Our social:

TAG: Britain

Cartography and the Kuznetsov

As a Russian naval task force enters the English Channel, Dr Alexander Kent, Reader in Cartography and Geographic Information Science and Martin Davis, University Instructor, explain that the maps and charts they will be using owe to a long tradition of mapping Britain in secret.

It is both fascinating and chilling to realise that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union mapped everywhere on the globe as part of its military mapping programme. The UK received special attention, with at least 90 of our cities mapped in stunning detail, including street names, the classification of strategically important buildings, the depths of rivers, and information about the carrying capacity, width, length and construction material of bridges. Where possible, even the height of the bridge above water is indicated, which is something more likely to have been recorded by a spy on the ground than by using satellite imagery. So it is amazing to consider that, while Ordnance Survey builds its new national database to prevent lorries from getting stuck on our roads, the Soviet Union was busy collecting this sort of information decades ago.

The level of hydrographic detail on the Soviet maps is just as staggering. Submarine contours (isobaths) are plotted in detail, as are other types of information such as whether a river is navigable, how fast it flows, the consistency of the river bed, as well as tidal information. Much of this information is believed to have been gathered from Soviet fishing trawlers and other ships visiting ports in Britain and around the world, particularly as the details between Soviet maps and contemporaneous Admiralty or other charts usually do not match.

It is always tempting simply to label the Soviet maps as invasion plans, but they could have been used for so much more than that, particularly for running the country after a successful Communist coup d’etat. Although they were produced in secrecy, the maps are now openly available online from a variety of retailers outside Russia, including Jana Seta, a map shop in Riga, Latvia, which discovered and purchased several tonnes of maps after the Red Army withdrew in 1993. Many libraries around the world have acquired stocks and Canterbury Christ Church University maintains one of the largest collections of Soviet city plans in the UK.

Even though they are a product of the Cold War, the maps are far from irrelevant. Landmark, an environmental consultancy firm based in Bristol, uses Soviet maps to identify buildings not shown on OS maps, while archaeologists have used the maps in Central Asia to locate sites which are not marked on any other available maps. For some places around the world, they still present the most detailed and reliable source of geospatial information available. For the Russian Navy, they are the ancestors of the digital navigation systems they will be using to steam through the Channel.

The University is making an important contribution to the study of Soviet maps. Martin Davis, who is currently studying for a PhD on the topic, has just returned from presenting his research on accessing Soviet maps at the International Cartographic Association’s History of Cartography conference in Dubrovnik, while Dr Kent gave an invited lecture on the maps at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in Washington, DC with expert John Davies of Sovietmaps.com. Davies and Kent’s book ‘Red Planet? How the USSR Secretly Mapped the World’ will be published by Chicago University Press next year and John Davies will give a talk at the University on 25th October.

The nuclear Donald Trump: A peculiarly British anxiety?

Ahead of the US election on 8 November, Kevin Ruane, Professor of Modern History, reflects on the nuclear anxieties associated with a possible Trump presidency. 

In August this year, no less than 50 Republican national security experts aired their fears should Donald Trump become President and thus gain access to the USA’s awesome arsenal of nuclear weapons. ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’, Trump repeatedly asked one senior briefer. (Independent, 9 August 2016).

The British government is also doubtless in a state of agitation and anxiety at the prospect of a Trump finger on the proverbial nuclear “button”. Then again, since the dawn of the nuclear age in 1945, UK governments have routinely succumbed to nuclear nervousness around the time of US presidential elections. Trump might be more alarming than most White House hopefuls, but he is in distinguished company when it comes to arousing concern in the corridors of British power.

For much of the Cold War, the United Kingdom was a primary target for Russian (Soviet) nuclear attack if “hot war” broke out. True, there was not much to be done if the Soviets launched a surprise attack. But what of the Americans? Here we find plenty of evidence of British worries that recklessness, provocation or miscalculation by Washington could bring on a general war with Russia which would leave the UK a radioactive ruin while America possibly went unscathed.

In November 1952, for example, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was delighted by the presidential triumph of his old wartime comrade-in-arms, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. At the same time, Churchill privately confessed that ‘this makes war much more probable’.

What frightened Churchill was not Eisenhower, a sane and sensible man. Rather, it was the Republican party in general, out of office for twenty years and populated (so many in Britain believed) by anti-communist fundamentalists bent on using America’s great nuclear advantage to coerce the Soviet Union into agreeing to an international settlement on Western terms.

In the event, Eisenhower confounded British doubters and held the Republican right-wing at bay while shaping a US nuclear policy far more measured and statesmanlike than his party’s electoral rhetoric had suggested. “Ike”, though, had a dodgy heart, and that troubled the British. ‘We must hope that Gen. Eisenhower stays alive’, wrote one senior Foreign Office official at the end of 1952, otherwise his Vice-President would be in the charge of nuclear weapons. And who was that? A certain Richard M. Nixon.

UK governments have usually been more anxious about Republican than Democratic presidents in the nuclear age: aside from Eisenhower, Nixon in 1968 and Reagan in 1980 caused tremors in and beyond Whitehall. But even in these instances, wisdom and decent judgement mostly prevailed. After all, the Cold War remained just that, a cold war.

As for a President Trump, I suspect that Theresa May’s government is today experiencing the same nuclear nervousness as its predecessors, but in more acute form thanks to “the Donald” factor. In the past, incendiary nuclear rhetoric by would-be presidents has seldom crystallized into policy following victory. But what of Trump? Here the fear will be that Trump will live out or live up to his rhetoric. But with a new Cold War in the offing with Putin’s Russia (and like the old Cold War, this one has real war potentialities), now is not the time for hot-heads in the Oval Office.

Then again, we may be worrying unduly. Trump wants a ‘special relationship’ with Putin, he says. In which case, we may be able to shelve some of our nuclear worries if Trump wins on 8 November and get on instead with dealing with the consequences of his craven appeasement of Russia.

Professor Kevin Ruane, Professor of Modern History at Canterbury Christ Church University, has recently published his latest book, Churchill and the Bomb (2016), Bloomsbury.

Response to the Woolf Institute on Religion and Belief in Public Life in Britain

After two year’s work, the Woolf Institute has published its report on religion and public life in Britain.

Professor Trevor Cooling, Director of the National Institute for Christian Education Research at Canterbury Christ Church University and the Chair of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales, expresses his personal views on the report’s recommendations and findings.

The Woolf Institute’s Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life is important stuff indeed. Its remit was to examine the place and role of religion and belief in contemporary Britain and, in the light of that, to suggest how conceptions of Britishness and national identity can be inclusive of a range of religions and beliefs.

The key findings are not surprising. Traditional Christian affiliation in Church of England and Catholic churches is in decline. Evangelical and Pentecostal forms of Christianity are growing. The diversity of adherents of non-Christian religions is increasing. More people are non-religious. Britain is a changing society, becoming more diverse and increasingly plural. In this context, finding ways of nurturing national identity is urgent. We need a positive ongoing national story which reflects this new future.

Some of the Commission’s recommendations are predictable. The House of Lords ought to be opened up to rabbis and imams and not just bishops. Radio 4’s Thought for the Day should include greater diversity of religion and belief. Others are visionary. Teacher training in religion and belief should be given similar priority to numeracy and literacy. Generally society needs to be more religiously literate. The most novel recommendation was for a new Magna Carta to be created, reflecting shared understanding of fundamental values that underpin successful plural societies. There is much that is upbeat and forward looking to be welcomed that will contribute positively to the development of what many now call the post-secular society.

But the Commission fell down at one point. In most of the report it welcomes diversity being expressed. But when it comes to so-called faith schools, it simply reels out their opponents’ dogma that they are socially divisive without reference to the breadth of relevant research literature and ignoring Church of England’s stated inclusive policy completely. The chapter is littered with language promoted by the British Humanist Association. This is a serious failing in balance.

The post-secular vision for our plural society offered in most of the report is a breath of fresh air. The reversion to an old-style secularist strategy in some of its recommendations for education is a great disappointment.

Professor Cooling has recently been involved in the publication of Being Christian in Education, which reflects on the Christian voice as it engages in education today acting as a resource for everyone concerned with schools, colleges and universities at a time of national uncertainty for the place of religious belief in the public arena. 

The book chapters were written by students from the 2012 cohort of the Doctorate in Education: Christianity, faith and education. Read more.