U-boats in the Great War: The other “Battle of the Atlantic”

German U-boats were once the terror of the high seas, and this was true during both world wars. In the First World War, this campaign had much to do with the eventual American entry into the war. But we tend to associate these campaigns with the Second World War, which will probably continue to enjoy more glory than the first one ever did. And, in truth, the Battle of the Atlantic really was quite important. We thus tend to associate the phrase “Battle of the Atlantic” with World War Two, and describe its World War One equivalent simply as the “Atlantic U-boat campaign.” (When using the generic phrase “U-boat campaign,” though, this can also include the lesser-known “Mediterranean U-boat campaign.”) But in a broader sense, the First World War version was also a “Battle of the Atlantic,” and was vitally important in its own right. It was the lifeline of Allied Europe during the Great War, and (as mentioned earlier) played a big role in getting America to enter the war. This post will describe the U-boat front of the Great War, with a particular focus on the changing role of the Americans in this campaign. But I assure readers from other countries that I will tie in our own situation to that of our many allies, since it affected every other nation that participated in these campaigns – as readers may soon see, if they indeed decide to read this post.

German U-boats at Kiel (before the war started), 1914

A review of PBS's “Influenza 1918” (American Experience)

“I had a little bird
Whose name was Enza,
I opened the door
and ‘in-flew-Enza.’ ”

– A popular ditty sung by children, at the time that the deadly epidemic was still going on

Two-thirds of a million Americans died from a deadly influenza strain called “Spanish flu” …

In the United States, more than two-thirds of a million Americans died in an influenza epidemic in 1918 – a particularly deadly strain of it that Americans call the “Spanish flu.” This is more American deaths than from all of the wars of the twentieth century combined. As a percentage of our population, we didn't lose as many people in World War One as many of the other nations did. For some other nations, World War One was actually more devastating than the flu epidemic. But the Spanish flu (not to be confused with common flu) was a worldwide epidemic, and killed comparable percentages of the population in many other nations. Nonetheless, this documentary focuses on the United States, as you might expect from a series calling itself “American Experience.” They show the full horrors of the Spanish flu epidemic, and bring them to life for a generation that have seldom heard of them.

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 PBS's “The Great War” (American Experience)

“We [the German government] intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.”

– Zimmermann Telegram (1917), one of the events that led to the American entry into World War One

President Woodrow Wilson walked a tightrope during the early years of World War One, trying to steer a middle course between full neutrality and full involvement. Of course, Americans did not declare war on Germany until April 1917, and waited even longer than that to send troops to Europe. But even at the beginning of the war in 1914, most Americans did not want the Germans to win, and some of them actually sold food (and sometimes weapons) to the Allied nations. There was a massive peace movement before America officially got involved, and PBS makes sure to cover it here. But there were also many supporters of getting involved sooner - and this, too, receives some good coverage from PBS. Among the supporters of earlier American involvement was the former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a major critic of Wilson for his perceived lack of muscle in this struggle - a correct perception. But Wilson was also criticized by the peace movement for supporting aid to Britain and France. Thus, he was having a hard time walking this tightrope within his own party. Unfortunately for Wilson, this balancing act would prove even harder when the Germans sank the RMS Lusitania in 1915.

Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, 7 May 1915

A review of “The Storm That Swept Mexico”

The "Great Revolution" in Mexico: It's not the war of independence from Spain

If your average person on the street overheard a brief mention of the "Great Revolution" in Mexico (perhaps when I'm talking about it myself), they might assume that we're talking about the war of independence from Spain, with Mexico's independence declared in the year 1810. But when most Mexicans speak of the "Great Revolution," they are referring to a revolution against their own government in Mexico, in the year 1910 - almost an exact century after their declaration of independence from Spain. It was a turbulent period, even by the standards of politics in Latin America. But it was one of the most important periods in Mexican history as well. Moreover, it merits the attention of American history buffs who want to understand our southern neighbor.

Leaders of the Mexican revolt of 1910

There is actual footage from the time to tell this story with

Surprisingly, this historical subject caught the attention of some filmmakers at American PBS, who decided to make a documentary about it called "The Storm That Swept Mexico." (Because it was made for an American network, it is in English; and when it interviews people speaking Spanish, it uses English subtitles for its largely Gringo audience from north of the border.) It's not a very well-known film, even by PBS standards; but its quality is a lot higher than you might expect after hearing this. Because the revolution that it depicts began in the year 1910, there exists actual footage from the time of its chosen subject - silent footage, it is true, but footage just the same. This allows them to make a pretty decent documentary about their subject, without a large budget for re-enactments. The silent footage from the time allows their film's visuals a power that even the best re-enactments would have difficulty achieving. This is probably what allowed them to make the film in the first place, because it could thus be shot on the cheap. This must have made it so that less funding was needed for the project, thus making it more likely for them to get the funding in the first place.

Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States for much of this period

Pancho Villa

A review of PBS's “Woodrow Wilson” movie

Disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of Wilson's presidency

Before I begin this review, I should give a disclaimer that I am not a big fan of Woodrow Wilson's presidency. His domestic policy is something of a prototype for modern big-government liberalism. Moreover, I would argue that his amateurish foreign policy in handling World War One virtually guaranteed that there would be another war later. But even bumbling incompetents can be interesting, and Woodrow Wilson has one of the more interesting lives in American history. Thus, I greatly enjoyed watching this documentary, and wanted to write a review of it here.

Yes, Woodrow Wilson predicted World War II – but so did J. M. Keynes

Woodrow Wilson accurately predicted a Second World War ...

In the years after the First World War, American president Woodrow Wilson predicted that if America refused to join the League of Nations, there would be a Second World War.

Woodrow Wilson

... but does that mean it happened for the reasons he said it would happen?

America did indeed refuse to join the League of Nations; and there was later a Second World War. Thus, it might seem at first glance that he was a prophet, or that World War II really was the result of not joining the League.

John Maynard Keynes predicted a Second World War, too, but for somewhat different reasons

But this is a problematic claim for several reasons. Others, too, predicted World War II; and their causality claims were somewhat different. John Maynard Keynes, for example, predicted that World War II would happen if the Allies pursued reparations from the Germans. He had much criticism of the League of Nations advocated by Woodrow Wilson. Even if accurately predicting the war comes from a genuine prophecy (rather than a lucky guess), that doesn't mean that the predictor's reason for why it happened is the true reason - causality is a little more complicated than that.

He never said that it would be because of the American refusal to join the League of Nations

I'll leave the discussion of causality to another post; and instead focus here on John Maynard Keynes' predictions. If accurately predicting an event means that someone is right about why it happened, then John Maynard Keynes' predictions would prove Woodrow Wilson is wrong, and I will give the quotes to prove it now.

John Maynard Keynes