Renaissance Langston Hughes, would continue to reflect on their experiences of the war. Finally, in the aftermath of the war it was widely described as 'the war to end all wars', but, as we have seen, wars have continued to devastate lives over the last century. Echoing the somber words of Eric Hobsbawm, the First World War was not the end of wars, it was instead the beginning of the short and bloody Twentieth Century.

The sources I have used are as follows:
-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991, (London: 1994)
-Martin Gilbert, First World War, (London: 1995)
-Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914, (London: 2012)
-Santanu Das, (ed.), Race, Empire and First World War Writing, (Cambridge: 2011)
-Hugh Cecil and Peter Liddle, (eds.), Facing Armageddon: The First World War Experienced, (London: 1996)
-David Stevenson, 1914-1918: The History of the First World War, (London: 2004)
-James Joll, The Origins of the First World War, Second Edition, (London: 1992)
-Samuel Hynes, A War Imagined: The First World War and English Culture, (London: 1990)
-Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History, Fourth Edition, (New York: 2014)
-William Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Sixth Edition, (Boulder: 2016)
-Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front, Trans. A.W. Wheen Fawcett Crest, (Berlin: 1929)

Next time, we will be looking at the Russian Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union. Thank you for reading, and I hope you found it interesting. For other World History posts we have a list here, for other blog posts please check our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Sunday, 15 March 2020

Review: A Tale of Two Cities by Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof


This article was first published by Retrospect Journal on 11 November 2019, and can be read here.

New York City remains one of the most culturally diverse cities in the United States seeing emigration from across the world for centuries. One of the many communities to call New York home is the Dominican community which Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof looks at in his 2008 book A Tale of Two Cities: Santo Domingo and New York after 1950. Hoffnung-Garskof offers an interesting insight into how diasporas and culture are formed. He is also keen to stress that diasporas do not exist in a vacuum – they interact with both the ‘homeland’ and other diasporas.

As expected, Hoffnung-Garskof begins his book in the capital of the Dominican Republic – Santo Domingo. Here he explores the twin ideas which would shape Dominican history: progreso and cultura. Progreso, the idea that Dominicans were moving to an improved life, and cultura, that Dominicans had to exhibit certain cultural tropes to achieve progreso, would shape both Santo Domingo and New York. A recurrent theme throughout the book is how progreso and cultura evolved in the context of migration. Rural Dominicans saw Santo Domingo as being one of the most important places contributing to cultura, but New York was seen as the pinnacle of cultura. These ideas were also in flux thanks to the turbulent politics of the republic – the genocidal rule of Rafael Trujillo lasted until his assassination in 1961, followed by the dictatorship of Joaquin Balaguer, US occupation, and a turbulent revolution. In Santo Domingo, Hoffnung-Garskof, relying heavily on oral testimony: emerging barrios (which became shantytowns) saw an explosion of grassroots culture and political activism giving ample opportunity to hear subaltern voices. For example, Hoffnung-Garskof shows how cultura was seen as being Catholic, speaking Spanish, and, unfortunately, racialised against Haitians where those in the barrios turned cultura on its head. Political radicals would have their meetings at church services, and young men would play loud music in Spanish as a way to rebel without being attacked by the police.

Moving away from Santo Domingo, Hoffnung-Garskof then takes us to Washington Heights, Manhattan where the Dominican diaspora emerged. Originally, the diaspora was made of radicals exiled by either Trujillo or Balaguer, but as air costs became cheaper more and more Domincans moved to the land of ‘progeso y cultura.’ In what is perhaps the most interesting section of the book Hoffnung-Garskof looks at how the newly arrived Dominicans became racialised in Manhattan. These Dominicans were from a middle-class background back in the Dominican Republic, but found themselves in a working-class situation; this caused a paradoxical situation when returning home to visit family members. Dominicans would engage in American consumerism which their family would take as signs of wealth, but domínicanes de Nueva York had to try to explain that they were not wealthy. Meanwhile, they were forced into the racialised world of American society. For generations, Dominicans had considered themselves ‘white’ against ‘black’ Haitians, which caused Trujillo to massacre thousands of Haitians to ‘whiten’ the country, but they were not seen this way in Washington Heights. The area had a large Irish, Jewish, African-American, and Puerto Rican communities, so Dominicans were forced to reinvent their identity based on the ever-changing categories of class, race, and culture in Manhattan. Hoffnung-Garskof effectively shows this with his wide range of oral testimony from various community members in Manhattan – easily the strongest aspect of the book is his ample usage of first-hand testimony. However, he could have expanded Manhattan’s history of immigration here a lot more. Jewish and Irish communities are mentioned, but are somewhat overlooked, and the city’s vibrant East Asia, Cuban, Arabic, South Asian, and African diasporas are entirely ignored. It would have been interesting to see how they factored into the Dominican experience in shaping their identity.

Hoffnung-Garskof in the early-1990s worked as a social worker for Dominican families in the Washington Heights schools, and his lengthy discussion of diasporas in schools is his most detailed section. Again, using interviews he manages to recreate, in detail, the various lives of Dominican students, and how they forged their own lives. We see some using their wealth to become doctors, others joining with African-American rights groups like Umoja to fight for rights, or clash with African-Americans and Puerto Ricans over racial animosities. Reading it you can tell this has been a passion of his for a long time, and how he deeply cares about the community. This especially seen when he discusses the crack epidemic of the 1990s – Washington Heights became synonymous with drug crime in the US media. He rebukes many of the common motives associated with Dominicans during the time showing it as a crisis of capital, rather than moral failing. My particular favourite point was how he criticised leading attorney, and later New York mayor and Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani for targeting Dominican youths in his exposé on crack, but entirely ignoring the crack epidemic of the Wall Street elite. However, as Hoffnung-Garskof is so invested in the lives of the people of Washington Heights, it does break the flow of the entire narrative. He was so eager to show us the entirety of Washington Heights that we read biography after biography in just two chapters that it at times becomes hard to read. If anything, and hopefully he might do this in the future, these narratives could become its very own piece of historical writing.

Finally, I just want to quickly discuss how Hoffnung-Garskof links diasporas to the ‘homeland.’ As mentioned earlier, the diaspora was not cut-off from the Dominican Republic – ranging from family visits ‘home’ at Christmas to exiled leftists waiting for the fall of the US-backed regime. Here the twin ideas of cultura and progreso come into play. On the one hand, the New York based community were seen with a sense of pride back in Santo Domingo. The regular Dominican Day parades, growing affluence of the community, and even Dominicans partaking in beauty pageants were viewed as Dominicans achieving progreso – they had become the immigrant community to be emulated. However, they were simultaneously degraded as going against cultura. Women going out of the home, children engaging in American consumerism, and the adoption of American fashions were viewed as Dominicans becoming too Americanised. Domínicannewyork was invented to lambast a diaspora deemed too American. Nevertheless, American-based Dominicans still viewed themselves as ‘Dominican’ and not ‘Dominican-American.’ Newspapers like Ahora! reported on events in both New York and Santo Domingo, and the right to vote in Dominican elections was eventually granted to the diaspora. Hoffnung-Garskof ensures that the themes of cultura and progreso are never forgotten in the narrative.

For anyone interested in the histories of immigration, the formation of identity, and diasporas then A Tale of Two Cities is a must read. Almost, at times, needing a smoother narrative, Hoffnung-Garskof’s investment in the diaspora makes it an engaging read, and the abundancy of oral testimony makes the names on the pages into living, breathing people. He has recently released a book about Cubans and Puerto Ricans in New York, so hopefully we can see more of his writing soon.

Sunday, 8 March 2020

Left-Wing and the 'Other' History: International Women's Day


As I am writing this it is International Women's Day 2020, and across the world marches are taking place to highlight gender inequality which still exists worldwide. However, the radical origins of International Women's Day has largely been overlooked as it has been co-opted by wider society - similar protest movements and celebrations, such as the Notting Hill Carnival and Gay Pride have seen similar co-optation. Today we will look at the history of International Women's Day, and how it came about.

Origins
Theresa Malkiel
International Women's Day (IWD) had its origins firmly with the socialist labour movement. Ukrainian-born activist Theresa Malkiel, of the American Socialist Party, first advocated for a National Women's Day in the early-1900s, seeing it as a way to draw attention to the twin oppressions that women faced: through class exploitation and sexism. Even among the socialist movement, there was sexism, so women like Malkiel often had to challenge misogyny in the labour movement, as well as misogyny in society as a whole. However, despite sexism in the labour movement, they were more receptive to women's issues, and the American Left had influential women within the movement - especially with figures like Emma Goldman and Lucy Parsons. Malkiel had long been an advocate for a separate socialist women's group with the intention of bringing women into the labour movement, and to also fight for women's rights seeing the mainstream feminist organisations as only benefiting middle and upper-class women. In 1909 she managed to organise the first National Women's Day, just a year after she helped found the Women's National Committee, in solidarity with the various women's strikes and marches for suffrage and equality.
Alexandra Kollontai
Inspired by Malkiel's Women's March European socialists also wanted to create a women's movement. The European Left, especially in Germany, had a strong feminist current - in 1889 Clara Zetkin had written a pamphlet called Women-Worker and Feminist Issues of Our Time which called for women to receive wage labour, as it would make women independent from men, and would force men to treat women as equals. A women's section of the Second International, which aimed to unite the principally Marxist left-wing movements, met in Copenhagen in 1910, and with 100 delegates there was a unanimous decision to declare an International Women's Day. Among those who attended included the well-known Clara Zetkin, and Alexandra Kollontai, one of the major Russian socialist feminists who is also seen as inspiring the rise of the feminist movement in Scandinavia. Quoting Zetking,
In agreement with the class-conscious, political and trade union organizations of the proletariat of their respective countries, the Socialist women of all countries will hold each year a Women's Day, whose foremost purpose it must be to aid the attainment of women's suffrage. This demand must be handled in conjunction with the entire women's question according to Socialist precepts. The Women's Day must have an international character and is to be prepared carefully.
Kollontai would stress that the aims of an IWD would be to attain suffrage for women, and social security, like maternity leave, so that women could be more independent than men. Originally, it was held on 19 March, not 8 March, to coincide with German history and the current fight for suffrage. As Kollontai said:
This date was not chosen at random. Our German comrades picked the day because of its historic importance for the German proletariat. On the 19th of March in the year of 1848 revolution, the Prussian king recognized for the first time the strength of the armed people and gave way before the threat of a proletarian uprising. Among the many promise he made, which he later failed to keep, was the introduction of votes for women.
The first IWD was held the following year, 1911, and marches were held across Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and the Austro-Hungarian empire. In Austria-Hungary there were 300 protests, and in Vienna women carried banners honoring the Paris Commune of 1871, often seen as one of the first steps in creating a modern socialist system. In 1914, on March 8, in Germany and Britain women marched for the right to vote - famous radical suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst was even arrested - and since then it has been universally celebrated on March 8.

The Soviet Union and IWD
Until the coming of the Russian Revolution the Russian Empire still used the Julian Calendar so March 8 landed on 23 February instead. Russia suffered immensely during the First World War, and losses to Germany meant that food became scarcer and more rights were infringed. So, on March 8/February 23, women textile workers in the capital of Petrograd, modern St. Petersburg, went on strike demanding 'Bread and Peace'. Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky later remembered that no-one imagined that it would be IWD which ended up toppling the Russian Empire. Striking men, including from the army, joined the women, began forming Workers' Council (Soviets), and forced the tsar to abdicate issuing in the Provisional Russian Republic. This weak and unpopular state, however, was later overthrown in October/November by Lenin's Bolsheviks issuing in what would become the Soviet Union. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw their role as ending the 'humiliating resignation to the perpetual and atmosphere of the kitchen and nursery' which women were forced to endure, and Alexandra Kollontai was brought into the government to end gender inequality. Kollontai's influence would mean that the IWD would become an official holiday in the Soviet Union, however, it took until 1965 for it to become a non-working day. Thanks to the Russian Civil War, and reversal of gender equality under Stalin followed by the legacies of Stalinisation of the Soviet Union, it took so long to become a non-working holiday. Even then, it had to be framed as a 'reward' for participating in 'the Great Patriotic War' (the Second World War). Thanks to the Soviet Union, socialist movements would strive to make IWD celebrated worldwide.

IWD on a Global Scale
Female members of the Australian Builders Labourers Federation march on International Women's Day 1975 in Sydney
Quickly Left-wing movements globally began formally and informally campaigning for IWD, and for it to bring together demands for women's rights. China, in particular, saw the Left celebrate IWD with the communists first celebrating it in 1922. A staggering 25,000 people, mainly women, marched in the city of Guangzhou in 1927 to bring awareness of women's rights. Following the declaration of the People's Republic of China in 1949 it was declared that March 8 would be a half-day off for women - something which happens despite the gradual reversal of Maoist era policies by the new state capitalist politicians. Similarly, IWD was declared a holiday in several states which claimed to be socialist or Left-wing worldwide, ranging from Dolores Iburruri in 1936 organising one in Madrid just before to Civil War, to Cuba, to Angola. With the rise of second-wave feminism in the 1960s IWD started coming more into the mainstream as feminists highlighted pay inequality, reproductive rights, anti-sexism, and equality in the domestic sphere on March 8. Finally, just as the socialists of 1910 wanted, women were using IWD on a wide and global scale to assert their rights. Due to the direct action of second-wave feminism it allowed IWD to go beyond the socialist left, and started being picked up by a wide range of feminists. Thanks to the actions of feminists, this got the UN to declare 1975 the 'International Women's Year', and since 1977 have asked member states to make March 8 a day to recognise women. Thanks to the second-wave feminists, even in states where it is not a recognised holiday, people in their thousands still march to show the continued inequality in society.

Recent changes in IWD
A return to activism in Spain, 2019
Unfortunately, one of the consequences of IWD becoming a widespread event was the co-optation of IWD by those oppressing women. In Russia IWD has become sidelined and is now used to show stereotypical female beauty, a far-cry from the egalitarian aims for women empowerment which Kollontai imagined; China still uses it as a national holiday for women, despite it trying to reverse women's access to abortions and justice following sexual abuse; and in many countries, big businesses often attach themselves to IWD, despite paying women less than men (especially if they are disabled or non-white), cover up sexual abuse, and generally exploit women. Similarly, especially in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, IWD has been attempted to be turned into a day for a specific type of feminism - one that excludes non-white women, sex workers, poor women, and openly calls for discrimination against trans women. However, there are many cases where there is a pushback against this. In 2007 women activists in Tehran used IWD as a way to protest the incredible inequality which they face, and went on hunger strike for fifteen days after their arrest for 'inciting violence'. Iranian women like Shadi Sadr highlights how women were bringing IWD back to its radical roots. In the last few years IWD has become increasingly radical as, despite years of a fictitious equality, sexism and misogyny was still prevalent in society. For example, the Edinburgh IWD has specifically declared its IWD march to be pro-trans rights and anti-capitalist, and the international aspect is firmly present in 2020's IWD. During the November protests in Chile against social inequality a feminist theatre group, Lastesis, released the song and dance Un Violador en tu Camino - 'A Rapist in your path' - highlighting the institutional structures which allowed sexual abuse to go unpunished. This has been adopted worldwide, and is challenging the commodification of IWD. Inequality and oppression will always be met with resistance, no matter how many times people try to commodify it, and IWD stands to show this is the case.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you found it interesting. For other Left-Wing and the 'Other' posts we have a list here. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Sunday, 1 March 2020

Left-Wing and the 'Other' History: The Internationale

The Internationale, or L'Internationale with its original French title, has remained one of the most important and widespread left-wing anthems since its creation close to 150 years ago. If you have not heard the song this video below will be helpful:

This is just one of the several versions of the song in English alone. Originating as a French song, L'Internationale has been translated into languages across the world ranging from Czech to Esperanto to Zulu to Bengali reflecting the international ideal of the socialist movement. Especially among Marxists and anarchists, although there are exceptions, there has been a desire to build an international movement; borders were, and still argued to be, another way to exploit the working-class. It can be argued that internationalism is coded into the DNA of modern socialism - Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin were all political exiles so had to rely on international support. L'Internationale emerged as part of this socialist internationalism.

The Origins of the Song
Eugene Pottier
The song was written by French socialist Eugene Pottier during the aftermath of the ill-fated Paris Commune of 1871. Following defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, and the declaration of the newly founded German Empire in the Palace of Versailles, French emperor Louis Napoleon, (the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte), fled and a shaky Third Republic was formed. In Paris, and a few other cities, the working-classes seized control and formed communes with the intention of radically changing society. Despite being called the 'Paris Commune' it always had an international trend to it - many of its leaders were Polish and Russian exiles, and workers from Britain, Germany, and Algeria helped construct the commune. However, the Paris Commune was brutally crushed by the French army, and it caused a rift in the first attempt to create an international movement of socialist - the First International. To summarise this rift, bear in mind this is a very simplified explanation, the followers of Karl Marx argued that it failed as the Commune was to ready to remove the state, while the followers of Mikhail Bakunin argued that they had left too much of the state intact which caused its failure. This rift has never been healed, and is why we have two main branches of socialist thought: Marxism and anarchism. It was this background that Pottier wrote the song. Pottier was a member of both the Commune and the Internationale, and his song became its anthem until it was dissolved in 1876.

Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foule esclave, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout
Chorus
C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain.
Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes
Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun
Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes
Décrétons le salut commun
Pour que le voleur rende gorge
Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot
Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge
Battons le fer quand il est chaud.
Chorus
L'État comprime et la loi triche
L'impôt saigne le malheureux
Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche
Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux
C'est assez, languir en tutelle
L'égalité veut d'autres lois
Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle
Égaux, pas de devoirs sans droits.
Chorus
Hideux dans leur apothéose
Les rois de la mine et du rail
Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose
Que dévaliser le travail ?
Dans les coffres-forts de la bande
Ce qu'il a créé s'est fondu
En décrétant qu'on le lui rende
Le peuple ne veut que son dû.
Chorus
Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées
Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans
Appliquons la grève aux armées
Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs
S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales
À faire de nous des héros
Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles
Sont pour nos propres généraux.
Chorus
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand parti des travailleurs
La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes
L'oisif ira loger ailleurs
Combien de nos chairs se repaissent
Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours
Un de ces matins disparaissent
Le soleil brillera toujours.
Chorus
As Pottier became exiled in New York following the aftermath of the Paris Commune he translated it into English:
 
Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant!
Away with all your superstitions,
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
And spurn the dust to win the prize!
Chorus
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale
Unites the human race.
 No more deluded by reaction,
On tyrants only we'll make war!
The soldiers too will take strike action,
They'll break ranks and fight no more!
And if those cannibals keep trying,
To sacrifice us to their pride,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
Chorus
No saviour from on high delivers,
No faith have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must shiver,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
E'er the thieves will out with their booty,
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do their duty,
And we'll strike the iron while it's hot.
Chorus
The tune we now sing L'Internationale to now was not the original tune. Instead, it was originally sang to the tune of the famous anthem of the French Revolution, La Marseillaise. Even after L'Internationale became popular, La Marseillaise was still sung - in his account of the Russian Revolution Leon Trotsky argued that Russian workers sang both. In 1888 Belgian socialist Pierre De Geyter changed the tune to the one we now know, although the lateness of his evolution of the song would explain why Russian workers sang both songs. Russia's isolation likely meant that De Geyter's update was not widely known by the time of the outbreak of revolution in 1905 and 1917. 
Pierre De Geyter

L'Internationale becomes International
After De Geyter updated the tune, and thanks to the arrival of an internationalist anarchist and Marxist labour movement, allowed the lyrics to become international. The United States got its own lyrics by Charles Hope Kerr, which became the established lyrics in the USA thanks to its inclusion into the Little Red Book released by the Industrial Workers of the World. In 1902 Arkady Kots made the first Russian translation, in 1910 Emil Luckhardt made the first German translation, 1923 Qu Qiubai made the first Mandarin translation, and during the last decades of British rule in India until the 1950s it was translated into Bengali, Malayalam, Assamese, and Urdu. Although new translations were also made for various reasons. To celebrate the fifty-fifth anniversary of the Paris Commune leftists in the Koumintang's army made a new Mandarin translation in 1926, and to honour the first decade of Maoist rule in China Shen Baoji made a third translation. Billy Bragg in 1989 controversially made a new English version, the one shown at the top of this post, as he thought the lyrics required updating - something other socialists like left-wing Labour politician Tony Benn disagreed with. Bragg's version still remains controversial as it does flow much better, but the lyrics are much less explicitly socialist compared to the original or Kerr's version. 
                                                                      One of Jiang Qing's operas

L'Internationale has had a long and varied history on the Left. Until 1944 it was the national anthem of the Soviet Union when it was replaced by the Hymn of the Soviet Union, possibly as Stalin hoped to use the hymn to further bolster his image. While states have tried to co-opt L'Internationale the masses used it themselves. During the Cultural Revolution in China the state played the song on the radio, but tried to silence it when the Red Guards and communes began using the song themselves. One of the key figures in the radical Shanghai Commune, Jiang Qing, regularly used the song in her operas which would be banned by the counter-revolutionary government under Deng Xiaoping which emerged in the post-Mao era. Similarly, the anti-state, but still left-wing, protesters during the 1953 Berlin Uprising, 1968 Prague Spring, and 1989 protests in China and East Germany all used the song. By using it they wished to show their own radicalism, and also protest the state claiming to be radical. Even now, the song remains a key protest song, and represents the long history of leftist internationalism, something deeply needed in a growing climate of intolerance.

Thank you for reading, and for other Left-Wing and the 'Other' history posts please see our list here. For other blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.