How decades of conflicts sucked Europe into the Great War

Germans annex the Alsace-Lorraine region, and Germany becomes a unified nation

In 1870, France declared war on Prussia, in an attempt to assert its dominance over the continent of Europe. They soon invaded German territory, and seemed to do well for a period of some two days. But the Germans soon counterattacked, and were routing the French before too long. After some months, the German troops made it all the way to Paris, eventually causing the war to end in 1871. The Franco-Prussian War, as it is now called, had profound consequences for the continent of Europe. It enabled the Germans to annex Alsace-Lorraine, which would be a thorn in Franco-German relations during both of the upcoming world wars. And, even more importantly, it completed the process of unifying the German states into a single nation. That is, the process was completed in 1871. Some would date this as the beginning of the road to the Great War. This road would have a seminal effect upon both of the upcoming world wars. In this post, I will try to examine a series of minor wars and crises that (arguably) led up to World War One. Their effect seems to be far more than the sum of their parts, because they eventually caused Europe to explode … into the truly “Great War.”

Prussian field artillery column at Torcy – France, 1870

A review of “The Korean War” (audiobook)

In 1950, the Cold War suddenly became hot. North Korea launched a full-scale invasion of South Korea. The Korean War would soon draw in nations from throughout the world. 33,000 Americans died in battle in Korea. When you include people who died in prison camps, or who simply froze to death, the total American deaths go up even higher to 54,000. How did the Korean Peninsula become the epicenter of a raging storm? How did that storm suck in the United States and its various allies? And what was the ultimate legacy of the Korean War? These are the questions that a brief (but entertaining) audiobook tries to answer. They examine the philosophies of both sides, and the series of events that pulled the war-weary free world into yet another conflict.

A review of Andrew Marr’s “History of the World” (BBC)

Before watching this film, I had enjoyed watching Andrew Marr’s “Modern Britain” series, which covered the period from 1901 to 2007. More to the point, I greatly enjoyed the presenting style of Andrew Marr himself, since he often has an amusing (and even hilarious) way of putting things. Nonetheless, I initially resisted getting Andrew Marr’s “History of the World.” I suppose that I was skeptical of doing the entire “History of the World” in just eight hours. I had already learned from other histories that covered specific parts of the world in more detail. I especially knew the history of the West quite well, but also had a basic understanding of some of the other major world cultures – even though I still (admittedly) lack knowledge of many others. But, as Andrew Marr says in this film’s introduction, it can help to have the big picture in mind. This “big picture” can allow you to make some connections between the different times and places. It allows you to synthesize many of the different pieces into a coherent narrative. For example, by surveying the different topics, you can find important differences among the stories of diverse cultures. You can also find the commonalities that tie them together. Thus, I would like to offer my review of this series, for any that are interested. I will start with one of the weakest episodes, which is the very first episode. Then I will transition into covering some of the better stuff in the later episodes.

The American Revolutionary War was fought on four different continents

Even many British histories of the war tend (understandably) to gloss over this subject

In the eighteenth century, the British Empire was the most powerful nation in the world. It had a powerful army and navy, and controlled massive amounts of territory. It greatly outnumbered the American rebels, and even had many American Loyalists on its side. Thus, one might have expected the British military to win the day in this struggle. Yet, at the end of this conflict, the British permanently lost their thirteen American colonies. Why is this? Many explanations have been proposed, such as the poor decision-making on the part of their military leaders – and I should acknowledge that this was indeed a factor. Other factors have also been cited, such as the British failure to win the hearts and minds of the American people. But, for many historians, one factor stands out above all of the rest. This was the series of alliances between the American rebels and certain of the major European powers. The most famous of these alliances is probably that which the Americans would form with the French. However, the Spanish and the Dutch would also eventually be joining the war on the American side. The British even had to face a few enemies in India, and fight a world war in many different places.

The Royal Navy relief at the Great Siege of Gibraltar – Europe, 1782

Thus, here’s the part of the American Revolution that your history classes never told you

The standard histories of the American Revolution usually avoid covering these things, or mention them only in passing. Even Richard Holmes’ “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America” focuses almost entirely on the North American campaigns. Thus, Mr. Holmes only covers the French participation … when it becomes relevant to these more prominent campaigns in North America. For example, Holmes covers the naval battle of the Chesapeake, which was off of the coast of Virginia. Mr. Holmes also covers the French participation in the final battle at Yorktown, which was on land. But campaigns elsewhere in the world are mentioned only in passing in his own history. Therefore, even many of the standard British histories have tended to pass over this turbulent international context. This is understandable, because the campaigns in North America have tended to be the most prominent – even for the British. But their wars elsewhere in the world saw some ferocious battles and campaigns for the British, and a clash of empires on a massive scale. Indeed, the war was actually fought on four different continents. Thus, I would like here to dive into the Revolution’s fascinating international context. In so doing, I will try to offer my own perspective … on why America was ever able to gain her independence, at this time or at any other. This will also help to explain why the mighty British Empire ultimately lost the American Revolution.

A British sortie in the Great Siege of Gibraltar – Europe, 1781

How historical context can shed light on World War II

World War II was the largest conflict in history. It tore the continent of Europe apart, both during the war and in its immediate aftermath. Millions had been mowed down in battlefields from Normandy to Stalingrad to Iwo Jima. Others had been murdered in the Holocaust, or in prison camps in Soviet Russia or Imperial Japan. Still others had been killed in the bombing campaigns, from London and Warsaw to Berlin and Hiroshima. A standard estimate is that 50 million people died as a direct result of World War II, or in war-related famines. At the end, the seeds of a future Cold War had been sown, as Germany (and particularly Berlin) were divided. The conflicts in Europe were not over – nor were those in Asia, which would see further shooting wars in Korea and Vietnam in the coming decades. Thus, why did the upheavals of World War II happen? What explains the awful carnage, in this war or in the other brutal wars that have racked humanity throughout its history? The answer is both complicated and simple: historical context. Many people naturally grasp the idea that prior context is relevant – whether in historical pursuits, or in other areas of life. But how far back do you have to go to find the answers? What kinds of context shed light on things, and what others fail to do so? And how can historical context help us to make some sense out of major events – events that are both complicated and multi-faceted? (And that includes virtually everything in history, because that’s just the nature of life itself.)

American tank incinerates Japanese pillbox with a flame thrower – Saipan, 1944

These are the kinds of questions that I will try to answer in this post. I will be focusing primarily on World War II here, because popular knowledge of this subject makes it somewhat easier to illustrate my points with some related stories and anecdotes from this conflict. So, without further ado, let’s dive into the importance of historical context, and how it can allow us to make some sense out of the most complicated events of history.

Soviets preparing to ward off a German attack in Stalingrad’s suburbs

A review of “World War II” (audiobook)

I should preface this review by saying that I’ve seen a number of other great histories of World War II. For example, I’ve seen the American perspective covered in Ken Burns’ 15-hour series “The War” (made for PBS). I’ve seen other series that cover the Canadian and Australian perspectives respectively. I’ve seen the so-called “BBC History of World War II” – which, despite its inaccurate name, is still quite good. And I’ve seen the 23-hour British miniseries “The World at War.” This may be the most comprehensive television history of World War II. Thus, I’ve seen a number of other great histories of World War II. The “BBC History of World War II” has a fantastic program on the causes of the war, and another giving in-depth coverage of the Holocaust. But the primary focus of the BBC is on the combat of the war itself. Many of these series were able to interview eyewitnesses and participants, which adds another dynamic to the various documentaries.

What was the “Hundred Years’ War”? (Depends on which one you mean)

There are a few candidates for this name, all of them involving Britain and France

You might already know that the Normans invaded England in 1066 – now the most famous year in English history. The Norman rulers seem to have been genetically Scandinavian, rather than French. That is, they seem to have been of Viking stock. But these Norman rulers had been living in France for a few generations. Thus, they and their followers were all native speakers of French. They soon came to impose the French language and laws on the people of England, as well as a few other parts of Britain. This explains why the English language has so many French loanwords in its vocabulary. Scholars estimate that perhaps 30% of Modern English words are of French origin (usually Norman French origin). Another 30% come directly from the related language of Latin. The first war between England and France seems to have begun in 1109. In that same century, the Norman reign in England gave way to another French-speaking dynasty: the Plantagenet dynasty. The Plantagenet rulers would also remain French-speaking for the next few centuries. (But that’s a story for another post.) England and France would be at each other’s throats, on and off, for many centuries to come. Not all of their wars are today considered a part of some “Hundred Years’ War” or other. But all of the candidates for the name of “Hundred Years’ War” involved France and England – or, in later centuries, France and Great Britain. By examining those three conflicts that are candidates for this name, we may learn something about the centuries-long struggle between the French and the English, and why they still have some amount of rivalry today – although it’s now more good-natured.

Battle of Bouvines, 1214 – part of the “First” Hundred Years’ War