text:
Reinhard Gehlen

Reinhard Gehlen (3 April 1902 – 8 June 1979) was a German career intelligence officer who served the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, the U.S. intelligence community, and the NATO-affiliated Federal Republic of Germany during the Cold War.

Born into a Lutheran family at Erfurt, Gehlen joined the Reichswehr, the truncated Army of the Weimar Republic, and remained a career military intelligence officer after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Gehlen was chief of the Wehrmacht Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), an anti-Soviet military intelligence service, during World War II. He achieved the rank of major general before he was fired by Adolf Hitler in April 1945 because of the FHO's alleged "defeatism" and accurate but pessimistic intelligence reports about Red Army military superiority.

Following the end of World War II, Gehlen surrendered to the United States Army. While in a POW camp, Gehlen offered FHO's microfilmed and secretly buried archives about the USSR and his own services to the U.S. intelligence community. Following the start of the Cold War, the U.S. military (G-2 Intelligence) accepted Gehlen's offer and assigned him to establish the Gehlen Organization, an espionage service focusing on the Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc. Beginning with his time as head of the Gehlen Organization, Gehlen favored both Atlanticism and close cooperation between what would become West Germany, the U.S. intelligence community, and the other members of the NATO military alliance. The organization would employ former Wehrmacht military intelligence officers.

After West Germany regained its sovereignty, Gehlen became the founding president of the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) of West Germany (1956–68). Gehlen obeyed a direct order from West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and also hired former counterintelligence officers of the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), in response to an alleged avalanche of covert ideological subversion hitting West Germany from the intelligence services behind the Iron Curtain.

Gehlen was instrumental in negotiations to establish an official West German intelligence service based on the Gehlen Organization of the early 1950s. In 1956, the Gehlen Organization was transferred to the West German government and formed the core of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), the Federal Republic of Germany's official foreign intelligence service, with Gehlen serving as its first president until his retirement in 1968. While this was a civilian office, he was also a lieutenant-general in the Reserve forces of the Bundeswehr, the highest-ranking reserve-officer in the military of West Germany. He received the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1968.

Early life
Gehlen was born 1902 into a Protestant family in Erfurt. He had two brothers and a sister. He grew up in Breslau where his father, a former army officer, was a publisher for the Ferdinand-Hirt-Verlag, a publishing house specializing in school books.

In 1920, Gehlen completed his Abitur and joined the Reichswehr.

After graduating from the German Staff College in 1935, Gehlen was promoted to captain and assigned to the German General Staff. Gehlen served on the General Staff until 1936 and was promoted to major in 1939.

Second World War
At the time of the German attack on Poland (1 September 1939), he was a staff officer in an infantry division. In 1940, he became liaison officer to Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, Army Commander-in-Chief; and later was transferred to the staff of General Franz Halder, the Chief of the German General Staff. In July 1941, he received a promotion to lieutenant-colonel and was sent to the Eastern Front, where he was assigned as senior intelligence-officer to the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO) section of the Staff.

Head of FHO
In spring of 1942, Gehlen assumed command of the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO) from Colonel Eberhard Kinzel. Before the Wehrmacht disasters in the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943), a year into the German war against the Soviet Union, Gehlen understood that the FHO required fundamental re-organization, and secured a staff of army linguists and geographers, anthropologists, lawyers, and junior military officers who would improve the FHO as a military-intelligence organization despite the Nazi ideology of Slavic inferiority.

Max Network
Gehlen made great use of cables received from the Max Network. Originally an Abwehr creation, Max was one of the primary sources of FHO intelligence on the Soviet Military. Based in Sofia, Max - the Klatt Bureau (Dienststelle Klatt) was led by a Jew, Richard Kauder and included many other Jews as radio operators. Max cables were highly accurate, and amounted to 10,700 cables from 1942–44, causing a British warning – Ultra intercepted the Max cables – to Stalin regarding a high-placed mole in Stavka. When the cables continued, the British suspected a Soviet operation but later dismissed that idea upon investigation. The cables are available to be read upon purchase from the British archives at cost. The fact remains that aside from several instances of possible Soviet disinformation, most of the Max cables contained extremely accurate intelligence. Max was a big reason for the rise of Gehlen's career, and he leveraged the "success of Max" into a spymaster's reputation and a postwar career. Possible Soviet penetration of Max would parallel and be a strong contributor for the thorough Soviet penetration of NTS and the Gehlen Organization.

True Allegiances
During the war some German officers attempted to trace the mechanics of Kauder's networks, and never found a satisfactory explanation. Nevertheless, the information was so potent that FHO refused to allow any tainting of their golden source.

After the war, the Allies interrogated Kauder and his associates and promptly concluded that the Soviets ran the entire Max operation, and that Kauder was not a professional spy but merely allowed himself to be the figurehead relaying information he received from his NKVD contacts and sources. However, the Max information was accurate, and both the NKVD and Smersh later investigated the Max network. It is possible that Stalin kept Max away from the regular organizational structures, which he never fully trusted.

It is argued that the accuracy of the Max reports were the bait that caused the FHO overreliance on Max – to the extent that Nazi officials defied Hitler's explicit directive to stop working with Kauder the Jew. This information was the bait that may have carried costs for the Soviets but was worth the payoff when it was later used as part of the Soviet Maskirovka Strategy to trap the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad, Kursk, and the Summer Offensive of 1944 (Operation Bagration). Many of the Jews who stayed alive working for Kauder later moved to Israel. Ageing Israelis have made the claim "a handful of Jews won World War Two " — slightly legitimate if Max caused the downfall of the German effort in the east, where most of the German army were destroyed.

On the other hand, Max cables clearly warned FHO regarding Operation Mars, a terrible defeat for the Red Army. This caused the British to conclude that it was impossible for Max to be a Soviet operation. However, the British may have been blinded by western ideals regarding acceptable costs of national sacrifice.

The Max Network is one of the unsolved mysteries of the war, with Kauder's loyalties and sources of information still unclear.

Max beginnings
Kauder was born in Vienna in 1900. Provided a Pacifist upbringing by his father, Kauder became a lifelong self-declared pacifist. His time in Vienna was marked by associations and friendships with idealists, some communist, some socialist, and some zionist. Some were future spies, like Kim Philby – then with his Jewish and NKVD agent-wife Litzi Friedman. Also present then were Harry Peter Smollet – then Hans Peter Smolka, Ehud Avriel and Teddy Kollek. Teddy Kollek's career in Israeli intelligence saw him informing the CIA of Philby's communist activism, but was told by James Angleton to keep the information to himself. Ehud Avriel's connections to Kauder were instrumental in the Maxwell - Czechoslovakia weapons deal of 1948. Kauder himself was later considered by the CIA to be working with Israeli intelligence.

Smollet introduced Kauder to Otto Hatz, a Hungarian intelligence officer, who later introduced him to Momotaro Enomoto, a Japanese journalist for the well-known newspaper Mainishi Shimbun. Enomoto believed in pro-communist anarchism, and was himself friends with Smollet. Enomoto's journalist passport which allowed him to travel freely between Budapest, Vienna and Berlin. He had friends among the German elite and had unrestricted access to all Japanese ambassadors to Europe. However, he was expelled from Turkey for being a collaborator of the Japanese military attache, for whom he conducted some investigations in Turkey.

In January, 1940, Kauder was called into a meeting with Abwehr officers in Vienna. At the advice of Enomoto and Hatz he went into what he thought would be a trap for a Jew like him. Colonel Rudolf von Marogna-Redwitz, head of the Vienna station, asked him to head to Sofia and run their intelligence operations there through a cover of a Japanese news service. Sofia was chosen being the only Axis country that continued to have diplomatic relationships with the Soviet Union, and the huge staff of the Soviet Embassy in Sofia included NKVD agents. He informed Kauder that the idea of the Sofia base and that Kauder should run it was all from Enomoto. Although Kauder did charge for his services, he was also promised Abwehr protection for his Jewish mother. The Abwehr gave him the codename Fritz Klatt. Arriving in Sofia in 1940, he was soon after joined by both Enomoto and Hatz.

Kauder was sent initially to collect intelligence on the Bulgarian Air Force, but reported that he made contact with anti-communist Ukrainian emigre groups, who still had vast connections in Ukraine and southern Russia. the Nazis were impressed and reported it up the chain of command, who promptly approved the establishment of Kauder's network. In reality, a Japanese international news service was something the Japanese and the Nazis had been working towards for awhile. Enomoto – a well placed Japanese communist loosely in the employ of Japanese Intelligence seems to have learned of this from both Japanese sources and by overhearing a conversation. Max was thus the Soviet counterstroke. Kauder's network was kept secret apart from a few Abwehr officers, and was stowed away in Abwehr 2, and not in Abwehr 1 where spies belong. Kauder's cables were actually split into Max and Moritz, with Moritz focusing on the Mediterranean front. The Moritz cables are considered to have been much less accurate than the Soviet-focused Max cables.

The German decision to launch Max (and pay Kauder's hefty fees) was taken by Abwehr Director Wilhelm Canaris, who was one of the few Germans involved in the secretive joint venture with the Japanese. Otto Wagner, The initial supervisor of Kauder, was not trusted by the secretive Canaris and was not read in on the Japanese connection and how a Jew came to be implausibly working for the Nazis. Wagner would make many luckless attempts at figuring out the Kauder network, which he did not fully trust.

On May 6, 1940, Kauder brought two of his Ukrainian contacts, namely Prince Anton Turkul and Ira Longin (Ilya Longa) to meet the Abwehr officers. Turkul said he had previously worked with British intelligence, and was handled by Dickie Ellis. Turkul also informed them that he had already put his NTS network into existence. Turkul's past work for MI6 went a long way in establishing his credibility with the Abwehr.

Enomoto then took Kauder to Salonika to meet NKVD officer Nahum Eitingon aboard a Russian Merchant Ship in the port. Eitingon informed Kauder that going forward he would be the only one to have any contact with the Germans. Eitingon promised Kauder personal protection. It was at this time that Kauder realized that his network was really a Soviet operation.

Max Operation
Max was probably the most sophisticated radio operation in World War Two:"'Kauder now had skilled German radio operators at his disposal. He also formed his own team [of Jews] that worked with the radio operators and managed detailed records of all messages. Each message was assigned a serial number, which tracked its number within the series of messages; and a secondary catalogue number that indicated the region and location that the message referred to. The messages were also filed by date, which was of no less importance. It was an incredibly efficient and well-organized system. If asked what exactly was reported about a specific city or region, or what was reported on a specific date, Kauder could retrieve the message instantly, using his simple, intelligent and efficient filing method."

Dismissal, 1945
Gehlen's cadre of FHO intelligence-officers produced accurate field-intelligence about the Red Army that frequently contradicted Nazi Party ideological perceptions of the eastern battle front. Hitler dismissed the gathered information as defeatism and philosophically harmful to the war effort against "Judeo-Bolshevism" in Russia. In April 1945, despite the accuracy of the intelligence, Hitler dismissed Gehlen, soon after his promotion to major general.

Preparation for Post-War
The FHO collection of both military and political intelligence from captured Red Army soldiers assured Gehlen's post–WWII survival as a Western anticommunist spymaster, with networks of spies and secret agents in the countries of Soviet-occupied Europe. During the German war against the Soviet Union in 1941 to 1945, Gehlen's FHO collected much tactical military intelligence about the Red Army, and much strategic political intelligence about the Soviet Union. Understanding that the Soviet Union would defeat and occupy the Third Reich, Gehlen ordered the FHO intelligence files copied to microfilm; the FHO files proper were stored in watertight drums and buried in various locations in the Austrian Alps.

They amounted to fifty cases of German intelligence about the Soviet Union, which were at Gehlen's disposal as a bargaining tool with the intelligence services of the Western Allies. Meanwhile, as of 1946, when Joseph Stalin consolidated his absolute power and control over Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe as agreed at the Potsdam Conference of 1945 and demarcated with what became known as the Iron Curtain, the Western Allies of World War II, the U.S, Britain, and France had no sources of covert information within the countries in which the occupying Red Army had vanquished the Wehrmacht.

Cold War
On 22 May 1945, Gehlen surrendered to the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) of the U.S. Army in Bavaria and was taken to Camp King, near Oberursel, and interrogated by Captain John R. Boker. The American Army recognised his potential value as a spymaster with great knowledge of Soviet forces and anticommunist intelligence contacts in the Soviet Union. In exchange for his own liberty and the release of his former subordinates (also prisoners of the US Army), Gehlen offered the Counter Intelligence Corps access to the FHO's intelligence archives and to his intelligence gathering abilities aimed at the Soviet Union, known later as the Gehlen Organization. Boker removed his name and those of his Wehrmacht command from the official lists of German prisoners of war, and transferred seven former FHO senior officers to join Gehlen. The FHO archives were unearthed and secretly taken to Camp King, ostensibly without the knowledge of the camp commander. By the end of summer 1945, Captain Boker had the support of Brigadier General Edwin Sibert, the G2 (senior intelligence officer) of the U.S. Twelfth Army Group, who arranged the secret transport of Gehlen, his officers and the FHO intelligence archives, authorized by his superiors in the chain of command, General Walter Bedell Smith (chief of staff for General Eisenhower), who worked with William Donovan (former OSS chief) and Allen Dulles (OSS chief), who also was the OSS station-chief in Bern. On 20 September 1945, Gehlen and three associates were flown from the American Zone of Occupation in Germany to the US, to become spymasters for the Western Allies.

In July 1946, the US officially released Gehlen and returned him to occupied Germany. On 6 December 1946, he began espionage operations against the Soviet Union, by establishing what was known to US intelligence as the Gehlen Organization or "the Org", a secret intelligence service composed of former intelligence officers of the Wehrmacht and members of the SS and the SD, which was headquartered first at Oberursel, near Frankfurt, then at Pullach, near Munich. The organization's cover-name was the South German Industrial Development Organization. Gehlen initially selected 350 ex-Wehrmacht military intelligence officers as his staff; eventually, the organization recruited some 4,000 anticommunist secret agents.

Gehlen Organization, 1947–56
After he started working for the U.S. Government, Gehlen was subordinate to US Army G-2 (Intelligence). He resented this arrangement and in 1947, the year after his Organization was established, Gehlen arranged for a transfer to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The agency kept close control of the Gehlen Organization, because during the early years of the Cold War of 1945–91, Gehlen's agents were providing the United States Federal Government with more than 70% of its intelligence on the Soviet armed forces.

Early in 1948, Gehlen Org Spymasters began receiving detailed reports from their sources throughout the Soviet Zone of covert East German remilitarization long before any West German politicians had even thought of such a thing. Further operations by the Gehlen Org produced detailed reports about Soviet construction and testing of the MiG-15 jet-propelled aircraft, which United States airmen flying F-86 fighters would soon to face in aerial combat during the Korean War.

Between 1947 and 1955, the Gehlen Organization also debriefed every German PoW who returned to West Germany from captivity in the Soviet GULAG. The network employed hundreds of former Wehrmacht military intelligence and some SS officers, and also recruited many other agents from within the massive anti-Communist ethnic German, Soviet, and East European refugee communities throughout Western Europe. They were accordingly able to develope detailed maps of the railroad systems, airfields, and ports of the USSR, and the Org's field agents even infiltrated the Baltic Soviet Republics and the Ukrainian SSR.

Among the Org's earliest counterespionage successes was Operation Bohemia, which began in March 1948 after Božena Hájková, the sister in law of Czechoslovak military intelligence officer Captain Vojtěch Jeřábek, defected to the American Zone and applied for political asylum in the United States. After learning from Hájková that Captain Jeřábek was secretly expressing anti-communist opinions to his family, the Org dispatched a Czech refugee and veteran field agent codenamed "Ondřej" to make contact with the Captain and his family in Prague. During the night of 8-9 November 1948, after being warned by "Ondřej" of an imminent Stalinist witch hunt for "rootless cosmopolitans" within the Czechoslovak officer corps, Captain Jeřábek and two other senior military intelligence officers crossed the border into the American Zone and defected to the West. In addition to several lists of Czechoslovakian spies in West Germany, Captain Jeřábek also carried the keys to breaking Czechoslovakian intelligence's codes. The results were nothing less than devastating for Czechoslovakian espionage and led to multiple arrests and convictions.

The security and efficacy of the Gehlen Organization were compromised by East German and Soviet moles within it, such as Johannes Clemens, Erwin Tiebel and Heinz Felfe who were feeding information while in the Org and later, while in the BND that was headed by Gehlen. All three were eventually discovered and convicted in 1963.

There were also Communists and their sympathizers within the CIA and the SIS (MI6), especially Kim Philby and the Cambridge Spies. As such information appeared, Gehlen, personally, and the Gehlen Organization, officially, were attacked by the governments of the Western powers. The British government was especially hostile towards Gehlen, and the politically Left wing British press ensured full publicisation of the existence of the Gehlen Organization, which further compromised the operation.

Federal Intelligence Service (BND), 1956–1968

On 1 April 1956, 11 years after World War II had ended, the U.S. Government and the CIA formally transferred the Gehlen Organization to the authority of what was by then the Federal Republic of Germany, under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (1949–63). By way of that transfer of geopolitical sponsorship, the anti–Communist Gehlen Organization became the nucleus of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND, Federal Intelligence Service).

Gehlen was the president of the BND as an espionage service until his retirement in 1968. The end of Gehlen's career as a spymaster resulted from a confluence of events in West Germany: the exposure of a KGB mole, Heinz Felfe, (a former SS lieutenant) working at BND headquarters; political estrangement from Adenauer, in 1963, which aggravated his professional problems; and the inefficiency of the BND consequent to Gehlen's poor leadership and continual inattention to the business of counter-espionage as national defence.

According to Der Spiegel journalists Heinz Höhne and Hermann Zolling, the premature end of the German colonial empire in 1918 placed West Germany's new foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst at a considerable advantage in dealing with the newly independent governments of post-colonial Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This is why many Third World military and foreign intelligence services were largely trained by BND military advisors. This made it possible for the BND to easily receive accurate intelligence in these regions which the CIA and former colonialist intelligence services could not acquire without recruiting local spy rings. BND covert activities in the Third World also laid the groundwork for friendly relations that Gehlen attempted to use to steer local governments into taking an anti-Soviet and Pro-NATO stance during the ongoing Cold War and further assisted the West German economic miracle by both encouraging and favoring West German trade and corporate investment.

Gehlen's refusal to correct reports with questionable content strained the organization's credibility, and dazzling achievements became an infrequent commodity. A veteran agent remarked at the time that the BND pond then contained some sardines, though a few years earlier the pond had been alive with sharks.

The fact that the BND could score certain successes despite East German Stasi interference, internal malpractice, inefficiencies and infighting, was primarily due to select members of the staff who took it upon themselves to step up and overcome then existing maladies. Abdication of responsibility by Reinhard Gehlen was the malignancy; bureaucracy and cronyism remained pervasive, even nepotism (at one time Gehlen had 16 members of his extended family on the BND payroll). Only slowly did the younger generation then advance to substitute new ideas for some of the bad habits caused mainly by Gehlen's semi-retired attitude and frequent holiday absences.

Gehlen was forced out of the BND due to "political scandal within the ranks", according to one source, He retired in 1968 as a civil servant of West Germany, classified as a Ministerialdirektor, a senior grade with a generous pension. His successor, Bundeswehr Brigadier General Gerhard Wessel, immediately called for a program of modernization and streamlining.

Honors

 * Iron Cross second class
 * War Merit Cross second and first class with swords
 * German Cross in silver (1945)
 * Grand Cross of the Order pro Merito Melitensi of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (1948)
 * Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1968)
 * Good Conduct Medal (United States)

Criticism
Several publications have criticized the fact that Gehlen allowed former Nazis to work for the agencies. The authors of the book A Nazi Past: Recasting German Identity in Postwar Europe stated that Reinhard Gehlen simply did not want to know the backgrounds of the men whom the BND hired in the 1950s. The American National Security Archive states that "he employed numerous former Nazis and known war criminals".

An article in The Independent on 29 June 2018 made this statement about BND employees: "'Operating until 1956, when it was superseded by the BND, the Gehlen Organization was allowed to employ at least 100 former Gestapo or SS officers.... Among them were Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Alois Brunner, who would go on to die of old age despite having sent more than 100,000 Jews to ghettos or internment camps, and ex-SS major Emil Augsburg.... Many ex-Nazi functionaries including Silberbauer, the captor of Anne Frank, transferred over from the Gehlen Organization to the BND.... Instead of expelling them, the BND even seems to have been willing to recruit more of them – at least for a few years'."

On the other hand, Gehlen himself was cleared by the CIA's James H. Critchfield, who worked with the Gehlen Organization from 1949 to 1956. In 2001, he said that "almost everything negative that has been written about Gehlen, [as an] ardent ex-Nazi, one of Hitler's war criminals ... is all far from the fact," as quoted in the Washington Post. Critchfield added that Gehlen hired the former Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS) men "reluctantly, under pressure from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to deal with 'the avalanche of subversion hitting them from East Germany'".

Legacy
Gehlen's memoirs were published in 1977 by World Publishers, New York. In the same year another book was published about him, The General Was a Spy, by Heinz Hoehne and Herman Zolling, Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, New York. A review of the latter, published by the CIA in 1996, calls it a "poor book" and goes on to allege that "so much of it is sheer garbage" because of many errors. The CIA review also discusses another book, Gehlen, Spy of the Century, by E. H. Cookridge, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1971, and claims that it is "chock full of errors". The CIA review is kinder when speaking of Gehlen's memoirs but makes this comment: "'Gehlen's descriptions of most of his so-called successes in the political intelligence field are, in my opinion, either wishful thinking or self-delusion.... Gehlen was never a good clandestine operator, nor was he a particularly good administrator. And therein lay his failures. The Gehlen Organization/BND always had a good record in the collection of military and economic intelligence on East Germany and the Soviet forces there. But this information, for the most part, came from observation and not from clandestine penetration'."Upon Gehlen's retirement in 1968, a CIA note on Gehlen describes him as "essentially a military officer in habits and attitudes". He was also characterized as "essentially a conservative", who refrained from entertaining and drinking, was fluent in English, and was at ease among senior American officials.

Bibliography and sources

 * Cookridge, E. H. (1971). Gehlen: Spy of the Century. London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: Random House (1972).
 * Critchfield, James H. (2003). Partners at Creation: The Men Behind Postwar Germany's Defense and Intelligence Establishments. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591141362.
 * Hersh, Burton (1992). The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA. New York: Scribner's.
 * Kross, Peter. "Intelligence" in Military Heritage, October 2004, pp. 26–30
 * Oglesby, Carl (Fall 1990). "The Secret Treaty of Fort Hunt." CovertAction Information Bulletin.
 * Reese, Mary Ellen. General Reinhard Gehlen: The CIA Connection. Fairfax, Vir.: George Mason University. 1990
 * United States National Archives, Washington, D.C. NARA Collection of Foreign Records Seized, Microfilm T-77, T-78
 * Weiner, Tim (2008). Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Anchor Books, pp. 10–190. ISBN 978-0307389008.
 * United States National Archives, Washington, D.C. NARA Collection of Foreign Records Seized, Microfilm T-77, T-78
 * Weiner, Tim (2008). Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Anchor Books, pp. 10–190. ISBN 978-0307389008.

Literature

 * John Douglas-Gray in his thriller The Novak Legacy ISBN 978-0-7552-1321-4
 * WEB Griffin, in his post-World War II novel Top Secret ISBN 978-0-399-17123-9
 * Charles Whiting, Germany's Master Spy ISBN 0-345-25884-3 (1972)

title: Reinhard Gehlen


text:
List of heads of the National Resistance Government of Mozambique

The National Resistance Government of Mozambique was in place from the start of the civil war against the central government of Mozambique in 1975 until an accord was reached with the government on 9 October 1992.

Affiliations
The incumbents held affiliations with the conservative political group in Mozambique. This group, the Mozambican National Resistance, was named Resistencia Nacional Moçambicana (MNR) from 1975 to 1978. After 1978, this changed to Resistencia Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO).

Timeline
The following shows each incumbent of the National Resistance Government of Mozambique, the term year, their political affiliation, and additional notes. Dates given in italics indicate de facto continuation of office.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
War in the Vendée

The War in the Vendée (Guerre de Vendée) was a counter-revolution from 1793 to 1796 in the Vendée region of France during the French Revolution. The Vendée is a coastal region, located immediately south of the river Loire in western France. Initially, the revolt was similar to the 14th-century Jacquerie peasant uprising, but the Vendée quickly became counter-revolutionary and Royalist. The revolt headed by the newly formed Catholic and Royal Army was comparable to the Chouannerie, which took place in the area north of the Loire.

While elsewhere in France the revolts against the levée en masse were repressed, an insurgent territory, called the Vendée militaire by historians, formed south of the Loire-Inférieure (Brittany), south-west of Maine-et-Loire (Anjou), north of Vendée and north-west of Deux-Sèvres (Poitou). Gradually referred to as the "Vendeans", the insurgents established in April a "Catholic and Royal Army" which won a succession of victories in the spring and summer of 1793. The towns of Fontenay-le-Comte, Thouars, Saumur and Angers were briefly overrun, but the Vendeans failed before Nantes.

During the autumn, the arrival of the Army of Mainz as reinforcements restored the advantage to the Republican camp, which in October seized Cholet, the most important city controlled by the Vendeans. After this defeat, the bulk of the Vendée forces crossed the Loire and marched to Normandy in a desperate attempt to take a port to obtain the help of the British and the Armée des Émigrés. Pushed back to Granville, the Vendée army was finally destroyed in December at Mans and Savenay. From the winter of 1793 to the spring of 1794, during the Reign of Terror, violent repression was put in place by the Republican forces. In the cities, and in particular in Nantes and Angers, around 15,000 people were shot, drowned or guillotined on the orders of the représentants en mission and Revolutionary Military Commissions, while in the countryside about 20,000 to 50,000 civilians were massacred by the infernal columns, who set fire to many towns and villages.

The repression provoked a resurgence of the rebellion and in December 1794 the Republicans began negotiations which led between February and May 1795 to the signing of peace treaties with the various Vendée leaders, thus bringing about the end of the "first Vendée war". A "second Vendée war" broke out shortly afterwards, in June 1795, after the start of the Quiberon expedition. The uprising quickly ran out of steam and the last Vendée leaders submitted or were executed between January and July 1796. The Vendée still experienced last and brief uprisings with a third war in 1799, a fourth in 1815 and a fifth in 1832, but they were on a much smaller scale. The number of victims is estimated at 200,000 dead, including approximately 170,000 for the inhabitants of the military Vendée, i.e. between 20 and 25% of the population of the insurgent territory.

Background

In the rural Vendée, the local nobility seems to have been more permanently in power than in other parts of France. Alexis de Tocqueville, of France, noted that most French nobles lived in cities by 1789. An Intendants' survey showed one of the few areas where the nobility still lived with the peasants was the Vendée. In this particularly-isolated feudal stronghold, the class conflict that drove the revolution in Paris and other parts of France was further suppressed by the institutional strength of the Catholic church in alliance with the nobility. Counter-Enlightenment author Francois Mignet accused that militant Republicans wanted to destroy both the independence and influence of the Catholic Church in France, which the people of the Vendée considered unimaginable.

In 1791, two representatives on mission informed the National Assembly that the Vendée was being mobilized against the First French Republic, and this news was swiftly followed by the exposure of an alleged royalist conspiracy organized by the Marquis de la Rouërie. Subsequent defenders of the Vendée rebels argue that this plotting against the Republic was an understandable response to The Terror (a period between 1793 and 1794 where thousands of both real and suspected dissidents were beheaded by guillotine), the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) and the introduction of conscription upon the whole of France, decreed by the National Convention in February 1793.

In what Max Weber later dubbed Caesaropapism, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy required all Roman Catholic priests to transfer their allegiance from the Holy See to the Constitution and, by extension, to the increasingly anti-clerical and anti-Catholic National Constituent Assembly of the Republic. All but seven of the 160 French bishops refused to take the oath, as did about half of the parish priests. Anti-clericalism and coercive secularization of French culture triggered the Vendée belligerence; another trigger was further mass conscription into the French Revolutionary Army. The March 1793 conscription requiring Vendeans to fill their district's quota of the national total of 300,000 enraged the local nobility, clergy, and the populace, who took up arms instead as "The Catholic Army", "Royal" being added later, and fought for "above all the reopening of their parish churches with their former priests."

Although town dwellers were more likely to support the Revolution in the Vendée, there was some support for the Revolution among the rural peasantry. Some Vendean peasants had lived as tenant farmers on Church-owned farmland, and they overwhelmingly embraced the Revolution after all Church lands were seized and redistributed by the Republican government. Counter-Enlightenment historians have argued that local feudalism had primarily protected the peasantry. They cite the fact that over the 100 years of struggle to impose republicanism upon France, the middle class were the primary beneficiaries. Nearly all the purchasers of former Church land were members of the bourgeoisie and very few peasants benefited from the confiscation and sales.

Outbreak of revolt
There were other levy riots across France when regions started to draft men into the army in response to the Levy Decree in February 1793. The reaction in the northwest in early March was particularly pronounced with large-scale rioting verging on insurrection. By early April, in areas north of the Loire, order had been restored by the revolutionary government, but south of the Loire in four departments that became known as the Vendée militaire there were few troops to control rebels and what had started as rioting quickly took on the form of a full insurrection led by priests and the local nobility.

Within a few weeks the Royalist forces had formed a substantial, ill-equipped, army, the Royal and Catholic Army, supported by two thousand irregular cavalry and a few captured artillery pieces. The main force of the Royalist operated on a much smaller scale, using guerrilla tactics, supported by the insurgents' local knowledge and social networks.

Geographic coverage

Geographically, the insurrection occurred within a rough quadrilateral approximately 60 mi wide. The territory defied description in the terms of the redistricting of 1790, nor did it align itself to descriptors used in the Ancien Régime; the heart of the movement lay in the forests, with Cholet at its center, in the wild districts of the old county of Anjou, in the Breton marshlands between Montaigu and the sea. It included parts of the old Poitiers and Tours, the departements of Maine-et-Loire, the Vendée, and Deux Sèvres, but never completely fell under Royalist control. The further the land was from Paris (the seat of revolutionary power), the more Counter-revolutionary belligerence occurred.

Vendée military response
The insurrection began in March 1793, as a rejection of the mass conscription edict. In February, the National Convention had voted to approve a levy of three hundred thousand men, to be chosen by lot among the unmarried men in each commune. Thus, the arrival of recruiters reminded locals of the methods of the monarchy, aroused resistance in the countryside, and set in motion the first serious signs of sedition. Much of this opposition was quelled quickly, but in the lower Loire, in the Mauges and in the Vendean bocage, the situation was more serious and more protracted. Youths from communes surrounding Cholet, a large textile town on the boundary between the two regions, invaded the town and killed the commander of the National Guard, a "patriotic" (pro-revolutionary) manufacturer. Within a week, violence had spread to the Breton marshlands; peasants overran the town of Machecoul on 11 March, and several hundred Republican citizens were massacred. A large band of peasants under the leadership of Jacques Cathelineau and Jean-Nicolas Stofflet seized Saint-Florent-le-Vieil on 12 March. By mid-March, a minor revolt against conscription had turned into full-fledged insurrection.

The Republic was quick to respond, dispatching over 45,000 troops to the area. The first pitched battle was on the night of March 19. A Republican column of 2,000, under general Louis Henri François de Marcé, moving from La Rochelle to Nantes, was intercepted north of Chantonnay near the Gravereau bridge (Saint-Vincent-Sterlanges), over the river le Petit-Lay. After six hours of fighting, rebel reinforcements arrived and routed the Republican forces. In the north, on 22 March, another Republican force was routed near Chalonnes-sur-Loire.

Battle of Bressuire
There followed a series of skirmishes and armed contacts. On 3 May 1793, Bressuire fell to Vendéen forces led by Henri de la Rochejaquelein.

Battle of Thouars
On 5 May 1793, the main clash took place on the Pont de Vrine, the bridge over the stream leading into Thouars. The Vendéens proved unable to take the bridge for six hours, until Louis Marie de Lescure (fighting in his first battle) showed himself alone on the bridge under enemy fire and encouraged his men to follow him, which they did, crossing the bridge. The Republicans there were taken from behind by the cavalry under Charles de Bonchamps, which had crossed the river at a ford. Despite the arrival of reinforcements, the Republicans were routed and withdrew towards the city. The insurgents, headed by Henri de La Rochejacquelein, took the rampart by force and poured into the city, and the Republican troops quickly capitulated. The Vendéens seized a large amount of arms and gunpowder, but allowed the captured Republican forces to leave, after having sworn to no longer fight in the Vendée and had their hair shaved off so they could be recognised lest they went back on their word and were recaptured.

Battle of Fontenay-le-Comte
On 25 May 1793 the Catholic and royalist army took Fontenay-le-Comte. Lescure led his men in a courageous charge under enemy fire, shouting 'Long live the king!' and braving cannon fire, which left him unharmed. Likewise La Rochejacquelein wore his distinctive three red handkerchiefs on his head, waist and neck even though the gunners in the Republican forces were aiming for them. Following the victory his friends decided to copy him and all decided to wear three red handkerchiefs too so that La Rochejacquelein could not be distinguished by the enemy in the future. After this the only Vendée towns remaining in the control of the Republic were Nantes and Les Sables d'Olonne.

Battle of Saumur
On 9 June 1793, Vendean insurgents commanded by Jacques Cathelineau captured the town of Saumur from Louis-Alexandre Berthier. The victory gave the insurgents a massive supply of arms, including 50 cannons. This was the high point of the insurgency. The Vendeans had never before attempted to take such a large town, and they captured it in a single day, inflicting heavy losses on its Republican defenders. Many prisoners were taken, some of whom went over to the Vendean cause, while many of the citizens fled to Tours.

Battle of Nantes
On 24 June 1793, the commanders of the Catholic and royalist army issued an ultimatum to the mayor of Nantes, Baco de la Chapelle to surrender the city or they would massacre the garrison. On 29 June, they began an assault with a force of 40,000. Inside the city were Republicans from the surrounding countryside who had fled to Nantes for safety, fortifying the defenders with tales of the horrors that the rebels inflicted on towns they managed to take. Baco de la Chapelle stood on a dustcart that he called the "chariot of victory" to urge the people on, even after he had been wounded in the leg. Poor coordination between the four Vendean armies led by Charette, Bonchamps, Cathelineau and Lyrot hampered the assault, and Cathelineau's forces were delayed in their deployment by fighting along the river Erdre with a Republican battalion. Cathelineau himself was shot at the head of his forces, causing his men to lose heart and retreat; ultimately, the Vendeans were unable to take the city. In October 1793, in order to punish the Vendean prisoners taken after the failure of the siege of Nantes, Jean-Baptiste Carrier ordered them to be shot en masse. When this proved impractical, he had the prisoners rounded up and put out on the river Loire in boats equipped with trap-door bottoms; when these opened the victims were left to drown. On this occasion it was rumored that female prisoners were stripped and tied up with men before being sent to their deaths, the so-called Republican Marriage. Some later historians dispute this story as a counter-revolutionary myth.

First Battle of Châtillon
On 5 July 1793, the First Battle of Châtillon took place at Châtillon-sur-Sèvre near the commune of Mauléon. In that action, Marquis de la Rochejaquelein commanding 20,000 Vendean Royalists attacked a French Republican force led by General François Joseph Westermann. The Vendean Royalists were victorious, killing and wounding 5,000 French Republicans. Among those killed in the battle was French Republican General Chambon.

Battle of Vihiers
The Vendeans won a victory over the revolutionary army led by Santerre at the Battle of Vihiers on 18 July 1793.

Battle of Luçon
The Battle of Luçon was actually a series of three engagements fought over four weeks, the first on 15 July and the last on 14 August 1793, between Republican forces under Augustin Tuncq and Vendean forces. The engagement on 14 August, fought near the town of Luçon was actually the conclusion of three engagements between Maurice d'Elbée's Vendean insurgents and the Republican army. On 15 July, Claude Sandoz and a garrison of 800 had repulsed 5,000 insurgents led by d'Elbee; on 28 July, Tuncq drove off a second attempt; two weeks later, Tuncq and his 5,000 men routed 30,000 insurgents under the personal command of François de Charette.

Battle of Montaigu
The Battle of Montaigu was fought on 21 September 1793 when the Vendéens attacked general Jean-Michel Beysser's French Republican division. Taken by surprise, this division fought back but lost 400 men, including many captured. Some of these prisoners were summarily executed by the Vendeens and their bodies later found in the castle wells by troops under Jean-Baptiste Kléber.

Second Battle of Tiffauges
The Battle of Tiffauges was fought on 19 September 1793 between Royalist military leaders against Republican troops under Jean-Baptiste Kléber and Canclaux.

Second Battle of Châtillon
On 11 October 1793, the Second Battle of Châtillon took place at Châtillon-sur-Sèvre near the commune of Mauléon. In that action, a Vendean Royalist force led by Louis Marie de Lescure and Charles de Bonchamps skirmished with a column of French Republican soldiers from the Coasts of La Rochelle Army. The Republican force commanded by Alexis Chalbos was routed by the Vendean Royalists. Later in the evening of the same day, François Joseph Westermann led a Republican raiding party and attacked the Vendean encampment inflicting losses upon the rebel fighters and non-combatants. The next day the Vendean Royalists withdrew toward Mortagne-sur-Sèvre.

Battle of Tremblaye
The Battle of Tremblaye (15 October 1793) took place near Cholet during the war in the Vendée, and was a Republican victory over the Vendéens. The Vendean leader Lescure was seriously injured in the fighting.

Defeat (October–December 1793)
On 1 August 1793, the Committee of Public Safety ordered Jean-Baptiste Carrier to carry out a "pacification" of the region by complete physical destruction. These orders were not carried out immediately, but a steady stream of demands for total destruction persisted. The Republican army was reinforced, benefiting from the first men of the levée en masse and reinforcements from Mainz. The Vendean army had its first serious defeat at the Battle of Cholet on 17 October; worse for the rebels, their army was split. In October 1793 the main force, commanded by Henri de la Rochejaquelein and numbering some 25,000 (followed by thousands of civilians of all ages), crossed the Loire, headed for the port of Granville where they expected to be greeted by a British fleet and an army of exiled French nobles. Arriving at Granville, they found the city surrounded by Republican forces, with no British ships in sight. Their attempts to take the city were unsuccessful. During the retreat, the extended columns fell prey to Republican forces; suffering from hunger and disease, they died in the thousands. The force was defeated in the last, decisive Battle of Savenay on 23 December. Among those executed the following day was lieutenant-general Jacques Alexis de Verteuil, but some historians assert that after the battle of Savenay the rebellion was still going on.

After the Battle of Savenay (December 1793), in a document whose authenticity is disputed, General Westermann reported to his political masters at the convention: "The Vendée is no more ... According to your orders, I have trampled their children beneath our horses' feet; I have massacred their women, so they will no longer give birth to brigands. I do not have a single prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated them all." Such killing of civilians would have been an explicit violation of the convention's orders to Westermann. and several thousand living Vendéan prisoners were being held by Westerman's forces though when the letter was supposedly written.

Aftermath of the first war and later revolts
With the decisive Battle of Savenay (December 1793) came formal orders for forced evacuation; also, a 'scorched earth' policy was initiated: farms were destroyed, crops and forests burned and villages razed. There were many reported atrocities and a campaign of mass killing universally aimed at residents of the Vendée regardless of combatant status, political affiliation, age or sex. One specific target were the women of the region. Since they were seen, in a way, that they were carrying anti-revolutionary babies, they were seen as primary targets.

From January to May 1794, 20,000 to 50,000 Vendean civilians were massacred by the colonnes infernales ("infernal columns") of the general Louis Marie Turreau. Among those killed towards the end of the conflict were Blessed Guillaume Repin and 98 other religious figures, many of whom were later beatified by the Catholic Church. In Anjou, directed by Nicolas Hentz and Marie Pierre Adrien Francastel, Republicans captured 11,000 to 15,000 Vendeans, 6,500 to 7,000 were shot or guillotined and 2,000 to 2,200 prisoners died from disease.

Under orders from the Committee of Public Safety in February 1794, the Republican forces launched their final "pacification" effort (named Vendée-Vengé or "Vendée Avenged"): twelve infernal columns under Louis Marie Turreau, marched through the Vendée. General Turreau inquired about "the fate of the women and children I will encounter in rebel territory", stating that, if it was "necessary to pass them all by sword", he would require a decree. In response, the Committee of Public Safety ordered him to "eliminate the brigands to the last man, there is your duty..." The Convention issued conciliatory proclamations allowing the Vendeans liberty of worship and guaranteeing their property. General Hoche applied these measures with great success. He restored their cattle to the peasants who submitted, "let the priests have a few crowns", and on 20 July 1795 annihilated an émigré expedition which had been equipped in England and had seized Fort Penthièvre and Quiberon. Treaties were concluded at La Jaunaye (15 February 1795) and at La Mabillaie, and were fairly well observed by the Vendeans; no obstacle remained but the feeble and scattered remnant of the Vendeans still under arms and the Chouans. On 16 July 1796, the Directory proclaimed the official end of the war. On 30 July the state of siege was raised in the western departments.

Estimates of those killed in the Vendean conflict—on both sides—range between 117,000 and 450,000, out of a population of around 800,000.

The Hundred Days
According to Theodore A. Dodge, the war in the Vendée lasted with intensity from 1793 to 1799, when it was suppressed, but later broke out spasmodically especially in 1813, 1814 and 1815. During Napoleon's Hundred Days in 1815, some of the population of the Vendée remained loyal to Louis XVIII, forcing Napoleon—who was short of troops to fight the Waterloo Campaign—to send a force of 10,000 under the command of Jean Maximilien Lamarque to pacify the 8,000 Vendeans led by Pierre Constant Suzannet, which ended with the Battle of Rocheservière.

Historiography
This relatively brief episode in French history has left significant traces on French politics, yet it is reasonable to see the episode, Charles Tilly has claimed, in a far more benign light:

West's counterrevolution grew directly from the efforts of revolutionary officials to install a particular kind of direct rule in the region: a rule that practically eliminated nobles and priests from their positions as partly autonomous intermediaries, that brought the state's demands for taxes, manpower, and deference to the level of individual communities, neighborhoods, and households that gave the region's bourgeois political power they had never before wielded. In seeking to extend the state's rule to every locality, and to dislodge all enemies of that rule, French revolutionaries started a process that did not cease for twenty-five years.

The Vendée revolt became an immediate symbol of confrontation between revolution and counterrevolution, and a source of unexpurgated violence. The region, and its towns, were eliminated; even the department name of Vendée was renamed Venge. Towns and cities were also renamed, but at heart, in villages and farms, the old names remained the same. Beyond the controversial interpretations of genocide, other historians posit the insurrection as a revolt against conscription that cascaded to include other complaints. For a period of several months, control of the Vendée slipped from the hands of Parisian revolutionaries. They ascribed the revolt to the resurgence of royalist ideas: when faced with insurrection of the people against the Revolution of the People, they were unable to see it as anything but an aristocratic plot. Mona Ozouf and François Furet maintain it was not. The entire territory, none of it unified under a single idea from the ancien regime, had never been a region morally at odds with the rest of the nation. It was not the fall of the old regime that aroused the population against the Revolution, but rather the construction of the new regime into locally unacceptable principles and forms: the new map of districts and departments, the administrative dictatorship, and above all the non-juring priests. Rebellion had first flared in August 1792, but had been immediately quelled. Even the regicide did not trigger insurrection. What did was the forced conscription. Although the Vendeans, to use the term loosely, wrote God and King large on their flags, they invested those symbols of their tradition with something other than regret for the lost regime.

Genocide controversy
The popular historiography of the War in the Vendée is deeply rooted in the pervasive political polarisation within post-1789 French culture and historiography. As a result, scholarship on the uprising is generally lacking in objectivity, coming down strongly in defense of either the First French Republic or of the Vendéen rebels and the local Catholic Church. This conflict originated in the 19th century between two groups of historians. The Bleus, so-named for their defense of the French Revolutionary Army and who based their interpretations solely on documents from Republican sources. The Blancs, on the other hand, are so named in a denigrating reference to their continued membership in the Catholic Church in France, also based their findings on Republican archival documents, but also used eyewitness accounts, memoirs by survivors, and "local oral histories". Les Bleus generally allege that the War in Vendée was not a popular uprising, but was the result of reactionary noble and priestly lies and manipulation of the local peasantry against their self-appointed liberators. One of the leaders of this school of history, Charles-Louis Chassin, published eleven volumes of letters, archives, and other materials in an effort to argue for this interpretation. Meanwhile, Les Blancs were at least sometimes Roman Catholic priests, local historians, or survivors of the pre-1789 local French nobility. They allege, on the other hand, that the Vendean peasant rebels were acting out of "genuine love" and loyalty towards individual local families of less wealthy and non-absentee landlords and, far more importantly, a desire to protect the Catholic Church from both religious persecution, the Reign of Terror, and coerced Caesaropapism at the hands of the First French Republic.

The Counter-Enlightenment interpretation by Les Blancs was widely popularized among the social conservatives throughout the Anglosphere during the Neoliberal era, with French historian Reynald Secher's 1986 A French Genocide: The Vendée. Secher argued that the total war against the local population and the scorched earth tactics unleashed by both the Republican government and the French Revolutionary Army during the War in the Vendée were the first modern genocide. Secher's claims caused a minor uproar in France amongst scholars of French history, as many mainstream authorities on the period—both French and foreign—published articles denouncing Secher's allegations. Claude Langlois (of the Institute of History of the French Revolution) derides Secher's claims as "quasi-mythological". Timothy Tackett of the University of California summarizes the case as such: "In reality ... the Vendée was a tragic civil war with endless horrors committed by both sides—initiated, in fact, by the rebels themselves. The Vendeans were no more blameless than were the republicans. The use of the word genocide is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate." Hugh Gough (Professor of history at University College Dublin) called Secher's book an attempt at historical revisionism unlikely to have any lasting impact. While some such as Peter McPhee roundly criticized Secher, including the assertion of commonality between the functions of the Republican government and the totalitarianism of Stalinism, historian Pierre Chaunu expressed support for Secher's views, describing the events as the first "ideological genocide".

Critics of Secher's thesis have also accused his methodology of being flawed. McPhee asserted that these errors are as follows: (1) The war was not fought against Vendeans generally but Royalist Vendeans; the government relied on the support of Republican Vendeans. (2) The Convention ended the campaign after the Royalist Army was clearly defeated—if the aim was genocide, then they would have continued and easily exterminated the population. (3) He fails to inform the reader of atrocities committed by Royalist forces against Republican civilians and POWs in the Vendée. (4) He repeats alleged folkloric myths as facts (5) He does not refer to the wide range of estimates of deaths suffered by both sides, and that casualties were not "one-sided"; and more.

Peter McPhee says that the pacification of the Vendée does not fit either the United Nations' CPPCG definition of genocide because the events happened during a civil war. He states that the war in the Vendée was not a one-sided mass killing and the Committee of Public Safety did not intend to exterminate the whole population of the Vendée; as parts of the population at least were allies of the revolutionary government.

Concerning the controversy, Michel Vovelle, a specialist on the French Revolution, remarked: "A whole literature is forming on 'Franco-French genocide', starting from risky estimates of the number of fatalities in the Vendean wars ... Despite not being specialists in the subject, historians such as Pierre Chaunu have put all the weight of their great moral authority behind the development of an anathematizing discourse, and have dismissed any effort to look at the subject reasonably."

Shortly before his return to the Russian Federation after decades of exile in 1993, former Soviet dissident and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a speech in Les Lucs-sur-Boulogne to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Vendée Uprising. Coming down strongly in favor of calling the Republican response genocidal, Solzhenitsyn compared Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks following the October Revolution with the leadrship of the Jacobin Club during the French Revolution. Solzhenitsyn also compared the Vendean rebels with the Russian, Ukrainian, and Cossack peasants who similarly rebelled against the Bolsheviks, saying that both were destroyed mercilessly by "revolutionary despotism". He commented sadly that, while the French Reign of Terror ended with the Thermidorian reaction, the toppling of the Jacobin single party state by the French Revolutionary Army, and the execution of Maximilien Robespierre, its Soviet equivalent continued to accelerate until the Khrushchev thaw of the 1950s.

Debate over the characterization of the Vendée uprising was renewed in 2007, when nine deputies introduced a measure to the National Assembly to officially recognize the Republican actions as genocidal. The measure was strongly denounced by a group of Far Left French historians as an attempt to use history to justify political extremism.

At the start of 2017 Jacques Villemain published Vendée, 1793–1794 : Crime de guerre ? Crime contre l'humanité ? Génocide ? Une étude juridique [Vendée, 1793–1794: War crime? Crime against humanity? Genocide? A juridical study], which an analysis by him of the Vendée war from the perspective of the international courts of justice in The Hague (such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). Jacques Villemain is a French diplomat, and is currently the vice representative of France at OECD and is representing France at the International Court of Justice. He presented a legal study on the War of Vendée based on current international criminal law, according to modern findings in the international courts on genocide cases like the Rwanda Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre, is that the government of the First French Republic was guilty of war crimes beginning in March 1793, crimes against humanity between April to July 1793, and genocide from 1 August 1793 to the middle of 1794.

Challenging the methodology
In the heart of the modern controversy lies Secher's evidence, which Charles Tilly analyzed in 1990. Initially, Tilly maintains, Secher completed a thoughtful dissertation-style thesis about the revolutionary experience in his own village, La Chapelle-Basse-Mer, which lies near Nantes. In the published version of his thesis, he incorporated some of Tilly's own arguments: that conflicts within communities generalized into a region-wide confrontation of anti-revolutionary majority based in the countryside with a pro-revolutionary minority that had particular strength in the cities. The split formed with the application of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the oath to support it, in 1790–1792. From then, the local conflicts grew more sharply defined, over the choice between juring and non-juring priests. The conscription of March 1793, with the questionable exemption for Republican officials and National Guard members, broadened the anti-revolutionary coalition and brought the young men into action.

With Le génocide français, Reynald Secher's thesis for the Doctorat d'État began with a generalization of the standard arguments to the whole region. Although La Chapelle-Basse-Mer served him repeatedly as a reference point, Secher illustrated his arguments with wide citations from national and regional archives to establish a broader frame of reference. Furthermore, he drew on graphic, nineteenth century accounts widely known to the historians of the Vendee: Carrier drownings and the "infernal columns of Turreau". Most importantly, however, Secher broke with conventional assessments by asserting on the basis of minimal evidence, Tilly claims, that the pre-revolutionary Vendée was more prosperous than the rest of France (to better emphasize the devastation of the war and the repression). He used dubious statistical methods to establish population losses and fatalities, statistical processes that inflated the number of people in the region, the number and value of houses, and the financial losses of the region. Secher's statistical procedure relied on three unjustifiable assumptions. First, Secher assumes a constant birth rate of about 37 per thousand of population, when actually, Tilly maintains, the population was declining. Second, Secher assumes no net migration; Tilly maintains that thousands fled the region, or at least shifted where they lived within the region. Finally, Secher understated the population present at the end of the conflict by ending it 1802, not 1794.

Despite the criticism, a number of scholars continue the assertion of genocide. In addition to Secher and Chaunu, Kurt Jonassohn and Frank Chalk also consider it a case of genocide. Further support comes from Adam Jones, who wrote in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction a summary of the Vendée uprising, supporting the view that it was a genocide: "the Vendée Uprising stands as a notable example of a mass killing campaign that has only recently been conceptualized as 'genocide and that while this designation "is not universally shared ... it seems apt in the light of the large scale murder of a designated group (the Vendéan civilian population)." Pierre Chaunu describes it as the first "ideological genocide". Mark Levene, a historian who specializes in the study of genocide, considers the Vendée "an archetype of modern genocide". Other scholars who consider the massacres to be genocide include R. J. Rummel, Jean Tulard, and Anthony James Joes.

In 2020, David Bell published a paper in Journal of Genocide Research to rebut the genocide theory.

Cultural depictions
The events of the Vendee have been the subject of books, films, and music.

Film & Television
Filmed on location in France, The Hidden Rebellion, a docu-drama produced and directed by Daniel Rabourdin, presents the rebellion as an example of the courage and love for God and country that the royalists possessed. Winner of the 2017 Remi Film Award, it has aired on EWTN and is available for purchase on DVD. The uprising in the Vendée was also the subject of an independent feature film from Navis Pictures. The War of the Vendée (2012), written and directed by Jim Morlino, won awards for "Best Film For Young Audiences" (Mirabile Dictu International Catholic Film Festival, at the Vatican) and "Best Director" (John Paul II International Film Festival, Miami, FL).

The Vendée Revolt was the setting for one of the BBC's The Scarlet Pimpernel (TV series) series entitled "Valentine Gautier" (2002). The Vendée Revolt was also the setting for "The Frogs and the Lobsters", an episode of the television program Hornblower. It is set during the French Revolutionary Wars and very loosely based on the chapter of the same name in C. S. Forester's novel, Mr. Midshipman Hornblower and on the actual ill-fated Quiberon expedition of 1795. Vaincre ou mourir was a related 2022 film released by Studio Canal in co-operation with the Puy du Fou theme park company.

Music

 * Album Chante la Vendée Militaire (La Chouannerie), by Catherine Garret, 1977.
 * Album Vendée 1792–1796, by the Chœur Montjoie Saint-Denis, 2005 (reedition in 2016).
 * EP Guerres de Vendée: Chouans, by Jean-Pax Méfret, 2006.
 * The French black/folk metal band Paydretz works and plays exclusively about the Wars in the Vendée and the Chouannerie.
 * La Vandeana, an Italian song about the Vendée.

Historiography

 * Censer, Jack R. "Historians Revisit the Terror—Again." Journal of Social History 48#2 (2014): 383–403.
 * Mitchell, Harvey. "The Vendée and Counterrevolution: A Review Essay," French Historical Studies (1968) 5#4 pp. 405–429 in JSTOR

in French

 * Fournier, Elie Turreau et les colonnes infernales, ou, L'échec de la violence A. Michel; (1985) ISBN 2-226-02524-3

title: War in the Vendée


text:
Sverdrup (disambiguation)

Sverdrup is a unit of volume flux.

Sverdrup may also refer to:

Surname

 * Einar Sverdrup (1895–1942), a Norwegian mining engineer and businessman
 * Erling Sverdrup (1917–1994), Norwegian statistician
 * Georg Sverdrup (1770–1850), founder of the first Norwegian university library
 * Georg Sverdrup (1848–1907), President of Augsburg Seminary
 * George Sverdrup, son of Georg, also president of Augsburg Seminary from 1911 to 1937
 * George Sverdrup, technology manager of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 * Harald Ulrik Sverdrup (politician) (1813–1891), Norwegian priest and politician
 * Harald Sverdrup (oceanographer) (1888–1957), Norwegian oceanographer grandson of the previous one
 * Harald Sverdrup (writer) (1923–1992), Norwegian writer and poet
 * Johan Sverdrup (1816–1892), prime minister of Norway
 * Leif J. Sverdrup (1898–1976), a Norwegian-American civil engineer
 * Otto Neumann Sverdrup (1854–1930), Norwegian explorer
 * Tone Sverdrup (born 1951), Norwegian jurist

Places

 * Sverdrup Pass, a pass on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada
 * Sverdrup Islands, Arctic islands
 * Sverdrup Island (Kara Sea), another Arctic island
 * Sverdrup (crater), a lunar crater near the Moon's south pole
 * Sverdrup Township, Minnesota
 * Johan Sverdrup oil field, often abbreviated as Sverdrup

Other uses

 * Sverdrup balance, an oceanographic theory

title: Sverdrup (disambiguation)


text:
Spokane (film)

Spokane is a 2004 short film written and directed by Larry Kennar. The cast included Kyle Bornheimer and Jason Waters. It premiered at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival and was awarded an honorable mention in the international shorts category.

Premise
A straight guy meets an openly gay man at a wedding and finds himself the willing subject of a seduction that turns into an awkward night in a motel room.

title: Spokane (film)


text:
Vincent Irizarry

Vincent Michael Irizarry (born November 12, 1959) is an American actor. He was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award in 1985 and 2002, and won in 2009.

Early life and education
Irizarry grew up on Long Island, New York, and he is one of six children. He moved to Lake Grove, New York at an early age. At age 11, Irizarry began to study piano, becoming classically trained, then continued his studies at Berklee College of Music in Boston. He performed in numerous productions with a regional theater company. He won a full-time scholarship with Lee Strasberg at his Theater Institute.

Career
Irizarry got his start in daytime television in 1983 as Brandon/Lujack Luvonaczek Spaulding on Guiding Light. His character was paired up with Beth Raines (then Judi Evans Luciano) and they were considered a  "supercouple." He was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award in 1985]. He then played Dr. Scott Clark from 1987 to 1989 on Santa Barbara. He also portrayed the role of Lujack Spaulding's twin brother Nick McHenry Spaulding on Guiding Light from July 1991 to February 26, 1996. Irizarry returned for a cameo in late-December 1996.

Irizarry was cast in the role of Dr. David Hayward on All My Children, a role he originated in 1997. Irizarry also went to One Life to Live, during the infamous baby-swap storyline in 2005. He portrayed David until November 28, 2006.

However, in November 2006, Irizarry joined the cast of The Young and the Restless as the character David Chow, first appearing on January 9, 2007. David Chow was romantically involved with Carmen Mesta, played by Marisa Ramirez. Originally contracted for 13 weeks, Irizarry's character proved popular, and his stay on the soap was extended.

On August 17, 2008, a spokesperson for All My Children confirmed that Irizarry would reprise the role of David Hayward. Irizarry returned to the studio in September and began making regular appearances in October until it aired its final episode on September 23, 2011.

In December 2012, Irizarry announced on his Facebook page that he would be joining Prospect Park's online reboot of All My Children, scheduled for Spring 2013. He reprised his Emmy award-winning role of Dr. David Hayward that he originated in 1997. It ran from April to September 2013.

In 2013, Irizarry appeared in an episode of Homeland.

In August 2015, news broke that Irizarry joined the cast of Days of Our Lives, portraying the role of Deimos Kiriakis, the bitter and vindictive younger half-brother of Victor Kiriakis. Irizarry made his first appearance in early January 2016. He was let go from the serial in February 2017, and then received a Daytime Emmy nomination.

Personal life
Irizarry's oldest child, Ash Harris, was born in May 1989.

He married actress Signy Coleman in July 1989 but they would divorce in 1992. Their daughter Siena Sophia was born in 1990. He married Avalon House in 1997, and they have two children. Irizarry confirmed that he and House were in the process of getting a divorce in 2010.

He was in a relationship with clothing designer Donna Petracca.

Awards

 * Daytime Emmy Nomination, Outstanding Younger Man- GL (1986)
 * Daytime Emmy Nomination, Outstanding Lead Actor- AMC (2002)
 * Daytime Emmy Pre-Nomination, Outstanding Lead Actor- AMC (2003, 2004)
 * Soap Opera Digest Outstanding Villain- AMC (1999)
 * Winner, Best Supporting Actor (tied with Jeff Branson)-AMC (2009)
 * Daytime Emmy Nomination, Outstanding Lead Actor- DOOL (2017)

title: Vincent Irizarry


text:
Category:Dystopian fiction

Dystopias are commonly found in science fiction novels and stories. Please see the article dystopia for discussion of definition. Note that the definition of dystopia is not agreed by everyone, but it is usually considered to mean something much more specific than a nightmare world or unpleasant future.

Entries should only be added to this category if their article clearly states that they are dystopian.

title: Category:Dystopian fiction


text:
Stan Roberts

Stanley Carl "Stan" Roberts (January 17, 1927 – September 6, 1990 ) was a Canadian politician. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba between 1958 and 1962, and ran for the leadership of the Manitoba Liberal Party in 1961. He was later involved with the Liberal Party of Canada, and was a founding member of the Reform Party of Canada.

Early years
Roberts was born in St. Adolphe, Manitoba, later farming there, and received of Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Manitoba and an MBA from Western University. He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1958, as a Liberal-Progressive candidate in the francophone riding of La Verendrye (Roberts was himself bilingual). Although Dufferin Roblin's Progressive Conservative (PC) Party won the general election, Roberts defeated his Tory opponent Stan Bisson by 1565 votes to 1395. He was re-elected in 1959, defeating PC candidate Edmond Guertin.

When Douglas Campbell resigned as Liberal-Progressive leader in 1961, Roberts ran to succeed him. He represented a "left opposition" within the party, and accused its more conservative leadership of being ineffective against Roblin's centrist/progressive government. He was defeated by establishment candidate Gildas Molgat by 475 votes to 279 on April 20, 1961, one day after the party formally renamed itself the Manitoba Liberal Party.

Resignation
Roberts resigned from the legislature to contest the 1962 federal election in the riding of Provencher; he was defeated by Progressive Conservative Warner Jorgenson by about a thousand votes. He again lost to Jorgenson in the 1963 federal election, by a slightly greater margin.

Roberts subsequently worked as a Manitoba advisor to Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, and served as president and acting leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party from 1969 to 1970 (after party leader Robert Bend failed to win his seat in the 1969 provincial election). He also worked as an executive officer for McCabe Grain Company Limited, later National Grain Company Limited. In 1971, he was named vice-president of Simon Fraser University, serving until 1976.

Constitutional reform involvement
In 1976, Roberts became the first president of the Canada West Foundation. In this capacity, he took a leading role in arguing for the position of the west in Canada's constitutional debates. He also developed contacts with Ernest and Preston Manning. In late 1978, Roberts expressed interest in Francis Winspear's proposed constitutional reforms, which included Senate reform and the equal treatment of all provinces.

During this period, Roberts made several speeches warning about the possibility of western separatism. There were some within the Canada West Foundation who believed that Roberts himself was partly sympathetic to separatism; he never became affiliated with the movement, but was forced to step down as CWF President in December 1980 after some controversial statements on the subject. In 1980, he moved from British Columbia to Toronto after being named president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Roberts left that position in 1982.

Roberts remained loyal to the Liberal Party during this period. He ran for the leadership of the British Columbia Liberal Party in 1984, but lost to former Member of Parliament Art Lee on the first ballot. Roberts's participation in this contest probably prevented him from running to succeed Pierre Trudeau as leader of the federal party. Roberts disagreed with the selection of John Turner as party leader, but he nevertheless ran for the federal Liberals in the Quebec riding of Lachine in 1984, losing to Progressive Conservative Bob Layton.

Reform Party of Canada
After this election, Roberts began to consider forming a new political party. The federal Liberal Party had long been weak in western Canada, and won only two seats west of Ontario in 1984. Roberts believed that a new party might be necessary to oppose Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in western Canada. In 1987, he became involved with Francis Winspear, Preston Manning and Ted Byfield in plans to create what would later become the Reform Party of Canada.

Roberts was in many respects an unlikely figure within this group. His political philosophy was centrist, perhaps somewhat left-of-centre. He was not an uncritical supporter of free-market economics, and he does not seem to have been a social conservative. Nevertheless, he was willing to work with more conservative figures to create the new party.

Even before the Reform Party's founding convention (October 30-November 1, 1987), Roberts began to have concerns about the new party's ideology. He opposed its regionalist aspects, and was concerned by its popularity with voters who opposed bilingualism and Quebec's role in Canada's Confederation. One week before the founding convention, he agreed to stand for the party's leadership against Preston Manning, the only other declared candidate.

At the convention, Manning's supporters among the convention-goers voted to close the registration process one day ahead of schedule, perhaps fearing Roberts was planning to bus in several "instant delegates". After failed negotiations with the Manning camp, Roberts dropped out of the race on November 1, claiming that Manning's supporters had hijacked the party from its original intentions. He referred to Manning's supporters as "fanatical Albertans" and "small-minded evangelical cranks".

Roberts subsequently sought the Reform Party's nomination in the British Columbia riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands for the 1988 federal election, but was defeated. He had no further involvement with the Reform Party, and died of a brain tumour in Burnaby two years later.

title: Stan Roberts


text:
Scott Parker (ice hockey)

Scott Douglas Parker (born January 29, 1978) is an American former professional ice hockey right winger who played for the Colorado Avalanche and San Jose Sharks in the NHL. Parker earned his nickname, "the Sheriff", from his reputation as a feared fighter and enforcer.

Playing career
Parker grew up playing ice hockey in Eagle River, Alaska, with the youth hockey Mustang Hockey Association and Alaska All Star Hockey Association. He played high school hockey for the Chugiak High School Mustangs. In his sophomore year with the Mustangs Parker was a member of the varsity hockey team that won the Alaska state high school hockey championship. Parker played a season of Junior "B" hockey for the Spokane Braves and then went on to play for the Kelowna Rockets of the Major Junior Western Hockey League of the Canadian Hockey League. It was with the Rockets that Parker was drafted into the NHL.

He was initially drafted by the New Jersey Devils in the third round, 63rd overall, in the 1996 NHL Entry Draft. However unable to come to an agreement with the Devils he re-entered into the 1998 draft and was selected in the first round, 20th overall, by the Colorado Avalanche. After playing a few seasons in the WHL with the Kelowna Rockets, Parker started his NHL career with the Avalanche in 1998 and was a member of their 2001 Stanley Cup championship team.

Parker was acquired by San Jose for a fifth round selection in the 2003 NHL Entry Draft on June 21, 2003. In 2005, Parker was struck in the head by the puck, and spent a long time off the ice recovering from the resulting concussion.

In a game against the Nashville Predators on March 11, 2006, Parker got involved in an altercation with Nashville defenceman Brendan Witt. Called for elbowing Nashville player Jordin Tootoo, Parker was ejected from the game after an outburst of emotion in the penalty box, including slamming his stick against the glass. As he was led off the ice, Parker jumped onto the glass between the two teams' benches and struck Witt several times. As a result, he was suspended for two games.

On February 27, 2007, Parker was re-acquired by the Colorado Avalanche from the Sharks for a sixth round draft pick in the 2008 draft.

On October 17, 2008, Parker was assigned to Colorado's affiliate the Lake Erie Monsters of the AHL. In a rare conflict between the team and one of its own players, the Avalanche terminated Parker's contract on November 9, 2008 for insubordination for not reporting to the Monsters.

Personal
Parker was born in Hanford, California and raised in Eagle River, Alaska.

Parker retired in early August 2009 and has since started a barbershop business with his wife Francesca in Castle Rock, Colorado.

In 2006, Parker and his wife Francesca started a charity called "Parker's Platoon". Parker's Platoon is dedicated to helping military veterans transition from military to civilian life. They help "one veteran at a time" through activities such as riding snow machines in the Rockies to trout fishing and other activities that bring veterans together, helping the vets realize they are not alone in their mental and physical healing process.

In July, 2012, Parker made some controversial comments about Steve Moore. Parker was on the roster of the San Jose Sharks at the time of the 2004 Todd Bertuzzi - Steve Moore incident in which Moore's career was ended by an on-ice attack from Todd Bertuzzi, but Parker and Moore had been teammates in Colorado during prior seasons. In an interview with milehighhockey.com, Parker defended Bertuzzi and spoke disparagingly of Moore, being quoted as saying "he (Moore) always thought he was better than everybody else.”

In 2017, Parker appeared on ESPN's Outside the Lines acknowledging that he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.

title: Scott Parker (ice hockey)


text:
Howdenshire

Howdenshire was a wapentake and a liberty of England, lying around the town of Howden in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

In the Anglo-Saxon period, the district was under the control of Peterborough's monastery, but it was confiscated by Edward the Confessor, and then given to the Bishop of Durham by William I of England. It came to operate as an exclave of County Durham, much like Allertonshire, but under the dean of Durham rather than the bishop. This peculiarity was abolished in 1846, but the district is still in use for certain administrative purposes.

title: Howdenshire