The Complaining About Colonialism

When it comes to popular trends in values, opinions and perceptions, there is no doubt that old school colonialism or imperialism is one of the most widely condemned. It can be condemned with ease and enthusiasm because bashing the colonial empires of yesterday is about as fashionable these days as bashing Nazis, climate change skeptics, the United States or people who think the Bible is true. It’s fun and almost everyone does it. On a global level, bemoaning colonialism is something that all of the “cool kids” are doing. As regular readers are no doubt aware, I refuse to join this trend no matter how fashionable it may be. There were certainly many negative and shameful aspects of colonialism/imperialism but there were also positive aspects as well. However, anti-colonialism has become its own industry these days and, quite often, former colonial powers themselves are the biggest supporters of it. Some do it because they seem to enjoy wallowing in guilt and self-flagellation while others do it because they just want to be popular and deny their own colonialist history entirely. Colonialism/imperialism is today often seen as equivalent to racism, even as being irreversibly entwined. This, I think, is wrong and misleading but it highlights just how far removed from reality the modern, popular perception of colonialism/imperialism has become. Why should we care? Because the most prominent and successful colonial powers were monarchies or were republics who inherited colonial empires from their monarchial predecessors.

Combining imperialism and racism has become so common today that it is usually taken for granted. However, just a moment of dispassionate thought will reveal how ridiculous it is. First of all, the argument itself is racist because it is always directed at the colonialism/imperialism of Western Europe and (later) the United States. As if Western European Caucasians and their offspring are singularly capable of this evil while all others have only ever been their hapless victims. This, of course, is blatantly untrue. For one thing, the European colonial empires of recent times were very seldom established the way the popular imagination thinks they were, which is to say, evil White men with guns conquering primitive peoples of different colored skins and taking control of their land. Which is not to say that such things never happened but it was certainly not ‘standard operating procedure’. The British, for example, never “conquered” India nor did little Belgium ever “conquer” the whole of central Africa. Many of these colonial enterprises come down to a simple question; are international agreements valid? Countries make choices, sometimes they make bad choices and sometimes they are forced by circumstances to choose between the least of two bad options. This is something that has happened to all peoples all throughout the course of history. Yet, not all are viewed the same today.

Merriam-Webster defines “colonialism” as “control by one country over another area and its people”. Obviously, by that definition, colonialism is something which almost everyone has engaged in at some point or another. Why does it seem that guilt and blame only seem to be focused in one general direction? At one time, almost the whole of Asia and half of Europe was controlled by the Mongols. Everyone seems to have gotten over that. In southern Africa, the Zulus under King Shaka were quite the colonial power as were the Aztecs in pre-Columbian Mexico. European history is filled to bursting with examples and yet Europe always seems to be held as the instigator of colonialism rather than being subject to it. For a very long time Greece was controlled by Turkey, most of Poland was controlled by Russia, for about 800 years most of Spain was under the control of foreign powers. Somehow though, no one expects modern-day Spain to be demanding reparations from modern-day Morocco. Does Russia send foreign aid to Finland, consumed by guilt over the years of Russian control over the Finns? European peoples have often been the colonial subjects of other European peoples and even non-European peoples such as the Moorish rule over Spain, the Turkish rule over the Balkans or Mongol rule over Russia. Europeans never had a monopoly on colonialism.

Sometimes, the efforts to blame current problems on the legacy of European colonialism reach farcical proportions. One good example today is Libya, where the former Kaddafi regime was particularly adept at extorting money from Italy based on fashionable anti-colonialism. If there were problems in Libya due to the legacy of colonialism, should the Italians really be held to blame? After all, Italian rule over Libya lasted a mere 32 years whereas Turkish rule over Libya lasted 360 years! Who reasonably would have had the larger impact on the region? Libya is also one of a number of examples of colonial powers being falsely accused of conquering countries which are countries today but were not so at the time. Similar cases can be seen in Italian rule over Libya, American rule over the Philippines or Japanese rule over Taiwan. Each were a case when one country went to war with another country and was ceded territory in the peace settlement after which local rebel forces had to be subdued. Was this right or legitimate? Again, that would, I suppose, depend on if you think any international agreements hold validity. It would certainly be a chaotic world if they did not. Countries make agreements and have to abide by them or face the consequences, which could be economic, military or simply being shunned because no one trusts you to keep your word. Sometimes, they are obliged to make “unequal” agreements but such is the way of the world and constantly crying over it is very tiresome. It has happened to virtually everyone at some point.

Perhaps one of the most infuriating things about empire-bashing, for me at least, when the perpetrator is a republican is how much rank hypocrisy is on display. For example, today Red China is very fond of bashing old style imperialism while ruling over Tibet, Manchuria, parts of old Mongolia and hoping for more. They influence the governments and exploit the resources of numerous African countries, have bought up land and influence in Latin America and have taken control of a huge chunk of Iran. All oil in that part of the country belongs to China, they police it, they decide who gets in or out and the Chinese have said that any attack on Iran (or at least that part -they were probably intentionally vague on that point) would be considered an attack on Chinese territory. They are an “empire” in all but name. Playing in a rather different ballpark, we have the United States, which has also often been quick to criticize colonialism while flirting with being a colonial power but usually being something that is not quite colonialism but often seems worse. The United States tends to refrain from ruling other peoples but reserves the right to smack them around if they do something Washington DC doesn’t like. Why not just rule the place themselves? Because they’re not “colonialists” of course, that’s un-American! Whatever one chooses to call this, it certainly has not been a beneficial policy, least of all for the U.S. itself. However, having to play pretend to keep up the anti-colonialism charade is common to a number of countries around the world.

One of the most active but least effective monarchies engaged in this today is Japan. On the one hand, there is the self-hating leftist crowd in Japan that is quick to confess to any crime, apologize for anything and condemn all that has gone before them. They and their kind are a major reason why so many formerly great powers are slowly disappearing. However, then there is the always entertaining radical-right in Japan. It is rather hard to take any of these people too seriously because they constantly seem to be trying to persuade someone of something but are unsure of exactly what or of even who they are struggling to convince. Many have attached themselves to the anti-colonialism trend, claiming that Japan was the champion of anti-colonialism, the liberator of East Asia from colonial rule and the harbinger of freedom and independence for the Far East. To do this they must, of course, deny that the Empire of Japan was ever a colonial power which, naturally, no one with any sense and access to a history book is ever going to believe. Whether they actually believe such nonsense themselves is anybody’s guess, it may simply be part of their on-going effort to convince the world that they were right in World War II and everyone else was wrong by portraying Japan as the enemy of colonialism, something which is very popular today. They did the same thing in the Cold War when (more sensibly) anti-communism was much more popular by claiming that the Japanese war effort was all about fighting communism (they were anti-Red before anti-Red was “cool”). That having fallen out of fashion, they are more likely these days to highlight Japanese forces who actually joined communist terrorist groups to fight French or Dutch or some other colonial power after the war was over. Hating “whitey” is just as popular in Japan as Western Europe.

Trying to deny that Japan was a colonial power is, of course, absurd and none of their arguments hold up for an instant. For example, some will claim that Korea was not *really* a colony of Japan because it was annexed to Japan as part of the empire, just like Honshu or Hokkaido. However, they cite Hawaii as an example of American colonialism even though Hawaii was annexed as well and became a state in the Union. France made Algeria a part of metropolitan France, just as French Guiana is today and no one would consider that this erases their status as colonial subjects, past or present. Were that true, Britain would today be a greater empire than the United States and I doubt anyone looking at a map would buy that argument. As mentioned before, Japan also claimed to be “liberating” the Philippines from American colonial rule which is rather at odds with the fact that Japan came to control Taiwan in exactly the same way that the United States came to control the Philippines. If the one is legitimate, the other must be as well. However, for those who do accept the reality that Japan was a colonial power there is also the argument that it was simply the only one which was humane and benevolent while all others were cruel and oppressive and thus deserving of being destroyed. This is popular with those who like having their egos massaged but of course it discourages monarchist solidarity in a big way. Sadly, it is far from uncommon.

Not a few monarchies have fallen prey to this unhelpful way of thinking and one of the most prominent is the biggest colonial power of all: Great Britain. The mentality that, “all empires are bad, except our own” is one that has done considerable damage to the monarchist cause around the world. The area where this caused the earliest and biggest spread of republicanism was in Latin America with the Spanish colonial empire being the loser. Being quick to uphold the British Empire as benevolent, the Spanish empire was portrayed in the British press as harsh, backward and repressive. Britain supported the independence movements in Latin America that led to the birth of a whole crop of new republics, mostly out of a commercial desire to end the Spanish monopoly on trade with South America and gain a foothold for British business interests. This anti-Spanish empire mentality lasted to the very end when Great Britain, virtually alone among the European powers, supported the United States in the Spanish-American War. The result has not been good for the monarchist cause nor even for the cause of Britain. The United States quickly became the biggest business partner for Latin American countries and one of them in particular continues to bedevil British territorial sovereignty in the Falkland Islands. Spain, it should not be forgotten, did itself no favors with almost constant internal unrest in the homeland making holding on to the empire nearly impossible but British attitudes and actions certainly didn’t help and aided in the demise of the Spanish empire.

The antagonistic attitude toward the German Empire was also not ultimately helpful either. Germany had, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, become the third leading colonial power in the world but World War I saw it all brought to ruin. In the aftermath, Britain reached its peak in imperial size but it also planted the seeds for the ruination of the British Empire as well. Now, before anyone starts to get any anti-British ideas about all of this, the British attitude was certainly understandable even if it was not beneficial. The British really were pretty darn good at the colonial empire game and if you were going to live in a colony, you had a much better chance of living well in a British colony or former colony than in any other. Looking at modern Taiwan and South Korea, one could say much the same about Japan (though few would care to as they are certainly not fair to their fellow colonial powers). The lists of the top economic powers by GDP invariably include the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Canada and Australia all of which were formerly part of the British Empire. No other colonial empire is so well represented. Smaller holdings such as Hong Kong and Singapore also have records of immense success on every level. That’s all true and it’s all great and it is something that the British and their former colonies can be proud of. Being proud of achievements, however, does not necessitate tearing down others in comparison! It also tends to make people look ridiculous when countries like Australia (because I’ve noticed they’re very good at it) bash Britain all the time. Look around you Aussies, you came out of the empire pretty well off.

Part of the reason why I long for more pan-monarchist solidarity on this front (aside from it being a good idea in an of itself) is that most of the anti-colonial sentiment today comes from a very common and dangerous foe. In the past there may have been other reasons (often rivalry) but today it is predominately due to Marxist thinking, part of their whole egalitarian, progressive, everything-in-the-past-was-bad mentality that furthers their cause of wanting to tear down any vestiges of tradition and try something “new”. A number of monarchies have actually been destroyed by this. A perfect example is the Empire of Ethiopia (“Take Two”). Emperor Haile Selassie was an outspoken advocate of ending European colonialism in Africa (even while he extended Ethiopian colonial rule over Eritrea) but failed to grasp that these movements were predominately backed by communist forces. In the end, European colonialism did collapse in Africa, often replaced by communist dictatorships and Ethiopia itself fell victim to communist revolutionary forces that destroyed the monarchy and brought poverty and starvation. And anyone who thinks that the end of “traditional” colonialism in Africa has meant the end of African people being ruled or exploited by foreign powers is fooling themselves. In some ways it is worse now than in the past since, when colonialism was overt, the colonial power had to maintain law and order and keep people safe. Today, as long as the mines are productive, few people seem to care if Africans are displaced by civil wars or wiped out in genocides.

That is one reason why I cannot bring myself to join the ‘condemn all colonialism’ crowd. There was certainly much in the old system that was bad, at times even horrific but I see nothing wrong and even much potential for benefit if people today would drop old prejudices and make new agreements openly and honestly. If a country requires protection or some sort of assistance, I see nothing wrong with coming to an agreement with another country to provide these things in exchange for something else, like an exclusive trade deal or use of some territory or something. However, my primary point here is that monarchists should really know better than to be “shooting inside the tent” on this subject and that everyone who likes to moan and groan and claim perpetual victim status for being a former colony should get over it and stop the pity party. You used to be ruled by someone else? Sorry, that doesn’t make you special. It’s happened to everybody and your people probably did it to some other people at some point so let’s all act like big boys and girls and stop trying to cash-in on past misfortunes. Is that too much to ask?

Beware the Ides of March

On this day in 44 BC Gaius Julius Caesar, duly elected Dictator of the Roman Republic, was assassinated by a group of conspirators. Read my thoughts on the assassination here and a profile on Julius Caesar here.

It was a dramatic sign of how far fallen the Roman Republic already was, striking down the greatest leader of the day because his success made others fearful of him. His murder set events into motion which led to the founding of the Roman Empire and, oddly enough, the conspirators, fearing a potential king, created a dynasty of emperors.

Did World War II Doom the Italian Monarchy?

It seems a very simple question. Did World War II doom the Italian monarchy? Italy entered the war, lost, and the monarchy fell. Surely the answer is, “yes”. Yet, it is not quite that simple. What if the Kingdom of Italy had won the Second World War? Would it still have fallen? The end of the monarchy did not coincide with defeat in the war as in Germany or Austria in the first war. In fact, it survived a short time after the war was over. There is actually quite a diversity of views on this subject. Some critics of the monarchy state with absolute assurance that republicanism was inevitable and that the reign of the House of Savoy was doomed no matter what happened. Others, think that the monarchy was doomed in 1921 when the Fascists came to power and that, after that, it was only a matter of time. Still others do make the case that the monarchy always held the upper hand up until Italy entered the war and that this was the critical mistake that ended any hope of monarchy surviving on the Italian peninsula. Losing a war, particularly in the age of “total war” such as the world wars certainly brought down many monarchies, most younger than the House of Savoy but which, outwardly at least, seemed more secure. However, there was certainly significant support for the monarchy remaining even after 1945. That the republicans had to resort to chicanery to squeak out even a narrow victory in the referendum is proof enough of that.

Mussolini & his monarch

The first issue to look at is whether the Italian monarchy was on stable ground before the war. More than one historian has asserted that it would only the outbreak of war that prevented the Italian monarchy from being abolished even earlier. Benito Mussolini had been, for most of his life, a socialist and staunch republican who only lately embraced the monarchy and was viewed by not a few as being insincere in that conversion (rather like his baptism in the Catholic Church which was viewed almost universally as something purely for show and political convenience). There are a number of comments and actions on the part of the Duce to reinforce this view. As far as actions go, his attempt to take control of the succession (no doubt to disinherit Prince Umberto of Piedmont who was disliked by the Fascists) prompted a confrontation with the palace and Mussolini, ultimately, had to back down. An attempt to assassinate King Victor Emmanuel III in 1928 was blamed on republicans in the Fascist Party and Mussolini was clearly uncomfortable at public functions when he had to surrender pride of place to the monarch. According to Mussolini himself, his regular meetings with the King were “cordial but never friendly”. Yet, as insulting as Mussolini could speak about the King and monarchy, when the two met he was always respectful and polite.

Although he complained about having to deal with the monarchy such as when Hitler visited the country (and Hitler, who was adamantly opposed to monarchy, warned Mussolini that the Royal Family was against him and that the monarchy should be abolished at the first available opportunity), the Duce always seemed willing to make use of the monarchy as a dynastic tool for the advancement of Italian interests. When the so-called Austro-fascists sounded him out about the possibility of restoring the House of Hapsburg he made no objection and even spoke of another Hapsburg-Savoy dynastic alliance to cement the ties between Italy and Austria. During the Italian intervention he also proposed Prince Amadeus, Duke of Aosta, as a potential Spanish monarch (as his ancestor had briefly been). The King disliked this idea and, no doubt to his relief, Franco turned it down. Yet, there were other confrontations when Mussolini tried to interfere with the army, confrontations which the King always won such as the proposal to abolish the carabinieri (the prestigious and very royalist military police) and another to fuse the army and the MVSN (the Fascist militia or Blackshirts). Were these simply efforts to expand the much-boasted totalitarianism of the regime or part of an on-going anti-monarchist agenda?

Re-Imperatore & Duce

Not long before the war, Mussolini was heard more than once to say that he would get rid of the King and the Pope as well when the time was right. Some suggest that it was only the outbreak of war that prevented this from becoming reality. However, could Mussolini have abolished the monarchy if he had really wanted to? In 1938, when many viewed Mussolini as being at the height of his power and prestige, some observers noted that the monarchy remained just as popular if not more so. In the anonymous darkness of the cinema, watching newsreels, crowds were silent when Mussolini appeared but cheered the King when he came on the screen. It may have been the fact that the monarchy was keeping pace with or even surpassing his own popularity that prompted his occasional republican outbursts. This would mean that while he may have increasingly wanted to get rid of the monarchy, the facts which most encouraged this feeling were also those which would prevent his ever making good on his threats. In terms of monarchist sentiment, the highest echelons of the Fascist Party were being won over by the King just as many were grumbling about the leadership and decisions of the Duce.

After Mussolini, there was no more elite group among the Fascists than the “Quadrumvirs”, men who had led the ‘March on Rome’ in 1921; Michele Bianchi, Emilio De Bono, Cesare De Vecchi and Italo Balbo. Of these, Bianchi was dead by 1930, De Bono and De Vecchi had always been staunch monarchists and only joined the Fascist bid for power after Mussolini endorsed the monarchy and even Italo Balbo, previously an ardent republican, had become a monarchist after becoming disillusioned with Mussolini’s leadership. Balbo, like the King, had been particularly distressed at the decision to ally with Nazi Germany. Count Dino Grandi, president of parliament and a member of the Fascist Grand Council also remained supportive of the monarchy and increasingly dubious in his attachment to Mussolini (he would ultimately raise the motion in the Grand Council to restore the King to his full powers, thus removing Mussolini). Given all of that, and the fact that the army remained staunchly royalist, later proven by the fact that only one Marshal of Italy followed Mussolini in his Nazi-backed puppet republic in the north after 1943, would indicate that even if there had been an effort to abolish the monarchy before the war it almost certainly would have failed disastrously.

Prince Umberto & Mussolini

So, if the war did not save the monarchy; did the war doom the monarchy? Would it have made a difference if Italy had won or lost in the course of the war? There are quite a few mentions in histories of this period that Mussolini, who never liked having to share public acclaim with the monarchy during moments of triumph, wanted to abolish the monarchy and take the supreme position for himself. Such people point out that, had World War II ended in an Italian victory, it would have been the perfect time for Mussolini to carry out such ambitions. As usual, there is some circumstantial evidence to support such an idea. Mussolini seemed very determined to allow no high-profile royal figures to have the chance to achieve any military glory. He had kept Prince Umberto out of the Abyssinian War and, though he was commander of the initial invasion of France (which was far from successful anyway), never allowed him to command any major military operation. Kept out of the campaigns in North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia and Russia, Prince Umberto was forced to spend most of his time inspecting second-line forces in Calabria. It is at least possible that this was part of a plan on Mussolini’s part to make sure that he received all the credit for victory if Italy had managed to win.

Yet, again, even if that had been the Duce’s plan, it may not have been successful. For one thing, Mussolini was never able to have the purely Fascist military victory that he always longed for. The invasion of Abyssinia is illustrative of this. The original commander was Emilio De Bono who (though a staunch monarchist) was one of the Fascist Quadrumvirs and the Blackshirt legions were set to play the dominant role in the fighting. However, De Bono’s cautious advance was taking too much time and he had to be replaced by Marshal Badoglio who was seen at least as being more the King’s man as a traditional Piedmontese army officer (though, oddly enough, De Bono was probably more attached to the monarchy in fact than Badoglio was). The MVSN is often wrongly considered the Italian equivalent of the German SS but, in fact, it would have been more similar to the SA. It was a militia, not an elite force and mostly consisted of men who were “weekend warriors” rather than professional soldiers. Even then, by the time of World War II, many of its commanders were monarchist former army officers rather than committed Fascists.

Marshal Giovanni Messe

During the course of the war, even while Mussolini kept the Savoy princes from important commands, the army continued to be dominated by men loyal to the King before they were loyal to the Duce. In Africa, early on, the most successful commander had been the Duke of Aosta who certainly would not have backed any attack on the monarchy. During the height of Axis success in North Africa the Italian commander was Marshal Ettore Bastico who put loyalty to the Crown before the Fascist Party. General Mario Roatta, commander of Italian forces in the former Yugoslavia, though regarded as an unsavory figure by many, remained with the Badoglio government rather than Mussolini after 1943, an indication of where his ultimate loyalty was and in Russia the Italian commander was General (later Marshal) Giovanni Messe who, aside from being probably the most capable Italian commander of the war, was a staunch monarchist who even got involved in politics as a royalist after the monarchy was abolished. Furthermore, during the course of the war, regardless of his motivations, Mussolini had continued to make use of the monarchy such as by going along with the elevation of the Duke of Spoleto as King of Croatia. This would certainly have complicated matters if there had been any post-war move against the monarchy by Mussolini.

Given how many monarchists remained in positions of authority in government, even within the Fascist Party itself, as well as the prevalence of royalist sentiment in the army, it is hard to see how Mussolini could have abolished the monarchy even if Italy had won the war. Part of the problem, for the Duce at least, with the royalist figures such as De Vecchi, De Bono, former leader of the predominately royalist nationalist party Luigi Federzoni (who was also on the Grand Council) was precisely that Mussolini had appointed them all to high positions. Previously, he had stated that there would, in the future, be “another” Fascist revolution and this time, “without contraceptives” (taken by most to mean casting aside the monarchy and Church) and that he was “plucking the chicken feather by feather to lessen its squawking” (referring to his diminishment of royal powers) which could certainly be added to the column of evidence that Mussolini intended to move against the monarchy at some point. However, if part of that “plucking” involved the removal of royalists from positions of power, particularly non-military officials like those mentioned above, it would have been all but impossible to do without destroying the Fascist myth of the Duce as the man who was “always right”. After all, if Mussolini is never supposed to make a mistake, how could he purge such men at the very highest echelons of the Fascist state without admitting the he had been spectacularly wrong on numerous occasions over so many years?

Victor Emmanuel III

The whole thing would have revealed just how empty was the oft-repeated boast that Mussolini had made Italy a totalitarian state. It would have shown that despite decades in power, neither the government or the army were purely Fascist and absolutely loyal to him. It would have also hurt his “always right” line of propaganda simply because Mussolini had kept the monarchy in place for so long. His slights against the monarchy were always out of public view and the public never saw the Duce being anything but formal and correct towards the King so as to maintain the image of the “diarchy”. It would have shown him, in dramatic fashion, to be a liar and a hypocrite. Of course, we can also see what happened when Mussolini did turn on the monarchy after 1943 and the result was a shambles. With only the Nazis and die-hard republican Fascists supporting him, he was forced to back peddle and try to reach out to the radical leftists. This, of course, did him no good as they continued to view him as the socialist “heretic” they always had since his split from them over World War I. Had he been Duce of a country victorious in war, he certainly would have had a much stronger position to do as he pleased but it is hard to see how he could manage to pull off such a dramatic break with the past as abolishing the monarchy without destroying his own reputation in the process.

That, however, was never an option though as Italy lost the war and so the only question left is whether losing cost the House of Savoy their crown. It certainly made a huge difference. Contrary to the popular perception (based mostly on World War II), losing wars was not something Italians were used to. Ties between the military and the monarchy were old and strongly held but, prior to World War II, Italian military operations had been overwhelmingly successful, from the war in Abyssinia, the intervention in Spain, the pacification of Libya, World War I and the war against Ottoman Turkey. The Italian military had been extremely over-hyped by Mussolini but given the recent history, the stunning losses in World War II came as quite a shock to the public and as a terrible morale blow to the royal army in particular. Of course, we know that losing the war did not automatically bring down the monarchy but there were several key points about the loss that certainly undermined the monarchy and left it in mortal danger. Examples include the German alliance, the Salo Republic and the blundering of the Allies. There was also one way in which Mussolini himself actually benefited the monarchy, albeit inadvertently.

Italian Co-Belligerent Force soldiers

The problem with the German alliance was that Germany was not willing to cut ties and allow Italy to sit out the rest of the war. It was German intervention which caused the resulting Italian civil war within World War II that proved so damaging to the Italian nation on every level. The 1943 armistice was supposed to take Italy out of the fighting but because of the German reaction the country was forced back into the conflict on both sides, the Italian Social Republic forces fighting with the Nazis in the north and the Italian Co-Belligerent forces fighting with the Allies in the south. To the extent that ill-will towards the monarchy did arise in the Italian military, this was almost invariably the cause. Even some of those who put loyalty to the King first still felt very bad about suddenly being called upon to fight their former allies alongside those who had previously been their enemies and who had stripped Italy of all its pre-war possessions, even those gained long before the Fascists came to power. This was one of the major blunders of the Allies which went a long way to damaging the monarchy and destabilizing Italy. The Allies, trying to cling to their “unconditional surrender and nothing else will be accepted” strategy basically gave Italians who wanted to end the war absolutely no encouragement and every reason to go on fighting. Yet, with every passing day, the German grip on Italy grew stronger and so the need for some level of at least cooperation from the Italians became more and more imperative. The result was a situation that benefited no one.

Another problem caused by the Germans and their Salo puppet state was that it provided a huge shot in the arm to all the most anti-monarchy elements in Italy. It attracted the most diehard Fascists as well as attracting even more leftist opposition. Communist partisan guerillas were rampant and could count on strong backing from the Soviet Union. Inevitably, some aid from the western Allies to other non-communist partisans found their way into communist hands. So, while anti-monarchy elements gained a stranglehold on northern Italy thanks to the state of affairs caused by Germany, in the rest of the country, short-sighted Allied policies did nothing to bolster the monarchy which was the best defense against a communist takeover of Italy. Were it not for this confused situation and the Allied occupation there may well have never been a referendum at all. Finally, Mussolini inadvertently helped the monarchy by the previously discussed efforts of him to keep the Royal Family out of the war as much as possible. He did this because he did not want them to share any of the glory but, as it turned out, it meant that they could not be blamed for the ultimate defeat and most of the military remained loyal to the monarchy. This is evidenced by the efforts taken to keep as many members of the armed forces as possible from participating in the referendum by its republican organizers.

Did the war play a major part in the downfall of the Italian monarchy? Undoubtedly, and if Italy had stayed out of the war the monarchy would likely still be here. However, I don’t think the war doomed the Italian monarchy. Those who wanted King Victor Emmanuel III to abdicate, which he proved reluctant to do, was mostly because he had been too long associated with the Fascists rather than the war, though it was certainly unpopular, particularly after all hope of victory was lost. If the Allied Control Commission had not been so unrealistic in their demands on the Italian government, things might have been very different -but of course they would not have been there in the first place were it not for the war. It is also true that the part played by the Allies in the lead-up to the referendum is often exaggerated, after a certain point (certainly after the first post-Fascist elections brought so many communists to power) they took a “hands-off” attitude, refusing to hinder or help either side. They certainly did harm the monarchist cause overall, but probably not as much as some (seeking a convenient scapegoat) like to think. The war did not doom the Kingdom of Italy but losing the war certainly made the fall of the monarchy possible and probable yet not inevitable.

If Italy had stayed out of the war, the monarchy would almost certainly have survived. There were too many monarchists in high places to make abolition of the monarchy in any way easy. If Italy had won the war, the monarchy would probably have survived, even with Mussolini triumphant, it was still too interwoven with the fabric of society and the regime to get rid out without trouble and a great deal of embarrassment. If, upon exiting the war, Germany had stayed out of Italy, it certainly would have made the retention of the monarchy more likely. If the Allies had enacted a coherent policy towards the Kingdom of Italy which was seeking an armistice, the monarchy could have survived. If Italy had been given some tangible benefit for joining the Allied cause, the monarchy might have been saved. It, of course, also goes without saying that if the Allies had behaved differently and if the referendum had been conducted fairly and by impartial authorities the monarchy could have been saved. I dislike saying so but if King Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated and left the country at the time of the defeat, it may also have made preserving the monarchy easier. As it was, the Fascist era and World War II managed to at least make possible the downfall of one of the oldest Royal Families in the world so that, for the first time in over a thousand years, there was no patch of ground over which a Savoy reigned.

Why I Shouldn't Be King of...

Undoubtedly I am not alone in noticing how staunch republicans tend to regard monarchists as belonging to one of two extremes. Tell one of these people that you are a monarchist and they will often comeback with one of two assumptions about you. These are, that you are either a hopelessly servile and masochistic toady who loves the idea of being ruled and tyrannized by someone or that you, like every other monarchist in their view, secretly harbor dreams of being a monarch yourself. Perhaps this is because every republican secretly dreams of being president, I don’t know. However, neither is true in my book. Far from being servile and thriving on shabby treatment from those in authority, one of the traits that infuriates me the most in my fellow man is snobbery. That does not prevent one from being a monarchist as experience has shown me that there are few people more prone to snobbery than lower-class people who aspire to high society, have achieved it or who simply hate the upper-class as much as they imagine the upper-class hates them. Actual, bone-fide royals and aristocrats are often the least snobbish people.

When it comes to longing for aristocratic or royal status, again, I have not a bit of it. If I craved adulation I certainly would not be doing what I do where I receive better than ten times the number of insults as I do praise. Likewise, the idea that I would ever fancy myself a monarch is absurd. Not only because such a thing would be useless but because I know that I do not have what it takes to be a modern monarch and I know that I would be an absolute disaster if monarchial status were ever to befall me. Sticking to a schedule is excruciating for me (even my circadian rhythm refuses to be reliable), dealing politely with people who despise me is an ability I have never possessed and I have inherited an indecisive streak that would make even Nicholas II pity me. I don’t like public events, I can’t stand crowds, I find it impossible to travel anymore and I would be constantly making comments that would leave provoke a royal face-palm from even the Duke of Edinburgh. I am just not monarch material and no one is more aware of this fact than I am, I assure you. Just to demonstrate, here is a list of reasons why I would be totally unsuited for the throne of any existing monarchy in the world.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Great Britain: The UK embassy in Washington DC would be home to the world’s largest statue of King George III. If at all possible, I would try to face him toward Mt Vernon. Since I wish nothing more than for the English-speaking countries to be drawn ever closer together, this would not be a good thing for Anglo-American relations and yet, I know I would not be able to stop myself from doing it.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Spain: First visit to Mexico, I’d show up dressed like Cortes and carrying a flag. And, you know, they probably wouldn’t like that. Recently, King Felipe VI met with Martin Schulz and that highlights another reason because I could certainly never stomach shaking hands with the likes of Martin Schulz. (shudder) In dealing with certain Latin American leaders, I would not be able to stop myself at asking them to “shut up” but would probably include a string of epithets that would certainly not be conducive to Hispanic solidarity, which I would like to see more of.

Why I shouldn’t be Grand Duke of Luxembourg: I would spend all my time campaigning to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. I just couldn’t help it. Campaigning to evict the European Court of Justice from Luxembourg soil would probably also be seen as “too political” and “interfering” in government matters for current sensibilities.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Belgium: All foreign aid to the Congo would be in special currency bearing a portrait of King Leopold II. And that would be evil! They would probably also misunderstand it, assuming sympathy with atrocities carried out in his name rather than a swipe at the nature of “independent” countries being on the dole of former colonial powers.

Why I shouldn’t be King of The Netherlands: I would offer to annex any remaining Boer areas of South Africa. And I doubt that would go over well. Problems with Indonesia would also doubtless be unavoidable and I doubt the Dutch public could cash the checks my mouth would be writing -if you know what I mean. Referring, even in a joking way, to Belgium as “the Southern Netherlands” would probably also ruffle some feathers.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Denmark: The national coat-of-arms would be changed to show Reptilicus devouring Germany. And that would be weird. Hardly in keeping with the dignity and integrity of the oldest monarchy in Europe. (Bonus points to anyone playing along at home who actually knows who “Reptilicus” is)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Norway: I’m not proud of it, I don’t like to admit, but I must face facts and I have to be honest. At some point I would have to wear a helmet with two big horns on it and would constantly be threatening to raid someone.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Sweden: Constantly hitting on Finland and asking when we can get back together would probably not be considered a legitimate foreign policy. It would probably upset the Russians too.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Liechtenstein: I’d form a military and declare war on San Marino.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Monaco: I would probably bankrupt the place trying to buy Menton and Roquebrune from France. There would also be family tensions anytime Gad came up as absolutely no one is good enough for my dear Charlotte.

Why I shouldn’t be Pope: Perhaps this one shouldn’t count but the Pope is technically the sovereign of a legal state so it is included for that reason. My “Renaissance” style papacy would give the entire Catholic world whiplash after the reign of Pope Frank. Not good. Every address to the world would probably consist of me screaming, “You’re all going to burn in Hell you godless heathens!” Can’t see that winning many over honestly.

Why I shouldn’t be King of (insert name of predominately Muslim country here): I doubt an infidel monarch would last long. Aside from differences of belief, I don’t drink anymore so that’s not a problem and I can live without pork but…a whole month without being able to smoke? I would explode.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Lesotho: I would absolutely refuse to have any dealings with South Africa, which for Lesotho would make life pretty damn difficult considering that the country is entirely surrounded by South Africa.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Swaziland: Aside from how positively ridiculous I would look in the national costume, there are other aspects of life I could never adjust to. For one, I couldn’t do the whole polygamy thing. The idea of one wife is frightening enough. Good. God.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Bhutan: There is no way I could stop myself from hitting on pretty much every female member of the royal family -and that would be awkward. (seriously, they are ridiculously gorgeous)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Thailand: Constantly playing “One Night in Bangkok” would probably not be considered appropriate royal behavior. Some people are really offended by that…I know.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Cambodia: Pretty simple. On day one I would fire Hun Sen, upsetting Vietnam, end friendly relations with China and North Korea and probably be assassinated in quick order, plunging the country into chaos.

Why I shouldn’t be Emperor of Japan: I’d go to pray at Yasukuni Shrine wearing a kimono with a big rising sun on it and all the Chinese and Koreans heads would explode in a fit of rage that might start World War III. And nobody wants that. But, I’d probably also be assassinated by right-wing extremists for not going along with their ‘Japan is the only country that never did anything wrong ever’ mentality.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Tonga: After some rather rotund monarchs, having a king who looks like he was just rescued from the world’s worst POW camp would probably be too great a shock for the people of Tonga.

So, speaking for myself, I can honestly say that this monarchist would be a terrible monarch and I am under no illusions about that. From what I have seen, the same would hold true for most monarchists in the world who all too often fail to take into account the hard facts of reality that actual monarchs have to deal with. Reigning monarchs have to deal with people who despise them, they have to deal with world leaders they probably despise themselves. They have to act responsibly for all of their people and not just the ones they agree with. Even on just a superficial level, many still cling to the mistaken belief that being “king” means you can do whatever you like when, in reality, monarchs have less freedom than almost anyone. For months in advance, every minute of every day is accounted for, their every word and every action must be thought out because it could have far-reaching consequences for their countries. For most, it takes a lifetime of preparation and they must accept a level of scrutiny and selfless devotion to duty that most ordinary people could never even imagine. It is not something that just anyone can do. I know I couldn’t.

When Is A Country Not A Country? (usually when it's a republic)

Being a pan-monarchist can be extremely frustrating. At least one reason, but a major one, for my frustration at least is the extent to which the proven viability of monarchy is so blatantly self-evident around the world and some republicans will even acknowledge it but yet none seem able to make the simple connection that the monarchy is the one common factor and thus should be something to take seriously. The biggest issue in the news lately has been the problems in the Middle East. Everyone can see that the monarchies have been the most stable regimes there and when it comes to confronting the ISIS terrorist gang, no world leader has won more praise than the King of Jordan. The growing concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons should also drive home the fact, long known by monarchists, that the overthrow of the Shah was the birthday of the modern terrorist movement. Yemen is in chaos and it all stems back to a war between royalists and republicans, each backed by regional monarchies and republics, which the royalists lost and we see the result. Iraq is another example of how bad things become when a monarchy falls while the monarchies that remain, whether one likes them or not, have at least been stable.

Likewise, in Asia, monarchies have a record of providing a sense of calm and order even when social or political problems have caused chaos. Not a few foreign observers remarked how even when Japan was going through a rapid turnover in governments (even by Japanese standards) there was no loss of confidence and no panic on the part of the public or foreign investors. Even an American commentator on Chinese state television had to admit that the Emperor played a vital part in explaining this. His presence reassured people that, no matter how many governments and politicians would come and go, everything would be okay; Japan as a country remained stable. Recently, there has probably been no better example of this than the Kingdom of Thailand which has often had a chaotic political history. In fact, chaos in the government of Thailand can seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Recently there was another military takeover of the Thai government, something far from unprecedented in Thai history, which came about due to rampant political corruption and finally acts of terrorism by the faction previously in power. However, in spite of all this turmoil, Thailand, as a country, is perfectly stable. Life is going on as normal and undoubtedly the King’s endorsement of the military administration has played a part in that. In the past, aside from being a powerful symbol, the King has been relied on to intervene in politics in times of crisis to bring about calm, reconciliation and a return to normalcy.

Perhaps it is due to the situation being hard to put into words that more people do not see what is right in front of their eyes. The unusual thing about life in Thailand, for example, is that there is nothing unusual about it. To the south, in the Kingdom of Malaysia there has been, relatively recently, a great deal of trouble but, again, it has not brought about any crisis of confidence among the Malaysian people or foreigners. A monarch, by their very nature, and the living link with history that a monarchy provides gives a country that intangible, hard-to-describe “something” that helps people keep things in perspective. It is a stabilizing force, even when taking no action at all, and just by being there can keep things within a traditional framework that allows for change to happen without getting out of control. Moreover, in a way that is also frustratingly hard to put in to words, it represents a means of organic growth for countries as opposed to harsh, artificial regimes that destroy countries by trying to re-make them according to some utopian ideology.

One of the largest examples today of a place where this, sadly, did not happen is China. As a country, a culture, a people, China existed for thousands of years. There were good times and bad times but the “national spirit” for lack of a better word, was preserved. Even when China was conquered and ruled by non-Han peoples such as the Mongol Yuan Dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty, it was in accordance with the traditional way that change happened in China and, as a result, even the conquerors became “conquered” themselves by the Chinese culture. Then, there were the events of 1911 when, for the first time, totally foreign ideas, institutions and values were forced upon China in an attempt to re-make the country into something totally different from what it had been for thousands of years. The Mongols and Manchus came to China and adopted Chinese ways. China changed them far more than they changed China. However, with the birth of the Republic of China, the new rulers of the country tried to change China based on totally foreign concepts. Ultimately, this led to the importation of political divisions from abroad, a gruesome civil war and a new regime based on the utopian ideology of a 19th-Century German-Jew that ultimately resulted in the Cultural Revolution that declared war on all things traditionally and fundamentally Chinese.

So, China was a country, a culture and a people but suddenly became something artificial. It became, not a country but an ideology. Eventually, after millions died of starvation, disease and poverty, this ideology was proven to be moronic and so, while never officially renouncing it, China became what it is today; essentially a business. It is even run like a business, with one all-powerful CEO chosen by a board of directors known to the public as the Chinese Communist Party. And, unfortunately, China is far from unique. A similar story can be told in a multitude of countries all around the world. Numerous other Asian countries fit the pattern, most African countries fit the pattern, Russia, even South America where, without any direct foreign intervention, countries broke away from Spain and tried to set up their artificial countries based on theories that seemed to work elsewhere but which were ultimately shown to be unworkable in Latin America. What about the United States? It is easy to misunderstand the United States and many have. It is an artificial country but, although plenty of Americans would not want to admit this, aside from a great deal of plain good luck, much of the success of America has been due to the fact that the “American Revolution” was not really a revolution. They didn’t try to remake society, they didn’t really change much at all but basically just took the existing British model of government that was natural to them and tweaked it a little bit to suit their republican sentiments. It was not a jarring break and (unless you were a loyalist) life went on pretty much the same as before.

This stands in stark contrast to, for example, Mexico which, not by sheer coincidence, has not been so successful a country. When Mexico first became independent, as a monarchy, in 1821 there was no official constitution (the Plan of Iguala serving) and the law was not drastically different from what it had been during the Spanish era. In fact, one thing that prompted conservative Mexicans to go along with independence were the changes being made in the “constitution” of Spain. We will never know how that would have worked out as it was not given a chance, as we know, with the first emperor, Iturbide, being deposed and later shot. The first official Mexican constitution was the Constitution of 1824. This was a very federalist constitution that was heavily influenced by that of the United States, granting considerable powers to the states. However, not surprisingly, what worked for British-Americans in the United States did not work so well in Mexico and it was soon reduced to a dead-letter by a succession of dictators.

Next, came the Constitution of 1857, most associated with the tenure of President Benito Juarez. Though power was more centralized, in some ways it was even more like that of the United States than the 1824 version. However, it further broke with Mexican culture and traditions by being so anti-clerical. It was the first constitution to make Mexico a secular country and to place restrictions on the Catholic Church. Thus it became a bone of contention, leading to civil war and ultimately the restoration of the monarchy under Emperor Maximilian. Juarez himself violated the terms of the 1857 constitution on numerous occasions and finally it was found to be unacceptable after the country fell back into dictatorship. It was then that Mexico adopted its current constitution, the Constitution of 1917. Even more restrictive of religion, very leftist in character, it did bring an end to the era of dictatorships in Mexico but replaced it with the era of ideological tyranny with decades of effective one-party rule under the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Oddly enough, to show how widespread this problem is, this constitution which was not even compatible with Mexico, ended up being the inspiration for those of the Weimar Republic and the first post-Tsarist constitution in Russia. And, of course, we remember what resounding “successes” those regimes were.

Contrarily, those countries which have retained their monarchies have a far different record. They change and evolve of course and fare good or bad depending on the decisions they make just as republics do. However, as long as the overall structure of the monarchy remains, so that these changes and decisions occur within a traditional framework, moderation remains more prevalent than fanaticism and bad decisions are more easily, and perhaps even more importantly, more peacefully able to be corrected. And unless anyone thinks that other institutions, besides the monarchy, are the real determining factor, there are two easy examples to disprove those who think all depends on the constitution. The United Kingdom, as most know, has no official, written constitution and yet has been a more stable and prosperous country, historically, than most countries that do. The monarchy has served to smooth out the difficulties that in other lands would have led to armed revolts or coups. Somewhat similarly, the State of Japan has a constitution which represents a rather drastic break with their national traditions and political culture, made a time when calm and impartial decisions were hardly possible. Yet, though I personally think Japan would be well served to discard it and have another or revise it significantly, Japan under that constitution rose from ruin and defeat to be the second most wealthy country in the world. Even the most ardent republicans have had to admit that this was due in large part to the retention of the Emperor.

France is, on the other hand, an example of a country that was torn, violently, from its traditional roots and while seemingly a fairly prosperous country, had really never recovered from that. The Kingdom of France existed for about a thousand years and while there were certainly good times and bad times the overall structure of the country was maintained and even when things became really bad (be it religious wars or English domination), France always bounced back to attain new heights. Since the revolution, however, France has had the restored monarchy, a popular monarchy, two empires, a pseudo-fascistic state and five republics. Add to that the fact that most did not go peacefully into that dark night and consider how divided France still is today. More to the point, of the problems France has today, virtually all of them can be traced back to the revolution and the, so-far, failed efforts by the French to come to terms with it. Much of the recent internal turmoil has been due to issues involving French Muslims. How did this come about? For one thing, the French Revolution shattered the place of Christianity in France and it has never really fully come back and taken root, secularism became acceptable and so an alien religion like Islam has little competition. More broadly, the very ideals of the French Revolution have made it very hard for France to combat disloyal and even terrorist elements in their midst without looking like hypocrites. And this is nothing new as the speed with which France replaced the First Republic with the First Empire and the numerous republics and monarchies since has plainly shown that the ideals of the French Revolution were recognized to be unworkable, utopian nonsense fairly early on.

This is all the more tragic because, at the time of the revolution, King Louis XVI was in the process of making needed changes on his own which were making use of existing, traditional French institutions (some of which had fallen into disuse) and which, I at least certainly have no doubt, would have had a lasting and positive influence on the country. Of course, as with anything, there is no simple solution that will negate the fallibility of mankind or make one immune from the effects of bad decisions. However, when considering the overall success of Scandinavia, the Low Countries and the Anglosphere it seems that what detrimental changes have occurred, have been forced to happen rather slowly, incrementally, over time and the structures remain in place to (we hope) see these problems corrected. In these countries, the institutions that have grown up naturally, paramount being the monarchy, are generally accepted as a permanent fixture of the political landscape. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every monarchy, such as Spain, where there was a jarring break with the past and a persistence on the part of many to desire a return to republicanism for a third time, despite the objective failure of the first two attempts (the second being quite gruesome as well).

Some may disagree, and this is only opinion, but when considering the subject it does seem to me that there is a distinct, if hard to precisely put into words, difference between a radical, violent change, as with a revolution, and natural changes that have occurred within a traditional framework. Additionally, it seems that countries which have taken this route have the greater record of success behind them. Even when things have gone to the extent of, for example, the so-called Glorious Revolution or American Revolution, these things were really not all that revolutionary. There was nothing like the September Massacres or “New Soviet Man” or the Cultural Revolution that came out of those (to my mind) unfortunate events. Countries that attempt to deny themselves, their own past, their own nature, never seem to truly prosper and, as is the case with so many today, they become republics which are not really “countries” at all anymore but simply an ideological camp, a massive social or public works network or simply a big business, not, what has been considered a natural, organic nation as understood through most of human history.

Monarchist Military: Attack on the Takao

One of the most daring exploits of World War II, or naval warfare in general, was carried out by a young Royal Navy officer from Ealing, London, Lieutenant Ian Edward Fraser. The son of a marine engineer, he worked in the merchant marine in the late 30’s and joined the Royal Navy in 1939, volunteering for submarine service. By 1943 he was serving on HMS Sahib with distinction and earned the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). The following year he became a lieutenant in the Royal Navy Reserve at the age of 24 and transferred to the special ‘midget submarine’ service. These were the X-craft mini-subs which had already earned a page in naval history for crippling the mighty German battleship Tirpitz in 1943. Lt. Fraser was to command an XE-craft which was an updated version of the X-craft that would see service in East Asia. An important point, though, was that the XE-craft were unarmed. They were designed to be taken by a combat submarine to the area of operations, dispatched to stealthily approach their target and then one man in diving gear would attach mines to the hull of their target and destroy it. It took men of exceptional courage and nerve to carry out such missions.

The Takao in 1932

Lt. Fraser and his boat, the XE-3 were to take part in “Operation Struggle”, the plan for the liberation of the vital fortress city of Singapore which had fallen to the Japanese in 1942. Allied troops were, by July of 1945, back on the Malay peninsula but they dared not move against Singapore because of the powerful guard Japan had posted in the Johore Strait. That was the target of XE-3, the powerful Japanese heavy cruiser Takao. The lead ship of its class, the Takao was an awesome sight to behold. With 127mm armor, bristling with 8-inch guns, 5-inch guns, anti-aircraft guns, torpedoes and depth charges and with powerful engines giving her a top speed of just over 35 knots the Takao was a floating example of the excellence of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Stationed where she was, no Allied advance on Singapore was possible as the 8-inch batteries on Takao could decimate any Allied army that attempted to cross the causeway. The Takao was also a battle-hardened veteran which had been in action since the war began and had sunk or crippled numerous Allied warships and merchant vessels. Targeted by the Allies many times, the Takao had been subject to submarine attack twice but survived and was hit in air attacks numerous times but survived. Now manned by a skeleton crew, the veteran ship was placed to cover the causeway and provide protection from air attack with her formidable (and greatly enlarged) arsenal of anti-aircraft guns.

This was a real David and Goliath type of mission, a battle-scarred Japanese heavy cruiser versus a British mini-sub without so much as a single machine gun or torpedo. Still, the X-craft had proven that, while the odds were long, they could achieve success and Fraser and his men were ready to try. The XE-3 was truly a “British Empire” submarine with a diverse crew. Alongside London-born Lieutenant Fraser was Lieutenant “Kiwi” Smith from New Zealand, their helmsman Charles Reed (the only other Brit) and an Irishman named J.J. “Mick” Magennis who would have to set the charges. All were hand-picked for the job and all but Fraser himself were veterans of mini-sub service. It was just after midnight on July 30, 1945 that XE-3, after being towed to the vicinity by His Majesty’s Submarine Stygian, crept toward the entrance to Johore Straits where the mighty Takao was waiting. Just after dawn Fraser sighted the island that marked the entrance to the strait and ordered the XE-3 to submerge. From then on, victory or death were the only alternatives.

The XE-4 off Sidney, Australia

As the sub swam towards the entrance to the straits, Fraser looked through the periscope to a frightening sight. The way was blocked by two Japanese gunboats which, with or without sonar, would have an easy time spotting the sub in the clear, shallow waters. It was the only safe entrance to the straits but the Japanese, never lacking in thoroughness, had sealed it off. Still, Fraser was determined to make the attack and he ordered Smith to surface the boat. With only seven inches of hull above water, it would be hard to spot the sub in the low light of early dawn, but if just one Japanese gunboat happened to, the XE-3 would be a sitting duck. Fraser decided to go ahead and with just the top of his head peering out from the hatch he passed commands to steer the XE-3 past the watchful gunboats, doing his best to hug the shore. When the curving coast finally hid the gunboats from view, Fraser ordered the boat into the swept central passage and increased to flank speed, a mere 6 and a half knots for his little craft. It was risky, but if they didn’t strike fast the odds would be even greater that the Japanese would destroy them before they ever got near the Takao.

Then, as the sub was surging forward as best it could, around another bend in the strait appeared another Japanese gunboat. Immediately, Fraser ordered them to dive and once submerged turned hard to starboard (that’s “right” in naval talk). Even if they were not spotted, they would be just as dead if the Japanese inadvertently rammed them. However, as it happened, they had turned right into a minefield. If they hit one of the mine cables, it would pull the explosive down on them and end their lives right there. Plus, if the gunboat had spotted them, just one depth charge, anywhere in the immediate area, would set off the mines and they would be blown into a million pieces. It was a desperate gamble, but if they hadn’t been spotted, the minefield would prevent them from being detected -the downside being that it could easily kill them with just one wrong move. They sat silent for what seemed like an eternity, all nerves jumping when the sound of a mine scraping against the hull reminded them of just how perilous their situation was. Luckily, it didn’t go off and eventually floated free. With plenty of time having elapsed for the ship to pass them by, Fraser ordered them to move slowly out of the minefield. It would have been nice to see what exactly was in front of them but raising the periscope could happen to set off a mine so, instead, they carefully and blindly crept forward.

The XE-8

Once clear, a quick look through the periscope showed them to be only 3,000 yards from the harbor where the Takao lay at anchor. But, between them and the harbor was a steel anti-submarine net with only one gate, operated by a nearby trawler to let friendly traffic in and out. Fraser waited and soon enough the trawler dragged open the gate to let out a tanker. As the big ship went through, Fraser ordered flank speed and the XE-3 surged forward, through the gate and into the harbor. Looking through the periscope, their wasn’t much to see but dilapidated old junks. By the summer of 1945 the Imperial Japanese Navy had been practically wiped out but that also meant that a powerful warship like the Takao would be all the more heavily guarded. Yet, while the XE-3 circled the harbor, searching and searching, the Takao was nowhere to be seen. It was as if an entire heavy cruiser had just vanished. Fraser and his men started to get rattled. Where could it be? Every hour that slipped by increased the odds that they would be detected and a heavy cruiser should have been the easiest thing in the world to find. A 10,000-ton battle cruiser is not something you just miss.

Just then, Fraser spotted through the periscope a launch full of sailors, all smartly uniformed, coming out of a group of old fishing boats near a tangle of jungle. They had to be from Takao and as he looked more closely he finally spotted the carefully camouflaged heavy cruiser. The Japanese had made the ship as close to invisible as it could possibly get, however, once spotted, Fraser retracted the periscope and maneuvered in blind, unable to risk being spotted himself, while Magennis prepared to make his attack. They crept forward, bumping along a rise in the harbor floor that served as a natural anti-submarine defense. As the depth gauge moved higher and higher they finally clanged into the side of the cruiser. At that point, Fraser had to maneuver the XE-3 underneath the Takao to set the charges on her keel, otherwise the full impact of the explosion would be directed away from the ship. There was a shallow area on the bottom that seemed just large enough for the British sub. Finally, a terrible noise told them they had scraped the bottom of the warship and, halfway under the beast, Fraser stopped. It was time for Magennis to make the attack.

The Takao at sea

The intrepid Irishman in his diving gear exited the submarine, retrieved the limpet bomb from its compartment and tried to attach it to the Takao’s hull. However, the ship was so encrusted with barnacles that the magnet wouldn’t stick. Magennis had to use his knife to scrape away the crusty covering, cutting himself on the barnacles in the process, until he finally reached the hull and could attach the bomb. It took so much time that he almost exhausted his oxygen supply but he kept his cool and just in time managed to attach all five bombs and return to the submarine. Once back aboard, all that was left was for Fraser to release the two bow canisters of explosives and they were done. The port canister was released but something went wrong and the starboard canister remained stuck. There was no time to coax it, in one hour the limpet bombs would go off and if they were not well away the XE-3 would be hoisted on its own petard. Fraser decided to get out and release the other canister in the harbor. He ordered engines back full but, to the horror of all, the little sub didn’t move. They had been down so long that the tide had fallen and the Takao was now pressing down on them, pinning them to the harbor bottom. The clock ticked away to certain death.

Fraser ordered the engines to full speed, forward and then back again, trying to dislodge the sub. It didn’t work. Desperate, he ordered the ballast tanks blown to lighten them, and tried again. Finally, the XE-3 pushed free but as the ballast tanks were empty, they immediately began to rocket to the surface. Immediately, Fraser ordered an emergency dive, re-filling the tanks. If they had popped to the surface right there, they would have been dead in the water. However, releasing the port canister while the starboard remained had made them lighter while throwing off their balance, the sub continued to rise and finally burst up on to the surface. The Japanese, somehow, didn’t notice them but in forty minutes and counting they would certainly notice the five bombs going off under the Takao. Fraser had to get that other canister off immediately.

Magennis (left) and Fraser

“Mick” Magennis got his gear on and headed into the diving trunk again. Everyone waited, watching the minutes tick by till the bombs would explode. Magennis soon found the problem; the threads on the bolts attaching the canister to the sub were jammed. It took every ounce of strength he had but he finally got them off and the canister fell into the harbor. He raced back inside and Fraser turned the little sub for the harbor entrance with all the speed possible. They only had ten minutes before the bombs exploded. Just as the XE-3 got clear of the harbor gate they heard the huge explosion as the bombs detonated, raising the Takao up in the water and tearing a huge hole in the underside of the massive cruiser. Amazingly, the rugged ship still did not sink but it was certainly crippled and put completely out of action. Almost 1,800 Japanese officers and sailors lost their lives on the Takao, the formidable heavy cruiser was out of the war for good and the main defense of Singapore had been eliminated -and all by one tiny submarine and four Royal Navy sailors with nerves of steel. David had brought down Goliath.

The men of the XE-3 returned to a well-deserved heroes welcome. Twelve hours later they were picked up in the Singapore Strait by HMS Stygian and His Majesty King George VI awarded Reed and Smith the Distinguished Service Order and for Fraser and Magennis the coveted Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest award for courage in the face of the enemy. Fraser was promoted to Lieutenant Commander and continued to serve in the Royal Navy and then Royal Navy Reserve until 1965. He died in 2008 at the age of 87. For this daring operation, all of them earned an honored place in the annals of naval history.