Speaker 1: Happy Saturday, everybody. After we dropped that upbeat history playlist
Speaker 1: into our feed not long after the declaration of the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic, listener Emily sent us a note with
Speaker 1: suggestions for topics to include if we decided to do
Speaker 1: another one. We are replaying one of those topics as
Speaker 1: our classic episode today and I love this topic. It's
Speaker 1: dazzle camouflage and it originally came out on September. Thank
Speaker 1: you Emily for the suggestion. Welcome to Stuff You Missed
Speaker 1: in History Class, a production of I Heart Radio. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast. I'm colleague from and I'm
Speaker 1: Tracy Vie Wilson, and we're going to deal a little
Speaker 1: bit of military history today, world War One specifically, and
Speaker 1: this particular little story combines military strategy with art and
Speaker 1: even a little bit of a garudge match. You may
Speaker 1: have seen photos of World War One ships painted with
Speaker 1: what's called dazzle camouflage, and if you haven't, you are
Speaker 1: in for such a visual treat because they look amazing.
Speaker 1: It's all very geometric and cool. It will often show
Speaker 1: up in lists where you know people are like, look
Speaker 1: ten historical photos that aren't photoshopped and uh as sort
Speaker 1: of a mind boggling why on earth is this so
Speaker 1: amazing type of article stance? But and they are really
Speaker 1: fabulous to look at. But most people do not know
Speaker 1: that there is a lot more to the story than
Speaker 1: meets the I, including some some angryness about who actually
Speaker 1: should get attribution. There is a very popular version of
Speaker 1: the whole Dazzle camouflage story, and that's where we are
Speaker 1: going to start. Yeah. In v British Navy ships were
Speaker 1: being sunk by German U boats in nothing short of
Speaker 1: devastating numbers. It was an incredible challenge to conceal ships
Speaker 1: on the open seas. Some of those was due to
Speaker 1: the weather. Since the weather is constantly changing at sea,
Speaker 1: you can't really make one camouflage that's going to effectively
Speaker 1: disguise the ship, no matter what the conditions are like.
Speaker 1: And another problem is that it's not just the ships,
Speaker 1: the ship itself that gives its location away. The ship
Speaker 1: leaves awake, there are smoke trails, all these other signals
Speaker 1: betrayed the ship's positions. So you boats would identify their
Speaker 1: targets and then they would plot their predicted courses. So
Speaker 1: then after calculating the speed at which they were traveling
Speaker 1: and confirming the ship's trajectory. It was torpedo time, so
Speaker 1: they would aim their torpedoes into the predicted path of
Speaker 1: the ship, and you know, the ship would intersect with
Speaker 1: it and be sunk. And the German navy was very
Speaker 1: good at identifying ships and predicting their movements. So, of course,
Speaker 1: because it was facing huge losses, the British Navy wanted
Speaker 1: nothing more than to figure out a way to thwart
Speaker 1: the enemy and save the fleet from being attacked. But
Speaker 1: this was really easier said than done. Even if they
Speaker 1: could find effective camouflaged for as ships so that you
Speaker 1: couldn't physically see it, that really only solved part of
Speaker 1: the problem. The wake and the smoke would still give
Speaker 1: the Germans away to target the ship. And uh, it
Speaker 1: turns out and I love this that you know, art
Speaker 1: came to the rescue. The man who's normally credited with
Speaker 1: brain storring the solution to this problem was Navy lieutenant
Speaker 1: and artist Norman Wilkinson, and he had this idea that
Speaker 1: since they couldn't hide the ships, they could maybe at
Speaker 1: least to do something to confuse the enemy. So his
Speaker 1: idea was a form of disruptive camouflage, and that took
Speaker 1: on the name dazzle camouflage. His idea was that painting
Speaker 1: ships with wild geometric patterns would kind of bewilder the
Speaker 1: sailors on the U boats as they tried to look
Speaker 1: through the periscopes to find the targets. And of course
Speaker 1: the ships would still be visible, but their disruptive geometric
Speaker 1: paint patterns would confuse the eye so much that it
Speaker 1: would be difficult to determine which direction the ship was facing,
Speaker 1: what direction it was moving, and at what speed. Wilkinson
Speaker 1: was given a ship to paint as a proof of concept,
Speaker 1: and before long there were lots more ships being painted
Speaker 1: with wild designs as well. There were hundreds of different
Speaker 1: geometric schemes that were laid out for painting ships, and
Speaker 1: each one was meant to trick the eye with one
Speaker 1: or more optical illusions. Yeah. In some cases, curves along
Speaker 1: the sides of the ships would be painted to create
Speaker 1: sort of false wave patterns that kind of mirrored the
Speaker 1: wake that was going in the opposite direction, so it
Speaker 1: was a duplicate, but they were going in both directions,
Speaker 1: so it was hard to know what was actually happening.
Speaker 1: The smoke stacks were painted with tilted and asymmetrical bands
Speaker 1: of color to make it look like the ship might
Speaker 1: be going the opposite way than it actually was. Diagonal
Speaker 1: lines were often painted in bright colors at either end
Speaker 1: of the ship to make it difficult to discern the
Speaker 1: four from the aft. Some of the ships were painted
Speaker 1: in schemes of stripes that went in all different directions
Speaker 1: and used a multitude of colors, and these basic tried
Speaker 1: to prevent an observer from getting his bearings on exactly
Speaker 1: what he was looking at. I feel like these were
Speaker 1: colossally huge magic eye paintings. Yeah, I mean it's not
Speaker 1: dissimilar from that. It really is just sort of so
Speaker 1: much information thrown at your your eyes that you can't
Speaker 1: really discern kind of what you're looking at. You stand
Speaker 1: back and cross your eyes. I'm so good at magic eyes.
Speaker 1: That's like my superpower. But before we get to an
Speaker 1: alternate version of this story, do you want to pause
Speaker 1: for a moment for a word from our sponsor. So,
Speaker 1: now back to what was going on actually a few
Speaker 1: years before Wilkinson. So, Wilkinson is often credited with the
Speaker 1: idea of applying dazzle camo to ships. But the concept
Speaker 1: had actually been floated several years prior by a man
Speaker 1: who was named John Graham Care, and Care was a naturalist.
Speaker 1: He actually made his name in lungfish embryology, so nothing
Speaker 1: having to do with ships. But several years before Wilkinson
Speaker 1: entered the picture as a proponent of disruptive camouflage, Ker
Speaker 1: had approached the Admiralty with the idea because of all
Speaker 1: his work as a naturalist, Care had witnessed firsthand the
Speaker 1: success of naturally occurring disruptive coloration and animals so many
Speaker 1: many years before World War One, when he was traveling
Speaker 1: on an expedition in South America in he noted quote
Speaker 1: obliterative coloring on many of the animals that he observed,
Speaker 1: and he made these notes repeatedly in his field journals.
Speaker 1: He was clearly really, really fascinated by it, and uh
Speaker 1: in nineteen o two he became the Chair of Zoology,
Speaker 1: although when he initially took the chair it was called
Speaker 1: the Chair of Natural History and then changed the next
Speaker 1: year at the University of Glasgow, and throughout his career,
Speaker 1: even while he was working on his embryology projects, he
Speaker 1: continued to study animal coloration sort of, it's just a
Speaker 1: side interest. While as day jo job was all about zoology.
Speaker 1: Care was also an avid yachtsman, and according to maritime
Speaker 1: historians Hugh Murphy and Martin Bellamy, while Kerr was visiting
Speaker 1: the opening of the Keel Canal in Germany, in the
Speaker 1: contrast he noted between the monochromatic French and German vessels
Speaker 1: and the multi color British ships got his mind thinking
Speaker 1: about how you could apply obliterative coloring to a ship.
Speaker 1: Even before Care there was an American artist named Abbott H.
Speaker 1: Thayer who was also working on concealing coloration through the
Speaker 1: use of counter shading, and he was doing that as
Speaker 1: early as the Spanish American War in the late eighteen nineties.
Speaker 1: And what that means is that darker colors would be
Speaker 1: painted on the top of a vessel to counteract the
Speaker 1: reflection of the sun, and then lighter colors would be
Speaker 1: near the bottom and they would sort of be banded
Speaker 1: in like a hardline ingradient. Care and they are actually
Speaker 1: knew each other and they talked about their different ideas
Speaker 1: and points of view on how to best to conceal
Speaker 1: a large object through the deliberate use of paint color,
Speaker 1: and September en was a particularly devastating time for the
Speaker 1: British Navy. Uh In the course of just a few weeks,
Speaker 1: German U boats sank the HMS Pathfinder, and then on
Speaker 1: the same day a little bit later, the HMS Abuquir,
Speaker 1: the HMS Hogue and the HMS Crescy, and on September
Speaker 1: after all of these had taken place, Ker wrote Winston
Speaker 1: Churchill a letter outlining three different ideas that he had
Speaker 1: for camouflaging ships. The first method involved color matching the habitat,
Speaker 1: but he also not that this was really a lot
Speaker 1: better for small animals than large ships. And the second
Speaker 1: approach that he mentioned was more in line with some
Speaker 1: of the ideas that Thayer had had, although Care called
Speaker 1: it compensation shading, and he basically described a gradient painting
Speaker 1: technique that involved coloring the darkest and most shadowed parts
Speaker 1: of the ship's bright white, and then the areas that
Speaker 1: were exposed to the most light being painted the darkest
Speaker 1: shades of gray, effectively creating sort of a monochromatic blob
Speaker 1: that had no visible detailing, at least if you were
Speaker 1: looking at it through a periscope. The third method outlined
Speaker 1: and Cares letter to Churchill describes a paint application similar
Speaker 1: to the dazzle coloring that Norman Wilkinson is associated with.
Speaker 1: He described this idea of party coloring in the following way.
Speaker 1: It is essential to break up the regularity of the outline,
Speaker 1: and this can easily be affected by strongly contrasting contrasting shades.
Speaker 1: The same applies to the surface. Generally, a continuous uniform
Speaker 1: shade renders conspicuous. This can be counteracted by breaking up
Speaker 1: the surface by violent, violently contrasting pigments. A giraffe or
Speaker 1: zebra or jaguar looks extraordinarily conspicuous in a museum, but
Speaker 1: in nature, when not moving, is wonderfully difficult to pick up,
Speaker 1: especially at twilight. The same principle should be made use
Speaker 1: of in painting ships. I had to kind of chuckled
Speaker 1: of myself when I was reading that initially that he
Speaker 1: only placed animals in museums like, not in any sort
Speaker 1: of live viewing enclosure like a zoo. At the time time,
Speaker 1: it just maybe chuckle as an aside. Uh Care very
Speaker 1: specifically described the need to break up the continuity of
Speaker 1: a ship's outline with these high contrasting white shapes UH
Speaker 1: including masts with the irregular banding of white striping. This
Speaker 1: letter was actually well received, Kara gotta thank you note
Speaker 1: and the assurance that this information and ideas would be
Speaker 1: shared with the rest of the fleet, and they were indeed.
Speaker 1: In fact, the contents of Care's letter were included verbatim
Speaker 1: as part of a general order issued on November tenth
Speaker 1: of that same year. The order, which went out with
Speaker 1: the title Visibility of Ships Method of Diminishing, went out
Speaker 1: with the instructions that the use of the information included
Speaker 1: was at the discretion of the officers on their various commands,
Speaker 1: and several of them did opt to try these ideas out.
Speaker 1: It was through a personal connection that John Graham Care
Speaker 1: found out his camouflage concepts were actually being put into use.
Speaker 1: A former pupil of his was serving on the HMS
Speaker 1: Implacable and wrote Care a letter telling him that everyone
Speaker 1: on all levels of naval service agreed that these were
Speaker 1: good ideas, and that the student had seen another ship
Speaker 1: employing the disruptive painting style. And I would just like
Speaker 1: to have a side note that I love that there's
Speaker 1: a ship called the HMS implacable is pretty charming. Exactly
Speaker 1: how many ships ended up adopting this disruptive painting technique
Speaker 1: that was based on Cares instructions is really pretty hazy.
Speaker 1: Since the practice was at the discretion of individual commands,
Speaker 1: there really wasn't a system in place to account for
Speaker 1: its usage, like nobody had to report in that they
Speaker 1: had painted their ship this way. And additionally, there's evidence
Speaker 1: that some crews were actually using very similar techniques on
Speaker 1: their own prior to the general order on visibility of ships.
Speaker 1: As more and more ships started to adopt the whole
Speaker 1: party color paint schemes, Care was actually able to see
Speaker 1: some of them. He wasn't exactly delighted, though. He really
Speaker 1: felt that the spirit was there, but the actual execution
Speaker 1: was not quite what he had in mind. So in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifteen he wrote another letter to the Admiralty, and
Speaker 1: this time he suggested that these new camouflage paint jobs
Speaker 1: could be even better with a bit of guidance and
Speaker 1: advice from him. He got no reply, so he wrote
Speaker 1: again and again, only to learn that Churchill had moved
Speaker 1: on to a new post. And then he wrote to
Speaker 1: Churchill's successor Arthur Balfour. Yeah, he was big on writing
Speaker 1: the letters. I feel like this is like when the
Speaker 1: person writes does with like really really pedantic something, and
Speaker 1: we answer back and then the person just keeps writing
Speaker 1: it again and I'm like, please I stop. Well, initially
Speaker 1: he wasn't getting a reply, but he really felt like
Speaker 1: they needed to listen to him and let him help
Speaker 1: some more. Uh, and all of this writing kind of
Speaker 1: fell on deaf ears. He finally received a polite thanks
Speaker 1: but no thanks style letter informing him that there had
Speaker 1: actually been a decision made that they were going to
Speaker 1: go back to painting all of the ships a uniform
Speaker 1: gray and stop all this crazy color variations. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling this just disturbed him immensely, which it's probably
Speaker 1: carried out by the fact that then he redoubled his efforts.
Speaker 1: He wrote some multiple office officers of the military, he
Speaker 1: wrote to his friends in academia, to anybody he knew
Speaker 1: who had any connection to the Admiralty. So when Abbott
Speaker 1: Thayer was visiting from the US, he wrote the Admiralty
Speaker 1: again and begged for a meeting so both he and
Speaker 1: theyer could share their information. All of those roads led
Speaker 1: to dead ends. Yeah, he really didn't. They kind of
Speaker 1: uh just went nowhere. He did allegedly have some luck.
Speaker 1: He also wrote about someone else about camouflage on airplanes
Speaker 1: and got some ground there, but no nothing with the
Speaker 1: ships ever again. So when the decision was made to
Speaker 1: adopt Wilkinson's dazzle coloring in n it was much more
Speaker 1: organized than previously. So instead of leaving it up to
Speaker 1: each individual command to adopt some kind of geometric camouflage,
Speaker 1: this time it was a uniform order. And in addition
Speaker 1: to the order, Wilkinson was actually put in charge of
Speaker 1: a new Dazzle department, and as a consequence, while he
Speaker 1: was heading that department, approximately four thousand merchant ships and
Speaker 1: four hundred navy vessels were painted in this manner to
Speaker 1: try to avoid uh U boat attacks. For his part,
Speaker 1: care stated publicly that he was happy to see the
Speaker 1: camouflage scheme being implemented, but he also enlisted the assistance
Speaker 1: of fellow academics to once again contact the Admiralty and
Speaker 1: suggest that he, being the only man who had years
Speaker 1: of study of this type of visual disruption, should be
Speaker 1: advising them on it. I sound weary because because you
Speaker 1: can imagine getting like seventeen letters in this same guy
Speaker 1: that because we do get seventeen letters from the same life. Yeah,
Speaker 1: where it's like you're doing it wrong, you can just
Speaker 1: you can just contact me the next time you want
Speaker 1: to do a podcast on Paraguay and I will help
Speaker 1: you out, which is awesome. I mean, we certainly appreciate
Speaker 1: when people want to be helpful. It's the doggedly non
Speaker 1: letting go of it, yeah, which happens, not just to
Speaker 1: I mean in life. That happens. It's like when you
Speaker 1: have a relative who is like, hey, you can sow.
Speaker 1: Will you make me some pants, And it's like, I
Speaker 1: don't really have time for them. Oh, it would be
Speaker 1: great if you'd make me some pants. You know you
Speaker 1: need pants. I'll tell you how to make them, like
Speaker 1: I've had those. I'm sure you've had similar When people
Speaker 1: know you can sow, there's a point where you have
Speaker 1: received the information and saying it more. Doesn't I understand
Speaker 1: you want some pants. I am not giving them to you.
Speaker 1: It's similar. So care probably wor some people down. Um,
Speaker 1: but the military really felt even though Kier made his
Speaker 1: case over and over, the designers that they had put
Speaker 1: in charge of dazzle camouflage, so they came from a
Speaker 1: design background rather than a natural sciences background, had things
Speaker 1: well in hand. They felt like they had it covered
Speaker 1: and eventually Care gave up on trying to be involved
Speaker 1: in the process as an advisor and he did stop writing.
Speaker 1: While Care gave up on trying to offer his assistance,
Speaker 1: he did remain quite irritated that Wilkinson got all the
Speaker 1: credit for what he felt like was his idea from
Speaker 1: years prior. It became a big issue between the two men.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah. Wilkinson's claim was that his designs had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with biology or nature and that Care just
Speaker 1: simply did not understand the visual principles that his approach employed.
Speaker 1: That he was working from a design background, this is
Speaker 1: not about replicating nature, and Care's counter argument was that
Speaker 1: Wilkinson could not have invented dazzle camouflage because no man
Speaker 1: could have invented dazzle camouflage, because they were merely replicating
Speaker 1: what existed in nature already. I raised my eyebrows. I
Speaker 1: know my heart goes out to him, but I just
Speaker 1: if he were alive today, he would just be leaving
Speaker 1: comments all over the internet. Yes, he would be an
Speaker 1: Internet commenter for sure, Care even went back to his
Speaker 1: favorite addresses of corresponds to a correspondence Winston Churchill to
Speaker 1: try to convince him that he should make sure people
Speaker 1: understood their correspondence of n Yeah, he wanted Churchill to
Speaker 1: come out and say, oh, no, I did talk to
Speaker 1: this guy. He had this idea before. But eventually what
Speaker 1: happened was that a Committee of Inquiry was established to
Speaker 1: investigate the competing claims. And it's unclear whether Churchill had
Speaker 1: anything to do with that or not, or if people
Speaker 1: were just so tired of getting letters from Care that
Speaker 1: they were like, we have to figure out some way
Speaker 1: to resolve this um. But the committee, because Cares to work,
Speaker 1: was based in nature. It seemed that they really felt
Speaker 1: that his end goal for the paint scheme must have
Speaker 1: been invisibility, because to them, camouflage and nature is about hiding,
Speaker 1: even though a lot of Care's right on the matter
Speaker 1: clearly states that he felt that invisibly invisibility was going
Speaker 1: to be impossible, whereas they felt that Wilkinson's approach was
Speaker 1: geared towards distortion and uh. The committee basically favored Wilkinson
Speaker 1: and their findings and it was still not over. No,
Speaker 1: it's never over. Care took his claim next to the
Speaker 1: Royal Commission on Awards and Inventors, and while Care took
Speaker 1: great pains to assemble an extremely thorough brief filled with evidence,
Speaker 1: the Commission found in favor of Wilkinson again in ninety two,
Speaker 1: and this decision was based almost entirely on Wilkinson's testimony
Speaker 1: that he had no prior knowledge of ships painted to
Speaker 1: care specifications, although Care and his lawyer continued to assert
Speaker 1: that the statement was completely false. Yeah, there was some
Speaker 1: evidence that Wilkinson had been in places where ships that
Speaker 1: were painted with the designs that Care had suggested were
Speaker 1: and that he would have been basically blind to have
Speaker 1: not seen them. Um, but even so, just by virtue
Speaker 1: of saying nope, I never saw those before Wilkinson went
Speaker 1: out in the end. But what really sort of makes
Speaker 1: it all kind of funny to me in a morose
Speaker 1: sort of comedy, is that it really didn't matter who
Speaker 1: came up with the idea, because a study of the
Speaker 1: efficacy of dazzle camouflage that was conducted in nine determined
Speaker 1: that it really had no measurable impact on evading attack.
Speaker 1: It really didn't help in terms of military strategy, and
Speaker 1: that it's the greatest benefit was that it had probably
Speaker 1: just raised the spirits and morale of the men, which
Speaker 1: there's something to be said for that, But in terms
Speaker 1: of like claiming it as an invention, they were fighting
Speaker 1: over nothing, basically. Yeah. Well, and I think part of
Speaker 1: the reason that he irritates me so profoundly is that
Speaker 1: he reminds me of younger me, who would just doggedly
Speaker 1: pursue a matter of principle that did not actually matter.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, much that. But but you are wrong, and
Speaker 1: I am right. Why don't you understand this? Yeah, And
Speaker 1: that was the thing. He didn't really want money out
Speaker 1: of it. He did have to make a financial claim
Speaker 1: in that second committee hearing like he had to make
Speaker 1: a claim that he needed something out of it, but
Speaker 1: really he didn't want any money. He just wanted people
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that it was his idea. And really there
Speaker 1: had actually been cases of ships, like I said, that
Speaker 1: had been painted like that even before him, some of
Speaker 1: which kind of happened just accidentally because the ships were
Speaker 1: being repainted and paint was flaking off, they had started
Speaker 1: to kind of accidentally do some of that and then thought, oh,
Speaker 1: that might be interesting and they would continue it. So
Speaker 1: he was. They were just fighting over nothing. Well, and
Speaker 1: as we have talked about frequently, anytime there has been
Speaker 1: science or invention in the podcast, almost always progress. Its
Speaker 1: developments build on the things that happened before them. They
Speaker 1: don't come out of thin air. Yeah, there are very
Speaker 1: few true Eureka moments where someone just thinks of something
Speaker 1: no one has ever thought of before. Um. Earlier this year,
Speaker 1: German artist to Bias rend Burger and Venezuelan artist Carlos
Speaker 1: Cruise Diaz were actually commissioned by the Liverpool Biennial Tate
Speaker 1: Liverpool in the World War One Centenary arts organization called
Speaker 1: fourteen eighteen Now to recreate dazzle camouflage designs on several
Speaker 1: ships and the work that these artists were commissioned to
Speaker 1: do as part of a series of events marking the
Speaker 1: hundred year anniversary of the start of the war. Rend
Speaker 1: Berger painted the HMS President, which was a two hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty five foot Flower class sloop originally named the
Speaker 1: HMS Saxifrage and built in nineteen eighteen for anti sub warfare.
Speaker 1: The President is permanently kept in London and was painted
Speaker 1: with down with dazzle camouflage during World War One. I
Speaker 1: love that there is such thing as a flower class sloop,
Speaker 1: and I particularly love that it was named the Saxifrage. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's this. Those are both fun words to associate with ships.
Speaker 1: Uh remb Burger's painting turned the ship into a really
Speaker 1: fabulous optical illusion, so that it looked like piles of
Speaker 1: almost eschuresque kind of modern pipe works. Um And he
Speaker 1: was actually a perfect choice for this project because he
Speaker 1: uh In interviews, he commented that he had discovered or
Speaker 1: found out about dazzle camouflage like twenty years ago, and
Speaker 1: it's just been fascinated with it ever since, so much
Speaker 1: so that in two thousand nine he actually when he
Speaker 1: was commissioned to design this cafe. He based the entire
Speaker 1: design on the principles of dazzled design and visual confusion,
Speaker 1: which may or may not make for um a fun
Speaker 1: dining experience. If you like visual stimulation, it's probably super
Speaker 1: fun and Liverpool Cruise. Diaz worked on the Edmund Gardner.
Speaker 1: This one is more basic but still visually stimulating design,
Speaker 1: consisting of red, yellow, black and green striping. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: In one of the links in the show notes that
Speaker 1: will have it, Um, they have a time lapse of
Speaker 1: the Edmund Gardner being painted, and it's kind of wonderful
Speaker 1: because it goes from being a flat kind of Matt
Speaker 1: gray looking like this really wonderful rasta adventure ship because
Speaker 1: of the colors that he chose. And we'll pen stuff
Speaker 1: up on our Pinterest so you can see what these
Speaker 1: look like. Oh yeah, Pinterest is going to be a
Speaker 1: busy place with the Dazzle because there's a lot of
Speaker 1: good pictures of dazzle right now. It's really busy in
Speaker 1: our unearthed board because there's just been a lot going
Speaker 1: on in the unearthing in the last few weeks. There
Speaker 1: always is, but it's been a really high concentration of
Speaker 1: fascinating things being pulled it on, which is great. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us today for this Saturday classic.
Speaker 1: If you have heard any kind of email address or
Speaker 1: maybe a Facebook you are l during the course of
Speaker 1: the episode, that might be obsolete. It might be doubly
Speaker 1: obsolete because we have changed our email address again. You
Speaker 1: can now reach us at History Podcast that I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio dot com um, and we're all over social media.
Speaker 1: At Missed in History and you can subscribe to our
Speaker 1: show on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, the I heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Stuff you Missed
Speaker 1: in History Class is a production of I heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.