The History Thread

[fusilier23]

As I was posting over in the Pzazz thread about the song TV Wars I suggested that this place have a "history" thread where those who are history buffs could come to share their knowledge and thoughts on this or that. Well, here it is, however, let's not turn this into a messy political battleground. There's no reason intelligent, educated people of goodwill can't differ and keep it civil.

I actually talked in that thread about ten pointless wars that I could think of, and many's the time that's been the case, but I'm definitely not on the same page as Benjamin Franklin when he said there never was a good war nor a bad peace.

If I had to name the ten wars that DID have a point I think I'd actually have a much easier time than naming ten pointless ones.

Starting in the past and moving up:

The Graeco-Persian War (The Greeks keep the Persians from conquering Greece, and ensure that the early ideals of democracy do not disappear)

The Punic Wars (The Romans defeat Carthage, the only other power that can rival them in the Mediterranean)

The Maccabean War (The Hebrews, led by Judas Maccabeus, defeat Seleucid Greek ruler Antiochus Epiphanes foolish and evil attempt to wipe out Judaism, and ensure that Judaism will endure, and its outgrowth, Christianity, will come to be)

Roman-Hunnish War (The Romans successfully block the Huns' attempt to conquer the tottering Western Roman Empire and prevent domination of Europe by an Asian people)

Byzantine-Persian War (With the fire-worshipping Persians at the gates and an ineffective tyrant on the throne in Constantinople, the hero Heraclius emerges, deposes the tyrant, and leads the Byzantine Army from near-defeat to glorious victory, ending the Persian threat once and for all. It is actually here that the tradition of crusading is born)

The Norman/Saxon War (William the Conqueror and his Norman knights conquer England, ensuring it will not remain a Saxon backwater, and that a Norman/Saxon people will ultimately emerge as a dominating force in history)

The Reconquest/La Reconquista (After being driven into the mountains, but not destroyed, the Iberian Christians re-emerge and wage 700 years (though after 1250 things become anticlimactic) of almost constant war to take back what belongs to them, and ensure that spires, not minarets, will be the dominating feature of Europe)

The Revolutionary War (British colonists in America revolt over disagreements regarding taxes and settlement rights, and ultimately forge the nation that becomes the most powerful of them all)

The Napoleonic Wars (Europe unites to defeat the would-be world conqueror, and lays the foundation for modern Europe)

The American Civil War (The Union undergoes its greatest test, and the thorny questions of slavery and Federal or state supremacy are finally settled)

World War I (The era of the kings comes to an end as a minor assassination ignites a conflict wherein all the nations join in the fight to settle old scores. In many ways this was the defining event of the 20th century.)

But the medal for the most justified war of all goes to:

World War II (The tyrannies born in the aftermath of World War I make their move, and come closer to world conquest than any other power ever came, and no enlightened despotisms these, both follow policies of extermination of those they do not agree with. Thankfully, those nations not conquered in the first two years are ultimately able to fight back and defeat this greatest of threats)

[portia]

I don't tend to think of wars as good, bad, right, wrong, because that to me, is far, far too simple. Human history is never purely good or bad or right or wrong, and nearly every war has its ups and downs and moments of beauty and ugliness. As of yet, I haven't studied any wars that I think are completely unnecessary, more like, I just think they're neither useless nor useful.

I don't know if World War I had a point in all the destruction it caused. The point of it was its pointlessness, but did we need so much destruction? I don't know. I only know that without World War I, there would never have been any Virginia Woolf or Ernest Hemingway or James Joyce. But if World War I hadn't happened, so many people would not have died, so many people's lives would not have been shattered so utterly and completely. Did we need the blood of nine million young men to end the 19th Century?

[fusilier23]

9 million? Actually the full butcher's bill was closer to 15 million when all cvilian deaths are figured in, with military deaths being about 8 million, actually, and let's not forget 21 million plus wounded. But the main point of any war isn't the number slain, actually in the 20th century democides (governments killing their own people) accounted for more dead than wars.

That said, though, I believe World War I was a defining event because it brought an end to a much longer political process, maybe even a period of stagnation, than World War II did, which dealt with tyrants who had all appeared in the same generation. It actually set the stage for a lot of the issues that were to span the whole century rather than just cover less than 1/5th of it.

I think to find the roots you need to go all the way back a century to the Battle of Waterloo. For nearly 20 years all of Europe from Cape Finisterre to Moscow had been wracked by Napoleon's attempt to impose his version of the world on it all. With his final defeat and exile the other rulers of Europe agreed among themselves, led, I think, by Prince Metternich, that anything else henceforth was going to take a back seat to stability. It gradually gelled into an understanding that five nations, four with kings, would keep everything else in order. Britain would keep the sea lanes open and ensure freedom of trade, France would keep an eye on North Africa, Prussia would make sure Russia didn't interfere in Europe, Russia would make sure Prussia didn't get too strong, and Austria would police the Balkans. That established, Britain and France set out to build colonial empires, and the world settled into everyone looking to London and Paris for their next cue. Or that's how it appeared on the surface. The common people had some freedom in some of these nations, but many of those who had some freedom knew it could be taken away relatively quickly, and the economic condition of many was precarious at best, lousy at worst, with 80-hour workweeks and summary firings. And lest we forget, the British did worse than just allow millions to starve in the Great Potato Famine, they did everything to make certain that other food available would not reach the mouths of the Irish, and the Russians allowed more than a few purges against both the Jews and those who clove to the teachings of Rome within their borders. But hey, these were internal matters, so no one said anything. The capital crime of that century was the plucking of the white eagle by the three black eagles, as Russia, Prussia, and Austria divided Poland between them without so much as a peep from anyone else.

Slowly the balance of power started to shift, though. In the Balkans the influence of the Turks was removed, and Greece was recreated as an independent nation, leading other peoples there to wonder if their turn was next. Italy, previously a conglomeration of petty dukedoms, counties, and kingdoms unworthy of the title, united, causing France to become fearful of its southern flank and kicking out several Austrian puppet rulers. Prussia pushed Austria aside and pulled the up-till-now independent German counties, dukedoms, principalities, and what have you into a united Germany, which proceeded to fight successful wars against both Denmark and France, in the latter case taking two provinces, the loss of which left a vile taste in the mouths of many Frenchmen.

Peripheral geographically, but also important, in the Far East Admiral Perry rammed open the doors of Japan, and the Japanese Emperor seized this change as the opportunity to sweep away the remains of the feudal system and build a modern army and navy, which dealt China and later Russia embarrassing defeats. In the meantime the United States, its Wild West period ending and the frontier having been colonized, seized on abuses in Cuba to kick the Spanish out of their few remaining colonies, and, in less than a year, build an empire that spanned the whole Pacific. Italy, Germany, and Japan, new to the race, reached out for colonies themselves. Even the small nation of Belgium built colonies in Africa, where the conditions were execrable.

In this time of uncertainty, alliances started to be made, though they could be unmade just as quickly. Austria, its Hapsburg throne crumbling, was only to quick to grab the Kaiser's hand, and Italy joined them in the Triple Alliance, though why Italy would ally with the disliked Austrians other than proximity I can't say.
France, still smarting from its defeat, and seeking stability and support after the messy Paris Commune revolt which had followed it, allied with Russia to box the Kaiser in, and Britain joined also with these two powers in the Triple Entente. In a fair amount of these cases the rulers making these decisions were not elected, especially in Germany, where the Kaiser was pretty close to an absolute monarch, in Russia, where the Czar was in fact an absolute monarch, and in Austria, where the Emperor had only slightly less power than these two.

Under the surface, the precursors of the IRA in Ireland, various Slavic nationalist groups in the Balkans, and patriotic Poles under Josef Pilsudski met, trained, armed, and waited for the time to be right to raise the standard of revolt against the established order, and in the halls of government French civil and military officials looked out their windows at heroic statues deliberately facing conquered Alsace and Lorraine and planned for the day they would take them back. In Russia, the uprising of 1905, in response to ever more oppressive policies, was crushed, but only barely, and the Czar's officials worried about next time. In the halls of Berlin and Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelm II and his generals knew they already had the world's most powerful army, but that was not enough, he decided, they must also have a navy to rival that of Britain. With Britain's all-big-gun Dreadnought setting the standard in naval warfare, this was a most expensive proposition, but no one could tell him no. Seeing her control of the sea threatened, Britain could really do nothing but respond in kind. Other nations decided they wanted this latest status symbol also, and an arms race resulted.

Overall, you had a very precarious situation the world over in 1914. Then came the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, :oAustria's foolish demands designed to force Serbia into war, :oGermany's still more foolish statement that it would back Austria all the way, :oRussia's haste to leap to the aid of fellow Slavs, and you know the rest.

When it was all over, the only kings still on the thrones of any major nation who participated were George V of Great Britain and Ireland (soon to be only of Northern Ireland), Albert, King of the Belgians, and Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. The Kaiser, the Hapsburg Emperor, and the Czar, together with the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, who had been foolish enough to join the German side, had all passed into history, and in the Czar's case, into the world beyond this, in a very brutal manner. Shortly thereafter Poland was restored as a nation, :)and the Austrian and Ottoman empires were broken up to allow the subject peoples to self-determine. Britain and France had taken a thumping, though, and the US had finally joined allies and put military boots on the ground in Europe.

No more would the US be a not-always-charming provincial cousin to Europe, and for the first time in centuries, and in many cases the first time ever, millions of people got a chance to have a part in the way things were run in their nations. In some cases the attempts succeeded, as Turkey built a modern, secular republic on the ashes of the 15th-century decadence of the Ottomans and Poland not only built a republic, but sent the early Soviets reeling back when they tried to advance into Europe. In others it took a few tries, as Germany listened to the blandishments of the Nazis and Russia fell into the false promise of Communism, and in some cases, like the Middle East, it has taken till today to make much progress.

But, but for World War One giving the push to wheel of history to start moving, there are very real questions in this writer's mind as to what would have happened. ???America might well have remained a power of the second rank, and we might all still be looking to London and Paris for our cue as to what to do next, and the peoples of much of Europe might have had several more decades to chafe under autocratic rulers before some other spark set things off. Stalin's life might well have ended with the slam of a Czarist prison door, and Hitler's as a failed artist in a garret in Vienna, but who is to say more decades of Wilhelm's ambition in Germany and Nicholas' crude autocracy in Russia would have been all that much better? Britain would have continued to rule the waves, but any revolt in Ireland would have met the full weight of the British Army, indeed, the long-overdue separation might never have come, as would-be-rebel leaders waited for the right moment that never came and more enlightened British leaders gave the Irish just enough freedom to keep them quiet, and British and Indian troops might still be standing watch on the Khyber Pass, lest anyone disturb the rule of their Viceroy of India. :-/The Poles might or might not have regained their freedom, as the right moment might never have come, or they might have had to settle for a much reduced Poland, minus anything from Germany. :-/The tottering Ottoman Empire might or might not have collapsed, and who's to say what kind of regime might have stepped into its place? An attempt to bring back the old Caliphate of Baghdad? A civil war between Sunni and Shia? Even worse, a phoenixing Turkish regime under Enver and Talat Pasha's flag of genocide on a larger scale? Oh yees, and let's not forget that the European powers might have kept on trying to carve China up like a pizza, till Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-Shek said otherwise. Who's to say that attempt to build a modern China would have succeeded? Who's to say that there might not have been a bloodbath in the Far East?

The fact that all these what ifs are out there is what makes me believe that WWI did in fact have a point, and continues to influence us to this day. Whether the ultimate result will be good or bad I do not know, :-/Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia have already failed as states, but all hope is not lost in those quarters, and today's path in the Middle East does offer some hope, but it will be a long time before we can say whether it all worked out, when we have the distance of history.

[crabbydog]

re your potato famine comment:

“And lest we forget, the British did worse than just allow millions to starve in the Great Potato Famine, they did everything to make certain that other food available would not reach the mouths of the Irish”.

This is just a regurgitation of Irish nationalist propaganda, and not a historical fact. There were attempts to alleviate the problem, but at the time (mid-19th century) there was no organized disaster relief anywhere in the world. Indeed Britain at the time was a firm believer in laissez-faire capitalism, free trade and the private provision of all but the most rudimentary services (education, welfare and transport were all largely privately provided in early Victorian England). The Irish famine was a tragedy of epic proportions but it was not deliberate genocide as you imply.

Arguably, applying your analysis of war, the famine itself ‘had a point’ as it provided millions of immigrant workers to the USA and the newly industrializing cities of Britain, such as Glasgow and Liverpool. And for lovers of soccer the great rivalries of Liverpool v Everton, Celtic v Rangers and Hibs v Hearts would never have arisen.

Its also worth remembering that most historians put the number of dead at between .5 million and 1.5 million, with a considerable number of those dying from disease such as cholera and typhus not starvation.

The disaster of the great famine is a blot on British history, but the biggest problems were actually caused by a laissez-faire attitude to the problem rather than any deliberate attempt at mass slaughter. A lesson some of the more extreme modern believers in the power of the market may care to think about.

And I certainly have no reason to blindly support the British government of the day over this as my family lived in the south of Ireland at the time and fled to Scotland to escape it.

[crabbydog]

"Peripheral geographically, but also important, in the Far East Admiral Perry rammed open the doors of Japan, and the Japanese Emperor seized this change as the opportunity to sweep away the remains of the feudal system and build a modern army and navy, which dealt China and later Russia embarrassing defeats."

Quite true. It also led to the rise of extreme nationalism and the rise of the dictatorships of the generals. This led on to the Japanese wars of conquest in Chine (rape of Nanking for example) and attacks on Pearl Harbour and Singapore. Had Japan not been 'rammed open' the pacific war may not have happened at all. This would have meant Britain could have focused on the European war from the start and also there would have been a greater chance of China evolving peaceful democracy rather than the Maoist atrocity that actually happened.

None of that is certain of course, but the law of unintended consequences that flows form direct action of any kind is often much worse than anyone realizes at the time.

[crabbydog]

What do you mean when you say any war ‘have a point’. Looking at the rest of your article it would appear that you mean that on balance the wars had positive consequences. However the term implies to me at least that wars were initiated for a purpose that was good and that purpose was fulfilled.

In the former case all the wars you mention are open to wide interpretations as to what benefit they brought and at what cost. In the latter case no major war was started with a beneficial point in mind that was fulfilled. Taking the WW2 as an example – it was started by Hitler to conquer the word and make it racially pure. Not a good purpose and thankfully it failed. The consequence of the war was Hitler’s downfall (good) and many other outcomes that are more arguable. WW2 led directly to the cold war and its enormous cost, it also brought Eastern Europe under communist dictatorships for several generations.

Looking at your descriptions of the top ten wars you seem to believe that the end justifies the means, without regard to cost of reaching that end. I would argue that you have to consider the cost as well as the consequences, and also have to consider the non obvious consequences. I would also argue that even if ultimately a ‘good’ outcome occurred, it may be that the same or a better one could have occurred by other means.

Taking Russia as an example, if WW1 had not occurred, it’s unlikely that Lenin would have achieved power in Russia. This being the case, where would Russia have gone? Pressure for liberalization in Russia went back to deep into the 19th century and Russia was slowly liberalizing by fits and starts. Additionally Russia was slowly industrializing, which if the example of Britain was anything to go by might ultimately have led to political change as new power classes arose. If so, it may well have avoided the rise of communism and the slaughter of millions that ensued. Without the rise of Communism there would have been no cold war, no Macarthy, no HUAC etc etc etc.

One definite consequence of the WW1 was the rise of the fascist dictators such as Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, and the rise of Lenin and Stalin. Without WW1 who knows how Europe and the rest of the world would have evolved?

[fusilier23]

What I mean by wars having a point is that they were started or continued for meritorious reasons and achieved something beyond causing destruction. Examples of wars not really having a point include the War of 1812, a sideshow to the Napoleonic wars that achieved nothing but a return to status quo ante, although it could be argued that it woke up the US to the idea that there needed to be a standing professional army, and the War of the Triple Alliance in South America, in which the megalomaniacal dictator of Paraguay tried to take on all his neighbors at once and achieved nothing but the wrecking of his own nation and the reduction of the population of that continent by two and one-half million.

And, being careful with the Irish question, as I know there is at least one Irish person who comes here, it is historical fact that Charles Trevelyan, the de facto treasury minister for the UK, in fact ordered the few attempts at relief organized, such as soup kitchens, to cease, since he believed they interfered with "free economics" and it is also a fact that tons of wheat, corn, oats, and other produce were exported from Ireland during the height of the famine, while locals wandered emaciated, their mouths stained green from eating grass to try to stay alive. It's also a fact that when rent on land owned by absentee landlords could not be paid, tenants were evicted and their possessions and homes destroyed with deadly brutality. Those who could leave fled to Scotland or Canada or America, emptying Ireland of its labor force.

It's also a fact that this was quite frankly the logical consequence of a system that was geared around displacing those Irish who had what the English coveted, i.e. dismissal of them "to Hell or Connaught, and it matters not which" from the more fertile lands in the east, and deliberate raising of the rent if any tenant ventured the least improvement on his lands or crops.

To this day the Irish remember, there is a horrifying sculpture of emaciated figures in Stephen's Green to commemorate the famine, and if you stay in the country and might pass across a field where grass was eaten to stave off hunger, supposedly your hosts will actually give you bread in the morning to take with you, as it is considered bad luck to cross such a field without food in your pocket.

If this was not quite on the level of the Turks slaughtering the Armenians and others and the Holocaust, it was the culmination of a policy of indifference at best, hostility at worst, and I think it is pretty close to six of one and a half-dozen of the other. And this is from someone who's normally very pro-British and pro-Union and despises the IRA and their tactics.

As to the rest, well, there isn't time to get into more now, but I am of the opinon that sooner or later, something would have set off a spark of revolution in Europe somewhere in the 20th Century, though where it would have been I dunno.

[Joe]

Hi all,

Nothing's more historical than the State Opening of Parliament. I enjoy watching it. I was wondering if it has already taken place.

[crabbydog]

May 17th was the latest I believe.

Here is a web site covering all aspects of the UK parliament.

www.parliament.uk/index.cfm

[crabbydog]

"deliberate raising of the rent if any tenant ventured the least improvement on his lands or crops.
"

Ask any tenant farmer in any country in the world what happens when they improve their property, and you will find that to be the case. Its not confined to land either - I have known people in the hospitality industry in the UK suffer the same fate.

[crabbydog]

"If this was not quite on the level of the Turks slaughtering the Armenians and others and the Holocaust, it was the culmination of a policy of indifference at best, hostility at worst, and I think it is pretty close to six of one and a half-dozen of the other. "

There is a world of difference between deliberate genocide and the indifference of capitalism, although many socialists of my acquaintance would disagree.

If your view is correct than the slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam and elsewhere over the last 100 years would also fall into the same defintion.

[fusilier23]

A world of difference? Well, I might agree if it was simply a matter of a downturn in the economy taking out some lives, but the deliberate ending of aid during a disaster and the shipping out of wheat, oats and barley when the problem is lack of food is inexcusable. The current administration took a very big battering over the handling of Hurricane Katrina, as much a natural disaster as the famine, and you can bet your last dollar that if the Feds had just stood back and said New Orleans will just have to pull itself out of this problem on its own, or if the world had stood back and said Indonesia's problems were Indonesia's alone after the tsunami, that shouts of "genocide" would have arisen very quickly.

[crabbydog]

True enough. But the world has changed since the mid nineteenth century and now its pretty generally accepted that helping each other out in times of disaster is a moral imperative.

I certainly wouldn't defend britain's handling of the potato famine, it was characterized by indifference and stupidity and greed, but genocide it wasn't.