Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Asia and the Pacific

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these, in particular, is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

We are often told that World War II began in Europe, with the 1939 (Nazi) invasion of Poland. And, in truth, there is a good argument to be made for this date. But some would date it earlier, to the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. Some would date it even earlier than that, to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. You could make an argument for any of these three dates being correct, so I will not attempt to settle this controversy here. But either way, there is much about the war in the East that is unknown to the general public. Whenever and however it became a part of World War II, it is clear that this massive conflict began long before Pearl Harbor. This post will dive into a few of the forgotten aspects of the war in the East, and discuss its roots in local colonization by both Western and local Asian powers.

Vietnamese soldier, 1889 – during the French conquest of Vietnam

Background on prior European (and Japanese) colonization of Asia

For example, the Japanese had colonized Iwo Jima as early as the sixteenth century. And there was actually a corporation from the Netherlands called the “Dutch East India Company.” This private company had invaded Indonesia as early as 1603. But the region later fell under the control of the Netherlands government back in Holland in 1800, creating the province of the “Dutch East Indies.” And the British East India Company had gained control of India, in the 1757 Battle of Plassey. India may be the most populous overseas territory that any empire has ever possessed. In the 1820s, the British Empire later gained control of Malaya, which then included Singapore. The British also fought their first war in Burma in the 1820s, partly to maintain their control of nearby India. The second British war in Burma came in the mid-1850s, with the great “Indian Mutiny” coming in 1857. Control over India then passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown, thus beginning the era of the “British Raj” in India. In 1879, the Empire of Japan soon annexed the Ryukyu Islands, which included the island of Okinawa. In 1885, there was a third British war in Burma, which saw Burma annexed into British India – with sporadic resistance there for decades afterward. In 1886, though, the British returned to separating the provinces of Burma and India from each other. Back in 1858, the French had begun their infamous conquest of what is today Vietnam. In 1887, the process was completed, and the province of “French Indochina” was born – although resistance there continued into the twentieth century, long after World War II. In 1893, the French also had a brief war with Siam (later renamed to Thailand). At the end of that war, Siam thus ceded some land to French Indochina. The Japanese fought their first war with China in the 1890s (with an early invasion of Manchuria), today called the “First Sino-Japanese War.” This was partly about who would control nearby Korea. At the end of the war, the Japanese then began to rule the island of Taiwan in 1895. The Russians then invaded Manchuria in 1900. But the Japanese soon attacked the nearby Russians, and beat them in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The Japanese then made Korea into a Japanese protectorate in 1905, and formally started to colonize Korea for themselves in 1910. Japanese rule of Korea and Taiwan would then remain unchallenged for decades afterward.

Japanese infantry during the occupation of Seoul – Korea, 1904

The complicated legacy of Martin Van Buren

Martin Van Buren was part of the “Jacksonian Era,” named after the controversial Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, historians usually begin the era back in 1824 – when Andrew Jackson was defeated by John Quincy Adams. Jackson would later win his rematch with Adams, and was then elected to his two terms … as our first Democratic president. These terms are well-remembered, and most Americans know Andrew Jackson’s name. But most people do not know the name of his immediate successor, who served in three major positions in Andrew Jackson’s administration. That person was Martin Van Buren. Despite being born in Revolutionary-era New York, Van Buren owned at least one slave, because slavery was then legal in the District of Columbia – where he worked as a politician. But Van Buren would walk a tightrope with regards to slavery, which would be important later on in his career. He is also remembered for his handling of the Panic of 1837, and for the costly Second Seminole War.

Martin Van Buren

Why is Zachary Taylor now considered a “forgettable” president?

By 1849, General Zachary Taylor had spent more than four decades in the United States Army. He had become one of the heroes of the Mexican-American War. But, when Zachary Taylor first ran for president, he had never held a political office in his life. Taylor’s political beliefs were vague and largely unknown, making one wonder why the Whig political party decided to choose him as their candidate. But, in 1840, the war with Mexico had just added some massive territories to the American Union, and our national debate over slavery was now increasing in intensity. That is, would these new states be admitted to the Union as “free states” or slave states? And how would this question be decided? When Zachary Taylor first entered the White House in 1849, the seeds of a future civil war were being sown. The prelude to the Civil War arguably began in this year that Zachary Taylor was inaugurated: 1849. The fateful cannon shots at Fort Sumter were then still twelve years in the future, but the nation was now on a fateful collision course … with itself.

Zachary Taylor

Franklin Pierce: One of our most pro-slavery presidents

In the earliest decades of the United States, all successful political parties tried their best to sidestep the controversial issue of slavery. But it became increasingly hard to do this as time went on, because the nation was expanding westward. Thus, people then had to debate about whether slavery would be expanding westward as well. Franklin Pierce continued the westward expansion through the Gadsden Purchase, but slavery rapidly became the biggest issue of his presidency. He hated the abolitionist movement, and the abolitionist movement likewise hated him in return. In 1820, the Congress had enacted the controversial “Missouri Compromise.” This compromise had admitted Missouri as a slave state, while simultaneously admitting Maine as a “free state” (among other policies). But, in 1854, several aspects of this compromise were effectively repealed, when Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law. He also created controversy by enforcing the prior Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The country was on a fateful collision course with itself, and the drums of a future civil war began to 

beat with ever greater intensity.

Franklin Pierce

USA prisoners of war: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these in particular is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

I grew up on prisoner-of-war movies – like “Stalag 17,” “The Great Escape,” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” They are particularly popular when depicting World War II, or certain other wars of the twentieth century. But relatively little has been said about American prisoners of war in prior conflicts. For example, little has been said about POWs in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Thus, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps here, and talk about our “POWs” (or “Prisoners Of War”) in some of these other periods. I should note that most of these periods were before the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Thus, modern rules and laws about the treatment of POWs did not yet apply in some of these periods. The stories of captured Americans, and those that we captured for ourselves, will tell us much about who we were as a people – and who we are today.

American naval power: Playing a crucial role in the rise of the United States

“An act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America …”

– Long title of the “Trade Act 1774” (also known as the “Boston Port Act 1774”), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered in the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How the United States went from a vulnerable backwater to a world superpower …

A few of America’s wars began at sea, as part of greater conflicts between Britain and France. America was just an economic and military backwater, and its navy started out as a pinprick and a laughingstock. But the United States would eventually become the mightiest naval power in the world. How did this happen? The roots of this success involve various political and economic factors, which would be too complex to cover here. But they were expressed in the rise of the American military – and, in particular, of the United States Navy. This was how our economic and political rise was most expressed, and the most direct way that this rise was asserted and defended. Thus, an examination of its effects might be in order here, as I show the role of the United States naval power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This shows how the rise of the United States as a world power was owing (at least in part) to the United States Navy. The navy was involved in some shameful imperial acts, but it also helped the young nation to survive, and to withstand its most vulnerable periods.

Naval engagement in the Barbary Wars, 1804

A story of revolution, defensive actions, imperialist ventures, and civil war

Most coverage of America’s naval conflicts focuses on the Second World War – and, to a lesser degree, on other wars of the twentieth century. But this post will focus on the now-forgotten role of sea power in some of our earlier naval conflicts. That is, it will go from our navy’s beginning in the 1770s, through its role in the Spanish-American War of 1898 – and, eventually, in the “Great White Fleet” of the early 1900s. This was a critical period for the United States, which (chillingly) involved many frightening dangers on land and on sea. During that time, our navy supported unfortunate imperial ventures against Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines – although those against Native Americans were primarily on land, so I will have to omit them here. (Although I do cover them elsewhere – here, if you’re interested.) But our navy also defended American sovereignty against serious encroachments from Britain and France, and allowed the United States to survive the most staggering threats of its birth and early childhood.

Battle of Lake Erie – Great Lakes (between the United States and Canada), 1813

Abraham Lincoln prevented Great Britain from supporting the Confederacy

“England's course towards the United States during the rebellion exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and are related by blood and other ties.”

– Ulysses S. Grant, in the Conclusion of the “Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant” (1885)

There was a real danger that Great Britain would support the Confederacy …

The biggest issue of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency was the rebellion of the Southern states, and the Civil War that quickly erupted when they tried to leave the Union in 1861. There may be good reason for thinking of this kind of domestic rebellion as a “domestic” policy issue. But it also involved complicated foreign policy, as the Southern states tried to get European powers to intervene on their behalf. In particular, the South tried to get Queen Victoria’s British Empire to support the Confederate war efforts. If this had happened, there was a chillingly real possibility that the Civil War would have ended very differently than it did. For example, we might have been forced to become two countries, with chattel slavery living on for years in the more southern country. Abraham Lincoln was just as determined to prevent this from happening. To some degree, Civil War diplomacy also involved distant France, nearby Mexico, and the various Native American tribes who made various choices about whom to ally with. But the two sides’ respective relationships with Britain were the most important theatres of the chess game, since the British had the most power to affect the war’s outcome. Thus, an examination of the Civil War diplomacy might be in order here, to show how both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis conducted diplomacy with the mighty British Empire.

Charles Francis Adams, Sr. – Lincoln’s ambassador to Britain

James K. Polk: President during the Mexican-American War

James K. Polk was one of the most expansionist presidents in American history. In 1845, he oversaw the annexation of the Republic of Texas, which had once belonged to Mexico. In 1846, he oversaw a full-scale war with Mexico, which would lead to the annexation of what is now the American Southwest. Mexico had formerly claimed the Oregon territory as well, but Oregon was divided between the United States and the British Empire in 1846. Oregon then became an incorporated territory of the United States in 1848, also during the presidency of Mr. Polk. But there’s more to the story of James K. Polk than his controversial foreign policy. He was also a believer in Jacksonian democracy, and the last president of the “Jacksonian Era.” James K. Polk is the only Speaker of the House of Representatives ever to be elected president. But who exactly is James K. Polk? What are the complexities of his legacy? And just where did this man come from? These are the questions that this post will try to examine.

James K. Polk

Warren G. Harding: Popular in life, unpopular in death

Warren G. Harding is now known as one of the worst presidents in American history. Many today would even consider him the very worst, although he has several painful contenders for this dubious distinction. But, surprisingly, he was quite popular during his lifetime – and during his presidency. The scandals of his administration only surfaced after he died of a heart attack while in office. Why was he popular in life? Where did he come from, and how did he get to the White House? And how did his presidency become such a train wreck, living in posthumous infamy until the present day? These are the questions that this post will attempt to explain. This post will give a brief overview of the career of Warren Gamaliel Harding, a bitter train wreck of a president.

Warren G. Harding

Even after 1776, the Founding Fathers remained proud of their British heritage

“In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 26), written 1787

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against Great Britain, but were still proud of their heritage

In the thirteen American colonies, George Washington once fought on behalf of the mother country of Great Britain. At that time, the colonies had not even contemplated declaring their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, George Washington fought as a British soldier, early in the “French and Indian War” (as it is now called). Benjamin Franklin spent an even longer portion of his life being patriotic to Great Britain, and even working as part of the distant British government. Nonetheless, both men would eventually rebel against the mother country, with Benjamin Franklin voting in the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain. George Washington would even take up arms against the British Empire on the battlefield. For many years, the British (and their American Loyalist allies) would be extremely unpopular in the rebellious American colonies, and in the new American republic that was soon succeeding them. This would eventually lead the colonies to fight against Great Britain one more time in the War of 1812, under President James Madison. Thus, you might expect that the Founding Fathers would have begun to hate their British heritage. But, on the contrary, they continued to remain proud of many aspects of their British heritage. This post will attempt to show this, and explain why they were right to remain proud of the mother country’s heritage, even after 1776.

Lord Cornwallis surrenders to General George Washington at Yorktown, 1781

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

A miniseries covering Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt

Just as the Americans remember Mr. Churchill, so do the British remember Mr. Roosevelt. But when people in Britain hear the name “Roosevelt,” they tend to think of Franklin Roosevelt, the man who led the United States during World War II. Many in Britain don’t even realize that there was another “Roosevelt” president before him. That is, there was Theodore Roosevelt, in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt is a little more famous in America than he is abroad. Nonetheless, even Americans will hear the word “Roosevelt,” and instead think of his fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt. There were two famous divisions of the Roosevelt family, of which this documentary makes extensive note. One was the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts,” the branch that produced Theodore Roosevelt. The other was the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” the branch that produced FDR. But there was another Roosevelt who was one of the bridges between these two branches – although there were other marriages between the branches. That is, there was Eleanor Roosevelt. She was born into the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts” as Theodore Roosevelt’s niece. But she married into the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” when she married FDR – her own fifth cousin once removed. These are the three principal characters of the story.

A review of “A New Understanding of the Atom” (audiobook)

When the first atomic bombs went off in 1945, people witnessed the awesome power of the atom. It was so small that even microscopes failed to detect it, and yet it could cause the largest of any man-made explosions. But it was suspected even in antiquity that the world is made up of tiny particles. The word “atom” is itself of very ancient origin, and originally meant “indivisible.” But as any high school chemistry student knows, atoms are divided into much smaller parts. These include protons, neutrons, and electrons (among other things).

Why is Chester A. Arthur now considered one of the “least memorable” presidents?

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot the 20th President of the United States. The president was James A. Garfield, the predecessor of Chester A. Arthur. And Garfield had taken office only four months before. When Garfield was shot in the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, his assailant was immediately apprehended there. When a police officer asked Mr. Guiteau why he had shot the president, Guiteau did not immediately respond. But the press later revealed a letter in which Guiteau described his bizarre motives, saying that he would make his “friend Arthur President.” (See the relevant portion of the letter here.) Thus, people initially wondered if Vice President Chester A. Arthur was involved in the murder. After all, the vice president was next in line for the presidency, if Garfield should later happen to die from his gunshot wounds. Fortunately for Chester A. Arthur, it was later established that Guiteau had acted alone, and was wholly unconnected with the vice president. All of this was true, and Arthur was indeed innocent of this kind of wrongdoing. But two months after the shooting, President James A. Garfield died in his bed. Thus, Chester A. Arthur then became the 21st President of the United States. But who was Chester A. Arthur, and where did he come from? That is what this post will now attempt to explain.

Chester A. Arthur

Rutherford B. Hayes: Entering office by a margin of one electoral vote

Reconstruction had been going on for twelve years, when Mr. Hayes became president

When the Civil War ended in 1865, it was followed by another violent period of postwar reconstruction. Some historians have even described the Reconstruction Era as a sort of “Second Civil War,” and this may actually be accurate. During the early phases of Reconstruction, Rutherford B. Hayes (who was, by then, a Republican) had supported his party’s attempts to bring order to the South. But the violence was ongoing, and Republicans were starting to lose support for maintaining the presence of federal troops in the South. It was a bit like the later Vietnam War, which lost American support as the war dragged on without an end in sight. The Republican president Ulysses S. Grant had thus been forced to retreat somewhat, in his efforts to keep federal troops there. General Grant completed two full terms as president, but was not then seeking a third term of office. Thus, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became the Republicans’ new presidential candidate. He faced Samuel J. Tilden, a Democrat from New York. It would be one of the most controversial elections in American history.

Rutherford B. Hayes in Civil War uniform in 1861

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of Myths and Heroes”

“And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very great company, and camels that bare spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart.”

– “The Second Book of the Chronicles,” Chapter 9, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

History is filled with great stories – some of which can be true, and others of which are probably just myths and legends. But even many of the false ones can be important for the history, because they’ve been so fervently believed for such a long time. The mere fact that they’re believed at all is an important part of the history, even if it must sometimes be contended with by the “serious historians” when it’s wrong. Regardless, this documentary is a miscellaneous collection of four great myths and legends, which I will describe shortly. They go from Europe and Asia … to Africa and Arabia, and the first one is the Queen of Sheba.

William Howard Taft: Made and un-made by Theodore Roosevelt

William Howard Taft has now become little more than a footnote to the larger story of Theodore Roosevelt. When we hear Taft’s name today, it tends to be in connection either with Theodore Roosevelt, or with their mutual enemy Woodrow Wilson. But, in the early twentieth century, William Howard Taft was more than just an intervening figure between these two political giants. Taft was a reform-minded candidate, who was much more similar to Roosevelt … than Roosevelt himself would later give him credit for. William Howard Taft is known in part for his rotundity, and for being the only person to become both president and Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. Thus, an examination of Mr. Taft’s story might be in order here. This will provide us some insight into the United States, and into the twentieth century more generally.

William Howard Taft

Air power in the World Wars: From “expensive toy” to a serious weapon

“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”

– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)

In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.

German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)

Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years’ War to the War of 1812

“An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America …”

– Long title of the “Quebec Act, 1774” (French: Acte de Québec de 1774), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered by the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How do Canadians remember the conflicts between the English, the French, and the Americans? As it turns out, the Canadians remember these conflicts somewhat differently than we do. They were a crucible for Canada, as they were for the United States – and its various colonial predecessors. Canada stayed a colony for a lot longer than we did, so there are at least three major conflicts during its colonial history. These conflicts are (in order) the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, and the “War of 1812” (as it is usually called). Some of these conflicts are more often remembered in Canada than in the United States. One of these wars still creates controversy in Canada today, more than two centuries later. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about Colonial Canada, and how it was shaped by the trials of its early wars.

Engraving from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – Quebec, 1759

Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia led to his downfall

“From the day of exchanging the ratification of the present treaties, there shall be perfect peace and amity between his majesty the emperor of the French [Napoleon], king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias.”

– “Treaty of Tilsit, 7 July 1807,” between Napoleon Bonaparte of France and “Alexander the First” of Russia – a treaty which was soon broken in 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia

In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte came to the throne of France. He was the victor of campaigns in the “French Revolutionary Wars,” and must have seemed truly “invincible.” But his world came crashing down all around him, when his forces were defeated while invading Russia in 1812. How did all of this happen? How did the most powerful man in Europe become a prisoner in St. Helena by 1815 – later to die as a prisoner in 1821? How did the Russian people rally against the French (and other invaders) in this campaign? And what do certain prior events in the Napoleonic Wars, such as Russia’s twice switching sides in that conflict, tell us about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? In this post, I will try to answer these questions. I will show how the larger “Napoleonic Wars” turned around in this massive Russian campaign. And I will show how Napoleon’s downfall owed much to his being routed by the Russians during this invasion.

Paul the First of Russia

Color movies are great, but so are black-and-white movies

Why one should consider watching classic black-and-white movies

This might seem a strange way to start this post, but there is a decades-long international interest in World War II. People in many nations are fascinated by the greatest shooting war of the twentieth century – and, arguably, of all time. Thus, there’s a strong subculture that’s interested in the real footage of the war. Some of that footage is in color, but much of it is instead in black-and-white. Nonetheless, people watch it anyway, because they want to see some of what the real thing looked like. It’s one of the few historical subjects that is not stigmatized as “nerdy,” because it continues to enjoy such a great following. This shows that there is still some interest in black-and-white photography, both of the moving and non-moving (or “still”) kinds. But the younger generation often has no interest in old movies, particularly when they are in black-and-white. They’ve been raised in a culture of color movies, many of which really are quite good. But I believe that there are a lot of old movies that are worth watching, too. This post will try to explain some of the reasons why.

Clark Gable and Doris Day together in “Teacher’s Pet” (1958)

Benjamin Harrison: A president whose grandfather was another president

Benjamin Harrison’s grandfather was William Henry Harrison, who was the ninth president of the United States. This grandfather had served as president for 31 days in 1841. But William Henry Harrison had died of natural causes after only this month in office. William Henry Harrison had enjoyed a distinguished career as a general, especially in the War of 1812. But the grandfather, William Henry Harrison, did not live long enough to make much of a difference as president. By contrast, Benjamin Harrison would eventually serve out a full term as president. He never won the popular vote, but he still defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland anyway. Again, Benjamin Harrison served a full term before his fatal rematch with Grover Cleveland. Where did Benjamin Harrison come from? How did he become the 23rd President of the United States? And what exactly is Benjamin Harrison’s legacy? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer, however briefly.

Benjamin Harrison

The Napoleonic Wars: A series of several coalitions and conflicts

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions …

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions. They are among the most defining conflicts in European history. But most Americans know very little about them, even though they crossed the Atlantic on more than one occasion. Most importantly, they hit the United States in the “War of 1812,” which actually ended in 1815. Thus, it might be helpful to examine the defining European conflict of the early nineteenth century. It has origins in the French Revolution, and in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. He came to power some years before these wars that bear his name. Thus, an overview of the domestic “French Revolution” might be in order here, to show how it affected Napoleon … and, in so many ways, also affected the world at large.

French victory over the Prussians at the Battle of Valmy, 1792

Herbert Hoover: More interventionist than he’s remembered

How much of the blame for the Great Depression belongs to Herbert Hoover?

Herbert Hoover had been president for only seven months, when the American stock market crashed in October of 1929. The Wall Street Crash of ‘29, sometimes called the “Great Crash,” is often marked as the beginning of the Great Depression. But this nation has had several other stock market crashes in its long history, and recovered much more quickly from most of these other crashes. Thus, I’m not entirely convinced that the 1929 Crash is what “caused” the Depression, although it was certainly a catastrophe of gargantuan proportions. Regardless, Herbert Hoover got the blame for the crash, and for the truly Great Depression that soon followed it. Many homeless Americans then lived in shanty towns that came to be called “Hoovervilles,” named (with some bitterness) after him. But how much of the blame does Herbert Hoover really deserve for this (and he does indeed deserve some)? What is the legacy of Herbert Hoover’s presidency? And just where did Mr. Hoover come from? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer.

Herbert Hoover

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Trojan War”

“The gods deliberate in council concerning the Trojan war: they agree upon the continuation of it, and Jupiter sends down Minerva to break the truce. She persuades Pandarus to aim an arrow at Menelaus, who is wounded, but cured by Machaon. In the meantime some of the Trojan troops attack the Greeks.”

– Homer’s “Iliad,” Book 4 (as translated by Alexander Pope)

Was the “Trojan War” real, or just a myth? A historian investigates to find out …

Was the “Trojan War” real, or just a myth? In this program, historian Michael Wood investigates to find out. We know that the Ancient Greeks believed in the Trojan War, because they were great admirers of the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey” – probably written by the Greek poet Homer around the eighth century BC. In the “Iliad,” Homer recounts the story of the “Trojan War,” which he placed some centuries earlier than his own time. Some would say that this conflict has never existed outside the pages of the “Iliad.” Others believe that there is a kernel of truth in certain parts of these stories.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” (PBS)

“Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.”

– Ernest Hemingway, in his acceptance speech for the 1954 Nobel Prize for Literature

Ken Burns delivers a stellar (and moving) biography of a great American author

Before watching this film, my only experience with Ernest Hemingway was watching the 1996 film “In Love and War,” which dramatizes both his experiences in World War One and his brief romance with Agnes von Kurowsky (played therein by Sandra Bullock). Admittedly, this was a fairly limited acquaintance with the man, and I still haven’t read any of his works. But I knew of his influence, and was willing to try just about any film made by Ken Burns, despite my admitted literary ignorance. I was a great admirer of his earlier film about Mark Twain, despite having a similar ignorance about Mark Twain and his works. Thus, I set out to record my reaction to Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” in this post.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great”

“Whilst the Amphictyonic confederacy remained, that of the Achaeans, which comprehended the less important cities only, made little figure on the theatre of Greece. When the former became a victim to Macedon, the latter was spared by the policy of Philip and Alexander [the Great].”

– Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 18)

One of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India …

He was one of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India. Before he reached age 30, Alexander the Great created a massive empire that would include much of the world, as it was known to the Mediterraneans in his time. Our best sources for his expedition include two histories, both written some centuries after the time of Alexander. One of these two historians was Greek, while the other was a Roman. But Alexander was a Macedonian. The Macedonian language no longer exists today, but it was definitely related to Greek. Some have even considered the Macedonians to be “Greeks” themselves. The host of this program sometimes seems to think so. But the Macedonians did not consider themselves to be “Greeks.” Nor did the self-identified “Greeks” consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. Nonetheless, it is true that the Macedonians spread Greek culture to a then-unprecedented extent. Nothing would spread Greek culture so widely again until the advent of the Roman Empire, which was some centuries later. I thought that it might have been helpful for the host to clarify this issue, even with a brief sentence or two. But this is actually a truly great film despite this omission.