The letters of Alix Joffroy (1844-1908), a medical intern at Lariboisière's Hospital at the time of the Commune of Paris

Since opening in 1848, Lariboisière's Hospital was strongly associated with the history of Paris and especially with the terrible days of the siege of Paris and the fights of the Commune. On the day after the surrender, Alix Joffroy wrote his first letter to his mother. He described the events as he experienced them, expressing his feelings about the causes of this political and military disaster and his experience there as an intern. Some weeks after the defeat of France by the Prussians, humbled Parisians attacked governmental troops. From March to May 1871 an improvised insurrectionary movement, The Commune of Paris, had taken power in the capital During the Bloody Week from 21 to 28 May 1871; this movement was suppressed by the Versaillaise Army. In his second letter, Joffroy related with great realism the tooth and nail fighting at the barricades and then the savage repression by the Army of the Communards around Lariboisière's Hospital. Two letters preciously preserved by Alix Joffroy's descendants give this man's unique direct account of a tragic period of the 19th century.

Moisès Broggi i Vallès (1908-2012): Military surgeon and Catalan humanitarian

Catalan surgeon Moisès Broggi entered medical practice in 1931 as Spain was modernizing rapidly. Five years later, however, an attempted military coup sparked a nationwide civil war. Broggi offered his services to the embattled Republic and joined the Medical Service of the International Brigades. He served alongside colleagues from many countries, helping to develop advances in military medicine and especially trauma surgery. Broggi chose to remain working in Barcelona as Franco's Nationalist forces entered the city, in spite of the risk of reprisal he faced as a former officer of the International Brigades. Although forced from his leading position in the public health service, he developed a distinguished private practice. In the year of Franco's death he became President of Barcelona's Royal Academy of Medicine and he received many other honours. Just months before his death at the remarkable age of 104, Dr Moisès Broggi continued to discuss and write about the concerns that had directed the course of his life--advances in medical science and the intellectual and political repression that had hindered delivery of those advances. In an article titled Exile and Silence he noted the groundbreaking work carried out under the auspices of the prestigious scientific institutions founded during Spain's Second Republic and the subsequent dark decades of exile suffered by many of their prominent scientists, some of them his close friends.

[Our Doubts regarding the Identification of the Corpse of Louis II King of Bohemia and Hungary]

The coalitioned man-at-arms batallion of Louis II (1516-1526) King of Bohemia and Hungary had crushing defeated by overwhelmingly Turk army of Suleiman (1520-1566) the Magnificent at close to Mohács on 29 August 1526. Louis II and his trusty servant, István Aczél escaped from the losing battle, but both of them drowned into a brook (perhaps a local stream, named Csele) or a swampy fishpond. The one of the Bohemian noble, Ulrich Czettritz von Neuhaus royal court chamberlain was the single eyewitness of this luckless misadventure, furthermore - according to his first verbal report - he failed to help to the King from the sludge. The same Czettritz identified the King’s dead body on the spot on 18 October of 1526, but the King’s corpse turned up from a newly dug sepulchral mound instead of water, swamp or any kind of original surface. Ferenc Sárffy (royal castle head of Győr) joined to Czettritz’s scene investigation and Sárffy reported István Brodarics Chancellor about the case on 19 October 1526. The details of royal corpse identification is well-known from the copy of Sárffy’s letter, which one has been preserve at Poland. According to the Sárffy’s report the corpse of Louis II was taintless, in spite of the royal dead body spent underground circa 50 days and unknown persons previously removed it. In our opinion it would have been decompose because of late autodigestion or adipoceration. So if Sárffy’s report is right about the undamaged condition of corpse, it must not Louis’ dead body. It could not excluded that Ferenc Sárffy deliberately embellished the truth. Nevertheless Louis was not buried by Ulrich Czettritz or Maria Habsburg — Louis’ widow, who sent Czettritz to the corpse identification —, or Maria’s brother Ferdinand Archduke of Austria, who aspirated to the throne. Point of interest that finally the King’s funeral was made by John Szapolya vaivoda of Transylvania, who occupiedwith his army the crowning city (named Székesfehérvár), because he aspirated to the throne also and he was a politician on the other side of the fence. The ceremonial funeral became on 9 November 1526, when the royal body was dead for 72 days. This is the reason why we have been sceptical about Louis’ corpse was in suitable condition for the procession of burial, where some important Hungarian people surely inspected him and nobody failed to notice that the King’s body had had signs of advanced decompose. In our opinion - considering that date of the scene investigation, then circumstances of the medical examination, finally Czettritz was not a skilled doctor - could be 66 percent chances that Czettritz and Sárffy should not found the corpse of Louis II. An English document proves our statement. Thomas Wolsey Chancellor, Archbishop of York wrote a letter to Henry VIII King of England from Westminster on 23 October 1526. The Chancellor informed Henry VIII in this document about the founding and burying process of Louis II. Out of consideration for the distance between of England and Hungary, the news could not arrive from Győr (Sárffy reported Brodarics on 19 October) to London (Wolsey reported Henry VIII on 23 October) within four days, because other letters, news and reports were coming 3 or 4 weeks delay. Our conclusions that Louis’ corpse was finding at least 3 or 4 weeks before the scene investigation of Czettritz and Sárffy. Accordingly the corpse which was found on 18 October it should neither the King’s body nor Louis’ corpse was buried at Székesfehérvár on 9 November 1526.

Psychohistorical Hypotheses on Japan's History of Hostility Towards China

The accelerating tensions and military posturing between Japan and China have created a serious crisis with a danger of a catastrophic war. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the events of the current crisis, and to put it in the context of Japan's long history of hostility to China and repeated attempts at conquest. The historical record shows that Japan has attacked China at least seven times, even though China has never attacked Japan. The irrationality of Japan's behavior is demonstrated by the repetition of this hostile behavior despite the enormous human and economic costs that Japan has suffered because of it. The irrationality of Japan's militarism suggests that psychological explanations may be required to understand this phenomenon. Several hypotheses are proposed, including 1) projected paranoid aggression, 2) collective Zeigarnik compulsion, 3) perceived weakness exciting aggression, 4) national inferiority feelings, 5) cultural narcissism, and 6) Oedipal-like hatred of a parent culture.

[PLAGUE IN MANCHURIA (1910-1911) AND EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE IN WEST AFRICA (2014-2015): COMMON PREREQUISITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPIDEMICS]

The paper gives the results of a comparative analysis of the prerequisites for the emergence and spread of epidemics of particularly dangerous infections, by using plague in Manchuria (1910-1911) and Ebola virus disease in West Africa (2014-2015) as examples. Analysis of literature and archival data and online information could reveal a number of common factors and conditions, which substantially contributed to the epidemics. Organization of anti-epidemic (preventive) measures in cases of the threatening epidemic spread, of particularly dangerous diseases must be based on the minimization, of the influence of the specific factors and conditions, which facilitate disease transmission in a given area in a given time.

Richard's back: death, scoliosis and myth making

The body of a mediaeval monarch was always under scrutiny, and Richard III's was no exception. In death, however, his body became subject to new forms of examination and interpretation: stripped naked after the battle of Bosworth, his corpse was carried to Leicester and exhibited before being buried. In 2012, it was rediscovered. The revelation that Richard suffered from scoliosis prompts this article to re-evaluate the historical sources about Richard's physique and his posthumous reputation. This article argues that Richard's death and his myth as 'crookback' are inextricably linked and traces attitudes to spinal curvature in the early modern period. It also considers how Shakespeare represented Richard as deformed, and aspects of performance history which suggest physical vulnerability. It then considers Richard's scoliosis from the perspective of medical history, reviewing classical accounts of scoliosis and arguing that Richard was probably treated with a mixture of axial traction and pressure. It demonstrates from the evidence of Richard's medical household that he was well placed to receive hands-on therapies and considers in particular the role of his physician and surgeon, William Hobbes. Finally, it shows how the case of Richard III demonstrates the close relationship between politics and medicine in the period and the contorted process of historical myth making.

[FIRST WOMEN DOCTORS FROM TURKEY: AMALIA FRISCH (1882-1941)]

Amália Frisch was born in Edirne/Adrianople, Turkey, in 1882 to an immigrant Jewish family from Hungary. Following her graduation from the American College for Girls in Istanbul in 1901, she traveled to Switzerland for her medical education. Amália Frisch graduated from the school of medicine in Bern in 1907, and received her MD (Doctor universae medicinae) degree from the Zurich University in 1908. She specialised in gynaecology at the Vienna University Clincs, before returning to Istanbul. In the December of 1908, Dr. Amália Frisch was appointed intern to the Austro-Hungarian Hospital in Galata to attend the women's ward. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 the hospital housed the wounded of the Turkish Army in its Pancaldi premises, and Amália Frisch received medals of merit for her services both from the Habsburg Emperor Franz Josef and the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed Reschad V. Amália Frisch was an active member of the Ottoman Society for the Protection of Women's Rights (est. 1913). She was deported by the French occupation command in 1919 and returned to Budapest, after which she altered her profession to stomatology and dentistry. Amália Frisch passed away in Budapest during war, in 1941.

POW and Detainee Operations: Lessons Unlearned

Throughout the history of modern warfare, tales of atrocities have repeatedly surfaced that depict active and passive aggression toward prisoners of war (POWs). Yet, with each conflict, new tales are born and an undeniable reality of warfare inflicts fresh scars for aggressors to bear. It is understandable, based on human nature and the goals of war, that a government (or its representatives) will feel malice toward enemy prisoners captured during a conflict. It is unquestionably a challenge to overcome that human nature, despite the statutes that outline lawful treatment of POWs. While most aspects of warfare have been revolutionized throughout history, the means by which a military deals with its POWs remains somewhat mired in the reticence of leaders to acknowledge that it will factor into every conflict--that it will, in fact, become a source of controversy as long as it is handled as an afterthought. As shown in accounts dating back to the Revolutionary War, the law can only influence human nature to a point, especially when resources are limited, ignorance is a reality, and no one is watching.