Operation Barbarossa June 1941

Jun 14, 2010 Michael Streich

Numerous factors led to the German invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941 but the "lighting war" lasted well beyond the winter and ended in disaster for Hitler.

Operation Barbarossa began on June 22, 1941. Three million German soldiers were poised to invade Soviet Russia, breaking the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. The “lightning war” was to achieve its goals swiftly, before the onset of winter. Initially a stunning success, the German advance was broken as Josef Stalin rallied the Russian people in what he called the “Great Fatherland War.” German forces were finally put on the defensive in early 1942 at Stalingrad on the Volga River. Operation Barbarossa was a tremendous blunder for Hitler and helped alienate many top officers.

Why Hitler Ordered the Invasion of Russia

After defeating France, Hitler ordered detailed plans for the invasion of England. The German navy, however, was not up to the task and the plans were postponed. But Hitler never gave up the idea and it was one factor in his decision to attack Russia.

German control of European Russia served several goals. The conquered territory would provide lebensraum, lands on which to resettle Germans. Additionally, Hitler wanted Russian oil, wheat, and other natural resources to extend the overall war effort. This included the postponed invasion of England as well as securing North Africa and Cyprus.

Benito Mussolini’s invasion of Greece was another factor. By drawing Germany into the conflict, German forces had to advance through the Balkans. This created tension with Stalin who viewed the Balkans as a Russian sphere of influence. At the same time, Russia’s poor performance against the Finns gave a false impression of Russian military abilities.

Operation Barbarossa as a Racial War

Once German armies advanced into Russia, they were followed by the Gestapo and the liquidation units of the S.S. Jews and political leaders were exterminated in great numbers, as at Babi Yar outside of Kiev. Long term plans called for using the Slavs as forced laborers. Each republic would be turned into a Reich protectorate. Although the German General Staff, led by General Franz Halder, vigorously objected, they were overruled and in some cases replaced.

Historian Klaus P. Fischer writes that, “Few people realized that Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union was more than a conventional war: it was also a racial-biological war whose ultimate goal was the extermination of the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik intelligentsia.’” In an interview with the German news magazine Spiegel (January 28, 2010), Annette Schucking-Homeyer, who served as a Red Cross volunteer in the Ukraine at the time, says, “we saw German soldiers herding together women and children…There was no doubt that they were about to be shot.”

Failures of Operation Barbarossa

Army Group North, under Field Marshal von Leeb, failed to take Leningrad and link with Finnish forces. Field Marshal von Bock could have taken Moscow, but many of his troops were diverted south into the Ukraine by Hitler. When the Moscow offensive resumed, winter conditions prohibited the Germans from taking the Russian capital. Hitler’s stubborn refusal to evacuate General Paulus at Stalingrad signaled the turning point of the war.

Hitler relied on faulty information before ordering the operation, despite credible evidence that Russia was not as weak as perceived. This was most clear in the number of tanks the Russians actually possessed as well as their quality. On the German side, General Guderian, the father of the German panzer division, warned that Germany did not have enough tanks for the operation.

Historian David MacKenzie wrote that, “Overconfidence and fanaticism caused Hitler and his associates to overlook or fumble golden military and political opportunities.” Russia had many anti-Stalinist groups, notably in the Ukraine. In several cases, they offered their services to fight with the Germans against Stalin. Hitler, however, treated them as POWs and brushed aside their offers. Any goodwill extended to Germans was rapidly eliminated by the actions of the S.S. and the Gestapo.

Effects of the Russian Invasion

After the Stalingrad debacle, the Red Army relentlessly pushed back the Germans. Millions died in the process. Operation Barbarossa also made Russia an ally of Britain. Both nations sent troops into Iran, which had supported Germany. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. found itself a partner with Soviet Russia. By 1945, the Red Army was on the borders of Germany, occupying conquered lands that would come to be called “Eastern Europe.” Berlin itself was taken by the Red Army per agreements made at the Yalta Conference. Operation Barbarossa had many long term consequences that ultimately included the on-set of the Cold War.

References:

• Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (NY: Continuum Publishing Co., 1995)
• Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff (Westview Press, 1985)
• David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1993)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Eisenhower and the Drive to Berlin in 1945

Why the Allies Allowed the Russians to Take the Capital of the Reich

Aug 3, 2009 Michael Streich

In early April 1945, the American 9th Army was within 24 hours of reaching Berlin, yet three days later General Eisenhower ordered the Allied halt at the Elbe River.

In 1949, General Dwight Eisenhower was asked about one of the most controversial decisions made in 1945, the taking of Berlin. Eisenhower’s answer was based on military considerations, yet he conceded that political issues – already agreed to at the earlier Yalta Conference, influenced the decision. Eisenhower’s decision to halt the Allied advance at the Elbe River ultimately supported Soviet domination of what would come to be called “Eastern Europe,” a region separated by what Winston Churchill labeled an “Iron Curtain.” Would the taking of Berlin have changed that?

The Allied Invasion of Nazi Germany 1944-1945

By the fall of 1944, it had become obvious that German resistance was weakening. Aachen became the first German city occupied by allied troops on October 21. Subsequent strategy called for smashing through the Siegfried Line and crossing the Rhine River for the final push to Berlin. Even as allied troops were accomplishing these goals in early 1945, the Soviet army under Marshall Zhukov was closing in on Berlin.

Beginning with Omar Bradley’s 12th Army Group Rhine River crossing on March 7th, the allies spectacularly advanced into the heart of Germany through March and into April 1945. Field Marshall Montgomery’s “Market Garden” operation, though not entirely successful, ultimately resulted in the encirclement of Field Marshall Model’s army group, the last field army to stand between Eisenhower and Berlin.

But on March 28th, Eisenhower changed the plan. Although nothing stood between the Allies and Berlin, army groups were ordered to secured the Baltic port cities like Lubeck, as well as moving into the Leipzig-Dresden area where German war industrialization was still in progress. The British were outraged; Field Marshall Montgomery stated afterward that he could have taken Berlin before the Russians.

Effects of Eisenhower’s Decision

Eisenhower reasoned that the Russians were only 35 miles from Berlin while the bulk of his forces were 285 miles from the German capital. Additionally, taking Berlin might have cost 100,000 lives. Finally, Eisenhower was under pressure to end the European war quickly so that resources could be diverted to the Pacific theater.

It is also a fact, however, that American advance units were already in Potsdam and General William Simpson’s 9th US Army had crossed the Elbe River. Simpson later wrote that, using the German autobahn, his army could have been in Berlin in 24 hours. The Russians, in contrast, had not yet crossed the Oder River. In essence, American units were only 53 miles from Berlin on April 11th.

On April 12, however, Franklin Roosevelt collapsed and died. This act of destiny neutralized the vigorous efforts of Prime Minister Churchill and British military planners. On April 14, General Eisenhower ordered a halt at the Elbe River and called back American units that had already crossed. In 1949, Eisenhower stated, “The political heads of our government had already agreed that our line of occupation would be way back, starting at the north at Denmark, with Linz on the south, so what good would it have done us to capture Berlin?”

Both the political and military consequences would be played out after Germany surrendered. Soviet troops occupied large areas of middle Europe, establishing pro-Russian governments. Stalin looted these countries, dismantling factories and deporting populations to Siberia. He excused these actions as reparations of war.

Could Taking Berlin have Limited Stalin’s Gains?

If the allied leaders at Potsdam followed the agreements and protocols of the Yalta Agreements (February 4-11, 1945), it would not have made a difference which country actually “took” Berlin. But as Churchill had shown early in 1945 with the bombing of Dresden, the Soviets responded to a show of force and respected power. The new American President, Harry Truman, might have been able to call Stalin’s bluff, particularly with the success of the atomic bomb test in New Mexico.

Sources:

• Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1985)
• Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (New York: Continuum, 1995)
• Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, Edited by Thomas G. Paterson, Second Edition (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Blood Libel and Saint Simon of Trent 1475

Jan 13, 2011 Michael Streich

St Simon of Trent Allegedly Murdered by Jews - AndresPraefcke Wikimedia Commons Image

The case of Simon of Trent highlights Catholic Europe's erroneous belief in blood libel that asserts the use of Christian blood in Jewish religious rituals.

The Catholic Church celebrates the feast day of Saint Simon of Trent every March 24th. Simon was two and a half years old when his body was discovered in a ditch near the homes of Trent’s small Jewish population. The “martyrdom” of Simon is one of the best examples of blood libel, the belief that Jews kidnapped children in order to use their blood during important religious rituals.

Although stories of blood libel had circulated throughout Europe in the Middle Ages for centuries, the case of the Trent murder was highly pursued at the top levels of Church leadership and served to rekindle virulent anti-Semitism throughout Europe.

Jews Considered Enemies of the Church

The story of Simon’s disappearance and death took place in 1475 in Trent, a city in the Holy Roman Empire linking Italy with Southern Germany. The events took place at a time the Catholic Church was reasserting power and social control, following a long period of internal schism and leadership turmoil that began in the 14th Century with the Avignon papacy. The Council of Constance, which resulted in the restoration of papal authority under Pope Martin V, was still a vivid memory in 1475.

Within this climate, the events in Trent permitted the Church to renew more vigorously persecution of non-Catholic groups such as the Hussites in Bohemia and other heretics that dared to challenge the official positions of Catholic beliefs.

These enemies of the faith included the Jews, often labeled infidels. This was not a new development. Historian R. Po-chia Hsia, in his book Trent 1475, writes that, “The blood libel against the Jews of Trent…was neither the first nor the last in a long series of anti-Jewish charges in European history.”

During the outbreak of Bubonic Plague in the 14th Century, for example, Christians blamed the Jews, setting off another round of charges involving blood libel. Nachum T. Gidal, formerly a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, states, “Once again Jews were the scapegoat…”

Confession of the Jews at Trent Obtained by Torture

When thorough investigations were made, the Jews were exonerated. During the Crusades, the Church opposed the persecution of Jews. In an early 13th Century case of blood libel, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II declared that the accusations were lies. R. Po-chia Hsia draws an analogy to the persecution of witches. The Malleus Maleficarum, for example, was published in 1486 and began an extended period of witch hunting and persecution.

This persecution, like the one against the Jews, was also built on the false assumption that actual covens existed that practiced diabolical rites. In his study of the benandanti, Carlo Ginzburg demonstrates that the presumptions drawn by the Church in the late Middle Ages regarding witchcraft were based on rumor and popular fears. Witches that confessed did so under torture. There was no organized, under-ground society of witches.

It was also torture that led to the confessions in Trent in 1475. The Trent Jews testified that they had found the body but they were arrested nonetheless and subjected to torture. This eliminated any prospects of due process. The confessions further consolidated the power of Trent’s prince-bishop Johannes Hinderbach, who would spend the rest of his life pursuing the canonization of young Simon.

Impact of the Term Blood Libel on Jews and Historians

The term “blood libel” has found its way back into the American vernacular in large part because of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s use of the term on January 12, 2011. In a video and on her Facebook Notes, Palin referred to “journalists and pundits” manufacturing a blood libel. Members of the Jewish community were outraged. Blood libel is a cogent reminder of centuries of rabid persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

Beyond the insensitivity of using such a term inappropriately, there is the danger of revisionism. In this case, redirecting the meaning and focus of “blood libel” detracts from the historical record and runs the risk of trivializing the horrific acts of the past. The same can be said, for example, of terms like “survivor,” when discussing World War II.

Understanding Jewish Rituals and Practices

Few members of Europe’s intelligentsia made efforts to understand Jewish beliefs and practices. The common notion that Jews were the killers of Christ and that their rituals were conducted behind closed doors gave rise to blood libel as well as other accusations. But it was Christians who ostracized Jews, forcing them to live apart from Christians. Additionally, the Church made every effort to forcibly convert Jews. The Reformer Martin Luther urged that Jewish children be taken from their homes, placed with Christian families, and raised as Christians. One of his final works was Against the Jews and Their Lies (1543).

The 1475 Trent case centering on young Simon was only one example of the application of blood libel against the Jews. But its notoriety produced a plethora of stories, some shared under oath at the trial in 1475, of secret Jewish blood rituals tied to missing Christian children. Blood libel is a painful term and using it outside of the historical context is like scratching an old wound.

Sources:

• Nachum T. Gidal, Jews in Germany: From Roman Times to the Weimar Republic (Konemann, 1998)
• Carlo Ginzburg, Night Battles: Witchcraft & Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries (Penguin Books, 1985)
• R. Po-Chia Hsia, Trent 1475: Stories Of A Ritual Murder Trial (Yale University Press, 1992)
• Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, Fifth Edition (McGraw-Hill Inc., 1992)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

George Washington as President

Foreign Affairs & Domestic Concerns During the First Presidency

Jan 4, 2009 Michael Streich

George Washington assumed the presidency as Europe began a long period of strife begun by the 1789 French Revolution, events balanced by crucial domestic problems.

George Washington was inaugurated in April, 1789, as the first American President. Significantly, 1789 was also the start of the French Revolution. During Washington’s presidency, France would go through various phases of revolution, culminating in the infamous Reign of Terror in 1793. Confronted with significant domestic problems, President Washington wisely chose a policy of neutrality. The United States would not enter an entangling alliance but would put its own house in order.

Europe and the United States under Washington

The French Revolution unleashed a series of events leading to continental war. President Washington, however, followed a path of neutrality, insisting that the European powers honor and respect American commercial enterprises. France remained outraged that the United States refused to honor treaty commitments that went back to the Revolutionary War.

Great Britain also refused to treat the United States as neutral, boarding American vessels, seizing contraband cargoes, and impressing American seamen into British service. Although Jay’s Treaty as ratified in 1795 allowed small American ships to trade in the West Indies, the region was still closed to unlimited trade as it had been since 1783. Ultimately, Jay’s Treaty did very little to alleviate American complaints regarding British impediments in terms of neutral rights.

Pinckney’s Treaty, also in 1795, was a far more beneficial agreement. Forged with Spain, the treaty guaranteed the use of New Orleans as a port of deposit without tariff duties and gave Americans unhindered use of the Mississippi River. By clearly delineating a southern boundary in line with the northern border of Florida, American settlers could freely migrate to areas west of Georgia.

Pinckney’s Treaty is viewed by many historians as the greatest achievement of the Washington administration, eliminating a potential threat from Spain and encouraging an already steady westward movement. Ironically, Spain gave so much to the Americans because of the fear that Jay’s Treaty was somehow linked to an American-British alliance. British troops were already vacating some forts in the Ohio River Valley region, giving impetus to such fears.

Domestic Concerns under George Washington

As the new government sought to define itself in terms of national power, political factions coalesced around different views of how to interpret the Constitution. This would lead to bitter debates over such issues as the creation of a National Bank. Alexander Hamilton, leading the faction that saw a need for such a bank, reasoned the legitimacy of the bank on the basis of Constitutional implied powers. Those who opposed this view were led by Thomas Jefferson who believed in a “strict construction” of the Constitution.

These factions, despite Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address, would comprise the beginning of the two party system in American politics. Hamilton’s financial plan for the nation, designed to, in part, eliminate the debt load of the nation as well as those of individual states, would lead to the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. The effect of an excise tax on distilled whiskey, the rebellion would be crushed and its leaders sentenced to death. (Washington later commuted the sentences)

By the time Washington returned to Mount Vernon in 1797, political factions could not be reconciled. Events in Europe had turned worse as France attempted to cut off trade with Britain by seizing American ships, resulting in the Quasi-War. Washington’s wisdom and leadership had kept the United States out of European struggles and overcame internal obstacles. His precedent left a lasting legacy on the Executive Branch.

Sources:

Samuel Flagg Bemis, Pinckney’s Treaty: America’s Advantage From Europe’s Distress, 1783-1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic Vol. 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

The copyright of the article George Washington as President in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish George Washington as President in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

George Washington

 Pontiac's Rebellion: First Major Attempt by Native Americans to Stop the Growing Incursion of Europeans.

Michael Streich

January 29, 2010

Pontiac’s War came out of French defeat during the Seven Years’ War or French and Indian War as it came to be called in America. Often referred to as an “uprising” or “rebellion,” the war was led by the Ottawa war chief Pontiac, a proud and vindictive leader whom historian Dale Van Every called the “Indian Hannibal.” Pontiac’s War claimed the lives of thousands of frontier settlers, prompting, in part, the Parliamentary “Proclamation Line” in 1763. Although Indian grievances were never fully addressed, the war demonstrated the vulnerability of the frontier and the colonists’ unwillingness to protect themselves.

 

Causes of Pontiac’s War

 

The defeat and withdrawal of the French presented a serious threat to the western Indians living around the Great Lakes and in the adjacent Northeast. French traders had supplied Indians with ammunition and gunpowder as well as clothing, blankets, and cooking utensils. Lt. General, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, British commander in America, curtailed the sale of power and guns making it difficult for Indians to hunt and trap. Amherst hated Indians, referring to them as “savages” and “disgusting creatures.”

 

Even after French capitulation at Quebec, French Governor Pierre de Vaudreuil sent secret communiqués to commanders of distant forts like Detroit to encourage Indian resistance and spread rumors that the French would shortly be returning. Pontiac had been close to the Marquis de Montcalm and took his death at Montreal personally. Finally, greater numbers of English settlers were moving west, taking traditional Indian lands. The overall population of the English in North America outnumbered the various Indian nations ten to one.

 

The War Begins

 

The British were ill-prepared for the Indian war. With the exception of Niagara, Fort Pitt (Pittsburg), and Detroit, frontier outposts were crude, poorly constructed, and weakly garrisoned. Pontiac had no difficulty destroying many of these forts and massacring the inhabitants. Both Fort Pitt and Detroit, commanded by the French-speaking Captain Campbell of the 60^th Regiment, Royal Americans, held out against overwhelming odds, eventually being resupplied by sea from Niagara.

 

Although the war continued into early 1674, Parliament – already in debt from the Seven Years’ War, was reluctant to fund armies. Sir Jeffrey Amherst had to rely on hastily recruited colonial militias, men he disdained as much as he loathed Indians. This would not change until he was recalled and replaced by Major General Thomas Gage, who took a more proactive stance in seeking a peaceful solution.

 

Additionally, the efforts of Indian Agent Sir William Johnson and his first deputy George Croghan cannot be ignored. Johnson, an adopted member of the Iroquois, played a key role in dividing the Indians, turning the Five Nations against Pontiac. Croghan did the same with the Delaware and Shawnee after painstaking and lengthy conferences.

 

Pontiac Agrees to Peace

 

After a failed attempt by the Senecas to overrun Niagara and the resupply and strengthening of Detroit, Pontiac withdrew into the wildness, hoping to entice Indians of the Illinois Confederacy to join his cause. From Philadelphia, Henry Bouquet led a second relief column to Fort Pitt, complaining bitterly in his letters that the local population refused to participate in their own protection.

 

The success of officers like Brigadier Bouquet and Major Henry Gladwin, commanding Detroit in the last phase of the war, was due, in part, to their frontier experience. Gladwin had been with General Edward Braddock during the ill-fated march to take Fort Duquesne in 1755. In the spring of 1765 the war was finally over after Pontiac met with George Croghan and smoked the pipe of peace. The frontier was pacified, but only temporarily.

 

References:

 

Allan W. Eckert, The Conquerors (Little, Brown and Company, 1970)

Dale Van Every, Forth to the Wilderness: The First American Frontier 1754-1774 (New American Library, 1961)

Copyright Michael Streich; Reprints require written permission.

 

European Wars Impact and Involve the American Colonies

• Aug 16, 2010
• Michael Streich

COLONIAL WARS INFLUENCED INDEPENDENCE - KCONNOR/MORGUEFILE PHOTO

Before the American Revolution, four European wars were fought in North America between France and Britain, influencing colonial relationships.

Between 1689 and 1763, four European wars involved conflict in North America. Because the great powers of Europe held colonies in the Americas, their European differences we frequently settled, in part, in the colonies. During the Seven Years’ War – or French and Indian War as it is known in America, for example, the future of French North American hegemony was decided in their American colonies. These wars changed colonial ownership and played a role in the development of an independence movement that, after 1763, would lead to the Revolutionary War.

King William’s War United Britain, Holland, and Spain against France

King William’s War, known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg, had European causes. Britain and Holland were united against France, in part, because the English monarch, King William III, had been the stadhalter – leader, of the Dutch before assuming the English throne with his wife Mary following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Holland had been involved in a prolonged conflict with the French “sun king.”

Spain’s participation was in response to Louis XIV of France, who was seeking to extend French European interests and increase land holdings. In essence, the war was fought to maintain a fragile European balance of power. This particular war did not see much military action in colonial North America, excepting a 1690 British attack on French-owned Quebec.

Queen Anne’s War or the War of the Spanish Succession

As with King William’s war, this war, begun in 1702, had its roots in European diplomacy and politics. There were no major battles in North America. In this conflict, France and Spain were allied against Britain and Holland.

King George’s War begun Over the Austrian Succession

When Maria Theresa became the Austrian ruler, Austria’s neighbors attacked, believing her to be weak. Prussia’s Frederick the Great seized Silesia; France and Spain sought greater control of Europe at Austria’s expense. Austria was a polyglot kingdom comprised of several disparate states.

In North America, Britain, an Austrian ally, battled France and Spain. During the conflict, Britain captured Louisbourg, the French fortress guarding the St. Lawrence River approaches, effectively cutting communications between France and her Canadian colonies and curbing any reinforcement attempts.

The French and Indian War as a Worldwide Conflict

Known in Europe as the Seven Years’ War, unlike earlier conflicts, British goals included defeating French commercial interests in both North America and India. The European phase was fought primarily between Prussia and Hanover against Austria and Russia.

In North America, however, the British prevailed decisively after a dismal and costly start of the war. In 1759, British forces under Major General James Wolfe captured Quebec, effectively ending French control of Canada. The 1763 Peace of Paris ceded all of Canada and India to Britain.

Impact on American English Colonies

Colonial militia fought with British regulars in all of the wars but the French and Indian War involved the largest participation. Native Americans were also involved in all four of the wars. French departure was negatively interpreted by Native Americans that had been loyal French allies for many years, setting the stage for conflicts like Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763.

Colonial soldiers, treated rudely by British officers and frequently looked down upon as ragamuffin provincials, developed an intense dislike for regular troops, a factor in colonial opposition to the posting of thousands of British troops in the colonies after the French and Indian War ended.

For their part, British officers were amazed at the living conditions of many urban merchants, artisans, and other professionals, a living standard unheard of in England apart from the landed gentry. In his book detailing the Navigation Acts, Professor Oliver Dickerson writes, “The wealth acquired by American merchants and planters was a real cause of jealousy on the part of residents in the mother country.”

Finally, there was the Indian question. The wars between Britain and France had opened new land for settlement. Former French frontier forts and outposts were now British. But westward expansion also meant conflict with resident Indian nations unwilling to give any more land to the ever growing army of settlers coming down the Ohio River or through Appalachian trails. Ultimately, the Native Americans would side with the British who supported their land claims and furnished them with weapons until the end of the War of 1812.

Sources:

Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951)

Francis Parkman, France and England in North America, Volumes I and II, (The Library of America, 1983)

Howard H. Peckham, The Colonial Wars 1689-1762 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies