Siegert on State Liability in the First World War

[We have the following book announcement from our friends at Max Planck.  DRE]

The Max Planck Institute for European Legal History just published a new volume in its book series Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte: Philipp Siegert, Staatshaftung im Ausnahmezustand: Doktrin und Rechtspraxis im Deutschen Reich und in Frankreich, 1914-1919.

The First World War is sometimes called the 20th century's "primordial catastophe." It raised diverse legal questions and led to a host of fundamental changes. In volume 322 of the MPIeR's book series Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte, which has just been published, Philipp Siegert examines state liability law in Germany and France between 1914 and 1918. On the basis of a detailed analysis of both French and German archival sources, he analyses states' legal responsibility during such a state of emergency and identifies categories of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" state action that, however, were either non-existent in pre-war international law or even contradicted it. Nevertheless, these were subsequently sanctioned by the peace treaties, and even a century after 1919 remain part of the international order. The ways in which destruction, expropriation and economic war measures carried out by France and Germany were assessed and sanctioned is highly instructive for the question of state liability in international law today.

History of Medicine - Jean-Martin Charcot

Charcot

Medical students and doctors worldwide undoubtedly recognise the name Charcot in one form or another. Undoubtedly the father of modern neurology alongside his mentor Duchenne, Jean-Martin Charcot was a French neurologist and anatomist who has 15 medical eponyms towards his name. His work on hysteria and hypnosis, although later refuted, contributed to the development of modern psychiatry. He was so influential that he was even referenced in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Born and raised in Paris, Charcot studied medicine at the University of Paris in 1853 and became a professor in 1860. He practiced at the largest hospital in France, the Salpetriere hospital, ever since and opened Europe's first neurology clinic in 1882. As a doctor with remarkable teaching skills, his clinic attracted students across the continent; Freud, Babinksi, Bouchard, Tourette amongst others became influential figures in medical history in their own rights

The Clinician:

Though Charcot trained as a pathologist, he became a prominent clinician and recognised the importance of correlating clinical and post-mortem anatomical findings. In conjunction with Duchenne's emphasis on clinical examinations, Charcot promoted a systematic neurological history & physical examination to his students. His unique teaching technique forms the basis of the modern-day bedside teaching; it included interviewing patients diagnosed with the same condition during case presentation, imitating neurological symptoms of the patients, and drawing pictures illustrating the main clinical findings of a disease.

Painting by Andre Brouillet of a clinical lesson on hysteria by Charcot (standing) with the vanishing woman Marie Blanche. The assistant holding Blanche is Joseph Babinski the central figure, sitting in front of the professor is Georges Gilles de la Tourette

Neurology:

Charcot described and named Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for the first time, correlating clinical features with postmortem findings of his patients' brains. Although prior descriptions of MS date back to the 14th century and the pathognomonic periventricular plaques were described by others before him, the clinical correlation was not established. He was the first to diagnose MS in a living patient; he proposed a triad of symptoms (as medical students would know) of nystagmus, intention tremor, and scanning speech.

Charcot demonstrated cortical motor centres in humans, delineated the brain's vascular supply and , with his intern Charles Bourchard, described miliary aneurysms (Charcot-Bouchard aneurysms). Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (or Motor Neuron Disease), which he also described, is still referred to as Charcot's disease in many parts of the world. He noted that in infantile paralysis the spinal lesions were limited to the anterior horns of the grey matter. With Marie he described the peroneal form of muscular atrophy, later called Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.

By studying a complication of syphilis called tabes dorsalis that led to a loss of sensation in both legs,  Charcot hypothesised that absent sensation led to abnormal weight-bearing while walking, eventually cause joint deformations and bony destructions. Although today it is predominantly associated with diabetes, a deformed joint due to impaired sensation is still called a Charcot joint (neuropathic joint).

He had clear views on the differentiation of hysteria from epilepsy, neurosis from psychoses, and multiple sclerosis from paralyses agitans (the old name for Parkinson's disease, literally meaning Shaking Palsy). Charcot advocated the renaming of the disease to Parkinson's disease (la maladie de Parkinson) in honour of James Parkinson, the first man to describe the disease decades prior.

Charcot's Trainees:

Medical students and doctors would likely recognise a few familiar names:

• Sigmund Freud
• Joseph Babinski
• Charles-Joseph Bouchard - his intern and perhaps the most dramatic protégé. After Bouchard attained professorship at the University of Paris, his relationship with his mentor Charcot gradually deteriorated. Their strong personalities, their ambition to have schools of their own, and their competition to become the most influential man in the medical school resulted in antagonism between them. The most tragic consequence of this antagonism took place in 1892 when Bouchard presided over the competitive examinations for agrégation, in which Joseph Babinski, one of Charcot's youngest pupils, was a candidate. Charcot wanted his pupil to be nominated but Bouchard eliminated him in order to nominate his own pupils. The nominations were appealed but finally Bouchard's decision was upheld. Babinski did not retake the examination and never became a professor at the medical school.
• Pierre Janet
• William James
• Pierre Marie
• Albert Londe
• Georges Gilles de la Tourette - Charcot bestowed the eponym for Tourette syndrome in his honour. 
• Alfred Binet
• Albert Pitres amongst others.

Proudly borrowed from Wikipedia

Further Reading:

For the definitive biography, I recommend Christopher Goetz's in-depth 1995 biography of Charcot (ISBN 978-0-19-507643-1). It is a scholarly masterpiece and details his life in exquisite detail.

Charcot's original works and documents can also be freely accessed on the Internet Archive.

References for the article are as follows:

Tan SY, Shigaki D. Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893): pathologist who shaped modern neurology. Singapore Med J. 2007;48:383–384
Kumar DR, Aslinia F, Yale SH, Mazza JJ. Jean-Martin Charcot: the father of neurology. Clin Med Res. 2011;9(1):46–49. doi:10.3121/cmr.2009.883
The Science Museum: Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-93). 
HAAS L. Jean Martin Charcot (1825-93) and Jean Baptiste Charcot (1867-1936). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2001;71:524

History of Medicine - Duchenne de Boulogne

The history of science fascinates me for many reasons. The most signficant being that it is a brazen example of the cumulative efforts of men and women separated by time & space but united through their ideas. Perhaps it is best described by the saying Isaac Newton popularised; "to be standing on the shoulders of giants". Today, I would like to briefly look at the history of neurology and see how (and why) many eponymous diseases and signs have obtained their names.

Duchenne de Boulogne

We start with Duchenne de Boulogne, a French neurologist in the 1800s, whose understanding of electrophysiology, neural pathways, diagnostic techniques have arguably made him a father of the speciality and one of the 19th century's original clinicians.

Born in Calais in 1805, he studied medicine in Paris and became a physician in 1831. At Paris, he was taught by the likes of Cruveilhier, Dupuytren, Velpeau, and Laennec (inventor of the stethoscope). He remained in Calais as a practitioner of general medicine until his wife died of puerperal fever in 1844. He returned to Paris to initiate his pioneering studies on electrical stimulation of muscles.

He pioneered the use of deep tissue biopsy using a trochar he constructed, and described an array of myopathies that bear his name today. This includes Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, Erb-Duchenne palsy amongst others.

Interestingly, he published a monographic album of the muscles involved in human expressions (see adjacent photo). This album would later serve as a resource for a young Charles Darwin in his own study on the genetics of behaviour.

Duchenne (right) and his patient, an "old toothless man, with a thin face, whose features, without being absolutely ugly, approached ordinary triviality".

Over the course of his career, he worked with Armand Trousseau, Pierre Rayer, and Jean-Martin Charcot - all of whom he described as his closest friends. Duchenne was a shy yet hard-working physician. Despite his contributions, he was never given any hospital appointments or academic chair, likely due to his modesty and speech difficulties when presenting at conferences. Most of his work would not have been published without the help of his friends, Trousseau and Charcot.

Duchenne died in Paris in 1875.

Duchenne had many students throughout his career passing down his methodology and theoretical knowledge, as was common for physicians in training the next generation. Perhaps his most famous student was Jean-Martin Charcot, the "founder of modern neurology" who has at least 15 eponymous medical diseases and signs named after him, and perhaps the bane of medical students worldwide. He will be covered in detail next time.

References:
1. Parent A. Duchenne De Boulogne: a pioneer in neurology and medical photography. Canadian journal of neurological sciences. 2005 Aug;32(3):369-77.
2. Broussolle E, Poirier J, Clarac F, Barbara JG. Figures and institutions of the neurological sciences in Paris from 1800 to 1950. Part III: neurology. Revue neurologique. 2012 Apr 1;168(4):301-20.

Napoleon Never Started A War

Hear me out.

A heavily romanticised portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte, painted by Jacques-Louis David (1801)

Contrary to the often dramatised caricature of a mad, power-hungry & incredibly short Frenchman, Napoleon Bonaparte had never started a war during his time as emperor of the French.

In the space of 12 years (1803-1815), France was the target of seven international coalitions of European powers, determined to isolate and dismantle the French state for disrupting the status quo of European politics that had been thrown in disarray after the French revolution. All seven wars were declared upon France, not by it.

When confronted with war, Napoleon took to the offensive, that is a given. But how often in contemporary culture do we find ourselves briefly referring to Napoleon as "that crazy French guy who wanted world domination". In Franceshi & Weider's book on The Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars (review), is is argued;

Napoleon had an ‘obsessive attachment to peace’, maintained his ‘intangible principle of avoiding conflicts’, never provoked a war, and never took the initiative in declaring war: even his invasion of Russia in June 1812 was a reluctant response to Tsar Alexander’s ultimatum of April 1812 which ‘in fact if not in law’ had established a state of hostilities between the two empires. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ad-harvey/wars-against-napoleon#sthash.q9rB9qV7.dpuf

Napoleon had an ‘obsessive attachment to peace’, maintained his ‘intangible principle of avoiding conflicts’, never provoked a war, and never took the initiative in declaring war: even his invasion of Russia in June 1812 was a reluctant response to Tsar Alexander’s ultimatum of April 1812 which ‘in fact if not in law’ had established a state of hostilities between the two empires. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ad-harvey/wars-against-napoleon#sthash.q9rB9qV7.dpuf

Napoleon had an ‘obsessive attachment to peace’, maintained his ‘intangible principle of avoiding conflicts’, never provoked a war, and never took the initiative in declaring war: even his invasion of Russia in June 1812 was a reluctant response to Tsar Alexander’s ultimatum of April 1812 which ‘in fact if not in law’ had established a state of hostilities between the two empires. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ad-harvey/wars-against-napoleon#sthash.q9rB9qV7.dpuf

Napoleon had an ‘obsessive attachment to peace’, maintained his ‘intangible principle of avoiding conflicts’, never provoked a war, and never took the initiative in declaring war: even his invasion of Russia in June 1812 was a reluctant response to Tsar Alexander’s ultimatum of April 1812 which ‘in fact if not in law’ had established a state of hostilities between the two empires.

While of course his assembling of the Grande Armée (the largest standing army at the time) certainly doesn't rank well for his peacekeeping reputation nor does his unprecedented invasion of Russia, his motivation was the protection of his homeland. He often was quoted as saying "France before all else".

I'm not saying Napoleon not declaring war makes him a saint, perhaps he was egotistical (he did install himself & his own family upon several European thrones, after all). Hitler himself didn't declare a war until December 1941 (on the United States) two years into WWII. All I wish to say is to think of these casual biases. Somehow someway these biases have ingrained and disseminated themselves in popular culture; perhaps it is the result of clever propaganda, a case of the victors writing history, or simple, lazy misinformation.

Whatever the cause, the takeaway message is to HOW and WHY you think of historical figures in negative and positive views. After all, we're all bound to be biased.

Napoleon had an ‘obsessive attachment to peace’, maintained his ‘intangible principle of avoiding conflicts’, never provoked a war, and never took the initiative in declaring war: even his invasion of Russia in June 1812 was a reluctant response to Tsar Alexander’s ultimatum of April 1812 which ‘in fact if not in law’ had established a state of hostilities between the two empires. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ad-harvey/wars-against-napoleon#sthash.q9rB9qV7.dpuf

The International City of Tangier

The flag of the International City of Tangier

At first glance, Tangier (طنجة) seems like an unremarkable seaside town, a stone throw away from the strategic strait of Gibraltar, connecting the Mediterranean to the Atlantic ocean. But this odd town has a disproportionately rich history. Founded by the Carthaginians in the early 5th century BC, ruled by Romans, Vandals, (Eastern) Roman again, Arab and the Portuguese. In fact, it was part of the dowry of Princess Catherine of Portugal to the recently crowned Charles II of England, transferring the settlement to English control in 1662. The English had planned to convert the town to their main naval base in the region (akin to Gibraltar but of course, the English only controlled Gibraltar in 1713) but abandoned & destroyed the town when it was besieged by the Moroccan Sultan in 1685. In the 19th century, Tangier became a hub of international diplomacy and politics. Amongst the curious notabilities in the town's history include it being the site of the USA's first consulate, being the focus on an international confrontation between the French and the Germans, and infamous for espionage during the Cold War.

A map of the International Zone

The year is 1912; Morocco has been divided between the Spanish and the French. France wants to incorporate Tangier into its Moroccan possessions, the Spanish likewise. The British, on the other hand, wanted nothing of the sort and advocated that the city and its hinterlands be declared an international zone with no prevailing foreign power. Disagreements continued and were interrupted by the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.

The European dispute was resolved with the signing of the Tangier Protocol in 1923, which declared the city a 373-square-kilometre demilitarised international zone, to be co-administered by an international multi-tiered legislative body representing the UK, France and Spain. The treaty was mediated by the League of Nations and the city's native population was under the 'nominal sovereignty' of the Moroccan Sultan. Portugal, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States later joined to co-administrate the zone.

The full text of the Tangier protocol can be viewed here

For an intimate portrayal of life in the Tangier International Zone, I redirect you to this wonderful essay.

A scene in Tangier

Suffice to say that the native Moroccan population were not favourable to the foreign presence nor to the International Zone itself which they called "a plague zone infested and infected by infidels".

On 14 June 1940, the day Paris fell to the invading Germans during World War 2, the Spanish army occupied Tangier, incorporating it into its Moroccan possessions and assumed policing powers of the zone, calling it a 'wartime measure'. This drew international condemnation, particularly from the British government, worried about the Spanish entering the war on the side of the Nazis. The Spanish guaranteed rights of British subjects in the city and to not fortify the zone. In May 1944, German diplomats from the city were expelled. 
Following the end of World War 2, the Spanish withdrew from the city and the international zone was reinstated. 

The nine Western powers met in 1956 and agreed to abolish the zone and to secede it to the newly-independent Moroccan state (treaty text here). Pre-1956 Tangier had a population of 40,000 Muslims and 31,000 Europeans.

Further reading:

• Susan Gilson Miller (2013). A History of Modern Morocco. ISBN 9781139619110, pages 88-104
• Finlayson, Iain (1992). Tangier: City of the Dream. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00217857-5.

The Polish Exodus To Iran in World War 2

In light of the horrific deaths of refugees & migrants crossing into Europe and the alarming xenophobic sentiments that are being spouted on the radio waves, I have decided to bring attention to an almost forgotten footnote in history; the Polish refugees of Iran.

A Polish woman decorates her tent, in an American Red Cross camp in Tehran, Iran. 1942

Why were the Polish in Iran?
Time for some backstory. It's September 1939 - Germany and the Soviet Union have invaded Poland and partitioned the country between the two. To say life was miserable for the Polish at this time would be an understatement. The Soviet Union interned over 320,000 Polish citizens and deported them to Siberia for work in the infamous Gulags. Another 150,000 Poles died, in gruesome massacres such as the Katyn massacre. Stalin began emptying Poland of anyone who could resist the occupation. First went military officers and their families, then the intelligentsia, and last anyone with wealth, influence or education.

Fast forward to 1941 and Nazi Germany launched a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa, the largest military campaign in history). Officially on the side of the Allied powers in July 1941, Joseph Stalin signed a Polish-Russian agreement that led to the foundation of a Soviet-backed Polish army that was to be made up of Polish prisoners of war who were 'pardoned' from the Gulags. The formation of such an army would take place in British-occupied Iran.

With news of their mass release, Poles began to slowly make their way towards Iran. With the Polish government in exile unable to assist their compatriots, and the Soviets refusing to allow access to trains to facilitate their exodus, fatalities due to hunger, the Siberian cold, violence, disease and simple exhaustion were high. By August 1942, a conservative estimate suggests more than 115,000 Poles (included 40,000 civilians) fled to Iran. At most, it is thought 300,000 Poles fled.

Camp Polonia:

The soldiers who enlisted in Anders' Army (named after its commander Władysław Anders) regrouped in Bandar Pahlavi, Mashhad and eventually Ahvaz, before being transferred to British command in Mandatory Palestine.

Young Polish refugee at a camp operated by the Red Cross in Tehran, Iran. Nick Parrino, 1943

The civilians were left in the refugee camps that sprawled up around the country. Having first arrived in the port of Bandar Pahlavi (now Bander Anzali) on the northern Iranian coast, a makeshift city comprising over 2000 tents (provided by the Iranian army) was hastily erected along the shoreline of Pahlavi to accommodate the refugees. It stretched for several miles on either side of the lagoon: a vast complex of bathhouses, latrines, disinfection booths, laundries, sleeping quarters, bakeries and a hospital. Every unoccupied house in the city was requisitioned, every chair appropriated from local cinemas. Nevertheless, the facilities were still inadequate.

The Iranian and British officials who first watched the Soviet oil tankers and coal ships list into the harbour at Pahlavi on the 25th March 1942 had little idea how many people to expect or what physical state they might be in. Only a few days earlier, they had been alarmed to hear that civilians, women and children, were to be included among the evacuees, something for which they were totally unprepared.[4] The ships from Krasnovodsk were grossly overcrowded. Every available space on board was filled with passengers. Some of them were little more than walking skeletons covered in rags and lice. Holding fiercely to their precious bundles of possessions, they disembarked in their thousands at Pahlavi and kissed the soil of Persia. Many reportedly sat down on the shoreline and prayed, or wept for joy.

They had not quite escaped, however. Weakened by two years of starvation, hard labour and disease, they were suffering from a variety of conditions including exhaustion, dysentery, malaria, typhus, skin infections, chicken blindness and itching scabs. The spread of typhus in particular was deadly to such an extent that 40% were hospitalised and a large proportion later died.

Overcrowded ship crossing the Caspian Sea to Pahlavi

Gholam Abdol-Rahimi, a struggling photographer in Pahlavi, emerged from bed to witness ships disgorging disheveled refugees. Abdol-Rahimi's photographs are perhaps the most complete account of the catastrophe. But his work was never recognized or published.

Pahlavi was only a temporary shelter. Refugees were later dispersed to more prepared camps in Isfahan (Isfahan in particular being dubbed as the 'City of Polish Children'), Tehran and Ahvaz.

More than 13,000 of the arrivals in Iran were children, many orphans whose parents had died on the way. In Russia, starving mothers had pushed their children onto passing trains to Iran in hopes of saving them.

As the war dragged on, most refugees continued their journey away from the Soviet Union, reaching Pakistan, Palestine and British East Africa & South Africa, eventually to the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Polish cemetery in Bander Anzali (Pahlavi)

In all, 2,806 refugees died within a few months of arriving and were buried in cemeteries around Iran. Their alien names and the dates on their tombstones chronicle a calamity, even to a visitor without knowledge of their history. Etched on row after row of identical tombstones is a single year of death: 1942.

Polish military cemetery, Tehran.

Further reading:
Forgotten Polish Exodus to Persia - Washington Post
The Exile Mission: The Polish Political Diaspora and Polish Americans, 1939-1956. Anna D. Jaroszyńska-Kirchmann. page 26-27 
The Polish Deportees of World War II: Recollections of Removal to the Soviet Union and Dispersal Throughout the World. Tadeusz Piotrowski. page 10-12.

The Strangest Battle of the Second World War

Castle Itter in the 1970s

On the 5th of May 1945, five days after the suicide of Adolf Hitler, the usually serene Castle Itter in the Austrian countryside was the site of what may possibly be the strangest battle of the Second World War. Soldiers of the United States, anti-Nazi German soldiers, Austrian resistance and an eyebrow-raising collection of French VIPs (including several former prime ministers and a tennis star) fought off invading loyal remnants of the 17th Waffen-SS Panzer division. This is thought to be the only ever time in the war where Germans and Americans fought on the same side. But how exactly did this scenario arise? And why isn't this an adapted Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt?

The Castle And Its Prisoners:

The castle was located in western Austria in the quiet village of Itter. It was privately owned but was seized by the German Army (Wehrmacht) in 1943 for use as a prison camp under administration of the infamous Dachau Concentration Camp.

Its prisoners were rather famous VIPs who included tennis star Jean Borotra (later General Commissioner of Sports in the Vichy regime, former prime minister Édouard Daladier, Charles de Gaulle's elder sister Marie-Agnès Cailliau, former commander-in-chief Maxime Weygand, former prime minister Paul Reynaud, former commander-in-chief Maurice Gamelin (instrumental in the Phony War), right-wing leader François de La Rocque (the leader of the right-wing Croix de Feu movement), and trade union leader Léon Jouhaux.

The Battle:

On 4 May, the garrison of the castle abandoned the castle, having realised that German surrender was imminent. The French prisoners took control of the castle and armed themselves with whatever weaponry remained. A Yugoslavian prisoner, Zvonimir Čučković, was sent to find help. Zvonimir encountered elements of the American 103rd Infantry Division near the city of Innsbruck who agreed to rescue the prisoners. A defected German unit under the command of Major Josef Gangl which collaborated with the Austrian resistance and later surrendered to the Americans, agreed to accompany the rescue.

The rescue force consisted of 14 American soldiers, 10 defected German soldiers and a Sherman tank. Upon reaching the castle, the French prisoners were dismayed at the small size of the rescue but however had elected to focused on fortifying the castle in anticipation of a Waffen-SS assault on the castle. The Sherman tank was placed towards the entrance whilst positions were taken on the towers. The Allies were joined by a defected Waffen-SS officer who was recovering in the nearby village.

On the morning of the 5th, the castle came under attack from 100-150 soldiers of the 17th Waffen-SS Panzergrenadier division. Major Gangl telephoned in Austrian resistance members in the vicinity for reinforcements, 3 Austrian resistance members arrived soon after. Despite being ordered to take refuge inside the castle, French prisoners joined the battle alongside the Americans and Germans. The battle raged on for six hours, resulting in the destruction of the Sherman tank and the death of Major Gangl, before the SS were defeated by a relief force from the American 142nd Infantry Regiment.

Further reading:

• The Battle for Castle Itter, written by Stephen Harding

US news report during the war: