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 “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” (BBC)

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures, which I simply cannot omit.

By far the most infamous episode of the twentieth century …

The Holocaust is, by far, the most infamous episode of the twentieth century. It was a crucible for Jewish history, claiming the lives of six million Jews in all. But when you add in the other victims of the Holocaust, the death toll goes up even further to ten million. The other victims include Poles, homosexuals, the Romani people, and anyone else that the Nazis disliked. Both numbers are so large as to seem incomprehensible, but they come from the figures of the Nazis themselves. Indeed, the Nazis seemed almost to be proud of the enormity of these numbers. Anti-Semitism, of course, has roots going back far before the twentieth century, and so do pogroms and other violence against Jews. But the Nazi manifestation of it is the most infamous example of this phenomenon, and it is the most widely-known (and widely-condemned) genocide in history. Sadly, there have been other genocides as well, but it would be beyond the scope of this blog post to attempt to list them here. Suffice it to say that the Holocaust is still an important topic, and that the BBC was right to cover it in this series.

An aerial reconnaissance photograph of the Auschwitz concentration camp, 1944

There were several Nazi concentration camps, of which Auschwitz was the biggest

The series is usually called “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution.’” This is because the Nazis chillingly referred to this genocide as the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” But this documentary has also been titled “Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State.” It is six episodes long, and may be the most in-depth documentary on this tragic episode. You might already know that there were many Nazi concentration camps, of which Auschwitz was the biggest. This series is focused specifically on Auschwitz, mentioning other camps (such as Treblinka) only as context for what happened at Auschwitz. Nonetheless, one could see Auschwitz as the Holocaust in microcosm, even though it was a disproportionately large number of the deaths. In the Nuremberg trials, the longest-reigning commandant of Auschwitz (Rudolf Höss) was accused of murdering three and a half million people. He replied: “No. Only two and one half million—the rest died from disease and starvation.” This confession, along with the callous (and flippant) way in which it was delivered, led to his later execution in 1947 – one of the healing positives of the Nuremberg verdicts. But that’s a subject for another post. Here, let me dive into the story of the Holocaust itself, and how this disturbing episode began.

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 “Versailles” (French documentary)

“L’état, c’est moi.” (“I am the State.”)

– A line attributed to King Louis XIV of France – a line that he may or may not have actually said, but which nonetheless seems to accurately express his views on government (and himself)

Aerial view of the Palace of Versailles

A film about three kings of France, one of whom was executed …

In 1643, a new king was crowned in France. Officially, he would be known as Louis the Fourteenth, but he is also known by the nickname of “Le Roi Soleil” (or “The Sun King”). Some consider him the longest-reigning absolute monarch in history. The term “absolute” is appropriate here, because he ruled with an iron fist. But this film doesn’t just cover him – they also cover two other kings as well, both of whom were his descendants. One was Louis the Fifteenth, who is known by the nickname “Louis le Bien-Aimé” (“Louis the Beloved”). This nickname is somewhat ironic, because he became somewhat unpopular later on. And the other king was Louis the Sixteenth, who is best known for dying by the guillotine, when he was executed during the French Revolution. They were three kings in a row, with no other kings in between – either by the name “Louis,” or by any other name. Together, they reigned for a period of nearly a century and a half.

Execution of King Louis the Sixteenth by the guillotine, 1793

A review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History” (BBC)

It seems incredible that the Nazis ever came to power. Today, they are among the most unpopular of all movements, portrayed as bad guys in movie after movie (and rightfully so). You would think that they were as unpopular then as they are now, but this was obviously not the case. Most of the people who supported them at that time have since tried to conceal their Nazi pasts. But a small number of them are more open about their involvement in these things, and are willing to praise Nazism even in the climate of today. This series interviews a few of these people on camera, and shows why they were willing to follow Adolf Hitler to the extent that they did (or at all, for that matter). It is a revealing look into the psychology of the Nazis.

Adolf Hitler

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 “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

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 “The Great War” (1964 BBC series)

"In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields."

- "In Flanders Fields" (1915), by Canadian veteran John McCrae

The first series about World War One to interview the veterans

The fiftieth anniversary of the "Great War" - a.k.a. "World War One" - saw two great television documentaries being made to commemorate it. One was made by the Americans, and the other was made by three British Commonwealth nations (Britain, Canada, and Australia), working together to make this series. In virtually every way, the one made by the British Commonwealth nations is better, although there are a few areas where the American-made series distinguishes itself. Thus, I will intersperse some commentary on this as well, in a post primarily focused on the British-made series.

"The Great War" DVD (made by British Commonwealth countries)

"World War One" DVD (made by American CBS)

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.

A review of PBS's “Marie Antoinette” movie

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." ("Let them eat cakes.")

- The infamous Marie Antoinette line that Marie Antoinette may never have actually said

Other media about Marie Antoinette

Ever since her execution during the French Revolution, Queen Marie Antoinette of France has excited the public imagination. There have been numerous movies about her - including a Hollywood movie from 2006 starring Kirsten Dunst, which I have not seen. These numerous movies may be a measure of how much interest she continues to excite. Generations since then have tried to understand her, and have found that she - like the French Revolution against her - is more complicated than she (at first) appears. It's hard to come up with a simple explanation for why she acted the way she did (and why the public reaction to her was so violent - even bloodthirsty), and I don't pretend to have all the answers here. The documentary that I'm about to review doesn't have all the answers, either; but it does provide a good starting point for understanding Marie Antoinette. It may also be able to provide some useful information about whether the PBS biography movie is a good film for you. It's not for everyone, I should make clear; but for those with an interest in history - and, perhaps, with a strong stomach to go with it - this is a tale that you can learn something from, which tells you a lot about the complicated history of this time.

Francis I - Holy Roman Emperor, King of Germany, and father of Marie Antoinette

A review of “The French Revolution” (History Channel)

"There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.[footnote] While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them - it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognising these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law."

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract" (1762), Book IV, Chapter VIII

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

It is a revolution that is both celebrated and despised, sometimes even by the same people. It was begun with the best of intentions and the noblest of ideals, but it ended with the worst of results after thousands of deaths by mob violence and the guillotine. And it started out as a rebellion against one monarch, and replaced it with the de facto dictatorship of another - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon Bonaparte during this time

The History Channel gives it a fine treatment here ...

In the English-speaking world, the best documentary that I know of about this subject is the History Channel's presentation simply entitled "The French Revolution." It has the usual problem for a History Channel program - namely, a touch of sensationalism, and excessively dramatic music at times. (The attempt to add drama through intense music is often overdone, with one feeling like they could have actually achieved greater impact through understatement.) Nonetheless, this film is a fine treatment of the events in France. It belongs on the shelf of anyone interested in the French Revolution despite its weaknesses. Thus, I thought that I would offer a review of this film here.

Marquis de Lafayette

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

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.

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.

A review of “The World at War” (World War Two series)

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin Nevile Henderson handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country [Great Britain] is at war with Germany."

- British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, in a speech given from the Cabinet room at 10, Downing Street on 3 September 1939

World War II is a subject that continues to fascinate millions throughout the world. From people in the losing countries to people in the winning ones, everyone seems to be fascinated by World War II. Because of this, there continue to be media of all kinds about the subject, and a viewer interested in it has many options to choose from. Indeed, there almost seems to be a choice overload (a nice problem to have), and it's hard to know which ones are the best.

D-Day invasion at Omaha Beach - Normandy, 1944

This documentary depicts stories from all over the world, on both sides of the conflict

"Best" is a subjective term, and what is best in the eyes of one may not be best for another. But if asked my opinion on which documentary is the best, my vote would go to "The World at War," the classic British documentary from the 1970s. From the British and Americans to their reluctant Soviet allies, to the Axis powers of Germany and Japan, stories from all over the world are told, and woven together into a fascinating narrative about the events of World War II.

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