Western History 174: Who are the Ten Greatest Classical Composers of all-Time?

When researching the music background to answer this question I was pleasantly surprised by a stark realization. Many of the composers who we would ordinarily regard as Classical are in fact part of others eras namely the Baroque and the Romantic. This distinction is often overlooked.

The Baroque period preceded the Classical era and corresponds with the time period between 1600–1750. It was during this era that we witness the work of Johann Sebastian Bach, George Fredric Handel, Jean-Baptise Lully and Claudio Monteverdi. Opera was born in the Baroque era and there was a larger use of keyboard instrumentation and small ensemble work.

The Romantic Period covers the time between 1800 and 1910 and includes the compositions of Johannes Brahms, Antonín Dvořák, Frederick Delius, Franz Liszt, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Edvard Grieg, Gustav Mahler, Frédéric Chopin, Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann, Louis-Hector Berlioz and the great opera composers Giuseppe Verdi, Giacomo Puccini and Georges Bizet. The era is exemplified by its expressive and emotionally driven music.

So where do the Classical composers fit in? Well the Western Classical era is taken as the period between 1730–1820 giving it an overlap at the bookends with each of the other two periods. The period had many great musicians but any top ten list would have to include Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven as #1 and #2, followed by Joseph Haydn and Franz Schubert. To this list I would add Gioachino Rossini, Johann Cannabich (of Mannheim orchestra fame), Niccolò Paganini, Johann Hummel (an important transition figure to the Romantic Period), Christoph Gluck and Johann Christian Bach.

Ludwig van Beethoven source: Gramophone

Joseph Haydn source: the Guardian.com

Mozart - looking really chill. source: San Diego Symphony

Classical music has a distinct style that differs from that of Baroque. It has a lighter feel to it, and uses distinct melodies. It also makes use of large orchestras than its predecessor. In addition the piano replaces the harpsichord with the symphony growing in influence.

Additional Reading:

Julian Rushton, Classical Music, London 1994.

What was the significance of the Marshall Plan?

 My answer on Quora.

The European Recovery Program (ERP) or Marshall Plan was important in that it helped expedite the rebuilding of Europe after the Second World War, stabilized the economies of many of the war torn areas and in the long run improved conditions in a way that provided less fertile ground for the spread of Communism. It didn’t come cheaply though.

Eastern European countries were tempted but Uncle Joe kept them in line. Source: Cartoons by Leslie Gilbert Illingworth

Although the Marshall Plan was focused on Europe there was a similar plan initiated by the US for Asia.

It took effect over a period of four years (1948–1952) and was responsible for the lessening of trade restrictions, the removal of excessive regulations and the formalization of better business practices that were more conducive to economic growth in recipient nations.

Marshall Plan versus Iraq/Afghanistan expenditure. The former offered a better return on investment than the latter. Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Great Britain , France, Italy and West Germany were the largest recipients of the aid associated with the plan, which in the face of Soviet push back was rejected by almost all Eastern European countries.

The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) was established by the USSR and her satellite countries in 1949 as a counter to the Marshall Plan.

Source: Phoenix Gazette, 1949

Needless to say some critics on the left and right have challenged the notion of the Marshall Plan’s efficacy as well as its expense (no pleasing everyone) but in the grand scheme of things it certainly played a role in formalizing the economic divide (and ideological battle) that would develop as the timeline of the Cold War unfolded.

Truman Doctrine/Marshall Aid Source: John D Clare

What happened to the colonies of countries that were annexed in WW2?

 (Asked on Quora. My answer).

These would be the colonies of three countries - France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Portugal and Spain were neutral during WWII.

France: Most of France’s colonial Empire was initially controlled by the collaborationist Vichy Government (headed by Petain and Laval) following its formation in July 1940. Morocco, Southern Algeria and all of France’s West African possessions fall into this category. Tunisia was more formerly controlled by the Axis powers.

However this vast area, including Tunisia, would eventually be taken over by the Allies and handed over to the Free French following Operation Torch in November 1942–May 1943. Northern Algeria also fell under the domain of Free France after Torch, but it was considered part of Metropolitan France (French Algeria).

Most of France’s Central African possessions plus Chad were administered by the Free French after September 1940. The Free French would later acquire Gabon, Syria and Madagascar (all three before Operation Torch).

French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) was taken over by the Japanese in two stages from the Vichy French starting in September 1940 (the North) and ending in July 1941 (the Rest).

French zones in India and China proper fell under the jurisdiction of the Free French who also administered territory in South America (French Guiana), the Caribbean, the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The same was true of French territory around Newfoundland. French Somaliland (Djibouti) was formerly returned to the Free French in 1943.

Belgium - The Belgium Congo and other Belgium controlled regions in Africa (Rwanda and Burundi) remained loyal to the Free Belgium government.

The Netherlands- The Free Dutch government administered Suriname and the Netherland’s Caribbean possessions. However the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) fell to Japanese forces in early 1942. It was liberated in 1945. In the interim it was part of the vast expanse of Japanese controlled territory intended to sustain the Tokyo dominated Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

How did World War One Begin? Who started it?

 My answer on Quora.

This isn’t an easy question to answer with a few sentences as the mechanisms that resulted in WWI predate it by close to half a century. Having said that I do offer an overall summation you can fast forward to the end of this answer.

Until then…lets look at the chain of events that occurred. Once again the devil is in the detail.

World War One (WWI), the Great War or the War to End All Wars was one of the most devastating events in the history of Western Civilization. It brought down the Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires, forever changed the fortunes of Britain, France and Germany and allowed the United States to emerge globally as both an economic and military force.

Ideologically it set the stage for Communism, Islamism and Fascism and by its large footprint on International Geopolitics set in motion the Second World War and the Cold War.

To appreciate the origins of WWI we need to go back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 that ultimately provided the groundwork for the unification of Germany, the Embarrassment of France and a growing sense of animosity and fear that would colour relations between the fledgling German State and the newly founded French Third Republic.

Otto von Bismarck - Father of the newly formed German State and nemesis of France source: Britannica

In 1879 French fears about further German aggression were highlighted by the signing of the Dual Alliance treaty between Germany and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Three years later a newly unified Italy would add its name to the agreement transforming it into a Triple Alliance. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a polyglot grouping of several nationalities many of which were yearning for independence.

Germany was solidifying her position in Europe and further made her colonial ambitions clear during the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 that somewhat arrogantly divided Africa among competing European interests.

In 1887 German-Russian cooperation was reaffirmed (on paper) with the Reinsurance Treaty but this would prove to be the last masterwork of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck but was dismissed in 1890 by the expansionist focused young monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II who had ascended to the throne only two years prior.

Kaiser Wilhem II source: history.com

The French responded to the German initiatives by adopting a policy of Revanchism whose aim was to recover lost territory and counter the German threat. The Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 was signed in this regard.

However there were concerns on the horizon. The Anglo-German Naval Arms Race was underway from 1898 and this would escalate further when the HMS Dreadnought entered service for the Royal Navy in 1906.

Britain had ended her Splendid Isolation in 1902 by signing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. London’s global footprint had been stretched during the Anglo-Boer war (1899–1902) and there was an obvious concern about German meddling that had become a reality in this protracted conflict. In 1904 Britain and France would bury the old hatchet by signing the Entente Cordiale.

HMS Dreadnought - A key player in the Naval Arms Race source: Thoughtco

Following her embarrassing defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 the Tsarist regime took a turn westward by building on the agreement signed with France, entering into the Anglo-Russian Entente with Britain in 1907.

Europe was now divided into two camps. The Triple Allliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the Triple Entente (UK, France and Russia). The Germans had also cultivated a strong relationship with the Ottoman Empire.

There was somewhat of a distinction though between the two camps with the former having more of a military framework than that of the latter.

More unease was to follow. The First Moroccan Crisis (aka Tangier Crisis) reignited tension between France and Germany in 1906 despite the fact that the dispute was largely settled at the Algeciras Conference. A Second Moroccan Crisis (aka Agadir Crisis) followed soon in the wake of Germany flexing her naval strength in 1911.

Fortunately neither one of these volatile occurrences erupted into a broader conflict at the time. This was not the case though with other regional conflicts such as the Italian-Turkish War (an Italian victory that was cemented by the Treaty of Lausanne) or the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 that further weakened the Ottoman Empire and reignited the explosive keg that was the Eastern Question.

Nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including those within the Turkish core of the Ottoman Empire (the Young Turks had seized power in 1912). These would serve to draw both the Triple Alliance and the Entente into a spiralling chain of events that far exceeded the Great Game rivalry of the previous century.

On the 28th of June 1914, the Austria-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo by Bosnian Serb Nationalist Gavrilo Princip. Princip had been trained by the Black Hand movement that was eager to win independence from Vienna for Bosnia Serbian interests. Although he insisted that he acted independently the Austrian-Hungarians believed that the entire episode was orchestrated by the government of Serbia proper.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand source: History.com

What followed was a sequence of events known as the July Crisis. Austria-Hungary ended her ‘policy of patience’ and was granted a ‘Blank Cheque’ by Germany to take a hard line against Serbia even in the face of Russian opposition (the Russians were the historic backers of Serbia).

On the 23rd of July 1914 Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia with stringent demands that Belgrade come clean about its involvement in the assassination and end all Independence related activity or face military action. This was coordinated with the German Foreign Office. Russia cautioned Serbia against accepting such an ultimatum.

Russian troops started to mobilize and on July 25th Austria-Hungary broke off relations with Serbia. Three days later war was declared against Serbia.

At this point Britain, represented by Sir Edward Grey, was still tending towards neutrality but the Austrian-Hungarians were mobilizing in the face of a Russian threat. Germany called in vain for Russia to back down and on August 1st began mobilizing as well. Further requests went out from Britain and France for Germany to respect the neutrality of Belgium.

With no positive response from Germany. France began to mobilize on the 1st of August (an incredibly busy day) Germany declared war on Russia. A day later Germany entered into a military agreement with the Ottoman Empire.

On August 3rd Germany declared war on France and refused to respect Belgium’s neutrality. After much heated debate Britain made the fateful decision to declare war on Germany on August 4th as Berlin hurried to implement the Schlieffen Plan.

Germany’s Two pronged Schlieffen plan that was intended to knock out the French then the Russians. In practice it bogged down in France/Belgium but was more successful in the East Source: Big Think

By August 6th Japan had declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Italy would withdraw from the Triple Alliance choosing to remain neutral for now (they would later fight on the same side as the Entente nations).

The Lights had finally gone out in Europe. The Great War had begun. Nobody could have imagined at the time the future horrors that awaited.

In the final summation…Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire would be known as the Central Powers. Britain (her Empire), France, Japan, Russia, Serbia, Belgium plus Italy were termed the Allies.

System of Alliances source: WorldWar I vault

So who then was to blame for the War?

There is no doubt that the German Kaiser Wilhelm II was extremely belligerent in his foreign policy not to mention the Naval Race and had definitely upset the extra-territorial balance agreed to in Berlin in 1885 by his actions in both Moroccan Crises. It was clear from the Schlieffen Plan that Germany viewed the war as both a winnable and indeed a necessary option to further such ambitions on the continent. The harshness of the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) that followed Russian withdrawal from WWI would highlight this in the future.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (a tremendous land grab by Germany) source: Mental Floss

The Kaiser upped the ante by offering Austria-Hungary a Blank Cheque in support of a hard line stance against Serbia and then rapidly declared war on both Russia and France negating all attempts at a diplomatic solution. In addition Germany deliberately ignored the notion of Belgium neutrality thereby precipitating a radical escalation of events by forcing Britain into making a very difficult decision.

As for the Austria-Hungarians and the Ottomans the War represented a last ditch attempt to hang on to multicultural Empires that had long since past their expiry dates and would be swept aside by Nationalistic sentiments. They both hitched their wagons to the German train and would ultimately be undone by the folly of the Kaiser.

However the Russians are not without blame here either. Their decision to mobilize early during the July Crisis certainly impacted the turn of events triggering security concerns within the Entente. Together with the Kaiser’s actions the Tsar helped transform a regional Balkan conflict into a much broader war.

French insecurity, a perpetual theme since 1870, was also a factor that fueled the march toward insanity. The Gallic power was obsessed with checking German ambitions on the continent and this was reflected with the Franco-Russian Alliance. From a German perspective the obvious realization of encirclement by the forces of two great forces (possibly joined by a third in Britain) was not to be discounted.

As for the British, they too like the French were relentless in safeguarding their colonial interests. Both were members of an elite club and it was clear that there was no-room for Johnny-came-lately Germany at the table. London and Paris would only tolerate limited German ambitions across the globe.

The tragedy though for Britain is that they could have avoided the war on the continent by not choosing not to enforce the notion of Belgium neutrality. This of course flies in the face of Britain’s international treaty commitments, but in retrospect considering the horror that the war inflicted on Britain (almost one million deaths) plus the subsequent weakening of its economy and global clout this may have been a smaller price to pay. It is not uncommon to view British decline as beginning with its ill-fated decision to enter the war.

Source: Statista

Further Readings

The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman (1962)

The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson (2000)

Western History 173: How Extensive was the British Empire by 1815?

There is no Empire in the history of humanity that has controlled as much area at the height of its power than that of the British. At its apex in 1920 it enjoyed dominion over territory in excess of 35 million square kilometres making it 48% larger than the second placed Mongol Empire. In total land area the British Empire was three times greater than the contemporary Second French Empire and more than double the the old Spanish Empire that reached its zenith in 1810. At its peak the British Empire had a population in excess of four hundred million people representing 23% of the world population and 27% of its land area. It had holdings on all of the continents.

 By 1815 The Empire was gaining clout but was still not behemoth that it would eventually become.

British Empire source: BBC.com

The Empire’s origins date back to the Age of Exploration and the follow-up that characterized the Elizabethan Era. British claims to North America were initiated with the voyage of John Cabot in 1497. The Statute of Restraints in Appeal in 1533 - that was the foundation of the English Reformation -  laid down the gauntlet for English exploration and ultimately colonization of North America – by declaring that the realm of the continent  was ‘the domain of England’. In a sense it was almost an early version of Manifest Destiny.

English shipping, piracy and the Atlantic Slave trade would fuel the drive with the eventual establishment of the Thirteen Colonies in North America starting in 1607. Trading companies, such as the Hudson Bay would further catalyze the outreach with merchant shipping and trading serving as an active agent of Empire.  Explorers and adventures would often push inland from coastal settlements further expanding the frontiers of empire

British settlements  in the Caribbean (St. Kitts, Nevis, Barbados, St. Lucia, etc) functioned primarily as sources for Sugar Plantations. At the same time  there was an extensive rivalry with Portugal, Spain, France and The Netherlands in particular, for control over the lucrative spice trade. This played a key role in furthering exploration and settlement initiatives in South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean.

However it was in the 18^th century that the Empire expanded  significantly - gaining Newfoundland, Acadia (both in Modern day Canada), Gibraltar and Menorca - following the War of the Spanish Succession. Spain also forfeited the rights to the Asiento to Britain,  and with it the permission to sell for profit slaves to the Americas.  More territorial acquisition would follow from later British triumphs in India  most notably the victory of Robert Clive victory at Plassey in 1757. These occurred in the wake of a crumbling Mughal Empire. Later gains in Quebec were cemented by the Treaty of Paris that ended the Seven Years War in 1763.

Nevertheless there were setbacks to the overall pattern of territory acquisition. The loss of the Thirteen American Colonies following the Revolutionary War of 1783 was the most noteworthy of these occurrences. However the downside was somewhat ameliorated by a change in British economic thinking, that had shifted in favour of Adam Smith’s notion of free trade and against the mercantilism creed, that viewed colonies and resources building as a zero sum game.

The 18^th century though was also noted for its deep voyages of exploration that were exemplified by the missions of James Cook and his charting of the East Coast of Australia (the coast itself had been discovered by the Dutch though in 1606). These voyages often contained a scientific contingent that would investigate the suitability of newly discovered territory for settlement. 

It was on Cook’s recommendation that Botany Bay was selected for a Penal Colony that became a reality in 1788. Cook would also visit New Zealand claiming both North and South Islands in 1769-1770 for the Crown outflanking others including the Dutch who under the seamanship of  Abel Tasman had first sighted the islands in 1642.

The Voyages of James Cook. Cook was killed in Hawaii in 1779. Source: Britannica

The Napoleonic Wars (1804-1815) provided Britain with another opportunity for expansion of Empire  and they acted accordingly by taking control of the Cape Colony in Modern day South Africa from the Dutch. The chief rationale was the safeguarding of  the sea route to India against the threat of French meddling. This would have consequences for the future.

The Cape Colony in 1806  (The Year it was taken over by the British. This was confirmed by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814). Source: David Rumsey Maps

·         Population Source: Maddison, Angus (2001). The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ISBN 978-92-64-18608-8. Retrieved 22 July2009.

How did the Magna Carta affect the power of the king?

 (Asked on Quora). Here is my answer.

The Magna Carta was signed on the 15th of June 1215 by the English king John (aka Lackland) and the rebel barons at Runnymede (at a location near to Windsor Castle). The agreement was revolutionary in that it went beyond the standard grievances to provide a framework for political reform and the safeguarding of rights of free men (not serfs). A recourse to swift justice, opposition to illegal imprisonment and restrictions on taxation and feudal payments were the mainstay of the Great Charter. Its long term effect was to limit monarchical power.

The Signing of the Magna Carta source: Britannica

Nevertheless as a political treaty in the immediate it was largely a failure. John used a clause from an earlier agreement to win over a rebuke of the treaty by Pope Innocent III. This expedited its demise as a working agreement and necessitated the onset of the First Baron War (1215–1217).

John himself would pass away in 1216 and but what followed in the wake of the original agreement were various versions of the charter in 1216, 1217, 1225 and 1297. These had the cumulative impact of further entrenching the ethos of the original charter in English political and legal theory.

It was the Charter that underpinned the notion of “Due Process of Law” - a phrase that was coined under the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). During the War of the Roses (1455–1487) it was regularly cited with a mechanically printed edition becoming available in 1508.

The English jurist Edward Coke who was highly influential during the reign of James I (1603-1625) made extensive use of the Carta which he used to advance the idea of the Petition of Right. This forms the basis for Individual protection against the power of the state and plays a significant role in the US Constitution (3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments).

The Magna Carta source: History.com

The Magna Carta was regularly cited in the political upheaval of the 17th and 18th centuries to argue against the divine right of kings and was effectively used to argue against the position of Charles I during the time of the English Civil War. It would also play a role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and greatly influenced the American Revolution and of the course the thinking of the American Founding fathers.

Within a contemporary context today the Magna Carta plays both a legacy and a living role as exemplified by Clause XXIX shown here:

‘NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land,”

Western History 172: What was Hegel's philosophy of history?

 G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) was the leading philosopher of the German idealist school. He follows on from Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) who developed the ‘idea of the absolute ego’ within the context of the spirit of German nationalism. Hegel incorporated this idea into his philosophy but took it much further.

Hegel departed from Kant in believing whatever is, is essentially knowable. For him there were no limits to what was knowable as is summarised in the phrase “The Real is Rational, and the Rational is Real’”

In Hegel’s view the world was a gigantic organism that is dynamic. Everything is related and inter-connected. He saw history as evolving along a triadic structure - the Dialectic. This involved two opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) resolving itself into a synthesis, that in turn would form the thesis for the next iteration of thesis-antithesis resolution. In so doing he pictured history marching on toward an ultimate synthesis or absolute Idea/Ego (which he borrowed from Fichte).

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel source; The times

German history for example was a dynamic tug-of-war between Kant/Post-Kantian idealism (thesis) and Christianity (antithesis). Hegel saw this in a synthesis representing German Romanticism that would manifest itself in a grand entity. For Hegel this was the Prussian super state.

He spoke about this notion as well in his Philosophy of Right (1821) where he fused the ideas of the stoics and their idea of universally binding conduct (thesis), with Rousseau’s morality, that believed that right or wrong was dictated ultimately by individual conscious.

Hegel’s social ethics synthesis argues that the idea of right must be held by the society as a whole. It was not abstract (his chief criticism of the stoics) and must be expressed in the General Will (taken from Rousseau) - the State

Hegel in many ways is the Father of the modern left. His dialectic underpins Marxist thought and his influence on the Fabians in the UK and the Progressives in the US is profound.

For Hegel history has direction and is never static. He saw it as having an end goal that was inevitable. The function of the state was to direct history towards that ideal. History is essentially the story of the march of reason toward the ideal. Reaching the ideal is possible. In the Hegelian worldview history has a right (or forward moving) side to it which is a sentiment all too often echoed in Progressive thinking.

As for the individual Hegel saw it as a unit (part of a jigsaw) that has meaning only as part of the broader picture. This bears sharp contrast to Scottish Enlightenment thinking and its emphasis on individual rights but for Hegel it makes sense. He was a monist and a believer in one totality. For him the Truth was the system and the movement toward the ideal should govern all aspects of the Zeitgeist (Time-Spirit).

Cartoon Source: Philosophy Now.

How did the Soviets win the Race to place a man in orbit?

(My answer on Quora)

They were extremely committed to the task and utilized the skill sets at their disposal and the resources available effectively.

A great deal of Soviet success with respect to their Space Program is a consequence of the actions of this man: Sergei Korolev.

Korolev played a key role in the development of Sputnik I (1957) and Yuri Gargarin’s Vostok I flight in 1961. He was the father of the Soviet Space program (and indeed of the science of astronautics) and its ICBM initiatives.

Korolev passed away prematurely in 1966 which some believe handicapped Soviet aspirations with respect to a manned moon landing. Such was his clout. In a sense he was the Soviet version of Werner von Braun.

However it is important to note as well that the Soviet Space Program had more than its fair share of German scientists that gave them their own version of a Project Paperclip. It was the Soviets who captured the German V1 and V2 missile development and production locale at Peenemünde during World War Two (although production by this time had been moved to Nordhausen).

Beginning in October 1946 the Soviets moved over 6,000 technical specialists and their families to the Soviet Union in a coordinated drive known as Operation Osoaviakhim. They would be relocated at a site about 250 km from Moscow.

In doing so the Soviets had at their disposal the brainpower of such luminaries as Siegfried Günter (developed the first rocket-powered turbojet airframe), Friederich Asinger (a renowned chemist) and Ferdinand Brandner (father of the Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop) plus others (Brunolf Baade, Erich Apel).

The Soviet’s also had at their beck and call another brilliant German, Helmut Gröttrup whose team worked under Korolev would develop a knack for reverse engineering German rocket designs. The R-1 for example has its origin in the German A-4.

Helmut Gröttrup (Besides being an incredible rocket engineer he would later go into to develop the smart card system used in credit cards) Image source: collectspace

In 1947 the Soviets started their ICBM program to counter American strengths in this early phase of the Cold War and the spin offs that accrued energized their space program.

From the get go there is no understating Soviet commitment and indeed in 1955 they established a commission whose chief purpose was to guarantee a Soviet win in the race to place a person in Earth orbit.

Korolev would head this initiative (indeed it was likely his brainchild). A great deal of effort was undertaken to ensure secrecy although the Soviets were selective in releasing pertinent information especially with respect to the Sputnik missions for propaganda purposes.

Success was forthcoming. The R-7 launch provided impetus for Sputnik I on October 4th 1957 as the Soviets pushed ahead in firing the first shots of the Space War. It was the first artificial satellite placed in Earth orbit.

The US would have to catch up and they stumbled initially with the Vanguard failure on the 6th December 1957 (it was broadcast live on TV). However the Americans would bounce back with the launch of Explorer I in January 1958. On April 2nd of that year NASA was born.

Still the Soviets had the lead. The dog Laika went into orbit with Sputnik II on November 3rd, 1957 (unfortunately she died as a result of stress caused during overheating). In 1960 the dogs Belka and Strelka returned safely from orbit on Sputnik V. The Americans had similar animal success with the chimpanzee Ham who returned safely to Earth on January 31st, 1961 on board Mercury-Roadstone 2.

Worth noting is that the opinion among the NASA elites in 1959 was that the Soviets would win the race to place the first human in orbit. After all they enjoyed a considerable lead in their development program. In this regard they did not disappoint.

Yuri Gargarin source: Yousuf Karsh archive

Using a similar spacecraft bus system that would underpin Zenit Satellite program the Soviets launched Vostok I into orbit on April 12th, 1961. Onboard was the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin . It would orbit the Earth for 108 minutes with Gargarin eventually landing back on Terra Firma with a parachute. His iconic status was born. (sadly he would die in a training jet incident in February 1968 age 34).

The Soviets were clearly ahead in the Space Race for now. Would they win it? Only time would tell. There were many chapters scheduled to unfold.

Source: Neufeld, Michael J. (1996). The Rocket and the Reich. Harvard University Press. ISBN