Showing posts with label World War II (other). Show all posts
Showing posts with label World War II (other). Show all posts

Sunday, January 19, 2025

Top secret: The role of spying and code-cracking in the World Wars



In the 1970s, a British television network made a series called “The World at War,” possibly the most comprehensive television history ever made about World War II. But it contains not one word about Bletchley Park, the primary British codebreaking operation of World War II. The reason is very simple: In the 1970s, information about Bletchley Park was still top-secret, since releasing this information would have risked compromising current espionage efforts. Thus, the existence of Bletchley Park was still a closely guarded secret in the early 1970s. But, after enough time had gone by, it was no longer necessary to keep these things confidential. Thus, in the decades since “The World at War,” much of the information about the era’s espionage (including code-breaking) has been officially declassified. Thus, historians today have somewhat more information to work with, in talking about the state secrets of that time. For example, we now know things that were once top-secret, and we now know how some of that information changed hands – while other parts remained protected. This post will try to use some of the now-declassified information, along with more traditional information, to tell the stories of spies and code-crackers in both world wars – especially World War II. But, in order to achieve a true understanding of the Second World War, it may help to consider the prior events of the First World War. The “Great War,” as it is sometimes called, had some spy stories that are fascinating in their own right – rivaling any others in their human interest. These juicy stories may help to shed some light on the later espionage of the Second World War – the conflict that most continues to fascinate people today.


Rear of the rebuilt British “Bombe” computer, used at Bletchley Park in World War II England

How much was Latin America involved in the World Wars?



Anecdote about the European blockade of Venezuela, in the early twentieth century

In 1902, three European nations imposed a naval blockade on the Caribbean-and-Atlantic coastline of Venezuela. The three European nations were Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. All of these European countries would later be fighting both of the others at least once during the future world wars. But, at this time, these three European countries were united – due to some foreign debts that the Venezuelans were then refusing to pay. The Venezuelan president, Cipriano Castro, assumed that the United States would then invoke the Monroe Doctrine on Venezuela’s behalf. But the American president (which was Theodore Roosevelt) saw this doctrine as applying “only to European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se” – as Wikipedia’s page on the crisis puts it. Thus, the blockade instead went unopposed, and managed to disable the navy of Venezuela. A compromise was eventually worked out in 1903, with the European blockade being maintained in Venezuelan waters throughout the negotiations. But it was one of a number of precursors to the Latin American involvement in the World Wars. Despite the American Monroe Doctrine, there had been much European colonization in the Americas during the nineteenth century. But the Venezuelan Crisis of the early twentieth century reminded Latin Americans of how connected with Europe they still were. And naval affairs in South America would soon lead to a naval arms race.


Blockade of Venezuelan ports, 1902

Sunday, December 8, 2024

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 British also fought the First Opium War with China from 1839 to 1842. 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. From 1850 to 1864, Britain and France were also involved in China’s Taiping Rebellion. And from 1856 to 1860, Britain and France fought the Second Opium War against China. In the late 1860s, there was a civil war in Japan, sometimes called the Boshin War. In 1879, the Empire of Japan 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. Between 1899 and 1901, China experienced the Boxer Rebellion. The Russians also invaded Manchuria in 1900. There was an alliance between Britain and Japan starting in 1902. 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

Friday, October 11, 2024

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 centuryTheodore 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.


Saturday, April 20, 2024

What fascism is (and why it stinks)



Warning: This blog post contains a disturbing picture, related to the Holocaust.

It seems that people in most political movements will eventually denounce their political opponents as “Fascists” or “Nazis” (as I will describe later on in this post). At the very least, they sometimes compare their opponents to Nazis – sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. Either way, though, they are right to denounce the Fascists and the Nazis, even if they do not always correctly identify who they are. (More on that later on.)


Hitler addressing the Reichstag, 1933

But what is fascism, and why exactly does it stink (and it definitely does)? What are the biggest problems with this system of government, and why should it be left on the “ash-heap of history” (to paraphrase a characterization of communism by someone else)?. That is what I will be discussing in this particular post. I will here give a brief overview of both the history and philosophy of fascism. In so doing, I will show why it cannot possibly bear the honest scrutiny of history. This will only be an introduction to this complex topic, which will touch on some of its major themes. Indeed, I have covered other aspects of this topic in some other blog posts (which I link to here). But I may nonetheless succeed in showing why fascism is an utter travesty, and why it should be discarded. I will also give my own take on it, with my own unique perspective.


Nazi book-burning in Berlin, May 1933 (which included some Jewish authors)

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Africa, the Middle East, and Italy



“♪ We’re the D-Day Dodgers, out in Italy,
Always on the vino, always on the spree.
Eighth Army skivers and their tanks,
We go to war in ties like swanks.
For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,
In sunny Italy. ♪

♪ We landed at Salerno, a holiday with pay.
Jerry brought his bands out to cheer us on the way,
Showed us the sights and gave us tea,
We all sang songs, the beer was free.
For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,
The lads that D-Day dodged. ♪

♪ Palermo and Cassino were taken in our stride,
We didn’t go to fight there, we just went for the ride.
Anzio and Sangro are just names,
We only went to look for dames,
For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,
In sunny Italy. ♪”

“D-Day Dodgers” (1944), to the tune of “Lili Marleen” (written in 1915, but not published until 1937) – a tongue-in-cheek Canadian song about the forgotten (and then-ongoing) campaigns in Italy

How the war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France …

The war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France. Listening to some popular histories of World War II, you might be tempted to suppose that the war began when the Allies launched their invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. But, in fact, the war began long before the famous battles fought on this great “D-Day.” This post will focus on some of the other aspects of the war against Nazi Germany, giving details on times and places that are often ignored elsewhere. To some degree, I myself have ignored them elsewhere on this blog, because I review various documentaries with more traditional focuses. Thus, I will try to address these deficiencies in this blog post, and tell a story that has sometimes been neglected – including, to some degree, by myself.


British artillery in Kamerun, Africa, 1915 (during the First World War)

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

A review of PBS’s “Eleanor Roosevelt” movie



“A snub is the effort of a person who feels superior to make someone else feel inferior. To do so, he has to find someone who can be made to feel inferior.”

– Eleanor Roosevelt, at a White House press conference in 1935 – speaking of how a UC-Berkeley professor had refused to host an event where her husband’s Secretary of Labor gave a speech at the school’s Charter Day (often quoted as “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent”)

The longest-serving First Lady in American history …

She is the longest-serving First Lady in American history. Her famous husband was elected to four terms (even if he didn’t complete the last one), so she served for 12 years as First Lady – far longer than anyone else! This film is the longest PBS documentary to focus specifically on her life. She was also one of the three protagonists in Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History,” which I have not seen. But there were two other main characters in that series, which were Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt – the latter of whom was much earlier than either Franklin or Eleanor. Thus, to your pain or pleasure, the Ken Burns series focuses on others besides her. By contrast, this PBS documentary focuses entirely on her, and spends two and a half hours on her life story. There’s an advantage to their focusing entirely on one person, even if their coverage is still comparatively short in this regard.


Saturday, July 29, 2023

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

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

A review of PBS’s “Asian Americans”



“ … from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.”


Asian Americans have long had more influence than their modest numbers would seem to suggest. At the time that I write this, they are about six or seven percent of the American population (depending on whether or not you include those identifying as “White and Asian” in this category). Nonetheless, this documentary notes that they are the “fastest-growing” racial group in the United States. Because of the United States’ proximity to Mexico, there are actually larger numbers of Hispanic immigrants being added to the population at any given time; but as a percentage of those already here, Asian Americans are indeed the “fastest-growing,” as PBS says. Asians may be a small percentage of the American population, but they are a much larger percentage of the world population. This may account (at least in part) for their being well-represented among those who are trying to enter this country, and get away from the “Old World.”


Chinese Americans in San Francisco, circa 1900

Monday, November 11, 2019

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.


Friday, November 20, 2015

The Nuremberg trials: A comparison of two movies



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

Monday, June 22, 2015

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

Friday, April 3, 2015

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

Monday, November 12, 2012

The American Veteran



The picture is of my Marine grandfather (1921-2011), who saw intense combat in the Pacific in World War II. He never had loss of life or limb or mind, and no letters came to his family with tidings very sad, but all of the other things in this poem apply to him.