The official website for BBC History Magazine
I met two survivors of the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz. This is their story
In 1943, women and girls were forced to form an orchestra inside Auschwitz-Birkenau. Acclaimed biographer Anne Sebba describes her experiences of meeting the ensemble’s last surviving members – and what their words reveal about music, friendship and the will to endure
“Why did I survive?” the cellist Anita Lasker-Wallfisch mused in one of my interviews with her about the extraordinary Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz. “I came to the conclusion that it’s better somebody survives to tell the story. I don’t feel too guilty about that.” She is still, at the age of 100, sharing her experiences. Anita was a valuable member of the girls’ marching band, the name they gave themselves, because until she joined there were no bass instruments, but instead a motley collection of recorders, piccolos, mandolins, violins, an accordion and a guitar. At its height under Vienna-born conductor Alma Rosé, a niece of Gustav Mahler, approximately 43 women and girls were saved from being killed in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Almost all the musicians survived the camp, although two died from disease and malnutrition after they had been forcibly moved to Belsen in early 1945. The Nazis had ordered the creation of the band in 1943 so that the other women prisoners – who had to work in the nearby factories or demolition squads – would march faster, making it easier for them to be counted in rows of five. It was the only all-female orchestra in any of the camps, prisons and ghettos run by the Nazis, and featured members from 11 different nations and a variety of political and religious backgrounds. Although the women sometimes argued amongst themselves (mostly over food, or lack of it), they pulled together when they needed to perform. If they did not play well, they would be sent to the gas chambers. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/02-bf880dd.jpg" width="382" height="538" alt="The orchestra was conducted by Vienna-born musician Alma Rosé, a niece of Gustav Mahler. Tragically, the virtuoso violinist would not survive Auschwitz." title="The orchestra was conducted by Vienna-born musician Alma Rosé, a niece of Gustav Mahler. Tragically, the virtuoso violinist would not survive Auschwitz." /> One of the themes in my book The Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz, which was published earlier this year to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the camps, is to examine what gave these women the desire to survive when they were surrounded by such suffering and brutality. Many of the musicians had arrived in Auschwitz after seeing their parents, friends or siblings pulled into the line of those who were immediately gassed. Others had already been in prison for resisting or being Jewish, often tortured, before they were given a place in the music block. Some women were driven by a desire for revenge on those who had betrayed them; others by a desperate need to bear witness to what they had seen. But most simply wanted to live and taste a better life. The orchestra, which played twice a day as the prisoners went in and out of work and rehearsed constantly during the hours in between, was no soft option. Yet I was only able to find one or two women who, if offered, refused a place in the group, recognising that it gave them a chance for life. When Alma Rosé needed a new accordion player, 150 women applied for the position. Testimony from a woman like Anita Lasker-Wallfisch is gold dust for a historian. The story of why music flourished in a death camp is so impossible to believe that it almost needs a living witness as proof that it happened. While the Nazis were trying to eradicate Jews and obliterate Jewish culture, here they were preserving a small group of them. Anita is extraordinary not only in her longevity, but in her ability to articulate how the women felt at the time. “It was a luxury to feel anything,” she revealed during one of our interviews. “We just hoped to live until the next day.” Although Anita always insists that survival was “a matter of luck”, she admits that being a cellist instead of a tattooed number restored a crucial element of humanity. She also maintains that the music was not what saved them, even if it did give them something to concentrate on amidst the brutality and killing. “We focused only on ‘would I still be alive tomorrow?’ from one day to the next. Nothing more.” Astonishing courage When I began my research, I believed that Anita was the only remaining survivor of the orchestra. However, due to an unlikely series of events (and an announcement in The Bookseller that I was working on the project), I was contacted by the granddaughter of another player to tell me that there was a second survivor, Hilde Grünbaum, living on a kibbutz in Israel. I immediately went out to visit her, and our interview was crucial in helping me understand the human will to survive in the direst of circumstances. Grünbaum had such a strong moral certainty that she would survive and live to see better times that she declined a place on Kindertransport to come to England. She also became the unofficial leader of the group when the women were transferred to Belsen (Alma Rosé had died of a sudden illness in April 1944), ensuring that everyone had their fair share of the meagre soup and bread rations. When asked many years later about what drove her in such appalling circumstances, she was unequivocal: “I knew that if I didn’t do my best to help people then there would be nothing left.” Meeting Hilde, by then aged 99, helped me understand the real privileges of the women in the musicians’ block. It wasn’t so much the pair of underpants and access to a toilet, important though these were, but the ability to hope. For Hilde, a passionate Zionist, this meant the hope that she could one day lead a better life in a new country where Jews would not face antisemitism. Hilde never lacked courage, and just as the Jewish musicians were being forced onto the train for Belsen, she bravely dashed back into the music block to rescue some mementoes, as she knew the world would never believe what the women had been forced to do survive. The items – Alma Rosé’s address book, a volume of Faust and a hand-sewn sheet music bag – are now in the collections of Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Jerusalem. Together, they represent an important part of any historian’s research into the orchestra. The will to survive There is no shortage of literature about the Holocaust, and there are several memoirs about the orchestra specifically. Many of the accounts date from the 1990s and were written in response to the television drama Playing for Time, which was itself based on a ghostwritten – and highly fictionalised – book by orchestra member Fania Fénelon (which should be viewed as more of a novel rather than a memoir). There are also hundreds of filmed interviews available online, some curated by the Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies, and others provided by Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation. These moving testimonies – some of which were conducted with fellow prisoners who had heard the musicians play – were invaluable in trying to understand what it must have been like to feel cold, hungry and fearful, yet summon up the strength to perform music twice a day. But while I have a proper reverence for archive material, there are few surviving diaries from Auschwitz. Access to writing supplies was limited, so many of the primary sources were actually recorded many years after the fact. People tend to remember the same events differently, and their accounts are more likely to be subjective. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/05-48201be.jpg" width="2291" height="3103" alt="Anne Sebba with Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who turned 100 in July 2025. The musician is still telling her story, more than 80 years after the end of the Second World War." title="Anne Sebba with Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who turned 100 in July 2025. The musician is still telling her story, more than 80 years after the end of the Second World War." /> However, I believe there is something vitally important about being able to interview those who witnessed the events first-hand. Every survivor I have spoken to has said that, unless you were there, you cannot imagine what it was like to feel fear, hunger and deprivation on this scale. I have tried to create a synthesis of all these sources in a bid to answer two key questions: were these ordinary women who transcended their circumstances because they never gave up hope in a better future? Or were they extraordinary women from the start? I can never know for certain, but I believe that sisterhood, group solidarity and small acts of kindness each played a part in strengthening both their will to survive and the qualities that make us human. Anne Sebba is an award-winning biographer, lecturer and journalist. Her most recent book is The Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz: A Story of Survival (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2025)
Frederick Douglass escaped enslavement in 1838 – but here's why he was still far from true freedom
When Frederick Douglass crossed the Mason-Dixon line, he had achieved his escape from enslavement. But the first years of his freedom were marked by fear, isolation and the lingering reach of the system from which he had fled
In the autumn of 1838, a young man in his early twenties boarded a northbound train from Maryland, USA. Dressed as a sailor and carrying borrowed identity papers, he looked to be just another person in the busy crowd of travellers who were heading out across the United States. Within a day he had reached New York. As he stepped out into the city in the northern state, he left behind a lifetime of enslavement. The man was Frederick Douglass (at the time still known by his birth name, Frederick Bailey). His escape would go on to become one of the best-known stories of the 19th-century abolitionist movement, but in the moment, it was a desperate risk. For a man like Douglass, freedom was certainly not a guarantee of safety. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later that Douglass would find himself living without the constant shadow of his history looming over him, threatening to pull him back in. In those first years, Douglass was still living in fear. Speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast, academic Clare Elliott explains why. Frederick Douglass’s early years Frederick Douglass was born into enslavement, growing up in a plantation in Talbot County, Maryland, separated from his family. But when, precisely, he was born is uncertain. “He thought that he was born in 1818,” explains Elliott. “But there's always a question mark over the birth of enslaved people.” Douglass’s early years, up until the cusp of adulthood, were marked by shocking deprivation and violence. “There’s a horrible and often quoted passage,” Elliott notes, “where Douglass talks about himself and the other enslaved children eating mush from a trough like so many pigs.” Read more | The true story of Charles Guiteau and a president’s assassination Scenes like these, described vividly in his 1845 autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, demonstrate the physical and psychological hardship that Douglass was subjected to. By his teens, Douglass had been hired out to work in Baltimore for a white couple named Hugh and Sophia Auld, where Sophia began teaching him the alphabet. Subsequently, he continued to teach himself in secret using discarded newspapers and copybooks. For an enslaved person like him, literacy was absolutely an act of tacit rebellion. The plan for escape By his early twenties, Douglass had met Anna Murray, a free Black woman living in Baltimore. “She was able to provide some financial assistance for that [1838] escape,” Elliott says. “And he also borrowed merchant seamen’s papers, which allow him to posture as a free Black seaman.” Read more | History’s smallest billionaire? Meet the tiny titan who was, briefly, the richest man alive So, disguising himself as a sailor, Douglass embarked on a risky journey north via train and ferry. By 4 September 1838, Douglass had arrived in New York City. But freedom, he soon realised, had its own dangers. “In 1838, he was not free: he [had] escaped,” says Elliott. “And his response to that escape was not one of joy, not one of satisfaction. It was not even relief … he had a crushing sense of anxiety.” Even in the so-called free states, Fugitive Slave Laws allowed enslavers to reclaim runaways. Slave catchers operated openly, and many abolitionist safe houses were under surveillance. “He said that he felt insecure and deeply lonely,” Elliott explains, “and he was repeating this mantra to himself, saying: ‘Trust no man.’” Read more | Who was Chester Arthur – and what was his relationship with James Garfield? It was in New York that the fugitive Frederick Bailey would first change his name, choosing the surname Johnson, before becoming Frederick Douglass upon travelling to Massachusetts. “He took that name, Douglass, to change his identity,” says Elliott. The name was a reference to The Lady of the Lake, an 1810 romantic poem by Sir Walter Scott, and it also shielded him from capture. Still, Douglass lived in a state of anxiety for nearly a decade. “He was not really free,” Elliott says. “Not until his manumission was bought.” Douglass’ journey across the Atlantic In 1845, Douglass published his autobiography, and it made him internationally famous. Though it brought some level of income, and attention to the cause of abolition, it also brough further threat; fame meant that capture was once again a real possibility. To protect himself, he travelled to Britain and Ireland to lecture on abolition. The journey was pivotal for two reasons. Foremost, it was in Britain that he officially became a free man. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the north of England, Douglass met two Quaker sisters-in-law, Anna and Ellen Richardson. They were driven to help his cause, and succeeded. “They wrote to his master, Thomas Auld, and asked to be able to raise funds and pay for his freedom,” Elliott says. “They sent him home to the US in 1847, a free man.” Read more | Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady Second, he learned that the treatment of Black people across the Atlantic wasn’t the same as in the US. “He was treated much more like an equal,” Elliott explains. “He noticed a difference, and he went back with a fire in his belly to do more for the abolitionist cause.” Why was Britain so different? By the mid-19th century, slavery had been abolished across the British empire for over a decade, and public opinion (shaped by campaigns led by figures such as William Wilberforce) had turned decisively against it. Boston Tea Party: Igniting a Revolution Member exclusive | Discover the causes, tensions, and violent origins of the Boston Tea Party. Join leading experts as they explain the key players involved in the plan – and why tea was so important to the story. Listen to all episodes now The return to America When Douglass returned to the United States in 1847, he did as a newly free man and a public intellectual. And the contrast he observed between his reception in Britain versus his treatment in America sharpened his resolve. “His time as a lecturer, an orator and a campaigner for abolition picked up when he returned to the US, and he felt an obligation that came with this freedom,” Elliott says. In 1847, he founded his own newspaper, The North Star – a reference to the celestial marker that many enslaved people used for navigation when escaping from the South – and became one of the most prominent voices in the American abolitionist movement. His speeches often attacked the hypocrisy of a republic that was built on the idea of liberty, while upholding human bondage. Over the following decades, Douglass advised presidents – including Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield. He also campaigned for women’s suffrage, and served as a diplomat. Douglass knew what it meant to be enslaved and to be free, and the anxiety of the threshold in-between. With that experience, and with his gifts, he became one of the leading lights of the American abolitionist movement. Clare Elliott was speaking to Paul Bloomfield on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
"Imagine starting a life with so little": the stories of South Asians in Britain
Kavita Puri on the importance of the stories of South Asians in Britain
I remember looking in the BBC archives for stories of the first arrivals of South Asians in the postwar years, and being surprised at how little programming had been made documenting the experiences of my parents’ generation. That was well over 10 years ago now. From then on, I began to record testimonies of people who came to the UK from South Asia after the Second World War for my Radio 4 series Three Pounds in My Pocket. The title of that programme was inspired by the fact that, for years after the war, strict currency controls dictated that those arriving from India could not bring more than £3 into the UK. Imagine starting a new life in a new country with so little. Over time, I went on to record accounts from the descendants of that three-pound generation, hearing about their struggles and achievements. Many of the people I first interviewed – including my father – are no longer with us. I feel so grateful that I was able to capture their stories: memories of what these former subjects of the Raj had imagined Britain to be, what it was actually like when they arrived, how they were received and, so many decades on, where they now felt ‘home’ was. Read more | “The nation is a very novel idea, and imposing it on millions of people is hard work” | Joya Chatterji on south Asia in the 20th century Asians comprise the largest minority ethnic group in Britain today, yet it’s always struck me how little the history of South Asians in Britain is known – among South Asians themselves as well as across the country as a whole. It’s noticeable that in 2025 there is still no central British South Asian cultural archive, and that South Asian Heritage Month is only in its sixth year. South Asians have had a presence in Britain for centuries, as Rozina Visram’s seminal 2002 book Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History discusses. The first such settlers came as sailors and servants, brought by the East India Company. In time, students, ayahs (nursemaids), princes and professionals arrived. In 1892, Dadabhai Naoroji was elected as Liberal member of parliament for Finsbury Central, becoming the first MP of South Asian heritage. He supported free education, votes for women and home rule for Ireland, and campaigned for representation for Indians in the government of India. Large-scale immigration from the subcontinent started after the 1948 Nationality Act was passed. It conferred on subjects of British colonies and the Commonwealth the right to settle in the UK. But the South Asian experience has not been as well documented as that of those coming from the Caribbean. Dr Florian Stadtler, co-author of Asian Britain: A Photographic History (2013), believes one of the reasons is because “there was no Windrush moment”. But it could also be because the term ‘South Asian’ encompasses so many people from different places on the Indian subcontinent, with their own distinct regional histories, languages, cultures. Read more | Kavita Puri's hidden histories: "Many south Asian diasporic families don’t know of their First World War links" An important new digital hub has just launched. South Asian Britain: Connecting Histories (southasianbritain.org) aims to explore the complexity of this longer story. It discusses themes ranging from family and politics to multiple migrations and resistance, as well as education and intellectual life. There are some wonderful oral testimonies. Bari Chohan, for example, explains how some of his family came to Britain in the 1870s, setting up homeopathic clinics across the country. His great-uncle married a nurse, and they were one of the first mixed-race couples in north-east England. His father, who was in England at the outbreak of the Second World War, fought with the British Army. There’s so much history in that one family’s story. Understanding and acknowledging this long presence of South Asians in Britain is important. As identity in politics comes to the fore once again, and questions are asked about who is British and who belongs here, these stories take on a greater significance. South Asians have lived in, contributed to, fought and died for Britain. It’s time this is more widely recognised. This column was first published in the October 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
“I hope I would have defended the Nazis at Nuremberg”
That’s what renowned barrister, and bestselling historian, Philippe Sands told us, but could you? With the 80th anniversary of the famous war trials upon us – and a new movie to boot – Dave Musgrove reflects on the perils of staging a trial the likes of which the world had never seen before
To have defended someone like Hans Frank, the governor-general of Nazi-occupied Poland during WW2, charged with the murder of four million human beings, is a tough thing to imagine. Nevertheless, when I asked Philippe Sands – lawyer and writer – whether he would have defended the Nazis in the dock at the Nuremberg Trials, he told me “I hope so! I'm a believer that everyone is entitled to have their lawyer to defend their rights and their interests, irrespective of who they are or what they've done.” That was my final question to Sands after we’d recorded four episodes of an upcoming HistoryExtra podcast series on the Nuremberg Trials at the conclusion of the Second World War. I wanted to know where he’d stand on that question, because our conversation had reminded me how complicated some of the moral, as well as legal, questions were around the decision by the Allies to put a selection of leading Nazis on trial in November 1945. As a UK barrister, Sands is subject to the ‘cab-rank rule’, which obliges members of his profession to “take on any case provided that it is within their competence and they are available and appropriately remunerated”, but the idea of having to defend a Nazi war criminal, quite understandably, gave him pause for thought. Read more | Hitler's downfall and the end of the war and the Third Reich The trial of the century We shall all be given pause to reflect on the Nuremberg Trials as they hove back into public consciousness on their 80th anniversary. The trials ran from November 1945 through to October 1946. Twenty-four leading Nazis were indicted, though only 21 of them eventually stood trial in the courtroom proceedings. Neither Adolf Hitler nor the SS leader Heinrich Himmler were among them, as both had already taken their own lives. That left the biggest name in the dock as Hitler’s successor Hermann Göring, along with Hans Frank, Rudolf Hess, Admiral Karl Donitz and others. As with many big anniversaries, there will be media depictions, and so we have Russell Crowe playing Göring in the film 2025 film Nuremberg. Read more | Life in Nazi Germany We don’t see any of the lawyers who defended Göring and the other Nazis in the film, but rather we follow the efforts of the American chief prosecutor Robert H Jackson (played by Michael Shannon) to ensure that the crimes of the Nazis were exposed to the world. Plus, there is the fascinating side story of the US psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) who was tasked with assessing the mental state of the defendants. A trial unlike any other After watching the film I was drawn to reflect on how it compared to what I gleaned from Sands. Where it matches up is in its depiction of the wrangling over who should be put on trial and for what crimes. This was an international court with no precedent. The film also captures some of the urgency of the planning for the trial. Given that the Second World War only ended in Europe in May 1945, it was a very tight schedule to have the court up and running by November of the same year. Obviously there was a lot of thought given to the idea of a trial before the end of the war, though it was not a certainty that it would happen. Soviet leader Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt wanted a trial, but British Prime Minister Winston Churchill initially preferred the idea of summary justice. He wanted the Nazi leaders lined up and shot. He came round though, and at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin agreed there would be a trial for Nazi leaders. With the Allied commanders in accord, the lawyers could get to work. Read more | When and why did the US get involved in WW2? “It seems almost incredible that such an enterprise as the famous Nuremberg Trials were put together in so short period of time,” said Sands. “There are two really big issues they had to decide on. The first one is, who do you go for? And an early decision was taken to go for leaders. They wanted people who had planned, who'd been in government positions or who were serious industrialists. In the end, they chose 24 top political and financial leaders in Germany. “But the second issue, and this was even more complicated, was what were the crimes? As of February 1945, there was only one international crime, and that was war crime, which is the targeting of civilians in times of war.” Read more | Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in WW2 justified? The answer was that the Allies invented new crimes. “Crimes against humanity; crimes against peace, (which was waging illegal war), and then as a subhead of war crimes, [and] genocide, which makes its way in through the back door.” What the film gets right The film captures those deliberations well, along with the practicalities of actually running the trial, rebuilding the damaged courthouse, housing the prisoners, and gathering the international legal teams and global media in the shattered ruins of Nuremberg. It also, I think, demonstrates another point that Sands stressed to me, which is that the trial had to be fair, and had to be seen to be fair, under the glaring bulb of the press cameras. Though it was a form of victors’ justice, in that the Allies made the rules and ran the trial, Sands notes that “The defendants basically felt they got a fair trial. No one complained about the quality of the proceedings. No one complained about the behaviour of the judges.” A running theme of the film is the jeopardy that the Nazis might not be found guilty; that the Allies would be exposed to international ridicule. That was the risk of running a fair trial. Perhaps proof of that fairness is that some of the defendants were in fact acquitted. The film concludes, reasonably enough, with the hanging of those who were found guilty, but it omits to mention that some of those in the dock were sentenced to imprisonment and some were acquitted and walked free. The film also does well at showing the media interest in the trials, and particularly how the evidence presented by the prosecution of the crimes enacted in the concentration camps was brought to global attention via the court. The showing of film reel from the camps in the courtroom evinced global shock, as the true horror of the Nazi Final Solution was revealed to many observers around the world for the first time. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/hermann-goring-nuremberg-trials-ae99ebb.jpeg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Hermann Göring testifies in his own defense at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. Once a leading figure of the Nazi regime, Göring faced prosecution alongside other high-ranking officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the aftermath of the Second World War." title="hermann-goring-nuremberg-trials" /> Göring and Kelley One of the key themes of the film is the relationship between Göring and the psychiatrist Kelley. Russell Crowe’s portrayal of the Nazi leader is something to behold, and is pretty uncomfortable viewing in the first half of the film as the viewer is tempted to find some likeable elements to the character, through his dealings with Kelley. In the real trial, incidentally, the psychologist Dr Gustave Gilbert played a key role, as is depicted in Sands’ book East West Street. This isn’t something I discussed with Sands, but we did talk about the cross-examination of Göring by Robert Jackson. This scene is the dramatic highlight of the film, and it shows Crowe’s Göring getting the better of Shannon’s Jackson, only for Richard E Grant, playing the British lawyer David Maxwell Fyfe, to step in and rescue the situation. Sands told me that a relevant must-read is the account written by the American journalist Janet Flanner. Read more | The 1943 battle of Kursk: was it the biggest tank battle in history? “From Janet Flanner, we get the most extraordinary account of the cross-examination by Robert Jackson of Herman Göring. She observed that Göring runs rings around Jackson, and the reason was that Jackson was essentially an appellate lawyer. He didn’t know how to cross examine,” says Sands. “Flanner writes an excoriating account of Jackson’s performance as a cross examiner. She describes how eventually he had to stop. And a British lawyer, David Maxwell Fyfe, who knows how to cross examine, comes on and destroys Göring in short order. These accounts, absolutely brilliantly written, give you the full flavour of what’s going on in the courtroom.” Nazi Germany | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | Everything you need to know about Nazi Germany, guided by historian, author and broadcaster Laurence Rees. Explore the course now As courtroom drama scenes go, Nuremberg’s Goering cross-examination is not quite up there with Jack Nicholson barking ‘You can’t handle the truth’ at Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, but Crowe’s moment in the dock is nevertheless a memorable one. The film ends with a moralising message about how we need to take heed of the lessons of Nuremberg. I wasn’t convinced by the conclusion – it felt a bit forced to me. But the legacy of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46 is certainly something we should take note of. "Nuremberg was a revolutionary moment” says Sands. “It was the first time in human history that countries came together and said the power of the state, the sovereign, the king, president or prime minister, is not absolute; you cannot anymore treat your own nationals or the nationals of other countries as you wish. You can’t kill and disappear individuals; you can’t kill and disappear groups. You are subject to constraints, not imposed by your own legal order, but by international law." The rule of international law depends on lawyers prepared to defend those charged with having broken it. So it makes perfect sense that Sands, as a vocal defender of the international legal system that owes so much to Nuremberg, should hope that he would have been prepared to act for the Nazis in the dock there. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Who was Hermann Göring? The truth about Hitler’s drug-fuelled enforcer who met his downfall at Nuremberg
Hermann Göring was once Hitler’s chosen successor, and the most powerful man in Nazi Germany after the Führer. He embodied the spirit of the Third Reich and later, at Nuremberg, he became the most prominent member of the regime to stand trial
Hermann Göring held a uniquely prominent position among the architects of Nazi Germany. As the founder of the Gestapo, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, and Adolf Hitler’s chosen successor, his name became synonymous with the Third Reich at the height of its power – and while it collapsed. To the rest of the world, Göring often appeared as the public face of Nazi Germany during the 1930s as an example of the regime’s ambition and arrogance. And within Nazi Germany, he was Hitler’s closest ally, who served as a bridge between the Führer’s radicalism and the traditional elites. Read more | Hitler's downfall and the end of the war and the Third Reich When the Second World War ended, Göring was the most senior surviving Nazi official to stand trial at Nuremberg. There, his intelligence, arrogance and courtroom performances made him the defining symbol of the proceedings. But how did he get there? Who was Hermann Göring? Hermann Göring was a decorated First World War pilot who became Hitler’s second-in-command, head of Germany’s air force – the Luftwaffe – and the most prominent Nazi leader tried at Nuremberg for his central role in the crimes of the Third Reich. But before he reached the highest strata of the Nazi war machine, he had been an ambitious opportunist, whose charm and vanity had carried him from serving in a cockpit during the First World War to the heart of Hitler’s new Reich. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1855434891-1e9cefa-e1762529704264.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Hermann Göring sits in the cockpit of a biplane during pilot training with the Imperial German Air Service at Freiburg, around September 1915. Years before rising to power under Hitler, Göring served as a decorated First World War fighter ace." title="World War One: War in the Air 1915 Hermann Goering" /> Hermann Göring’s early life and career Hermann Wilhelm Göring was born in January 1893 in Rosenheim, Bavaria, into a family with strong military and colonial ties. His father, Heinrich Ernst Göring, had served as governor of German South-West Africa, and his mother, Franziska, was from a Bavarian family. Hermann’s godfather was a Prussian nobleman, which was a connection that opened doors within the officer class of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany. Read more | 10 facts you (probably) didn't know about the First World War Friends and biographers described a young Göring as gregarious and theatrical. He could be personally charming, but also impulsive, vain and manipulative. His fascination with pageantry and symbols of authority became a defining feature of his personality. He entered a military academy at 16, was commissioned into the infantry, and in 1915 transferred to the Imperial German Air Service. By the end of the First World War he was a celebrated fighter ace, credited with 22 aerial victories and had commanded the famed ‘Flying Circus’, the fighter wing once led by Manfred von Richthofen, the so-called Red Baron. But the war’s end left Göring disillusioned. The collapse of the German empire and the punitive Treaty of Versailles would fuel his later political choices. Hermann Göring during the Weimar years, and the road to Nazism The 1920s saw Göring struggling to live up to the military glory of his recent past. He now worked as a commercial pilot in Scandinavia, married to a Swedish baroness, Carin von Kantzow, and had become enamoured with the romantic nationalism sweeping post-war Germany. Returning home, he encountered Adolf Hitler and joined the Nazi Party in 1922. He soon proved an asset to the party, his war hero reputation lending credibility to what was then still a fringe movement. When Hitler attempted to seize power in the Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923, Göring led stormtroopers into the confrontation and was seriously wounded. Doctors prescribed him morphine, a treatment that began his lifelong addiction to the drug. After the putsch’s failure, Göring fled Germany and lived in exile in Austria and Sweden, with his health and finances in tatters. He returned after a general amnesty in 1927, and was soon back at the forefront of Germany’s rapidly evolving political landscape. In the late Weimar years, he established himself as one of Hitler’s most capable political operatives. He was elected to the Reichstag in 1928, and became its president in 1932, using parliamentary procedure to block democratic opposition. His cunning made him a vital part of Hitler’s ascendency. Hermann Göring at Hitler’s side When Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933, Göring was rewarded with multiple key posts. He became Minister-President of Prussia, giving him control of the largest German state, including its police force. After the 1933 Reichstag Fire was blamed on communists, he created the Gestapo, the Nazi regime’s secret police, and began the systematic purge of political opponents. Göring was an important instrument of the Nazification of the state, ensuring that Germany’s civil institutions fell into line behind the new regime. He also became a central figure in rearmament and economic management – both policies which defied the terms of the Treaty of Versailles – founding the Reich Air Ministry in 1933 and later overseeing the Four-Year Plan to prepare Germany for war. At this point, having known Hitler for a decade, Göring was among the few Nazi leaders who could speak to him on equal terms. Hitler reportedly admired Göring’s ruthless ability, and how he managed to project an image of stability and credibility to foreign governments. By 1938, Göring was reaching the height of his personal power, and over the next two years he was named Reichsmarschall, the highest military rank in the Reich, and officially designated as Hitler’s successor. He amassed immense wealth, acquired vast estates such as Carinhall (named for his late wife, who died in 1931) and became one of Europe’s most prolific collectors of looted art. He was insatiable. Hermann Göring’s role in WW2 At the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, Göring commanded the Luftwaffe, the air force he had built into a symbol of Nazi might. Early campaigns appeared to vindicate his leadership: the Luftwaffe’s role in the invasions of Poland, France, and the Low Countries demonstrated the effectiveness of Blitzkrieg tactics – to hit targets hard and fast. Göring was hailed as the regime’s leading military hero. But the limitations of he and his Luftwaffe force would soon become apparent. During the Battle of Britain in 1940, Göring promised Hitler that air superiority would bring Britain to heel, alongside the rest of Europe. Instead, it began the long decline of the Luftwaffe’s reputation. As Allied production and technology advanced, Göring proved unable to keep pace with the change. Another failure he bore direct responsibility for was the terror bombing of civilian targets across Europe. It was part of a strategy intended to crush morale. But instead, it hardened resistance. Now faltering, Göring retreated to Carinhall, surrounding himself with luxury and comfort, and his morphine dependency worsened. Nevertheless, he retained vast formal authority. He supervised the exploitation of occupied economies, directed the looting of Europe’s art, and sat on the Central Planning Board, which oversaw the use of forced labour. But, by 1943, Hitler’s patience with Göring had run out. The Luftwaffe’s failures during the Battle of Stalingrad and inability to defend Germany from Allied bombing raids meant that Hitler’s faith in Göring had evaporated. Still, with a power base of his own, Göring was able to cling to his titles and prestige. This wouldn’t last. In April 1945, as Soviet forces closed in on Berlin, Göring sent a telegram to Hitler suggesting that he should assume leadership if the Führer were incapacitated. In response, a paranoid Hitler branded him a traitor, stripped him of office and ordered his arrest. Hitler’s order was never carried out. Instead, Göring was captured by American troops as war in Europe drew to a close. Why was Hermann Göring put on trial at Nuremberg? The victorious Allied powers set up the Nuremberg Trials to bring leading members of Nazi Germany to justice. Held in the German city of Nuremberg between November 1945 and October 1946, these were the first international tribunals in history to prosecute individuals for war crimes. Led jointly by judges and prosecutors from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France, the trials sought to hold Nazi leaders accountable for their roles in the atrocities of the war. The chief American prosecutor, Justice Robert H Jackson, played a central role in presenting the case against the accused. Read more | “I hope I would have defended the Nazis at Nuremberg” At Nuremberg, Göring was the most senior Nazi official still alive, and the principal defendant at the International Military Tribunal. In lieu of prosecuting Hitler himself, now dead, Göring became the figurehead upon which the weight of Nazi atrocities could be placed. He was charged with crimes against peace (planning and waging aggressive war), war crimes, and crimes against humanity. When captured, Göring was overweight and suffering from high blood pressure, heart problems, and morphine addiction. American doctors carefully detoxified him in prison, replacing morphine with mild sedatives and controlling his diet. He lost nearly 80lbs before the trial began. Psychologists assessing the defendants administered intelligence and personality tests. Göring’s IQ was among the highest at 138, and he scored high for extroversion and dominance on personality scales. The prison psychiatrists described him as the natural leader among the defendants, noting his ability to charm those around him – even his guards. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/hermann-goring-nuremberg-trials-ae99ebb.jpeg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Hermann Göring testifies in his own defense at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. Once a leading figure of the Nazi regime, Göring faced prosecution alongside other high-ranking officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the aftermath of the Second World War." title="hermann-goring-nuremberg-trials" /> How did Hermann Göring act under cross-examination at Nuremberg? Prosecutors presented evidence of his involvement in every major decision of the Nazi regime, from early rearmament and the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, to the looting of occupied Europe and the formulation of anti-Jewish decrees. He denied direct knowledge of the Holocaust, but the court found his claim impossible to reconcile with his central role in government. During the trial, Göring dominated proceedings with his bravado. He portrayed himself not as a criminal, but as a patriot who had served Germany, and he defended the Nazi regime as a bulwark against Bolshevism and impending European chaos. His early exchanges with chief US prosecutor Robert H Jackson became some of the most dramatic moments of the tribunal. Initially, Göring’s composure and rhetorical skill allowed him to defend himself against Jackson’s questions effectively, but it was his arrogance by which he was ultimately undermined. As Göring asserted himself as a figure of great importance, prolonged cross-examination sealed proof of his complicity. Nazi Germany | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | Everything you need to know about Nazi Germany, guided by historian, author and broadcaster Laurence Rees. Explore the course now Was Hermann Göring’s conviction a foregone conclusion? For all the drama of the trials, the verdict against Göring was never in doubt. The documentary evidence tied Göring to every phase of Nazi aggression. The Tribunal convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to death by hanging. Hermann Göring’s death and the cyanide mystery In his final appeals, Göring requested to be executed by firing squad, claiming the rights of a soldier rather than those of a common criminal. The judges refused. But, on the night of 15 October 1946, hours before his scheduled execution, he was found dead in his cell. He’d ingested a cyanide capsule. How he obtained the poison remains unclear. Some believe he’d concealed it in a tin of skin cream, or among his personal items. Others suggested that sympathetic guards smuggled it in. A later US Army investigation concluded that at least one guard may have been bribed or manipulated. Göring’s suicide robbed the Allies of the symbolic closure they sought in publicly hanging the regime’s most senior surviving figure. His body was cremated, and his ashes – along with those of the other executed Nazis – were scattered over the Conwentzbach, a tributary of the River Isar near Munich, to prevent any grave or shrine from becoming a site of pilgrimage. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
The Nuremberg Trials: the real history behind the post-WW2 tribunal that brought Nazi leaders to justice
A new film, starring Russell Crowe and Rami Malek, dramatises the Allies’ postwar quest to hold the surviving leaders of the German Reich to account at the Nuremberg Trials. Roger Moorhouse shares what really happened inside the courtroom where modern international justice was born
In the autumn of 1945, in a bombed-out Germany still reeling from defeat and occupation, the victorious Allies launched a remarkable experiment in international justice: the Nuremberg Trials. The first of these, conducted by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, was convened by the four major Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union. It was established under the London Agreement and Charter of 8 August 1945, which created the IMT and defined its authority. What were the Nuremberg Trials? The purpose of the Nuremberg Trials was to hold the senior surviving leaders of the defeated German Reich accountable for their crimes: for aggressive war-making, gross violations of the laws of war (war crimes) and for what was then – in international law – a new category: “crimes against humanity”. In essence, the Nuremberg Trials represented a watershed in the history of international justice. Their significance lies not only in the punishment of high‐profile Nazi leaders but in the very idea that state actors and military commanders could be held to account before a tribunal created by victorious powers, under new international legal standards. Read more | Life in Nazi Germany They raised profound questions about justice, victors’ rights, legal innovation and moral precedent. They were not simple theatrical show trials, nor were they flawless, but they marked a deliberate choice by the Allies to pursue legality over vengeance, to document evil rather than simply bury it, and to assert that even leaders are not above the law. Their legacy is significant: they laid the foundation for international criminal law, inspired the later Genocide Convention (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948), and provided a public accounting for the Third Reich’s atrocities. The trials, which opened in November 1945, are also the subject of a new film entitled Nuremberg, starring Rami Malek and Russell Crowe. Who was on trial at Nuremberg? At the first and most famous of the Nuremberg Trials (the IMT), 24 major figures from the military and political elite of the Third Reich were indicted. Among them were: Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall, head of the Luftwaffe and Hitler’s designated successor Joachim von Ribbentrop, foreign minister Rudolf Hess, the former deputy führer Wilhelm Keitel, field marshal and chief of the OKW (Armed Forces High Command) Ernst Kaltenbrunner, senior SS officer and head of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) Alfred Rosenberg, ideologue of the Nazi regime Hans Frank, governor-general of occupied Poland Wilhelm Frick, interior minister of Nazi Germany and then Reich protector for Bohemia and Moravia Julius Streicher, former editor of the newspaper Der Stürmer and a rabid Nazi propagandist Albert Speer, minister for armaments and war production Fritz Sauckel, plenipotentiary for labour deployment, responsible for Germany’s forced labour procurement Karl Dönitz, former head of the navy and Hitler’s successor as head of state of Nazi Germany Of the 24 names originally indicted, three were absent when the trial started. Martin Bormann, Hitler’s former Nazi party secretary, had not been found (in truth, he had died in the battle for Berlin) and so was tried in absentia. Meanwhile Robert Ley, head of the German Labour Front, took his own life before the trial started, and Gustav Krupp, head of the Krupp industrial conglomerate, was deemed unfit to stand on the grounds of senility. Why were the Nuremberg Trials held in Nuremberg? The decision to hold the trials in the city of Nuremberg (known as Nürnberg in German) was both practical and deeply symbolic. On one hand, the city’s Palace of Justice had survived the war relatively intact, with a large courtroom capable of holding the proceedings and an adjacent prison in which the accused could be securely housed. On the other hand, Nuremberg had been the site of the Nazi party’s huge annual rallies and thus one of the locations most synonymous with the Nazi movement and its propaganda. In addition, holding the trial in the heart of former German territory – rather than abroad – reinforced the idea of a public accounting for Nazi crimes. The Nuremberg Trials were intended to make a deliberate political and moral statement: the former epicentre of the Nazi regime would become the place of judgment. Were the verdicts in the Nuremberg Trials a foregone conclusion? The question of whether the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials were inevitable is a complex one. Of course, the scale of evidence assembled by the prosecutors was overwhelming: including film footage, photographs, documents and the material gleaned from the cross-examination of survivors and witnesses. Nonetheless, the legal machinery of the trial was novel. International law for crimes against humanity and aggressive war had never previously been applied in this way, so the legal basis was less than entirely sound. Some have argued that the trial invented post-facto standards (i.e. crimes defined after the events) or stretched legal concepts. Indeed, critics at the time and since have questioned whether full impartiality was even possible, given the severity of the crimes under consideration and the fact that the victors were also sitting as judges and prosecutors. Read more | Why did the Allies win the Second World War? Pragmatically, though, the notion of a ‘foregone conclusion’ must be qualified: among the 22 defendants tried by the IMT, three were acquitted. Furthermore, the sentences handed down for the remainder ranged from death to long prison terms. So there was clearly scope for a degree of differentiation in the judgments. Overall, given the nature of the crimes and the vengeful political climate, there was always a strong likelihood that convictions would follow. Yet the trial still required enormous research, the preparation and presentation of evidence, legal argument and defence representation. Though the expectation of guilt for many of the defendants was high, the verdicts were not a foregone conclusion. Why didn’t they just summarily execute the Nazis? There were, perhaps, some compelling arguments at the time for immediate execution or summary justice – after all, the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime were immense, and their crimes had often been blatant. But the Allies rejected this route, and for a number of reasons. The first was that of legitimacy. Stalin famously told Churchill at the Teheran Conference in 1943 that he favoured the summary execution of as many as 100,000 leading Nazis so that Germany would be unable to plan another war. Instead of such a brutal course of action, however, the victorious Allies opted for a very public trial so as to ensure that the Germans would not be able to claim that the admission of war guilt had been extracted from them under duress. Then there was the rule of law. The London Agreement and Charter, which had established the legal and procedural basis for the trials, had emphasised that due process would be applied. The Allies were adamant that – unlike the regime whose surviving representatives they were trying – they were wedded to the principle of lawful justice, not simple vengeance. Read more | Your guide to the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, 1945 Thirdly, the Allies found themselves restrained by moral and political caution. Collective punishment or mass executions without trial would violate the foundational principles that they hoped to represent and would risk a backlash, which could in turn undermine the postwar reconstruction of Germany. Put simply, the mass execution of SS or Gestapo members would have constituted a crime that would have fundamentally undermined the moral superiority that the Allies had claimed for themselves. Lastly, the Allies saw that there was a need for the collection and presentation of evidence of Nazi atrocities. The trial allowed for the Nazi leadership’s crimes to be publicly documented, recorded and exhibited for posterity. The visual evidence, the courtroom transcripts and the verdicts were all to be added to the historical record. So, rather than a swift vengeance, the Allies chose the path of legal process: trial, judgment, execution or imprisonment. This was not intended to relativise the crimes, or to lessen the moral weight of the sentences handed down; if anything, it amplified them by setting a solid legal precedent. Nazi Germany | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | Everything you need to know about Nazi Germany, guided by historian, author and broadcaster Laurence Rees. Explore the course now Did any of the defendants get acquitted? Yes. Of the 22 defendants who stood trial at the IMT, 12 received death sentences, seven received long prison sentences and three were acquitted. The latter category comprised Hjalmar Schacht, an economist and banker who had largely been responsible for the German economic recovery after 1933; Franz von Papen, a former diplomat and chancellor of Germany, who had belonged to the conservative clique that had brought Hitler to power; and Hans Fritzsche, a renowned broadcaster and the former head of radio propaganda. These acquittals demonstrated that the tribunal did not simply rubber-stamp guilty verdicts across the board. Importantly, the judgments handed down showed a degree of objectivity and impartiality. How quickly were the trials carried out? By modern standards, the timing of the IMT’s proceedings is striking. The trial began on 20 November 1945 and the verdicts were handed down between 30 September and 1 October 1946. In that sense, then, the trial moved extraordinarily swiftly given the magnitude of the task at hand, which included assembling the necessary evidence, interrogating and cross-examining the defendants and organising the necessary interpreters to translate the court sessions into English, Russian, French and German. Following the verdicts, the executions of the condemned took place on 16 October 1946. This means that the major war criminals were tried, judged and executed within roughly a year – a remarkable speed for such landmark international legal proceedings. It is worth noting that the later Nuremberg trials – the US military tribunals held in the city between 1946 and 1949 – considerably extended the timeframe foreseen. What happened to the bodies of the executed Nazis? The bodies were handled with deliberate care and secrecy by the Allied authorities, in part to prevent them becoming objects of glorification or martyrdom. After the IMT verdicts, 12 defendants were sentenced to death. On the morning of 16 October 1946, 10 men were executed by hanging in the gymnasium of Nuremberg prison. Of the remaining two: Martin Bormann was sentenced in absentia, and Hermann Göring had escaped the noose by taking his own life the night before his scheduled execution, using a cyanide capsule that had been smuggled into his cell. Following the hangings, the bodies of the dead were transported to the crematorium of Ostfriedhof cemetery in Munich, where they were cremated. Their ashes were then scattered in the Isar river – a method of disposal that was both pragmatic and symbolic. There were to be no tombs, no monuments and no headstones. Read more | The 1943 battle of Kursk: was it the biggest tank battle in history? The reason for this elaborate procedure was to deny the executed Nazis a grave or resting place that might become a shrine for neo-Nazis or other extremist admirers. It was to prove a prescient precaution. In 1988, the body of former deputy führer Rudolf Hess – who had died while serving a life sentence the previous year – was interred in a provincial cemetery in Bavaria. However, the attentions of fanatics and neo-Nazis meant that his remains were removed in 2011 and subsequently cremated. His grave was then destroyed. Was anyone else tried after Nuremberg? Yes. While the first IMT trial is certainly the most famous, it was by no means the only one that took place in the wake of the war. From December 1946 to April 1949, the United States (in its occupation zone) conducted 12 further trials of war criminals in the same courthouse in Nuremberg. These are collectively known as the ‘Subsequent Nuremberg Trials’ or the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). These trials covered a broader range of defendants: SS and police leaders, industrialists (e.g. those who had used forced labour), judges (in the Judges’ Trial), doctors (the Doctors’ Trial), bureaucrats (the Ministries’ Trial) and others. All of them were people who, in various ways, had enabled the machinery of Nazi genocide and oppression. Read more | Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in WW2 justified? In total, some 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg (IMT and NMT), resulting in 161 convictions and 37 death sentences. Moreover, war crimes trials continued elsewhere and for decades: in West Germany, in eastern Europe, and, in the most recent years, in the prosecutions of the last surviving perpetrators for their roles in Nazi crimes. The legal legacy of Nuremberg thus continues to this day. The trials set in motion global efforts to hold individuals accountable for the crimes committed by numerous odious regimes, and many more similar trials have followed. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Was Robin Hood ACTUALLY real? The history explained
Dive into the myth and historical speculation surrounding Robin Hood, a legendary outlaw famed for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, as HistoryExtra's David Musgrove presents the real details from history that might have inspired the Sherwood Forest hero
Was Robin Hood one man – or many? In this video, Dr David Musgrove shares some of the medieval rebels who may have inspired England’s greatest outlaw, and discover how history has turned him into a folk hero. Drawing on expertise from Dr Sean McGlynn, Musgrove examines figures such as King Richard the Lionheart and King John to anchor the Robin Hood legend in real history. But the earliest stories don’t depict Robin Hood as particularly kind – in fact, he’s often violent. And his iconic green outfit? A mere invention. From chopping off heads to fighting the French – dig into the real history behind the Robin Hood that has so often featured in Hollywood blockbusters. View Green Video on the source website
Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady
Lucretia Garfield, also known as Crete, was the wife of US President James A Garfield and served briefly as First Lady in 1881. She was admired for her stoic devotion during the president’s long illness that followed his wounding by assassin Charles Guiteau (as depicted in the Netflix drama Death by Lightning), and for her later efforts to preserve his papers and legacy
When US President James A Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau in July 1881, the nation’s focus turned not only to the wounded president and his successor Chester A Arthur, but also to his wife, Lucretia Garfield, sometimes known to history as ‘Crete’. She was with him for more than two months as he died, dividing her time between his sickroom in Washington, DC, and the New Jersey seaside house where doctors hoped the air might help him recover. Contemporary newspapers heaped praise upon her for her strength and devotion, at a moment of personal and national anxiety. But her stoicism in the face of personal tragedy is just one part of Lucretia’s story – part of which is dramatised in the Netflix series, Death by Lightning, which follows the assassination of President Garfield. Behind her composure was a life of intellectual interest and loyalty that was present long before she became First Lady. Who was Lucretia ‘Crete’ Garfield? Lucretia Rudolph Garfield is remembered in history as the wife of James A Garfield, the 20th President of the United States. She served as First Lady for only six months before her husband died of fatal wounds following an attack by assassin Charles Guiteau. She had previously been a teacher and scholar, and retained passion for education and literature throughout her life. Her poise during his slow death earned wide admiration across the United States, and in the decades that followed she became a guardian of his papers and legacy. Read more | How many US presidents died in office? <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1410610111-5277a01-e1762429347504.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This late 19th-century portrait shows Lucretia Garfield, wife of U.S. President James A. Garfield. Known for her intellect and dignity, she brought refinement to the White House during her husband’s brief presidency in 1881." title="A portrait of Lucretia Garfield, wife of President Garfield." /> Lucretia Garfield’s early life and education Lucretia Rudolph was born on 19 April 1832 in Garrettsville, Ohio. She was the daughter of Zebulon and Arabella Rudolph. Her father, a carpenter-farmer and local politician, believed in the power of education and ensured that all his children studied beyond the basic level then available in rural Ohio. Early friends remembered her as a serious figure even from a young age. She was well-read and chose to spend her time studying. She was once quoted as saying: “Books are more faithful companions than the crowds that pass.” Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history In 1850, in her late teenage years, she enrolled at the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute (later Hiram College), one of the few co-educational colleges in the region. Lucretia studied philosophy, literature and science, and impressed her teachers with her diligence and clarity of thought. Among her classmates was James A Garfield, a handful of months older and already known for his energy and oratory skills. Their friendship, formed through shared academic interests, soon began. Lucretia and James Garfield’s marriage and family life Lucretia and James’ relationship developed slowly and in a non-linear fashion. They were briefly engaged, then separated for several years before reconciling. They married on 11 November 1858 in Hiram, after a long and sometimes hesitant courtship, with his sociability and ambition often standing in contrast to her more reserved nature. The couple began married life in modest circumstances. When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, Garfield entered military service while Lucretia managed the household and their growing family. In his absence, she handled finances, kept detailed household accounts, and offered political observations to James via her letters. They had seven children, five of whom survived to adulthood: Harry, James, Mary, Irvin, and Abram. Their marriage wasn’t without challenge; during his service, Garfield had an extramarital affair with a woman named Lucia Calhoun in Washington, DC. He later admitted the indiscretion and was forgiven by his wife. By the 1870s, James having returned from war, their marriage had become close to an equal partnership. Garfield consulted her on political decisions and drafts of speeches, and she often edited his work. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1177463808-b82af2f-e1762429745125.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 1881 print depicts President James A Garfield with his family, published with the permission of his wife, Lucretia, and was created shortly after his assassination." title="James A Garfield and Family, Respectfully Dedicated to and Published by the Permission of Lucretia R Garfield, Published by JH Buffords Sons, 1881" /> Lucretia’s time as First Lady of the United States When Garfield was elected president in 1880, Lucretia was reluctant to step into her new role as First Lady. She valued privacy and found the ‘high society’ of Gilded Age America artificial, though she soon established her own good reputation. Her receptions were smaller than those of her predecessors, but more personal. Read more | "Violence and American politics have gone hand in hand right from the beginning" She took particular interest in restoring and cataloguing the White House’s historical furnishings, many of which had fallen into disrepair. Her plans for preservation and displaying items anticipated later efforts to treat the residence as a national museum. She also began a small library, for the use of White House staff and guests. Shortly after her husband’s inauguration in March 1881, Lucretia contracted malaria and was sent to the seaside city of Long Branch, New Jersey, to recover. It was there, in July 1881, that she received a telegram containing news of an attack on her husband. Lucretia Garfield’s reaction to the assassination of President Garfield On 2 July 1881, President Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau at a Washington, DC, railway station. The president was seriously wounded but still alive as he was taken to the White House to recover. Despite her illness, Lucretia travelled immediately from New Jersey. For more than ten weeks she kept an almost continuous vigil at his side. She read aloud from Shakespeare and from the Bible, selecting passages that spoke to ideas of stoicism and courage. The public sympathy for Lucretia was immense. Newspapers bore reports of her composure, and thousands of telegrams of support arrived. Read more | 6 shocking presidential scandals that rocked the White House When Garfield was moved to Long Branch in September in the hope that sea air would aid his recovery, Lucretia oversaw the journey, travelling by his side when he was moved in his sickbed. On 19 September 1881, when Garfield died from infection caused by his wounds. Lucretia was by his bedside. Garfield was the first US president to die following an attack by an assassin since Abraham Lincoln. At the funeral in Cleveland, Ohio – Garfield had served on the Ohio state senate, forever cementing his link to the state – crowds lined the streets in solemn respect as her carriage passed. What was Lucretia Garfield’s life like after her husband’s death? Following her husband’s death, Lucretia withdrew from public life. She refused interviews and declined invitations to political events, focusing instead on being with their children, and tasking herself with the preservation of Garfield’s writings. Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world In 1882, she purchased a home in Cleveland which she named Lawnfield. While there she began organising her husband’s papers and correspondence, creating the first presidential library. Her careful cataloguing efforts later provided the foundation for the James A Garfield Memorial Library. Lucretia also oversaw the design and construction of the James A Garfield Memorial in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery, completed in 1890. She personally selected the artists and approved inscriptions, insisting that the building include both a tomb and a public museum. It became one of the first presidential monuments to incorporate an educational space. Lucretia Garfield’s later years Lucretia never commented publicly on Charles Guiteau, the assassin. Neither did she attend his trial, or his execution in 1882. In her later years she divided her time between Cleveland and the West Coast. She remained interested in education and social reform, supporting local schools and charities but avoiding public attention. During the First World War, she followed events closely and corresponded with her son Harry, who was involved in relief work. Lucretia Garfield died on 13 March 1918, aged 85, at her home in Pasadena, California. She was buried beside her husband in the Garfield Memorial. Death by Lightning is streaming on Netflix now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week.
Who was the real Chester Arthur – and what was his relationship with James Garfield?
When US President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881, his Vice President, Chester A Arthur, assumed the presidency amid widespread distrust. But once viewed as a party insider tied to political corruption, Arthur surprised the nation
When US President James Garfield was shot in July 1881, few Americans expected his vice-president, Chester A Arthur, to be able to manage the crisis that followed. Known as a New York Republican party bureaucrat, with a background in patronage and machine politics, Arthur had little public confidence backing him. But when Garfield died of his wounds later that year, Arthur was thrust into the spotlight as the 21st President of the United States. Arthur story simmers in the background of Netflix’s 2025 drama Death by Lightning, the story of the assassination of Garfield (played by Michael Shannon) at the hands of frustrated political hopeful Charles Guiteau (played by Matthew Macfadyen). In Death by Lightning, Chester Arthur (played by Nick Offerman) is portrayed as something of a low man pushed in high office, a Republican enforcer famed for his carousing. But how does real history remember him? Who was the real Chester Arthur? Prior to becoming the 21st US President, serving from 1881–85, Chester Alan Arthur had been a lawyer and political organiser from New York, and was closely associated with the patronage system of the Republican Party. As president, however, his administration is perhaps best known for passing the 1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act – ending the easily abused ‘spoils system’ of political patronage that he had once supported. His presidency is often viewed as a meaningful step toward cleaner government and a more professional civil service. Arthur was born on 5 October 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont, as one of nine children. His father, Reverend William Arthur, was a Baptist minister from Northern Ireland. His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, came from a New England farming family. He attended Union College in Schenectady, New York, where he graduated in 1848. He taught at a school for several years before studying law in New York City. In 1854, in his mid-twenties, he was admitted to the bar. Arthur’s early legal work included a notable civil rights case. In 1855, he represented Elizabeth Jennings, a Black schoolteacher who had been forced off a streetcar reserved for white passengers. Arthur won the case, helping to bring an end to racial segregation on New York’s public transit system. Why was Chester Arthur so powerful in the Republican party? When the American Civil War began in 1861, Arthur joined the Union cause and would be eventually appointed Quartermaster General for the State of New York, where he oversaw the supply and organisation of troops. He performed the role effectively and established a reputation for reliability and administrative skill. His work brought him into contact with New York’s Republican political machine, led by Senator Roscoe Conkling, who headed the Stalwart faction of the party. The Stalwarts believed in the traditional system of political patronage (known as the spoils system) under which party loyalty was rewarded with public appointments. In 1871, Arthur was appointed Collector of the Port of New York, one of the most powerful federal positions in the country. The office was responsible for collecting customs revenues and appointing thousands of employees. Arthur used the post to strengthen his political connections, and became a well-known figure in New York society. Though some critics accused him of using the office to entrench party interests, he was never personally accused of corruption. In 1878, the incumbent US President, Rutherford B Hayes, who had promised reform, removed Arthur from the position as part of his efforts to reduce the influence of politics over what should have been administrative positions. Though a political setback, Arthur remained loyal to Conkling and the Stalwart faction. How did Chester Arthur become Garfield’s running mate? By 1880, the Republican Party was divided. The Stalwarts, led by Conkling, supported the return of former president Ulysses S Grant for a third term. The reform-minded Half-Breed faction, led by Maine senator James Blaine, wanted new leadership and a move away from patronage politics. When the Republican convention in Chicago rolled around in June 1880, there was deadlock. Days passed. So did 35 ballots. A canny compromise was needed, and that was ‘The Man From Ohio’, James Garfield: a senior congressman and former Union general. Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history When Garfield was nominated for president, Arthur, representing the Stalwart faction, was chosen as his running mate to balance the ticket. The compromise proved successful. The Garfield–Arthur ticket won the 1880 election by a narrow margin, defeating the Democratic nominee, Winfield Scott Hancock, and securing a Republican victory after a closely contested campaign. Arthur’s nomination had helped unite the party’s factions, at least temporarily, behind a single ticket. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/Death-by-Lightning-Split-WL-AN-1-afd7447-e1762441343700.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="US President James Garfiled as played by Michael Shannon in Netflix drama Death by Lightning, and a photo of the real James Garfield" title="US President James Garfiled as played by Michael Shannon in Netflix drama Death by Lightning, and the real James Garfield (Photos via Netflix & Getty)" /> James Garfield and Chester Arthur’s relationship: did they get along? Though James Garfield and Chester Arthur were allies on the Republican ticket, they had little in common. Garfield was in favour of party and government reform, and sought to reduce the power of party bosses, while Arthur was deeply entrenched within the political system that Garfield wanted to change. The two men had a distant working relationship. Arthur’s main duty as vice-president was to preside over the Senate, and he had little influence on administration policy. After the election, tensions between Garfield and Arthur’s Stalwart faction came to the fore over the appointment of the Collector of the Port of New York (the same office that Arthur had once held). Garfield nominated William H Robertson, a Half-Breed reformer, to the position. Conkling and his allies opposed the nomination, arguing that it undermined their influence in New York politics. Arthur, out of past loyalty to Conkling and seeking to protect his own reputation as a Stalwart, supported the protest against Garfield’s decision. The dispute became public, and was damaging to the party unity, but ultimately Conkling’s protest failed. The episode weakened the Stalwarts and left Arthur politically isolated. He might have remained that way, had it not been for the actions of a man named Charles Guiteau. On 2 July 1881, only four months after taking office, Garfield was shot at a Washington DC railway station. The shooter, Guiteau, was a political office-seeker who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Stalwart cause. “I am a Stalwart,” Guiteau shouted, “Arthur is now President of the United States.” Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world How did Chester Arthur react to Garfield’s assassination? Although Chester Arthur had no connection to the assassin, many Americans recognised that he stood to benefit from the crime. Public suspicion turned toward him, and he received hostile letters and threats. He was hurt by the accusations and strongly denied any sympathies for Guiteau, rejecting the idea that he wished Garfield harm. Garfield survived for almost three months after the shooting, before succumbing to his wounds on 19 September 1881. News of the president’s death reached Arthur in New York, and he was sworn in at his home in the early hours of the next morning. But, from all his disagreements with Garfield, public confidence in Arthur was on the floor. Read more | Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady How did Garfield’s assassination shape Chester Arthur’s time as president? Aware of the doubts surrounding him after Garfield's assassination, Chester Arthur actively sought to position himself as a unifying figure of fairness and restraint. His administration was moderate, orderly and more independent than had been expected. His most significant reform was his support for the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This introduced competitive examinations for many federal jobs, and made it illegal to dismiss employees for political reasons. It marked the beginning of a professional civil service in the United States. Although it was Garfield’s supporters who had pushed for reform, it was Arthur, once a beneficiary and proponent of the patronage system, who signed the bill and enforced it. It was a sign of his seriousness to protect Garfield’s wishes after his death. Read more | "Violence and American politics have gone hand in hand right from the beginning" In other measures, Arthur began rebuilding the US Navy, which had fallen into decline since the Civil War. His administration authorised the construction of new steel warships and established the basis for a modern fleet. He also undertook a renovation of the White House, bringing a new sense of formality and remaking it as a symbol of political and social importance. Arthur also vetoed an early version of the Chinese Exclusion Act that would have imposed a 20-year ban on immigration, which he argued violated treaty agreements. Congress later passed a revised version with a 10-year ban, which Arthur signed into law. In all, Arthur was widely regarded as a careful and pragmatic president. His administration was free of major scandal, and his measured style served to restore some measure of public trust in the political system. Arthur’s declining health and the end of his presidency In 1882, Arthur was diagnosed with Bright’s disease, a chronic kidney condition that was then incurable. He kept the diagnosis private, but it affected his energy and outlook. Figures close to him noted that he seemed tired and subdued. By 1884, his political position had weakened further. Despite his best efforts, reformers remained suspicious of his past, while Stalwarts felt betrayed by his role in the reform. Recognising the facts at hand, Arthur made little effort to seek re-nomination. The Republican Party chose James G Blaine as its presidential nominee instead, who went on to lose to Grover Cleveland. Arthur then retired to New York City, living quietly in a brownstone on Lexington Avenue. He died soon afterwards, on 18 November 1886, aged 57. Upon his death, even his former critics acknowledged the integrity and restraint that he had brought to the highest office of the United States of America. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Who was the real James Garfield, ‘the man from Ohio’ and doomed president of Death by Lightning?
The 20th President of the United States had the potential to be one of the greats, according to many – until his assassination less than a year into the job. As a new drama comes to Netflix about what set him and his killer on their tragic collision, here’s why it’s time to better remember James Garfield
In the history of the presidents of the United States, James Garfield is too easily overlooked. It’s not hard to see why: his time in the presidential spotlight had been brief, emerging late as a surprise candidate for the 1880 election and serving only 200 days in office. He is perhaps best known as one of the four US presidents to be assassinated, alongside Abraham Lincoln (1865), William McKinley (1901) and John F Kennedy (1963). But while he does not rank as one of the ‘greats’, Garfield is the great ‘what if’ of American politics. A brilliant mind, commanding yet humble, and driven by principle, he fought against corruption and for the modernisation of the country. If he had lived, who knows what he might have accomplished. Now Garfield is back in in the spotlight again in 2025 Netflix limited series Death by Lightning starring Michael Shannon as the doomed president and Matthew Macfadyen as his killer, Charles Guiteau. How and why was US President James Garfield assassinated? On 2 July 1881, President James Garfield travelled to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington DC, on his way to speak at his college reunion before heading off on a family holiday. Only a couple of members of his cabinet accompanied him; even after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination 16 years earlier, it was not common practice for a president to have a security detail. As he entered the waiting room, a man named Charles Guiteau approached from behind, and fired his British Bulldog revolver twice. The first shot grazed Garfield’s arm – causing him to cry out, “My God, what is this?” – and the second hit his back, becoming lodged near his pancreas. While Garfield was rushed away for medical care, police seized the gunman. Guiteau, almost certainly suffering from a severe mental condition, had a lifetime’s worth of failed enterprises and disappointed ambitions that stretched well beyond his ability. The latest had been a role in politics. He had supported Garfield in the election and believed that he was due reward, though although in reality this amounted to writing a single speech, delivering it to a small group of people and distributing some printed copies. Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world Yet despite this rudimentary support, Guiteau believed that his efforts had been utterly pivotal in Garfield’s victory, so much so that he expected to be rewarded with a position in the administration. For months, he tried to secure a consulship in Vienna or Paris. When neither materialised, a devastated Guiteau decided that Garfield had to die. In fact, he thought God told him that Garfield’s “removal” was necessary for the sake of the country. Having bought the pistol, he stalked the president for weeks – until his opportunity came in that train station waiting room. Although it took time, and some woefully mishandled treatment by his doctors, the attack ultimately claimed Garfield’s life. Who was the real James Garfield? James Abram Garfield was born on 19 November 1831 into a life of poverty. Raised in a log cabin in rural Ohio, his father Abram died young, leaving James, his brother and his two sisters to be cared for by their penniless yet headstrong mother, Eliza, while she managed their scrap of land. A young Garfield had several attributes in his favour, though: he was extremely bright, hardworking, and impatient to better himself. Starting in his teens, he worked odd jobs to put him through his education at Geauga Seminary, Western Reserve Eclectic Institute and then Williams College, Massachusetts, where he graduated in 1856. He went back to the Eclectic Institute as a professor, but by the age of 26 he had become its president. Excelling in numerous subjects, Garfield had a mind that could write Latin with one hand and ancient Greek with the other (and at the same time), and then, in later life, author his own proof of the Pythagorean theorem as a hobby. Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history While at school, he met Lucretia Rudolph and, after a long courtship, they married in 1858. Their early years were strained, exacerbated by the loss of their first daughter and the revelation that Garfield had an affair with another woman while away during his service during the American Civil War. But Lucretia – affectionately known as Crete – forgave him and the couple grew devoted to each other. They had another six children, one more not surviving infancy, and Crete remained a constant counsel in her husband’s career. Not content as a teacher, Garfield become an attorney, got ordained as a minister and went into politics, joining the new, anti-slavery Republican Party and being elected to the Ohio state senate in 1859. Then, with the start of the American Civil War in 1861, his sights turned to the military. What did James Garfield do in the American Civil War? A staunch abolitionist, Garfield eagerly signed up for the Union cause. As well as raising funds for volunteer regiments in the legislature, he recruited men to the 42nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry and served as its colonel. With the war initially going badly, Garfield gave the Union something to cheer with his against-the-odds victory at the battle of Middle Creek in early 1862. He saw further action at the battles of Shiloh (1862) and Chickamauga (1863), rising to the rank of major general. By then, he had also been elected to the House of Representatives. President Lincoln himself convinced Garfield to resign his commission, saying that he had enough generals for the battlefield, but needed more good men in Congress. How long was James Garfield in Congress? Beginning in his early 30s, Garfield served nine terms and 17 years as a congressman, during which he distinguished himself as a charismatic orator and pragmatic statesman. Affable and willing to talk to both sides of the aisle, he chaired several powerful committees and became a key figure in fiscal matters, particularly known for his advocacy of the gold standard and free trade. Following the abolition of slavery, he fought for the rights of African Americans during the period of Reconstruction. In particular, he called for freed slaves to have the vote, believing that an educated, engaged Black population was the quickest way to equality. By the late 1870s, Garfield had become the leading Republican in the House, while simultaneously taking cases as a lawyer. In 1880, he was elected to the Senate, but before he could take his seat, higher office came calling. How did James Garfield become president? A newly elected senator, Garfield went to the Republican National Convention, held in Chicago in June 1880, to endorse his fellow Ohioan and secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman, for president. The other candidates were former president Ulysses S Grant, seeking a third term, and James Blaine, a senator from Maine. Selecting the party’s candidate would not be straightforward. The Republican Party was divided into factions over the ‘spoils system’, a long-established convention of patronage whereby government jobs would be filled by one’s supporters and cronies. The Stalwarts faction wanted it preserved, not least because their leader, the powerful New York senator Roscoe Conkling, controlled the patronage of the New York Customs House, which was at that time one of the most lucrative ports in the world. Conkling backed Grant. The Half-Breeds faction, headed by Blaine, wanted major reform to create a civil service based on merit. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/LIGHTNING102Unit03806RC-ab782f8-e1762445619564.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Lucretia Garfield (Betty Gilpin) and James Garfield (Michael Shannon) in Netflix drama Death by Lightning" title="Lucretia Garfield (Betty Gilpin) and James Garfield (Michael Shannon) in Netflix drama Death by Lightning (Photo via Larry Horricks/Netflix)" /> Neither side budged. Several days and 35 ballots passed without one man securing the nomination. It became clear that a compromise candidate was needed – and more and more heads turned towards Garfield. Ostensibly against Garfield’s own wishes, he won the 36th ballot and reluctantly joined the presidential race, with Stalwart Chester Arthur added to the ticket as vice presidential candidate. His Democratic opponent was Winfield Scott Hancock, a fellow Union Army veteran. At this time, it was improper for a candidate to go out campaigning personally, so Garfield came up with a novel solution. He stayed at his home in Mentor, Ohio, and the press, voters and lobbyists came to him. Hundreds if not thousands heard him give speeches from his front porch, in which he made the most of his rags-to-riches story. In the end, he defeated Hancock, although narrowly – the margin was fewer than 10,000 votes, out of more than nine million cast. Was James Garfield a good president? The truth is that we will never know, but there is reason to think he could have been more than good. Garfield’s first act was to put together a conciliatory cabinet, including Blaine as Secretary of State, and then he set about purging the Post Office of corruption. The major success of his tenure in the White House came against Conkling. Instead of picking the man Conkling wanted as Collector of the Port of New York, according to the spoils system, Garfield chose a Half-Breed, William H Robertson. Both New York senators – Conkling and his preferred candidate – resigned in protest, certain that they would be instantly re-elected in a show of support from the city of New York, but the gambit backfired. Conkling lost his seat, and Garfield made a resounding statement asserting presidential authority. While a blow to the spoils system, Garfield still had to contend with huge numbers of office seekers, people who thought they were owed for their support. Among them was one Charles Guiteau. What was James Garfield’s relationship like with his vice president, Chester Arthur? At the time of Garfield’s nomination, it was hoped that divisions within the Republican Party could be reconciled by selecting Chester A Arthur, a Stalwart, as the vice-presidential candidate. This inevitably led to a tense relationship between the two in highest office. This came to a head especially during Garfield’s feud with Conkling. Arthur was firmly in Conkling’s pocket: indeed, he lived with him at the time of the convention. But after Garfield’s death, it would be Arthur – a product of the spoils system – who pushed through legislation for civil service reform. When did James Garfield die? The shots fired by Guiteau did not immediately kill Garfield. In fact, he lived for another 11 weeks, receiving treatment at the White House from a host of doctors. Far from aiding his recovery, these medics made matters worse. Their attempts to extract the bullet in the president’s back were carried out with no consideration of germs or sterilisation, meaning that Garfield picked up fevers and infections, including sepsis. Unable to eat, he lost a huge amount of weight and became increasingly weak. Time and time again, his wound was opened. Even Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, was brought in to test his new metal detector in the hope of locating the bullet. Was the gunshot not fatal? Ever since, there has been a school of thought among medical experts that, if doctors had just left Garfield alone, he may have recovered. Instead, his health worsened. His doctors eventually decided to take Garfield away from the oppressive summer heat of Washington and transport him to Elberon, New Jersey, to benefit from the sea air. Extra rail track was laid in a night just to make his journey more comfortable. There, 80 days after being shot, Garfield finally succumbed on 19 September 1881, aged 49. Guiteau, who had spent the whole time in jail, could now be put on trial for murder. Despite his defence of insanity – and declaration “I did not kill the president. The doctors did that. I merely shot him” – he was found guilty and executed by hanging in June 1882. What did James Garfield’s assassination mean for American politics? Before his death, Garfield’s health became a media spectacle with every medical update printed in the papers. As such, the news of his death was met with an immense outpouring of grief. More than 100,000 people saw him lying in state in the Capitol Building, while 150,000 observed his funeral in Cleveland, Ohio. For years afterwards, his widow Lucretia preserved his records and papers, and stored them in an archive built on her property. This is now recognised as the first presidential library. Most significantly, Chester Arthur, once sworn in as the 21st president, signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, which ended the spoils system. He meant it as a memorial to Garfield, and it remains a legacy to a presidency that could have achieved much more, if not for an assassin’s bullet. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week