The Great Turkish War: How Europe fought back against the Ottomans

In the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was making many enemies in Europe

The seventeenth century was rocked by several wars in Europe. But this century also saw a few major wars in the Middle East as well. For example, there were the forgotten Mughal-Safavid Wars. These wars were fought intermittently for many decades – before, during, and after the seventeenth century. There was also another major power in the Middle East, which was the Ottoman Empire. Unlike these other powers, it had ambitions in Continental Europe itself. The Ottoman Empire had been expanding further and further into the Balkans, and even into Central and Eastern Europe. But the Ottoman Turks were then making many enemies in Europe. Thus, the Ottomans were getting a little over-extended there. The Turks would soon be facing coalitions of several European powers – including the Russians, whom they had faced in two prior wars. The Ottoman Turks had also fought a few wars against Poland in the past, and would soon be facing the Poles again in this struggle. And some prior conflicts with the Habsburg monarchy would also be re-ignited in the coming struggle. Sadly for the Turks, there would be other enemies for them, as the Europeans decided to fight back against the Ottoman incursions. United by a common interest, their alliance would soon prove formidable to the Turks, in a conflict sometimes called the “Last Crusade.” Small wonder, then, that the Ottoman Turks would remember it simply as the “Disaster Years.” But the rest of the world would usually remember it … as the “Great Turkish War.” Like the prior Mughal-Safavid Wars, the “Great Turkish War” would prove one of the greatest conflicts of the seventeenth century. In this conflict, much of Christian Europe would band together, in a “holy resistance” to the Muslim invaders.

Battle of Vienna, 1683 – the opening battle of the Great Turkish War

Battle of Párkány, 1683 – part of the Polish-Ottoman War

Spies, nukes, and communists: The complicated legacy of the Cold War

The Cold War affected both sides of the twentieth century’s greatest conflict, in every region of the world. These included largely neutral areas stretching from Latin America and the Middle East … to South Asia and Indonesia. Some of the ripple effects come from the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, and the conflicts between Israel and its various neighbors. All have since become particularly relevant at the time that I write this. The Eastern European theater of the Cold War also explains some of the more recent conflicts in the region, such as the nineties war in Bosnia and the current war in Ukraine. Many Eastern European countries have since joined the European Union, which could likewise be considered as a sort of legacy of the Cold War period. The Cold War also influenced literature and cinema, with iconic spy movies like those of James Bond – which were popular enough to be spoofed in other franchises like “Get Smart.” There were also some post-apocalyptic themes in the era’s science fiction, including with some famous episodes of “The Twilight Zone.”

Goran Jelisić shooting a Bosniak in Brčko – Bosnian War, 1992

But the Cold War also had an effect upon our current world map, our current ideologies, and (in many ways) our current geopolitics. It involved some spilled blood in many parts of the world, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the rise of communist China as a world power. The glory of twentieth-century history tends to go to World War II, which arguably set the stage for the Cold War in many ways. But the Cold War may still be the most important conflict of the twentieth century. Only certain parts of the Cold War involved actual shooting therein, but there was scarcely a conflict anywhere in the world during that time that wasn’t somehow connected with the larger “Cold War.” Thus, this post will try to examine how the (First) Cold War affected us, and how we continue to deal with the ripple effects (of one sort or another) from this great international chess game. I will only be able to survey the ways that it affected us, and will have to leave out subjects like the important advances in computer technology and air power – even though they, too, are arguably an outgrowth of the “Cold War.”

A street in Kyiv following Russian missile strikes – Ukraine, 2022

Forgotten battlegrounds of World War One: The Balkans and Eastern Europe

A war that killed at least 15 million people began with two quick gunshots in the Balkans. The fighting of World War One began in the Balkans, and eventually saw some of its greatest bloodshed in this same region. Popular historians often talk about the assassination at Sarajevo, because it sucked in many of the other nations of the world – including, eventually, the United States. But subsequent events in the Balkans tend to be unknown among the general public, even lesser-known than the complex origins of the war that one can find there. Thus, this may be a good time to examine the events of the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and how they engulfed much of the rest of the world when those two fateful gunshots were fired there.

Sarajevo citizens reading a poster with the proclamation of the Austrian annexation in 1908

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

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

A review of “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” (BBC)

Note: The Russians usually refer to their own part of World War II as the “Great Patriotic War.” Some Eastern European countries use this same term. But in Germany (and in most other Western countries), it is known as the “Eastern front” – or, more informally, the “Russian front.”

They call it the “War of the Century” here – the massive conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. To me, World War II as a whole is better-deserving of this title than any one of its parts, even this part. Nonetheless, I should acknowledge that the Russian front really was quite massive, and was cataclysmic for both sides. It is a war between two of the cruelest superpowers of the twentieth century. There were innocent victims on both sides, and there were cold-blooded murderers on both sides – with both sides having plenty of each. To me, this documentary seems to cover them in the right proportions, by painting both sides in a negative light. The war was a vicious and brutal conflict which lasted for nearly four years. Thus, it seems to make for great television, particularly with the moving way that the BBC covers it here. They show the human drama of the story, and tell it with a flourish.

Behind the Iron Curtain: Occupation by the Soviet Union

"While the Wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system - for all the world to see - we take no satisfaction in it; for it is, as your mayor [of West Berlin] has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together."

- American president John F. Kennedy, in his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech (June 26, 1963)

World War II had just ended; but for parts of Eastern Europe, the nightmare was just beginning ...

During the Second World War, Eastern Europe was unfortunately caught in the crossfire between Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Russia. Conquest by either one meant certain tyranny and subjugation, but to be caught on the losing side of this struggle for the Eastern Front would mark one's country for revenge, terrible and swift. It was not known yet who would be the winner, and the two sides were so ruthless to begin with that any additional punishment from the eventual victor was a terrifying prospect for them. Perhaps partially for this, the nations of Eastern Europe decided to choose sides in this struggle, hoping to promote their interest; and some paid a heavy price for making the wrong choices in these matters. But all were doomed to suffer in one way or another, and even the ones whose alliances had actually served their interest in these years were condemned to suffer in a communist occupation later on, regardless of which side they had served at this earlier time. The eventual winner on the "Eastern Front" was, of course, Soviet Russia; and it imposed its will without any mercy on the nations that it had conquered.

Red Army raises Soviet flag in Berlin after taking the city, May 1945

Some parts of Eastern Europe were already occupied before World War II

To be clear, some of these nations were already conquered before the war started, and some had been part of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (or "USSR") since the moment of its creation in 1922. (This is the political entity that is better known today - and was known then - as the "Soviet Union.") They were thus already puppet states that had been annexed by the USSR. Others became puppet states that were made part of the Soviet Union in 1940 - after World War II had begun in Europe, but before the Soviet entry into the war in 1941. These states were annexed at this time instead. Others became puppet states much later on in the war - or even after, in some cases. Although some of these states were never actually annexed into the Soviet Union - possibly to create the illusion that the Russians were actually keeping their World War II treaty promises of non-interference - they were nonetheless controlled from Moscow as much as any of the others. These included Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania - and, for a brief time, Yugoslavia and Albania. (More on the special status of these two nations later in this post.) Together with the Soviet states, these nations were all then part of what was called the "Eastern Bloc." For these nations, the ordeal of Soviet occupation began during - and in some cases, after - World War II, and the long nightmare of "no peace" would be followed by the even longer nightmare of no freedom. It is these nations that I will focus on here, since their distance from the center of Soviet power encouraged them to attempt more revolts against the communist occupation - revolts that (unfortunately), before 1989, did not succeed.

Border changes in the Eastern Bloc, from 1938 to 1948

Reagan and “Star Wars”: Bringing the fall of the Wall and the end of the Cold War

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate ... Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

- President Ronald Reagan, standing at the Brandenburg Gate on 12 June 1987

Two rival superpowers with nuclear weapons

People in my generation may not always be aware of it today, but the world was afraid of a nuclear war for over forty years of the last century. It was called the "Cold War," for those who don't know, and the scariest thing about it was that this nuclear holocaust could actually happen. Two superpowers had nuclear weapons - which were, of course, the United States and the Soviet Union - and these two superpowers disliked and distrusted each other greatly.

Berlin Wall, 1986

An eerie description of the Cold War from a previous century

The words of a philosopher from 300 years ago could be seen as an accurate description of this twentieth-century conflict, and an eerie one at that. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that "persons of sovereign authority [or in this case, nations] ... [are] in the state and posture of gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their [nations]; and continual spies on their neighbors; which is a posture of war." (Source: "Leviathan" [published 1651], Chapter XIII, the subsection entitled "The incommodities of such a war") Thus, in many important ways, Thomas Hobbes' timeless quotation is an apt description of the Cold War.

Blockade (or "quarantine") of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962

The Berlin Blockade: The first crisis after World War II

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an IRON CURTAIN has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in some form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow."

- Winston Churchill, in his "Sinews of Peace" address, given in Fulton, Missouri on March 5, 1946

The wartime alliance against Nazi Germany

This might seem a strange way to begin a post about the Berlin Blockade, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. There are few bedfellows more strange than the United States and Soviet Russia. During World War II, they had been allied (somewhat ironically) in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Now they distrusted each other greatly - although the distrust wasn't all that new, in the grand scheme of things - almost as much as they had distrusted their common enemy, the Nazis. After the war was over, they were supposedly working together to undo Nazism, but the people of this time had reason to wonder if this was actually happening. The Soviets had made several promises in the postwar peace treaties that they were now breaking, and they weren't exactly tiny promises. They'd promised freedom to the several countries in Eastern Europe (which the Soviet troops were now occupying), and the Soviets pledged that they would "remove their troops soon." But there was a problem with this, since the troops were still there; and freedom wasn't exactly high on the Soviets' priority list.

Red Army raises Soviet flag in Berlin after taking the city, 1945

History's horror stories: The “grand experiments” with communism

Americans have rightly been interested in their own country's history for a long time - both for the moving stories it contains, and for the secrets of its success. But we have long been interested in the stories of less successful countries as well, and we have a never-ending fascination with historical horror stories like those found in Nazi Germany. It is well that we pay them attention; because along with a careful study of the secrets of our own success, it is good to have a healthy knowledge of the causes of other countries' failures; and how the terrible events so tragically found in other countries could have been allowed to happen.

Iron Curtain, 1949 - border between the two Germanies

In that spirit, I set out to talk about another of history's "horror stories" - a story not as well-known as that of Nazi Germany, but one of vital importance nonetheless; which may be even more topical in this day, due to the expanding socialism found within our own country today. I speak of the experiences of other countries with the horrors of communism.

A review of CNN's “The Cold War”

"He who ignores the lessons of history is doomed to repeat it."

- George Santayana

Soviets' first atomic bomb test, 1949

It was a war that lasted forty years, which had many periods without any shooting at all. It was fought between two nuclear states, whose nuclear weapons were never fired against the other even once. And it was called the "Cold War" because of its periods without shooting, but had many "hot wars" within its complicated history, where shots were actually exchanged between the two sides.

Battle of Seoul, 1950 (during Korean War)

How is the war remembered today? (Depends on where you live, and when you lived ... )

There are many alive today who remember the Cold War, but there are also many who don't. Even many of those who lived through it fail to comprehend its true nature. Many in the communist countries only saw their government's version of things, and were forbidden to hear anything else. Many in the capitalist countries were deceived by their own side's pacifists and communist sympathizers, who could never see the deterrence capabilities of nuclear weapons (or military power generally). Many of them had their heads in the sand about both the failures of communism, and its threat to the free world's way of life.

Interviews with eyewitnesses from all over the world

Many fail to learn the lessons of these times, but the lessons are there, for those who care to hear them. Moreover, they can be obtained even from liberal stations like CNN. From the makers of "The World at War" came the classic series about the Cold War, which spent 18 hours explaining both the complicated politics and geography of the Cold War, and showing interviews with the top personnel in the governments and military of both sides. (From the regular soldiers, airmen, civilians, and diplomatic personnel to the generals, admirals, presidents, prime ministers, and communist dictators; you hear from virtually every major player alive when the series was made. You also see the real footage of the events, with a narration to help make sense out of the complicated events of this time.

Communism in Russia: How the madness got started

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution."

- Karl Marx, in "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), Chapter IV

It was begun with the best of intentions, but it ended with the worst of results ...

It was a response to one failed institution called the "czars," which replaced it with another failed institution that was even worse. It was begun with the best of intentions, but it ended with the worst of results. And it was the first trial run of the communist system, which should have been the last because of the dismal results. But instead, it was attempted time and time again with the highest of hopes, only to end in the lowest of failures every time it was tried, with few seeming to learn anything from it.

Czar Nicholas II

Despite this, no one wishes to defend the legacy of the czars ...

But in putting forth these criticisms of the Russian Revolution, let me assure my readers that I do not wish to defend the legacy of the czars. There was indeed much abuse under their regime, and the Marxist revolution was a reaction against some very real problems that Russia was experiencing at that time. I don't have time to go into all the particulars of these problems, but suffice it to say that there was a long history of repeated crackdowns on the people's liberties, with much obstruction of the kinds of progressive reforms that might have solved these problems in a more constructive way. Czar Nicholas II reminds me of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI - a monarch who could have prevented his own downfall by a few concessions to the people's wishes, but who effectively engineered his own demise by his unwillingness to do so. The parallels to the French Revolution (and England's Charles the First) are numerous and striking, and the Russian Revolution is eerily reminiscent of the earlier revolution in France.

Eastern Front of World War One

Why we allied with Soviet Russia during World War II, and then fought against it later on

"The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[,] desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement: Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers."

- Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), 23 August 1939 - a pact which was quickly broken in 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union

It's often cited as one of the great ironies of history - that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II, and then enemies during the Cold War. Why is this?

We were fighting against a greater enemy during World War II, which was Nazi Germany

The answer is long and a bit complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: We in America allied with Soviet Russia during World War II to fight against a greater enemy (Nazi Germany) that had actually declared war on us, when Soviet Russia had not. Later on, we watched with horror as the poor countries of Eastern Europe were passed from one dictator (Hitler) to another (Joseph Stalin), and reluctantly realized that the Soviet Union could be every bit as threatening as Nazi Germany had been. Thus, we fought hard to prevent its expansion into any further territory.

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

The common theme in our dealings with the Russians was America's national interest

These ideas might seem incompatible: Allying with the Russians during one five-year period, and being enemies with them for more than forty years after that. Yet the alliance and the later conflict both had a common theme in them, which was America's national interest. It was served by an alliance of necessity during World War II, and an opposition of equal necessity during the Cold War period.

Russian Revolution of 1917

Actually, communism HAS been tried (and it doesn't work)

Tiananmen Square, China 1989

"China isn't all that bad," some say ...

The critics of communism have long pointed out the failure of states like China and the Soviet Union, which all attempted to implement Marxist doctrine. The variety of liberal responses to this is rather interesting, and the shaky nature of the premises used is rather telling. Some contend that China isn't all that bad, and make grand proclamations about how "developed" it is, and how wonderful things supposedly are there. (Obama has made this argument before - see below.) Even the most cursory examination of the actual evidence shows how wrong this is - China is extremely poor, and their standard of living lags far behind anything in the industrialized West. There is economic development in China, it is true; but it seems to do little to raise the standard of living there; and it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

"China is bad," others say, "but that's because it's 'capitalist' ... "

Others admit that China is poor and miserable, but say that it is capitalist, and thus try to put the blame for its failures on capitalism. Again, even the most cursory examination of the evidence shows that this is not the case, and that China is vastly far removed from a capitalist society, possessing no freedom of the market like that found in the West. It's hard to decide which is more lame - the attempt to find a scapegoat, or their odd choice of which one to use; but regardless of the comparison in lameness, there is plenty of lameness to go around; and their attempt to shift the blame is ultimately illegitimate.

Does communism cause poverty? (The two experiments that prove it does)

Karl Marx, the chief founder of communism

Does communism cause poverty? And how can this be tested?

Karl Marx

What counts as "testing"?

The short answer is "yes": it does cause poverty. But as far as testing goes, it depends on how you define "test." When hearing the word "experiment," most people have the mental image of a laboratory; but I should acknowledge in advance that experiments are hard to do in economics and politics. Even the possible ones usually require major government actions which may be unpopular, and people generally don't like to be guinea pigs. This is true of any experiment about whether communism has negative effects on prosperity.

Karl Marx

The experiments that no one wanted ...

So is there such an experiment? It turns out that there are two on a large scale, but not ones initiated by any government or university. They are natural experiments, or ones in which "the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature, or by other factors outside the control of the investigators." (source citation) While they were set in motion by human beings rather than nature, their purpose was not experimental at all; but the result of complicated political negotiations following a major war. Both sides in these negotiations - who had been allies during this war - would have preferred that their own system of government be established in the territories of their former enemies; but neither had the military power to do so for all those territories. The result was a compromise, which began two of the most epic natural experiments in the history of economics - two experiments neither side wanted, but which both sides got; and which clearly show a causal relationship between communism and poverty.

Yalta Conference, 1945

Potsdam Conference, 1945