I found this archive of some historical foreign policy documents while looking on the web for information this morning. It contains memorandums, dispatches and letters relating to foreign policy.

Request to DFAT; please archive and release them all on the web as digital documents. They are of immeasurable wealth and need to be available to all.

The Department of External Affairs was still a young government department when Percy Spender took over its reins in 1949 with the successful election of the Menzies Government. Spender was a powerful member of the Liberal Cabinet, and one who Menzies was concerned about as a potential challenger to his leadership of the Liberal Party. Spender's forebears, Doc Evatt and John Burton had attempted to balance direct relationships with super-powers, alongside multi-national foreign policy through the UN with an engagement of Australia's Asian interests through regional foreign policy. Spender came to the department with the ideological lines of the Cold War establishing themselves, he chose the path of whole heartedly embracing the dominant western super-power while maintaining regional foreign policy ties.

Political Realities Post WWII

Robert Menzies was an anglophile of the edwardian dandy school of pomp and circumstance. Despite Menzies' desire for Australia to re-establish itself as British, the reality of the clouds building over what was to become the Cold War showed that America was the new super-power in the west. Britain's back had been broken in World War II, and the incredible scientific, manufacturing and economic might of the United States would come to define the West's response to Soviet Russia.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was a stand off as many governments and nations eyed each other warily wondering what the new system of nation-state power would be. Europe's colonial power was broken, that was obvious, and the United Nations was being set up to establish a forum, and means for the new super-powers to engage in dialogue. By 1950 it had become obvious that there was an ideological war brewing, mainly over what constituted economic management of a nation-state; but which was backed by large and effective militaries.

Due to the constant political salesmanship and mythology of the US alliance, it is assumed that Australia is contributing from a position of weakness. This is as untrue today as it was in 1945. Power politics is played through strength - of which hard and soft power are the two largest determinants. These are acquired by military and economic capability. At the end of World War II Australia was the largest and most powerful of the medium powers. With the defeat of Germany and Japan, Australia had the fourth largest air force on the globe. Our economy was booming so much in the latter parts of World War II that the Citizens Military Forces were being demobilised to attend to the labour shortages and demands of the Australian economy.

Australia's problem has been our politicians, continually dealing our interests with a political cringe. This has manifested itself with Australia being subservant and uncritical toward the current super-power. Prior to World War II this was Britain, since Curtin looked to the East without a pang of regret in 1941, it has been the United States.

Percy Spender

Percy Spender was a barrister, and an experienced minister when he took over the Department of External Affairs. He was well known for brutally efficient and well prepared. Spender spent sixteen months as foreign minister, and then seven years as Australia's Ambassador to Washington. Due to Australia's entwining with the US on foreign policy and defence, he occupied a position of considerable influence in Australian policy making and actions.

It is often easy, simple, or just lazy to seek a black and white ideology from these historical figures in questions such as; "Was Spender a Cold War Warrior?". But for those actually doing the work, ideology is often tempered, if not swamped by, pragmatism. The two big issues in 1950 were Australia's relationship with Asia, and the dual-pronged issue of Soviet Russia and Communist China.

Asia

Australian ideological "Realists" (as opposed to the liberal internationalism of the Optimists) wanted the Asian question resolved by European nations returning to their Asian colonies and slowly relinquishing them to self-governance over several generations. Pragmatism intruded quickly, the Indonesians overthrew the Dutch attempts to re-established the Dutch East Indies, Vietnam simmered as a low intensity conflict between the French and Vietnamese nationalists until it opened up as a vein in the Cold War. Spender's thinking on this issue can be found in a cablegram;

Geographically, Australia is next door to Asia and our destiny as a nation is irrevocably conditioned by what takes place in Asia. This means that our future depends to an ever increasing degree upon the political stability of our Asian neighbours, upon the economic well-being of Asian peoples, and upon the development of understanding and friendly relations between Australia and Asia. Whilst it remains true that peace is indivisible and that what takes place in any part of the world may affect us, our vital interests are closer to home. It is therefore in Asia and the Pacific that Australia should make its primary effort in the field of foreign relations.

The rising and menacing tide of Communism in the East presents us with a definite threat - and not a remote threat either - to our national existence. But the threat is also a challenge. Australia, who with New Zealand has the greatest direct interest in Asia of all Western peoples, must develop a dynamic policy towards neighbouring Asian countries, whose people we must live with, not only to-day and to-morrow, but for all times. We should give leadership to developments in that area.

This leadership saw itself expressed in Spender's Colombo Plan. This was the Commonwealth's answer to this issue through a Co-operative Economic Development in South and Southeast Asia. Spender took on this issue closely and became the chief architect of it. As negotiations were continuing on the Colombo Plan it became known amongst as the Spender Plan. Despite a long period of gestation before being accepted, it grew to include non-Commonwealth countries with the US joining as a donor in 1951 and Indonesia as a recipient in 1953.

The United States

The constant dichotomy in Australian foreign policy is Australia's dislike and inability to act in its own interests outside of its relationship with the current superpower. For instance, the Colombo Plan, was a Commonwealth project initially only targeting Commonwealth nations. This fear and paralysis of foreign policy is the Australian political cringe. Spender was not immune to it, like Menzies he sought solace in a relationship with super-powers;

This in no way implies a lack of recognition of the extreme importance the Government attaches to our continued intimate association with the British Commonwealth; on the contrary, it reinforces it. It must be made stronger, not weaker, Commonwealth relations themselves strikingly manifest the movement of the world's centre towards the East. Of the eight countries of the Commonwealth, there is not one without vital territorial and strategic interests in either the Pacific or the Indian Ocean. The location of the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference at Colombo reflects the importance attached to this area.

This Conference, it is to be hoped, will produce a positive contribution by Commonwealth countries towards securing the peace of the world. And in our deliberations we should not forget - Australia is certainly not likely to do so - how much our security has depended in the past on the friendly and generous assistance of the United States of America. The events of the last war are too close for that. The United States is the greatest Pacific power. Her policy towards Asia is accordingly of supreme importance to Australia's future.

Spender recognized early on that the Cold War was an economic one, and that prosperity of Asia was important in deterring communism from moving south. He carried no confidence in the United Nations, and removed that institution from his policies. Spender also wanted a Pacific Pact with the US, one that would become, "Somewhat the same relationship as exists within the British Commonwealth.". This is the Great and Powerful friends doctrine in a nutshell, worthy of Billy Hughes, Robert Menzies and John Curtin. Australia sub-ordinates its foreign policy decision making to the current super-power in return for defence commitments and economic advantages. Nice in theory, but a failure in practice. Super-powers play power politics, and those in the weaker position get railroaded.

The 1950s also saw the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which bound American and European defence and security commitments. There was the desire by Spender to have a similar type of treaty in the Pacific. Spender initially had no success in trying to get Menzies, the British, or the American State Department interested in a Pacific Pact. The opening of hostilities in Korea, and the sudden success of the Chinese invasion through North Korea helped change the level of interest. Spender leapt on the opportunity to show how good an ally Australia could be and quickly committed Australian troops to Korea before Britain could.

The next year, US envoy, John Foster Dulles came to Australia to take part in talks that would end up being the ANZUS Treaty. The United States was only six years out from defeating Japan in the Central Pacific and was no facing expansionist policies from both Soviet Russia and China. The concern that there would be another World War which encompassed fronts in Europe, Africa and Asia were quite real. The United State sought to stabilise any possible global conflict by securing a peace treaty with Japan and setting up the terms of involvement with Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines.

The British were initially upset at being left out of the negotiations, and Spender took pains to tell Dulles that despite what was heard from London, Dulles should focus on Australian words and commitment. However, both the United States and Britain saw value in the treaty for stopping what John Curtin had done in 1942. Curtin removed Australian troops in the Middle East, and brought them back to Australia despite the wishes of Churchill and Roosevelt for those troops to remain in the Middle East.

This was mirrored in British policy when the British Chief of Staff, Field Marshall John Slim came to Australia in 1951 asking for an Australian commitment to an expeditionary force in the Middle East should their be global conflict with Soviet Russia. Eventually Menzies gave that commitment to Britain.

Tussle

Australian Prime Ministers have always been strongly involved in foreign policy, often dominating it despite the existence of a foreign minister. Menzies was no exception, he had a strong opinion of what the world should be like. In a short period Percy Spender had negotiated the Colombo Plan and the ANZUS Treaty. Both area's that Menzies was not particularly interested in. Menzies was also concerned that these triumphs from Spender were a challenge to Menzies' leadership.

Menzies decided to assert his strength in foreign policy over Spender, mocking him for thinking that a communist threat may come from Asia and that there was the potential for the domino theory to exist. Menzies recommitted Australia to fighting for the civilisation in Europe and Middle East, rather than Asia. Spender's focus on Asia was marginalised in Australian foreign policy.

Spender retired from the Menzies Cabinet and took a post as Australia's Ambassador in Washington. It does not appear that he was sacked by Menzies, but it is more likely he did not have the numbers to challenge Menzies for the leadership of the Liberal Party and decided to take a position far away from Canberra.

cam

After the Revolutionary War and the establishment of Congress and President in the United States, party lines hardened between Hamilton's and Adams' Federalists and Jefferson's and Madison's Republicans. In 1801 Thomas Jefferson became the President of the United States, this was to start a twenty-four year Virginian presidential dynasty that ultimately defined the US Republic.

The electors in 1800 were locked in votes between Jefferson and New Yorker, Aaron Burr. Ultimately Alexander Hamilton and John Adams feared, or detested, Burr more than Jefferson and convinced the electoral college to support Jefferson. This became known as the "Bloodless Revolution". There was much partisan antipathy at the time.

At ten in the morning on the fourth of March, 1801 Jefferson declined a coach and instead walked from his boarding house to Capitol hill to be inaugurated. This humbleness was to become a hallmark of the Jeffersonian presidency. He met ministers from Britain in his slippers, he refused to put guests of honour at his tables, prefering more egalitarian adhoc dinner placements.

Fast forward to today. Politicians are surrounded by retinues of Secret Servicemen, bodyguards and excessive security regimes. When minor officials visit areas of the US, security becomes crushing. Already gridlocked New Yorkers and Washingtonians complain heavily when government officials close down whole blocks of the city. Often politicians jam up parts of the city, not for reasons of state, but for fund raisers and other partisan pursuits. Aircraft get delayed at airports, roads are shut down - commerce interrupted.

My wife is currently in Alabama on business. She is sharing a hotel with Condaleeza Rice and Jack Straw. Her taxi could not stop infront of the hotel, and my wife had to enter the hotel from the rear. Security was everywhere. Rice was recently pilloried in the media for being on a shoe shopping spree in New York while Hurricane Katrina lashed at New Orleans. What is the chance the Rice will meet Straw in her slippers, let alone an ordinary citizen like my wife?

Buckleys and none.

Geoffrey Blainey coined the term, "black armband history", which John Howard picked up in his 1996 election and used since as part of the longer campaign in the history wars. Blainey talks about democracy as being Australia's greatest and most difficult achievement, claiming that this majority based system is the defining component of our history. But Blainey is either ignorant, or rhetorically contemptuous in the understanding of minorities and rights in a political system. Modern Australians define themselves in the "Better Country"; failure to respect minorities, and to trample individual rights are directly the fault of our government and public institutions. Australians demand better.

Minorities

The greatest abuse of individual and political rights has been by the hands of government. Usually it is only the politically weak minorities that have copped it, but occasionally minorities do as well. Our politicians are sufficiently cowardly that they only pick on minorities. One area of our history that involved institutional failure to respect the individual, the family and the community was the stolen generations. This started in Western Australia in the 1890s, and ended in the 1950s after receiving sponsorship at the state and federal levels.

As Aboriginal children were kidnapped from their families by government officials and policeman based on the colour of their skin. If the skin colour was half-white and half-black, then the child was stolen from its mother and then fostered out to a white family. This was done for the reason of mono-culture - forcible assimilation of Aboriginal children into the then majority culture which was Anglo-Australian. This was known colloquially as the "fuck them white" policy.

In a 1993 speech, Geoffrey Blainey said;

The multi-cultural folk busily preached their message until they arrived much of Australian history was a disgrace. The past treatment of Aborigines, of Chinese, of Kanakas, of non-British migrants, of women, the very old, the very young and the poor was singled out, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not. These condemnations of Australia's past treatment of various categories of people were so sweeping, that at times close to 80 per cent of the population was on the hit list - a suspiciously high percentage, you must admit, when even this was really one of the world's most vigorous democracies.

This assumes that a minority is exclusive and cannot be a member of another minority at the same time. However and Aboriginal Australian can be elderly, female and poor - all at the same time. When America was founded as a Republic in 1787, the writers of the constitution were aware of the problems, not only of the tyranny of absolute rule, but also tyranny of the majority. Blainey is arguing that tyranny of the majority is a valid form of democracy. As long as tyranny against a majority, comes through a democratic system, it is excusable, and cannot be put in the bad ledger of history.

In the speech, Blainey mentions that he was raised on the "Three Cheers" view of history. Peter Botsman has called this the "Triumphalism of Federation" history. In that form of history, government wrote the narrative, excusing themselves of any past tyranny, inequity and failure. Yet we know that a Bill of Rights was excluded from the Australian Constitution as the "Bearded Men" wanted to be able to use the power of federal government to willfully discriminate against the Chinese in Australia.

The "Three Cheers" history is essentially bankrupt. Until Australian historians focus on the most destructive, and discriminate force in Australia - the federal and state governments, then Australian history will just be competing political agendas for government to write their own history. Howard's attack on the history and culture wars is to excuse the Australian government from past tyranny, so the government, does not have to face how destructive it has been to this country.

Australia must align itself with the principles of "The Better Country", where being better is a constant striving to improve; at the individual, family, community, social, economic and political levels. Obviously, the Better Country has no room for inferior politicians and government who would tyrannise their minorities in the name of majority rule.

Rights

Blainey also has a fundamental mis-undertanding of what constitutes political rights. The same speech in 1993 included;

In fact it [democracy] depends partly on a society which emphasises individual responsibility as much as individual rights. We became a rights-mad society in the 1970s and 1980s, forgetting that there will never be enough rights to go around. A firm right granted to one person or group is often a loss of right to another person or group.

The Australian system of responsible government is weak in protecting rights, often our judicial has jumped into this breach and made rulings that protect speech and other rights despite the constitution having no such mention. We get an activist judicial because the writers of the Australian Constitution were incompetent and myopic.

It is also often misunderstood that political rights are limitations on what government can do. The feel-good declarations that people have the right to dignity, or health care are not rights, they are opinions or positions of legislative or policy principle. A political right is a limitation on government, without which, a rational individual would not consent to be governed. Political rights are limitations on government's ability to act in an arbitrary manner. They are for the defeat of tyranny.

Prosperity Through The Better Country

Prosperity is impossible unless individuals are secure in their individual, social, economic and political rights. Otherwise individuals are forced to deal with the uncertainties of arbitrary an tyrannous government - whether democracy or not. Minorities need to be protected from government through a clear constitutional enunciation of rights which place restrictions on government - ensuring that minorities are treated under the law the same as the majority is. Multiculturalism is a natural outgrowth of liberty, where people can live how they choose to, and be who they want to. When government discriminates against minorities, often for political purposes, liberty and prosperity suffer to the detriment for all of us.

cam

I have written on the Australian Flying Corps [AFC] since 1997, producing approximately many hundred pages of web based content through the years. I have done so as an amateur historian, who, until recently was not aware of historical methodology such as modernism, postmodernism, great dates or multiple narratives. So what did I learn and what was my approach to recording this niche area of Australian history?

Firstly the great dates style of history, while a triumphalist form, is not very compelling to read. It is fine for a summary, but it tends to focus on the events or dates of note such as; squadron formed, squadrons first victory, squadron's one hundred victory, aces twentieth victory etc.

C.E.W. Bean of the official history of WWI fame wrote to F.M. Cutlack who wrote the AFC volume of the official history;

You have avoided [in writing the 8th Volume of the official history] the great danger of making it a mere string of dogfights. You have obtained breadth and possess modesty - two qualities which make the book attractive. You have told the story in a manner neither to grandiloquent nor yet in any way unappreciative - just the mean which is so difficult to obtain.

One of the easiest pieces of data to get in the histories is the Combat in the Air Reports. These were filed by pilots whenever they had a dogfight, so there is plenty of this style of narrative available for anyone wanting to do a great dates style of dogfight history. Bean is congratulating Cutlack on avoiding that.

Dates are integral to history, after all, it is the study of what happened and when, but this raises the issue of narrative and how to approach the telling of history in such a way as to impart knowledge to the reader in a manner that is compelling rather than soporific.

I feel for those researching Aboriginal history as the written word is exceptionally minimal and the primary sources cannot be quoted to support the history. Since I am recording an early 20thC event there was not only written records, bureaucratically collected data, personal diaries, etc; but there was also photographs and in one rare occasion video.

Primary sources become an important part of the narrative. They allow the participants to tell their story in their own words and have it placed into a wider historical context by the author.

For instance this repatriation report by Lt Rintoul shows how effective the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany had been in limiting food supply by late 1918 - Germany was on the point of starvation;

was then in turn taken to the following lagers - Karlsruhe (1 month), where the treatment was considerate. Landshut, Bavaria (6 Weeks), where I met Lieutenant Flight and Lieutenant Feez (now repatriated). There the treatment was harsh. Fort Prince Karl Ingolstadt (3 weeks) with French Officers. Fort Ten (1 month) in the same district, where we had fair treatment although on one occasion we were fired upon by German sentries, for cheering three re-captured prisoners. Kamatigall (East Prussia) 6 weeks until the Armistice was signed when all restrictions were withdrawn.

Food was very bad, but the Red Cross parcels were good though not too regular, being occasionally held up owing to German methods. Medical treatment was bad, also the sanitary arrangements.

Or this quote by Captain John Wright on the Sopwith Snipe which adds first person data and experience to the historical controversy over whether the Sopwith Snipe was an improvement over the Sopwith Camel;

They [Sopwith Snipe] were of slightly more robust construction than the Camel, but were a little less maneuverable. However. their rate of climb was better than the Camel, a ceiling of 15,000 feet could be reached in 30 minutes, a Camel took upwards of 45 minutes.

Then there becomes the problem of who's story are you telling? Is it your story? Is it the nation's? Is it those that took part in that history as individuals or as a group? The title of the history gives insight into how it was approached but sometimes the data and primary sources leave the historian in a conundrum of which way to approach it.

A good example is the nomenclature of the AFC squadrons. The AFC used the British logistics and book-keeping in the Middle East and Europe. While there was an AFC Headquarters, the AFC used the British Wings for data processing and archival.

Australia raised No.1 Squadron at Point Cook and then sent them off to Egypt to be equipped with combat aircraft from British supplies. The Royal Flying Corps [RFC] stamped this squadron as 67 Sqn RFC in their book-keeping.

There were a couple of reasons for this; one, to avoid confusion with the No.1 Sqn RFC which was currently in France, but two, because many in the RFC command though Australia was raising a dominion squadron for the RFC, rather than an AFC squadron for the Australian Imperial Force [AIF].

This is much like the Article XV squadrons from WWII which came from the Empire Air Training Scheme [EATS] where Australian pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] were grouped into Royal Air Force [RAF] squadrons and given RAAF designations in the RAF nomenclature. Confusing. Especially as many of these Article XV squadrons were Australian in name only and half their air and ground crew complement in some cases were English, Canadian, New Zealand etc.

To make matters worse in the AFC nomenclature, the Australian book-keeping was less than rigorous and the AFC raised two "2nd Flying Squadrons" at the same time. One in Egypt and one in Victoria. Once this error was discovered, the squadron in Egypt was named 2 Sqn, while the one in Victoria was named 3 Sqn. This is despite the Victorian squadron being raised before the Egyptian one.

Then the British slotted those squadrons into their book-keeping, and they called No.2 Sqn AFC in their records No.68 Sqn RFC. No.3 Sqn AFC became known in the British records as No.69 Sqn RFC. A similar thing occurred when Australia raised a fourth AFC squadron for combat in France.

Once the Australian civil and military leadership found out that Britain had renamed their squadrons they immediately complained. The Australian leadership in WWI was very protective of the national character of their forces and would not allow the British to transfer Australian pilots to British squadrons.

Unlike the Canadians and New Zealanders who allowed the RFC to recruit directly in their forces, the Australians would only allow infantry and lighthorse to join the AFC. This is in direct contrast to WWII when Australian civil and military leadership in most instances handed over sovereignty of their forces to the British - the EATS being the dominant example.

After the Australian complaints the British relented a little and decided that the Australian units would be known as Australian Flying Corps, but they would keep the British numbering. So;

• No. 67 RFC became No.67 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 68 RFC became No.68 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 69 RFC became No.69 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 71 RFC became No.71 AFC in British book-keeping

Yet to the AIF these units were known as No.1 through 4 squadrons AFC. The numbering still wasn't to the Australian leadership's satisfaction so they continued to complain and finally the RFC relented. British and Australian book-keeping finally came into synchronisation;

• No. 67 AFC became No.1 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 68 AFC became No.2 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 69 AFC became No.3 AFC in British book-keeping
• No. 71 AFC became No.4 AFC in British book-keeping

The damage had been done. When you go through the Australian Nominal Roll, the air and ground crew in it are recorded as being in every possible unit from No.67 to No.1 to AFC, RFC, etc. This is in addition to the normal areas of known AFC members being mistakenly recorded in machine gun Battalions etc.

So, apart from recording the controversy over nomenclature, what is a historian to do?

I took the stance that I am writing on the AFC from their perspective, so the AFC nomenclature is dominant. On the AFC pages I call the squadrons by their AIF and AFC names.

I am backed up in this by Richard Williams who wrote on the issue in his diary;

Neither AIF Headquarters in Egypt nor 5th Wing RFC there was aware of our imminent arrival although 5th Wing had advice of the formation of a squadron in Australia which would join his command and be known as No.67 (Australian) Squadron, RFC. There was no more authority for calling us a squadron of the RFC than there was, for example, for calling the 9th Battalion AIF the 23rd Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment.

This was what might be called a "flow-on" of the wish expressed in London that Dominion personnel should serve in the RFC and it took much correspondence before we were referred to by the RFC in official correspondence (in January 1918) as No.1 Squadron Australian Flying Corps

And Williams again on the issue;

About this time too, we were advised that henceforth we would be known officially as No.1 Squadron Australian Flying Corps - it had taken almost two years to get rid of the RFC No.67 and even this was for some unexplained reason done in two bites, for during 1917 an AIF order stated that we were to be known as No.67 Australian Flying Corps. I cannot imagine who was clever enough to work out a reason for that.

A friend of mine is researching Combat in the Air Reports in the RFC, RNAS, RAF and AFC for World War I. He has discovered combat reports from No.2 Sqn AFC that have been filed under No.2 Sqn RAF. So the issue is never simple.

But all I have learned, and the approaches I have had to take, are the right ones for the subject in my opinion. I have come to them independently without academic or political guidance which suggests neither is necessary to be a historian or recorder and narrator of history.

This has led to my narrative on No.2 Squadron's history. This includes dates, primary sources, historical narrative that is neither grandiloquent or unappreciative. I think it tells Australian history well without any academic or political baggage.

I bought Arthur Herman's To Rule The Waves which is a study of how the Royal Navy, and their blue water control of the oceans laid the way for the British Empire but also the modern lasse-faire trading system and globalisation. An Australian book, The Navy and the Nation covers similar territory with John Reeves describing the RAN as being part of the Lucky League which is the modern day version of the Royal Navy's dominance.

Herman's other book, How the Scots Invented the Modern World is fascinating and one of my favourite historical texts. Consequently I found his discussion of his approach to history in the introduction fascinating;

The job of an historian is not just to recount or explain the past but to show things have come to be what they are.

Herman makes that job easier by his choice of subjects; for instance the Scottish Enlightenment and the Royal Navy, both pivotal changes in the structure of social organisation.

But there is much history that is niche and of minority interest. It doesn't fit in the narrative of a grand history, if anything, most of these niche histories lack a modern voice and are in great danger of being forgotten for lack of interest - my own site on the Australian Flying Corps fits into this style.

Friends of ours were displaying their art at Artomatic in Alexandria, VA; and last night was the artist's opening night, which we got invited to. Lots of colourful and beautiful work on display. Very sumptuous visually. We met a fellow who told us that the building used to be the US Patent Office or archives, and when the Patent Office moved it threw out all the old patent documents.

He tried to get them to archive them all, and then he sued them, and was successful, but this didn't change anything, so he went to the NY Times. Unfortunately I cannot find the article, but he said it was on the front page of the newspaper.

In the end the Patent Office didn't bother maintaining the paper archives, they digitised them in low resolution, which omits much of the detail and doesn't show the pencil comments from the patent officers.

Anyway, this fellow had a folder of them which he was showing to people there since the art displays were in the old Patent Offices. I held in my hands, and read last night, a 1913 patent from the Wright Brothers for a device to move a rudder on an aircraft. I also looked at patents from Thomas Edison for an 1893 electro-magnetic engine and a movie camera.

I am a sucker for technology and history - consequently, despite my opinion of patents and the monopoly they offer, I thought it was pretty cool.

The questions for the citizenship test are a waste of time and effort. It is feel good politics that adds to the overhead of an individual being in sync with the asinine bureaucratic machinations of the nation-state. One of the questions is who was the first Prime Minister of Australia. The multiple choice questions do not impart any of the drama that went into that episode of Australian history.

The options are: a. Sir Edmund Barton, b. Sir Henry Parkes, c. John Curtin and d. Sir Robert Menzies.

When the Commonwealth was established it was up to the new Governor-General to ask a politician to form the first government. The Earl of Hopetoun was the first Governor-General and had previously served as the Governor of Victoria.

It was assumed that Edmund Barton would be asked to form the first government, instead Hopetoun asked William Lyne, the NSW Premier. It made sense, NSW was the biggest colony and Lynne was leading the government in that colony, but the federalists would not have a bar of it. Lynne had originally told Barton he would not try to form a government, but try he did.

The federalists such as Deakin declined to form government under Lynne, who was forced to ask Hopetoun to request that Barton form a government. Lynne did serve in the Barton Cabinet but after Deakin took over Australian politics with the Fusion Party, a forerunner to the Liberal Party, Lynne was on the outer and denounced Deakin. Lynne died soon after losing his seat in 1913.

Multiple choice citizenship tests do such a great job at pointing out how diverse, interesting and rich Australian history is (not).

Via Laurent Guerby and Finance VOX is a paper on an options based contract from 1298. In reality it makes sense that the medieval era would develop a financial technology such as this, as so much of the costs of a transaction were unknown.

Options trading is basically where two parties agree to conduct a transaction, within a time period, once certain criteria in the future is met. Since water and horse transport were not so reliable as the transport ships and petrol semi-trailers of the modern economy, it makes sense to have these kinds of contracts.

From the article:

This paper studies a contract signed in 1298 between a famous merchant genois, Benedetto Zaccaria, and two financial genois them-also, Enrico Suppa and Baliano Grillo. This contract is a genuine turn of force. This contract impassioned us and its reading, for it holds some beautiful surprises.

In particular, the reader will be able to note how much the options, real or financial, are omnipresent. They constitute the spinal column of the contract and allow him to fulfill the many functions of which the demands of the time needed clearly.

Once you get past the 'great man' or 'great dates' telling of history and delve into the day to day lives of the vast majority of those who have made a living on this planet, then you end up amazed at the sheer depth and breadth of human innovation. This is another example.

I recently finished Ghenghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. I am always a bit nervous of 'great dates and great men' style histories as they often claim every minute historical point is pivotal. Arthur Hermann has a habit of writing that style of history. It doesn't detract from them as useful historical texts but they sometimes lean into hyperbole. Does the Mongol Empire have a claim to making the modern world?

Firstly, the book is very well written in a modern, easy to read style. The sentences are calm on the eye and not overly complex. It tracks the history of Temujin through his youth until he becomes the Great Leader [Ghengis Khan] and then slowly expands his military dominance south into China and west into Turkey.

The Mongols were a steppes people descended from the Huns and consequently their military was entirely cavalry. The Persian, Muslim and European armies were infantry based and the Mongols had specific tactics which tired the heavy knights while bombarding the infantry from horseback beyond the range of western weaponry. They went through Hungary and Russia like a dose of salts.

Under Ghengis' expansion the Mongols collapsed the trading routes into a smaller number which they guarded. This increased trade. The Mongol bureaucracy also removed the taxes, tolls and extortions along the trade routes which had hindered trade in the past. This put China in direct trading contact with the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

As the Mongols were cavalry based they often removed or destroyed farming areas so that the land would return to pasture and enable them to graze in the future as they passed through on military campaigns or to put down an uprising/revolution. The pastures became their supply depots. This was important logistically as a Mongol soldier had five horses with him which supplied fresh horses for travel, battle and food.

The Mongols had freedom of religion and their 'court' contained Pagans, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists. It was only in the very end of the Mongol Empire when black plague was decimating it that they made Buddhism their state religion. Their laws were also secular which placed them at odds with the legal order of the Middle East and Europe.

The next series of innovations from the Mongols was after Ghengis' death and the consolidation of Khubilai Khan in China. Because of the large multi-ethnic territory the empire covered there was several bureaucratic innovations; including printing presses for public data as well as books on public interest such as farming, criminal law etc.

Khubilai introduced a more liberal penal code in Sung China which reduced executions to single figures annually and required reason (investigation) before torture to get confessions. Khubilai also introduced a parole system where released offenders had to report to authorities periodically. Another innovation was devolution of power by establishing local councils and paid civil servants which minimised tyranny and extortion that had been present in the Chinese state system prior to the Mongols.

Did the Mongol Empire make the modern world?

Like Rome, its main benefit was the Pax Mongolica or Pax Tartarica which removed political violence along a large swathe of Eurasia. This increased trade between Europe, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, China and the Steppes. Technologies and goods went back and forth with relative ease. The Mongols reduced the number of trade routes and then guarded them, limiting banditry and other violence such as economic extortion. Because of the length of the trade routes and the cost of transporting weight they introduced paper money but this did not survive political turmoil in the Mongol Empire and coin became common again.

The book does bust many myths. Especially the barbarian myth which took root in the 18thC and 19thC as race became 'scientific' where non-science like eugenics and the organisation principle of ethnic-nationalism became popular. The definition of the 'mongoloid' as birth defect comes from this era.

The Mongol Empire is quite remarkable for what was a tribal group which was open to any technology it came across, whether for war or the functions of state. They were obviously a tough and tactically innovative people too. It is interesting to see that the Mongol Empire was more liberal than the Middle East, China, Japan and Europe of the time.