History of the European Union

“By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.”

– “Treaty on European Union” (also known as the “Maastricht Treaty”), 7 February 1992 – later replaced by a modified version of the treaty in 2007

Europe was devastated by World War II …

Europe was devastated by World War II. Even in the winning countries, there was destruction from bombing by one side or the other. And in the losing countries, the devastation was (if anything) even worse. In Germany, a new “Iron Curtain” was forming, and their old capital city of Berlin was divided. Everything to the east of that Iron Curtain (except West Berlin) would be controlled by the Soviet Union, and managed exclusively for Soviet benefit. The countries to the west would have an opportunity for freedom and prosperity, but the Eastern Bloc (at this time) did not. It was in this postwar environment that the European Union’s earliest predecessors were formed.

Hamburg, Germany, after a massive Allied bombing in 1943

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Africa, the Middle East, and Italy

“♪ We’re the D-Day Dodgers, out in Italy,

Always on the vino, always on the spree.

Eighth Army skivers and their tanks,

We go to war in ties like swanks.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪

♪ We landed at Salerno, a holiday with pay.

Jerry brought his bands out to cheer us on the way,

Showed us the sights and gave us tea,

We all sang songs, the beer was free.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

The lads that D-Day dodged. ♪

♪ Palermo and Cassino were taken in our stride,

We didn’t go to fight there, we just went for the ride.

Anzio and Sangro are just names,

We only went to look for dames,

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪”

– “D-Day Dodgers” (1944), to the tune of “Lili Marleen” (written in 1915, but not published until 1937) – a tongue-in-cheek Canadian song about the forgotten (and then-ongoing) campaigns in Italy

How the war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France …

The war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France. Listening to some popular histories of World War II, you might be tempted to suppose that the war began when the Allies launched their invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. But, in fact, the war began long before the famous battles fought on this great “D-Day.” This post will focus on some of the other aspects of the war against Nazi Germany, giving details on times and places that are often ignored elsewhere. To some degree, I myself have ignored them elsewhere on this blog, because I review various documentaries with more traditional focuses. Thus, I will try to address these deficiencies in this blog post, and tell a story that has sometimes been neglected – including, to some degree, by myself.

British artillery in Kamerun, Africa, 1915 (during the First World War)

A review of “Mussolini: The History of Italian Fascism”

“I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

– Paraphrase of defense lawyer Clarence Darrow, in a quote often misattributed to Mark Twain

Mussolini’s fascism arose in Italy in 1922, whereas Nazism did not arise in Germany until 1933 …

People today are fascinated by both sides of World War II, and this is as it should be. To a large extent, this includes an interest in what happened on the Axis side. In particular, history buffs tend to talk about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the major players on that side of the war. By contrast, the history of Fascist Italy tends to get relegated to a series of brief historical footnotes. This is understandable, given that Fascist Italy was much smaller than either of these other two nations. Thus, it seems inevitable that its story would become far more obscure outside of the Italian Peninsula. But if history is about learning from the mistakes of others, then we can learn much from the mistakes of Fascist Italy. That is to say, we can learn what went so horribly wrong there, and why Italy went down this terrible road. Most importantly, we can protect ourselves from a similar fate, by learning about this kind of tyranny.

Benito Mussolini, circa 1930’s

A review of “Astronomy: The Heavenly Challenge” (audiobook)

The battle over the Sun-centered universe was as much political as it was scientific. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a theory that had been defended since antiquity was suddenly challenged by the new theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun. In antiquity, the Earth had not yet been recognized as a “planet.” Thus, there was no apparent contradiction in saying that the Sun and the “planets” revolved around the Earth. At this time, it seemed to be the most natural theory in the world. Most importantly, it was defended by the Catholic Church – which held political as well as doctrinal power, and was at the peak of its military and political might.

A review of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (audiobook)

I had read “The Prince” itself before listening to this audiobook, sometime during the winter of 2006-2007. It was in English translation, since I don’t speak Italian, but it would still seem to have counted for something. Thus, you might expect that I didn’t learn anything from this audiobook. But on the contrary, I learned much from this hour-and-a-half audiobook.

Niccolò Machiavelli

A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)

The greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history (the Black Death) …

It is still the greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history. Some estimate that the plague killed 30 percent of the European population, but many others place it around 50 percent. To many Europeans of this time, the apocalyptic Plague seemed like “the end of the world,” and there may have been reason for them to see it this way. No war has ever killed as many people as the “Great Plague” did, and the death toll was easily numbered in the millions. Small wonder, then, that this massive outbreak of the fourteenth century is sometimes known simply as “the Plague,” as it is called in this documentary's title.

A review of “Paris 1919: Inside the Peace Talks That Changed the World”

“[There shall be a] Surrender in good condition by the German armies of the following war material: Five thousand guns (2,500 heavy, and 2,500 field), 25,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfer, 1,700 airplanes (fighters, bombers - firstly, all of the D 7'S and all the night bombing machines). The above to be delivered in situ to the allied and United States troops in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the note (annexure No. 1) drawn up at the moment of the signing of the armistice … ”

– Armistice of 11 November 1918, following World War One

This film is more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative …

In 1964, the BBC made a landmark documentary called “The Great War.” It may still be the definitive television history of World War One. This is because it interviewed some of the veterans of this war, and is one of the greatest history documentaries ever made. But it had one major weakness, which was that it stopped at virtually the moment of the Armistice. Thus, it contains nothing – and I mean nothing – about what happened after it. Although this has been covered by some other documentaries (notably the CBS television history of World War One), the definitive television history by the BBC contains nothing about it. Thus, I've long been interested to see something about the effects of the war, and the Paris Peace Conference following the war's end. This seemed like a reasonably good introduction to it, so I got a copy of this documentary for Christmas. I found that it was a good production – made by the National Film Board of Canada, incidentally. But it was not the definitive coverage that I expected it to be. Its style seems to be more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative.

A review of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine”

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

- The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 11, Verse 26 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian. Thus, “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is really a history of the early Christian faith, from its beginning with Christ to its flourishing under Constantine. After his conversion, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Today, it is the world's largest religion; and it is doubtful that it would have ever become that way otherwise.

A review of “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” (PBS Empires)

“To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness. Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence.”

– Dedication of Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532)

When people today think of the “Italian Renaissance,” they usually think of accomplishments in the arts and sciences – or sometimes, philosophy. They would not often think of power politics, or the squabbling among the Italian city-states of the time. But this era was marked by ferocious power politics in Italy, which created great turmoil on the Italian peninsula. Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” was the product of this time, and so was its disturbing view of ethics and politics. There was much to fear for Italians of this time.

The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained from banking

During this time, one family in particular rose to prominence in Italy – and more specifically, in Florence. In its heyday, this family produced kings, queens, and even three popes. That family was, of course, the Medici; but it did not start out as a royal family. Rather, it made its name through banking; and amassing wealth by means of the private sector. The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained in this way. They actually started out their ascendancy as a family of Italian merchant-bankers, and continued to be such even during their political rule. They were among the earliest bankers in Europe, and were great pioneers in the banking industry. Their depositors stored their money in the “Medici Bank,” and the Medici then loaned out this money to people who needed it. The interest from these loans actually brought great wealth to the Medici family, and allowed them to pay some small interest to their depositors as well. It helped to create the family fortune, which brought them to political prominence in Italy. Money was often the greatest weapon in the Medici arsenal, and was a great driver of the politics of the Renaissance (as it was for every other era of human history).

Cosimo de Medici, the Italian banker who became the first of the Medici dynasty

A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)

Note: This is a different series from “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (which is made by the BBC).

There aren't too many documentaries out there about ancient history …

If you've ever looked online for movies about ancient history, you've probably had a hard time finding any. Ancient history isn't a popular subject for Hollywood movies (or even documentaries), and so very few programs about it have ever been made. I don't know why this has been the case, but I can probably make some guesses about it. If you make a documentary about World War II (a modern topic), you have access to actual archival footage from the period. You can get it at very low cost, and advertise its benefits to your viewers. Some of them will even prefer the gritty realism of the actual footage to re-enactments, which are just educated guesses (albeit good ones, if they're done right). Thus, you can sometimes get more effectiveness for less money, which is a real advantage in the world of documentaries. But if you depict the distant past, you are usually forced to rely on re-enactments, and the cost of these re-enactments can be steep. Consequently, many of these ancient history documentaries are never made in the first place.

This documentary is primarily a military history

An ancient history topic must thus be fairly popular before a for-profit network like the History Channel will decide to throw significant money at it. No matter how much the producers of these networks might like these topics, they usually can't justify the budget for these programs unless they think that they have a reasonable chance of recovering these expenses with some added cash flow. One presumes that the Roman Empire was considered popular enough to justify these budgets to investors at this time. If it had not been, after all, it's safe to assume that this series would never have been made. I imagine part of its appeal to the general public was its focus on military history (rather than other kinds of history). Military history has long been a popular topic with certain segments of the general population (perhaps especially the male population); and although political history is sometimes covered here, the primary focus of this series is military history. This may be the most comprehensive military history of Rome ever made for television. It has some weaknesses (which I will note later), but it's still a fine series despite these.

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius – Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

A review of “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (BBC)

Not to be confused with “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (by the History Channel).

“Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” is neither a documentary nor a history. It uses too many re-enactments (and too little narration) to be considered a traditional documentary, and it is too sporadic and episodic to be considered a history. It does not observe the chronology well enough to be considered a true history of Ancient Rome. One episode in particular is out of chronological order, and even the others only cover brief episodes in Roman history. The gaps between them are measured in decades (and sometimes even centuries), so nothing like a comprehensive overview is even attempted. However, we should not conclude from these things that the BBC's efforts are without merit here. On the contrary, they have much to offer for the Roman Empire buff and the student of history. They even succeed in being entertaining, and bringing these events to life – which is not a small consideration, for a program on public television.

A review of “The Roman Empire in the First Century” (PBS Empires)

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

- The New Testament, “The Gospel According to St. Luke,” Chapter 2, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Since this documentary was first shown in 2001, there have been a few other documentaries made about Ancient Rome. These include a six-hour program by the BBC, and a ten-hour program by the History Channel. By contrast, this PBS program is only four hours long, so you might expect it not to be as “in-depth.” If so, you'd be wrong; because these other programs cover much broader time periods than just the first century. This gives them an advantage over PBS in these other periods, but it also means that they can't cover this narrower period in as much depth as PBS does. If it's the first century you're after, this is definitely the documentary to go to; and so it has a lot to offer in this regard. Nonetheless, all of these programs add something to one's knowledge of the history; so the true Roman Empire buff will probably want to consult all of them. If you prefer dramatizations with lots of re-enactments, the BBC and the History Channel are probably more up your alley than this PBS program. But if you like period images (including statues and archaeological sites), you will find much to enjoy in this documentary by PBS.

The Marshall Plan: Helping the poor, keeping the peace, and stopping the communists

"If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp. Nothing can then delay for very long that final civil war between the forces of Reaction and the despairing convulsions of Revolution, before which the horrors of the late German war will fade into nothing, and which will destroy, whoever is victor, the civilization and the progress of our generation."

- John Maynard Keynes, in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919), Chapter VII, Section 1

There was never a "Marshall Plan" after World War One (like there should have been) ...

It might seem strange to begin a post about the Marshall Plan this way, but the end of the First World War a generation earlier was so poorly handled that a second war became necessary twenty years later, to finish the work of the first. Why did the second war happen? The debate is long and complicated, but there are two themes that often come up as explanations. One is the failure to obtain an unconditional surrender from the Germans, and change their system of government enough to make a second war less likely. The other is the imposition of reparations, or the plan to force Germany to pay for the damages that it had caused. This angered the Germans enough that they went to war again a generation later, largely as revenge for the impoverishment caused by the reparations.

Germans demonstrate against Treaty of Versailles, Reichstag 1919

... but there was a "Marshall Plan" after World War Two, and it may have kept the peace

No one will ever know for sure, but I think that it could have been prevented - that rebuilding Germany, instead of punishing it, would have been a better way to prevent a second war. In short, what they needed was a Marshall Plan; and the Marshall Plan following World War II (which was the plan to provide economic assistance, to rebuild postwar Europe) may have been a large part of the reason that the peace with Germany was kept after the war was over. The Allied troops did what they had to do to stop Germany; but after the war, the best thing they could have done for their countries was to turn their former enemies into friends, and win the hearts of the people so that they would not be likely to invade their neighbors again. They had won the war - now they needed to win the peace, and the Marshall Plan was a large portion of the reason why the peace has lasted as long as it has.

Devastation of postwar Berlin, June 1945

Reflections on learning about history of Ancient Rome

"The great historian Edward Gibbon was right when he said that the story of the fall of the Empire was 'simple and obvious' and that therefore 'instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.' "

- D. Brendan Nagle's "Ancient Rome: A History" (published 2010), pages 309-310 - quoting Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Volume IV (published 1788-1789)

So I recently finished reading a textbook about the history of Ancient Rome. Any observations about my being a shameless nerd are readily agreed with.

A review of Kenneth Clark's “Civilisation”

"Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others. But of the three, the only trustworthy one is the last."

- John Ruskin, a 19th-century art critic

Disclaimer: I know virtually nothing about the visual arts ...

So I recently finished watching Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" (spelled the British way), a documentary series about the history of Western art. Before I begin my review of it, I should give a disclaimer that I know virtually nothing about visual art. I have never taken an art class, nor a photography class, nor an art history class. I play a little piano and do a little writing, so I have some experience with non-visual arts after a fashion; but I know next to nothing about the more visual arts. I don't even particularly like looking at most art, lacking an appreciation for it. In my adulthood, I found out the reason why: I have, quite simply, very little visual intelligence. When taking tests of my intelligence, I scored in the medium range for math and in somewhat higher ranges for language - scores which corresponded to my later scores on the GRE's. But I tested in the bottom 1 percent of the population for visual-spatial intelligence. This would explain why I've never been that interested in scenery, or why I didn't like my geometry class in high school - I am just not a visual person.

... but I am a history buff, which is what attracted me to this series

I am, however, a history buff; which is what attracted me to this series. I thought I'd shore up this intellectual weakness of mine by learning about art history, which is an excellent prism for talking about the history of mankind generally. Kenneth Clark opens this series with an interesting quote from John Ruskin, the 19th-century art critic, who said: "Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others. But of the three, the only trustworthy one is the last." This may be overstating the case a little bit - I often find words a trustworthy way of understanding people, and deeds even moreso. (In the admittedly cliché words of an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words.") But nonetheless, you can find out a lot about a people by studying their art. It tells you a lot about their values, their ideas, and their culture; and art history is thus an excellent way to gain insight into a people.

Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," from the sixteenth century

A review of PBS Empires “Napoleon”

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

- Napoleon Bonaparte

He was the ruler of France, but learned French as a second language, and spoke it with an accent. He praised the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution, but always considered himself a little more equal than everyone else (much like a Marxist that way). And he was a military genius whose victories brought him glory and power, but who lost it all through the tragic flaw of always wanting more, and never knowing where to stop.

How Napoleon is perceived in America

The man was Napoleon Bonaparte, and his name is well known to young and old. But few in America know much about him, or care. It's not only that he lived far away from the world we live in - Americans have a never-ending interest in (and horror of) Adolf Hitler, even though he too was across the Atlantic. But Napoleon is perceived to have had little or no effect on American history. Part of it may be that he was so long ago, but part of it may also be the perception that he was beneficial to our country - that his fighting our mutual enemy of that time (Great Britain) kept us from losing our War of 1812. There may be some truth in this; but regardless of one's feelings about it, he was a major foreign policy issue for the presidencies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and was the central fact of domestic life for the vast majority of the continent of Europe. He hit very close to home for them, and inspired a never-ending fascination with his life that lives on in Europe today.