Many years ago, just out of University my parents and I travelled to Spain.  We took a side trip to Morocco and joined a group which was sheparded around by a local Muslim guide, complete with robe and soft slippers that curled upward at the toes.  As we progressed, the guide pointed out mosques, libraries, beautiful plazas, etc. always noting that when they were built during the tenth or eleventh century, Europe was in a Dark Age.  After several such episodes, my father, always the diplomat raised his hand and asked the guide if the Muslims had done anything in the last thousand years.  There was much laughter and the guide stopped making references to Europe’s Dark Age.

My story about my father’s comment strikes at the very heart of the problem around Islam today; massive hurt feelings that a once proud and conquering force is today among the most backward in the world.  Many Muslims in the Middle East resent the failures of their leaders and governments since Islam was turned back in 1683 at the gates of Vienna.  A society which, when the first printing press was introduced into Ottoman territories in 1450 banned it as a tool of the devil, simply failed to move with the world as created by the Europeans.  Piece by piece, the Islamic world was picked apart and subjugated by the West and the feeling of anger and frustration grew until it was believed by even some of the educated that radicalism and terrorism was the only answer.  Instead of looking forward, the radicals looked backwards trying to lead the Muslim world bravely backward into the 8th century.

Ed Husain, a former radical Islamist who has rejected extremism and is now a noted fellow at several excellent Western think tanks.  He has an excellent understanding not only of Islamic history, but also a solid foundation in the beliefs of the various factions that exist within Islam today.  He carefully outlines the Sunni-Shi’a schism, what is Sharia, who is a Sufi, the foundations of Wahhabism as well as in depth discussions on the various views on women, sex, education, Jews, etc.  Overall, you can feel him objective about the factions within Islam and this book is an excellent primer on Islam.

As a former radical, he knows and understands the rationale of the radicals in their view of where Islam has gone wrong and what they believe justifies their actions.  His discussion on the difference between the Quran and supposed comments and guidelines from Mohammed is very interesting.  As Muslims believe that the Quran is sacred as created by Mohammed, they are a perfect way to live life.  The supposed saying and guidelines from Mohammed are open to interpretation; were they in fact made by Mohammed or by others many years after his life.  Are these saying supported by the Quran or in violation of the Quran?  According to Husain, such injunctions as the veiling of women, not allowing women to be highly educated, and the rules by the likes of ISIS come from these supposed comments and have no basis in the Quran.  Due however, to the low level of education of many Imams, arguments against the likes of ISIS are weak or not capable of convincing Muslims to move away from such practices.

The author loves Islam, but he also has a rather distorted history of Islam.  According to his view, the warriors of Islam spared women and children as they swept across the land, but if they did, it was only to save them for the slave market.  Or, he mentions that the natives of India converted to Islam because they loved Islamic poetry and not because literally tens of millions were slaughtered by various Islamic rulers.  Yet, aside from these examples of glossing over of history (there are others), the book remains an excellent one that Westerners would do well to read.  Unlike other books on Islam, he does offer concrete suggestions on what can be done to reverse the trend towards radicalism and to move Islam forward in the real world.  He pushes hard for the Islamic world to accept Israel and to see what can be done with education, unity and hard work.  Would the Islamic world be willing to learn from Israel?  Can the Arab countries put aside their tribalism and move against (especially in Saudi Arabia) against Wahhabism?  Would the West be willing to create a Marshall Plan for the Islamic world in conjunction with the oil rich Arab world who would contribute to the development of lands outside of their own?  If not, then the path away from radicalism will be longer and harder than necessary.

We seem to be living in a time when a goodly portion of humanity, the white portion, should be, according to many on the Left, walking around with ashes on our heads while we practice self-flagellation for the sins which our race has done to most of humanity. This is especially true of the ignorant and those who seek to make a name-and money, from this narrative. Unfortunately for them, there are those who question if these ignorant and self-righteous have any idea about what they are talking about. One such person is Nigel Biggar, the Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford. His excellent book, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning looks openly and honestly at the charges of those who claim that colonialism, specifically that practiced by the British Empire have a grounding in fact. He looks at various questions such as, what was the driving force behind the Empire? Was it greed? Was the Empire basically racist? Was the Empire violent in that it imposed terrible conditions on its colonial subjects?

Although not a professional historian-he holds a BA in Modern History from Oxford while his Ph.Ds. are in Christian Theology and Ethics in Christian Theology and Ethics from the University of Chicago, his knowledge and research is excellent and he brings a balanced view of history as he includes the ethical component which in this case adds more depth to the book.

He initially raises the question of the concept of colonialism in that colonialism is as old as humanity. The empires of the Assyrians over four thousand years ago practiced colonialism. They were followed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians. The Athenians, Romans, Muslims, Asantes, etc. all were colonial powers. Some brought value with their overlordship, some only brought suffering, so how and where did the British Empire stand in relationship to all those who had gone before them? How did they stand against their contemporaries, such as the French, Russians, Dutch, Moguls, etc.? The problem and challenge are to not only read those who attack colonialism, but to look at their research to see if their writings are based on facts.

One such example is a famous quote which is attributed to Cecil Rhodes, when he is reported to have said, “I prefer land to the n—ers..the natives are like children. They are just emerging from barbarism…one should kill as many n—ers as possible.”  A terrible statement, often quoted by eminent historians as an example of the mindset of the British Empire. There is a problem however, for there is no evidence that Rhodes ever made that statement. Much of the statement was written by a former Rhodes scholar who is a director of a major Pan-African university in Johannesburg while more of it was “made up from three different elements drawn from three different sources” including a novel. Hardly scholastic proof. In fact, Rhodes supported the franchise in the Cape Colony that gave blacks the vote on the same term as whites, he funded a black newspaper, and his scholarship was color-blind from the first. Such minor details escape those who use Rhodes as an example of the British mindset.

His book is chapter after chapter of not whitewash, but a review of the times, norms, attitudes, and actions of both the British and the people’s they ruled. He discusses the abuses of colonialism as well as the benefits which provided the locals to better their lives and futures. The Empire stopped abuses such as the burning of widows, instituted a legal system where for the first time, the poorest of the poor could confront those who had previously exercised power as they wished. More rail mileage was built in India than existed in Great Britain with the result that freedom of movement, increased trade and food was more readily available than before their arrival.

And yes, there were abuses. Most abuses came at the local level, by the soldiers, local traders, etc. rather than from the governors, magistrates, and administrators. He quotes the proclamation of governors and provides details on their actual achievements. Those governors who exercised a great deal of freedom in their area seldom abused the great power they had and there are instances quoted when the locals feared a return to the old days where power was used arbitrarily when the governors were withdrawn. There was racism in many instances, especially in India after the Sepoy Rebellion when old loyalties and trusts were torn apart.

Because the author has a background in ethics, he broaches the question of compensation, one which is heard as a drumbeat. On one hand, were the natives justly compensated for their goods and land? Did they suffer to a greater or lesser extent from racism? How many locals were killed when they demanded independence or during times of famine? On the other hand, what was the value of immunization against disease which saved millions of lives? What was the value of freedom from slavery as practiced by local rulers? What was the value of instituting an educational system and the values of that system which allowed the locals to be able to step into power once independence was achieved?

This book may not convince the rabid anti-colonialist that the British empire experience had any positive worth. The author did however achieve one of his goals in that any reader who approaches the subject with even an inkling of an open mind will realize that the pros and cons, the costs vs. benefits, of colonialism as practiced by the British require a serious weighing on the scales of if not justice, at least intellect.

Covering the period between 1450-1620, Hale brings into play all the forces around which everyday life evolved in Europe.  He traces the slow development of the roads, art, economics, religion, how the old warrior class took on new leadership roles and the slow gradual realization of national identities.  The concept of national identities could not have been achieved without the constant warfare of the age so while the time was often bloody for a small percentage of the overall population, the development of industries necessary for the wars themselves create economic opportunities and the build up of wider areas of cross trade.

Aside from the usual topics one would expect in a book like this, he also spends time looking at the daily lives of ordinary people and how they lived.   How did they dress, where did they shop, how were rules of civility created and enforced? What and how did a common language develop in any geographical area and how did that common language unite the people in becoming what we know as France or Germany, etc.  How were the average people able to live during the upheavals in Christianity which were driven not only by religious differences, but also by the various local rulers who saw the time as an opportunity to enrich themselves by pillaging monasteries, churches, etc. 

The book is not an especially easy read; not because it is not well written, for it is, but the amount of information available is extraordinary.  This is due not only to the usual method of using a wide brush, but also because he delves into the ordinary and discusses how movements, ideas, etc. could impact the people of Europe down to the poorest peasant.  It falls into the category of books that if one were ever asked to read one book on a subject, would the one recommended. 

Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu was from the middle of the 18th century through the founding of the United States, widely considered to be the preeminent political thinker of his time. His categorization of what constitutes a tyranny, an empire and a republic influenced our Founding Fathers in their debates and in the writing of the Federalist Papers. He was the principal architect of the theory of separation of powers and his main work, The Spirit of Law (1748) was well received throughout Europe and the thirteen colonies.

This work is considered a minor work, but I would like to suggest that no politician be allowed to take office until they have read and passed a test based on what he writes in this gem of a book.

Rome, like any organism or organization, had a period of growth followed by a decline. What were the causes of its growth? That is often asked as is, what caused its decline? Historians and others will argue those points for as long as Rome is remembered and everyone who attempts to answer those questions will be both correct and wrong. There were numerous causes but that in the end, as with other empires, the entire system simply imploded from lack of will, moral degeneracy and outside pressures that were simply more than could be managed given the resources available. Over time, the ideals and energy which helped the successful growth were lost and there were not enough good and strong men and women to hold the center together.

 Rome started as a small community, cut off from the sea, surrounded by numerous enemies, many of them larger. It had little natural wealth, barely any art and the citizens realized that the only way to enrich themselves was through pillage. Montesquieu believed that Rome’s power came from several factors, among them a constant drive for war, an unwillingness to accept defeat, an equal sharing of the plunder and a government which only allowed recognition and advancement through military success. Because Rome was always at war and because they adopted the best military practices of their individual neighbors, they simply excelled at war. They easily adopted the best skills of their military foes, such as cavalry, the Spanish short sword, etc. and use each in a way that helped to insure their victories. They developed a mindset which directed all activities of the State to be in the successful furtherance of war. Defeat was simply unacceptable and as was demonstrated during the war against Hannibal, no matter how often Roe’s field armies were defeated, they simply kept going after their nemesis until they achieved final victory. Such a mindset is not possible today as the technology of war simply makes war too expensive both in treasure and lives. So, what can we learn from the Romans? We can learn from them the reasons for their decline.

There is certainly no shortages of histories and biographies of Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers in history. His crimes, his murders were taken unlike his contemporary, Hitler, against for the most part, his own people. He did not have a policy of racial superiority or any underlying moral rationale for his crimes; his sole purpose was to achieve and maintain his power and in this, he is unique among the “big three” of mass murderers: Mao, Hitler, and Stalin.

Robert Conquest, perhaps the top historian of the Soviet Union has in this short book (just over three hundred pages), an excellent overview of Stalin’s drive, achievement, and maintenance of power. Although not as detailed as his other excellent histories which go deeper into the Stalin regime (The Harvest of Sorrow, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Inside Stalin’s Secret Police: NKVD Politics 1936-39, etc.), Conquest along with Robert C. Tucker and Orlando Figes has provided a comprehensive analysis of the man and his times.

Conquest as always, manages to provide a certain analytical approach that can bring the reader up short: in this case, it is his comparison of the followers of Nazism and Communism. He quotes Hugh Seton-Watson’s comments that:

“Hitler’s Nazis were ‘fanatics with an ersatz religion,’ who rejected not only Christianity but also traditional morality as such. Nazism’s central feature was ‘moral nihilism’…. (it) is not only the central feature of National Socialism, but also the common factor between it and Bolshevism.” 

This statement is backed up by a review of leading Nazis, including Hitler, Goebbels, Mussolini, the dreaded Gauleiter of the Ukraine, Koch, and others who all started out as Socialist and ended up as either Fascists or Nazis. And it was not unusual after the war for die hard Nazi’s to reverse their coat and be taken into the Soviet camp. On one hand, the Nazis use race, the Communist used social origin as the determining factor for life or death; both were (are) based on “moral nihilism.”

Conquest is an outstanding historian, but for the amateur historian, his writing may be a bit too intellectual. He has a firm grounding in the Russian mindset and his analysis of Stalin’s legacy on modern day Russians is excellent. His works not only encompass history, as he has had published a collection of poetry, verse translation, fiction, and criticism so to read Conquest is to be exposed to a man of great intellect. A faster read but no less excellent Soviet historian is Orlando Figes brings a more human touch to his histories.

As one learns Conquest’s style, one is drawn increasingly to it and like a favorite composer, one eagerly looks forward to the next work of his that one shall read.

Elting, a noted historian and lecturer at West Point has put it all together in this 700+ page book.  He starts with a discussion of the decline of the French Army after King Louis XV and its destruction during the French Revolution.  He then proceeds to discuss every aspect of the Army, from the equipment, feeding, transportation, etc. of each branch of the Army, from the infantry to artillery, etc. 

An outstanding one volume history which ends with the new regime of King Louis XVIII, his mistrust of the Imperial army, his lack of skilled advisors, etc., and of course, the Hundred Days of Napoleon.  I would recommend that if you are going to read this book, that you keep handy “Napoleon’s Marshals” which was edited by David Chandler. This book discusses (each Marshal is covered by a different historian) the records of all of Napoleon’s Marshals (25 French, one Polish) including their skills, greed, loyalty (or lack thereof), etc. 

Another wonderful reference book to settle or at least provide fodder for any discussion of the subject (Napoleon’s campaigns, his personal skills, etc.).  The two books total about 1200 pages so don’t think you will finish them in a sitting, but they are well worth the effort.  If nothing else, as with so much of history, you learn a great deal about human nature and management.

Covering the period between 1450-1620, Hale brings into play all the forces around which everyday life evolved in Europe.  He traces the slow development of the roads, art, economics, religion, how the old warrior class took on new leadership roles and the slow gradual realization of national identities.  The concept of national identities could not have been achieved without the constant warfare of the age so while the time was often bloody for a small percentage of the overall population, the development of industries necessary for the wars themselves create economic opportunities and the build up of wider areas of cross trade.

Aside from the usual topics one would expect in a book like this, he also spends time looking at the daily lives of ordinary people and how they lived.   How did they dress, where did they shop, how were rules of civility created and enforced? What and how did a common language develop in any geographical area and how did that common language unite the people in becoming what we know as France or Germany, etc.  How were the average people able to live during the upheavals in Christianity which were driven not only by religious differences, but also by the various local rulers who saw the time as an opportunity to enrich themselves by pillaging monasteries, churches, etc. 

The book is not an especially easy read; not because it is not well written, for it is, but the amount of information available is extraordinary.  This is due not only to the usual method of using a wide brush, but also because he delves into the ordinary and discusses how movements, ideas, etc. could impact the people of Europe down to the poorest peasant.  It falls into the category of books that if one were ever asked to read one book on a subject, would the one recommended. 

The logistics of war is a science often neglected.  A prime example of this was when Japan attacked the US, their soldiers went to war with 2 pounds of logistical support (supplies, shipping, etc.) while the US soldier had 4000 pounds to support him.  The result was a forgone conclusion and not even Japan’s best-case scenario (a negotiated truce where they could keep some of their gains) was possible.

     The advent of trains added new dimensions to war; suddenly campaigns could be supplied further from the homeland and war did not have to take a break during the winter when traditionally armies were broken up and dispersed widely in order to not totally plunder the land.  More men, more supplies could be moved to threatened points of conflict and the result was longer, bloodier wars.

     This book is a bit of a disappointment in that it does not fully portray the full scope of the impact of railroads.  There is an interesting discussion of A.J.P. Taylor’s thesis that railroad tables led to wars, but it is counter balanced by the strategic goals (in this case of Russia and France against Germany).  Other volumes have pointed out the huge logistical undertaking of war; while it is interesting to try to grasp that 11,000 trains were re-directed in a campaign, that number does not tell you of the freight involved.  How many meals, guns, coats, boots, etc. were moved and delivered to the right units at the right time?  Or, there is no real discussion of how the lack to railroads going in the right direction led to French armies being beaten during mobilization by the more strategically designed Prussian railway system.

     This is a good book for the novice, for someone who wants to get a very basic grasp of the impact of railways on war, but it will lead one to look for follow up volumes on the subject.

Hannah Arendt, the noted political theorist and philosopher was on the receiving end of her fellow Jewish intellectual’s fury when she coined the phrase,” banality of evil” to describe Adolf Eichman. The question was asked, “How could she use such a phrase to describe those who had been responsible for the murder of six-million Jews? Surely those men were monsters, outside the norm of humanity.”  Yet she did not make that statement in a vacuum, but rather after covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann for The New Yorker magazine. Friends and compatriots turned on her as she even dared to suggest that some Jews made the work of the Nazi’s easier by co-operating with the Nazis.

In The Good Old Days, we investigate the letters home, photo albus, confidential reports and diaries of those involved in mass murders. The title is drawn from a caption in a photo album belonging to the last commander of Treblinka. During its operation, it was visited by a professor of medicine who “was appalled” by what he saw, yet in his diary he notes the excellent food and “first-rate vanilla ice cream.”  This was only one of many references from the letters and diaries of others including ordinary policy battalions (there were about one hundred fifty such battalions). The police battalions contained ordinary police officers which were formed to “police” the rear areas of Eastern Front. Shipped to the East with no special training, they were  instructed to proceed with the murder of mostly Jews in the occupied territories. On the site they were instructed as to the types and depth of the trenches where the victims were led, the order of execution, and so forth. As time went on, the men became more proficient and were able to conduct the executions much more quickly.

How did the men of the police battalions react to their commanding officers’ instructions for their first mass killing? Most of the men went along with and followed the instructions although the commanders made it truly clear that if any individual felt they could not comply, there would be no serious repercussions. A few, very few accepted the offer and were normally given kitchen duties or placed in charge of the latrines. Those few might be subject to comments from the rest of the battalion and a few of the dissenters would eventually relent and join their comrades in the killing.

Throughout the book, one is aware of the banality of the men. They complained about their sore feet, wrote home about “items” they picked up while doing their duty, noted especially tasty food, and longed for the day when they could return to their police duties back home. Some felt that they were doing a great service to mankind, but few would qualify as sadistic in the sense that they took pride in taking clean shots in order to minimize the suffering of the killed. At the same time, the drivers of the gas vans were responsible for cleaning the vans of blood, feces, hair, etc. and seemed to have seen it as another necessary if dirty job.

If one is looking for some special glimpse into the psyche of mass murderers, one will be disappointed by this book. In fact, it goes a long way to confirm Hannah Arendt’s phrase and observation. After the war, out of the one hundred and fifty battalions (up to 75,000 men), only a handful were convicted of war crimes. Most members when back to their old jobs, to their old towns and lived ordinary lives. Reunions were well attended and in their own way, celebrated the good old days.

This is a well-balanced history of Churchill’s interaction with the British navy both as a Sea Lord, head of the Exchequer and war time leader.  Churchill had a real love affair with the Navy and was blamed for the disaster at the Dardanelles, the budget cuts after WWI, the fiasco in Norway as well as the loss of Force Z in the Pacific.  Yet despite these “errors”, he returned again and again to positions of power to lead his country during their darkest hours.  And, despite his love of Empire, he knew that the price for defeating Hitler would be the loss of Empire but he was willing to do what needed to be done (taking a back seat to the rising power of the United States and being humiliated by Roosevelt to Stalin) in order to attain his goals.

Each of the disasters attributed to Churchill are carefully examined and other historians’ arguments are discussed in trying to reach a meaningful conclusion.  For example, even though Churchill was looking for a different strategy from that of frontal attacks during WWI, he was initially against the Dardanelles attack but was brought around to supporting it and when he supported something, Churchill pulled out all the stops!  In the end, the timidity of the British Admirals and the poor choice of landing beaches caused in large part by poor intelligence lead to disaster and it was hung on Churchill.  Bell goes through each of the other scenarios and one comes away with a much more balanced picture of Churchill and his decision making process.

Was Churchill a genius or a meddling fool; these seem to be the two extremes offered by most historians.  In reality, he was a leader who did not shirk the responsibilities of his office and who had to make hard and difficult decisions which ran risks but had to be balanced against the enemies and limitations he faced.

A well written book not for the novice, but for the naval historian a very valuable addition to your library.