Was Trump’s escape a miracle, or predictable? A historian of assassination sheds light

Many Donald Trump supporters see his escape from an assassination attempt as a divinely ordained miracle, so what does history tell us? I studied more than 260 assassinations going back to the dawn of history for my book Assassins’ Deeds. A History of Assassination from Ancient Egypt to the Present Day (Reaktion Books). 

That told me that successful assassinations by snipers using a rifle at a distance, in other words the method employed against Donald Trump, were extremely rare, accounting for only four out of 266, while more than 90 of the assassinations involved firearms at closer quarters.

Even when firearms replaced stabbing as the favoured means of assassination in the 19^th century, it was generally the handgun at close quarters rather than the sniper’s rifle. Assassination remained predominantly up close and personal.

There were, of course, exceptions. Assuming you accept the official versions of events, and not everyone does, both civil rights leader Martin Luther King in 1968, and President John F Kennedy in 1963 were shot from a distance.

But the other three American presidents who were assassinated, Lincoln in 1865, Garfield in 1881 and McKinley in 1901 were all killed at close quarters. A sniper had tried to assassinate Lincoln in 1864, but had hit his hat instead.

In 2003, snipers successfully killed the Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjić, who had helped to bring down Slobodan Milošević. He was shot as he was going into a government building.

Then in 2010 while Thailand was bitterly divided between the yellow-shirts, largely supported by royalists and the urban middle class, and the red-shirts, whose members were mainly rural workers, the red-shirts’ head of security, Major-General Khattiya Sawasdipol, was killed by a sniper, while he was being interviewed by a reporter. Sawasdipol’s insistence on always wearing his green military uniform among his red-shirted supporters made him an easy target.

Perhaps the identification of 'assassin' with 'sniper' results from the success of Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal. In it, perhaps the most famous assassin in fiction plans to shoot President de Gaulle from an upstairs window as he is handing out decorations to war heroes. It is hard to imagine a more meticulously planned attack, but it fails. As the assassin takes aim, the president bows his head to kiss a wounded veteran, and the shot just misses.

A similar thing, of course, happened with Donald Trump, just as it had in a London theatre in 1800. As King George III stood for the national anthem, a mentally disturbed ex-soldier fired at him, but George bowed to the audience and the shot whistled past.

In fact, most assassination attempts fail. Two American researchers examined 289 serious attempts on political leaders across the world between 1875 and 2007, and found that only 59, just over one in five, succeeded.

Assassins’ Deeds 

https://reaktionbooks.co.uk/work/assassins-deeds

My 'History of Fireworks'. the secret is out!

The Niagara Pen Centre has broken the story! My new book A History of Fireworks (Reaktion) is out soon

https://niagarapencentre.com/shop/product/a-history-of-fireworks-from-their-origins-to-the-present-day-by-john-withington-hardcover-indigo-chapters-coles-d0178e

Here's the entry from the Reaktion Books Catalogue:

'An illumination of the glittering history of fireworks.

This book illuminates the glittering history of fireworks, from their mysterious beginnings to the dazzling big-budget displays of today. It describes how they enthralled the world’s royal courts and became a sensation across the British Empire. There are stories of innovations like ‘living fireworks’, fiercely fought international competitions and the technology behind modern showpieces viewed by millions. Practitioners say fireworks are an art, and they have inspired artists from Shakespeare, Handel, Dickens and Whistler to Katy Perry. But Withington also covers fireworks’ practical uses – rescues at sea, attempts to control the weather – while not ignoring their dangers, accidents or efforts to make them safer.'

https://reaktionbooks.co.uk/work/a-history-of-fireworks-from-their-origins-to-the-present-day

It's available to pre-order from Reaktion or Amazon

https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Fireworks-Their-Origins-Present/dp/1789149355/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UIQ11WLZQF26&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.UEgHBJlm_91fK-mAriMpMOlSoYy9UW-eulUOn8hPWjk.xi0IPx71A6KxHRAcW6lmq4D8EhiPLwiTXIWq0sgdTyo&dib_tag=se&keywords=withington+fireworks&qid=1718801514&s=books&sprefix=withington+fireworks%2Cstripbooks%2C68&sr=1-1

D-day and my dad

On this day 80 years ago, my father Brian Withington was one of the thousands of brave men who stormed the Normandy beaches on D-day.

The true history of Brexit: the deluded election

 This is part of what my gift from the future, The New Oxford History of England. Brexit 2015-50 had to say about the 2024 General Election:

'It has gone down in history as the 'Deluded Election'. Both the Conservatives and Labour ruled out increases in any of the major revenue-raising taxes - income tax, national insurance and VAT. With public services severely strapped for cash, this begged the question 'how are these services going to be saved from collapse'?

Both parties based their 'plans' to avoid this breakdown on growth in the economy. Neither had any satisfactory explanation of what would be Plan B if this growth was not achieved.

Bizarrely, the one policy guaranteed to deliver economic growth, reversing Brexit, was not only rejected by Labour and Conservative, but all mention of the damage leaving the EU had caused Britain was avoided. 

So fanatical was this Brexit omerta that Labour and Conservative candidates were not even allowed to discuss rejoining the Single Market, despite the fact that leading Brexit campaigners, including Boris Johnson himself, had promised that the UK would remain in the Single Market after leaving the EU.

And all this against clear evidence that by 2024 most people realised Brexit was a bad mistake, while only a tiny minority believed it had been a good idea.'

I-Spy Turin: memorial to a forgotten front

In the old days before we had the EU, European countries used to fight wars with each other. We know a lot about the horrors of the Western Front in the First World War, but there were other equally dreadful theatres we hear much less of.

The war memorial in Turin, pictured above, commemorates soldiers killed in one of them, the conflict between Austria and Italy, much of which was fought on the Alpine Front.

Italy entered the war late, in 1916. Having been an ally of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it switched sides to join Britain, France and Russia. Austria and Italy would lose a million men - 600,000 Italians and 400,000 Austrians - many of them in the mountains. One war correspondent said conditions there were worse even than 'in the blood-soaked mud of Flanders'.

In addition to the cold and the usual hazards of war, there were avalanches, sometimes set off deliberately as a weapon, sometimes triggered accidentally by artillery, and sometimes occurring naturally. After heavy snow in December of 1916, avalanches buried 10,000 soldiers in just two days.

I-Spy Paris: war memorial to the Tsar's troops

In 1916, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia sent 20,000 Russian troops to help France fight the Germans on the Western Front. Above is the memorial in Paris to the 5,000 who were killed.

Tsarist Russia was part of the Triple Entente with France and Britain, lining up against the Central Powers of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. 

Tsar Nicholas would be killed by the Bolsheviks as the Russian Empire collapsed. The First World War also brought an end to the German Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were dismantled.

The true history of Brexit Britain: the real coalition

 I've been busy with the glue and paste and I've manged to piece together another section of the New Oxford History of Brexit Britain written some time after 2050. Read it ONLY HERE:

When people talked about ‘the coalition’ in the 2020s, they invariably meant the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government that ruled from 2010 to 2015, but the real coalition in British politics was the one between two ostensibly bitter rivals, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. And although, the Labour Party was an enthusiastic participant, this coalition was fiercely conservative, resolutely blocking the changes that Britain needed, to solve its deep-seated, long-standing problems.

The Labour-Conservative coalition obstinately defended Brexit even when most British people had long ago realised it was a terrible mistake, and that it had been imposed on them by a political process that could most kindly be described as ‘unsatisfactory’, and which had effectively been ruled illegal.

The Conservative-Labour coalition also fought like tigers against any reform of the undemocratic ‘First Past the Post’ voting system, which constantly awarded virtually absolute power to politicians most voters had rejected.

So more than 63 per cent had voted against the notorious Conservative government of 2015 that implemented the disastrous Brexit referendum, while more than 56 per cent had opposed Boris Johnson’s vacuous ‘get Brexit done’ regime in 2019, and in the three supposed Thatcher 'landslides' of 1979-1987 she never won more than 43.9 per cent of the vote. But Labour also benefited from this undemocracy, with Tony Blair gaining his first ‘landslide’ in 1997 with only 43 per cent of the vote, and his last election victory in 2005 with just 35 per cent. In other words, nearly two-thirds of voters opposed him.

As the 21^st century progressed, there was more and more agonising and hand-wringing from Labour and Conservative politicians about how voters were ‘alienated’ from the political process and about how dangerous this was. Yet it seemed to occur to few of them that constantly imposing on the British people governments they did not want would surely cause ‘alienation.’

As we now know, this fierce conservatism over Brexit and the electoral system would have severe consequences for both parties, and, sadly, for the people of Britain.