A Short History of World War I

stokesburyby James L. Stokesbury

This is not a new book. But it IS a classic. First published in 1981, it is still in print and has yet to be superseded.

The back-jacket blurb describes the writing as “highly readable and lively.” I’ll be more blunt. Stokesbury is an opinionated writer, and can be both witty and entertaining – not least when he is dismissing some bit of common wisdom which is actually wrong – urban legends of WW1.  An example:

“The earliest submarines were far more dangerous to their own crews than to anone else, but by 1914, they had become usable weapons. The chief problem was that no one knew exactly what to do with them.”

or this bit on the Third Battle of Artois:

“All through October the men in field gray and in the new French uniforms of the famous “horizon blue” grappled with one another, and when they finally fell back exhausted it was as it had been before. The Germans still held the ridge, and it was just that much more thickly strewn with bodies.”

The book has much that will be familiar to even those with a casual acquaintance of World War 1:

  • The startling German offensive that started the war and the frantic transportantion of French reserve forces to the battle of the Marne in a fleet of comandeered Parisian taxis
  • The ill-fated “second front” planned by Churchill and fought by the Anzac troops in the Dardanelles
  • The appalling battles of attrition fought at Verdun and on the Somme

Just as interesting, and of much significance for those who want to understand the later course of events in the 20th century are chapters on the Collapse of Russia, the United States Entry into the War, and Imperial Wars and Colonial Campaigns.

Through it all, Professor Stokesbury has a knack for summarizing and conveying both the essential details as well as what they mean and why they’re important. I highly recommend this as a resource for anyone who wants an understanding of WW1 that goes beyond just a few chapters in a survey textbook.

– Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

This is why we fight . . .

Marine and kids in Ramadi

THIS posting by Michael Totten is the kind of reporting that got done during WW2 by the best of the reporters. Totten is on his own and has been in Iraq for a long time.

The story of Anbar Province and Ramadi is one of the great success stories of the surge. Hence, there’s an almost total blackout in the mainstream media.

Lots of pictures – and real stories about what’s going on in one province in Iraq.

THIS is why we’re there. THIS has to scare the right-wing Islamists to death. THIS, if it is sustained and spreads will change the course of history in the middle east.

And if we abandon these people now and let them be slaughtered, God help us!

-Rob Shearer

the War for America 1775-1783

War for Americaby Piers Mackesy

I’m not sure exactly why I picked this book up recently, but I’m awfully glad I did. It was orginally  published in 1964 and then reissued in papeback by the University of Nebraska in 1993 – the copy I picked up from the sale table (in excellent condition) is apparently from the first print run – the book must have had a charmed life in its warehouse and retail odyssey.

Short version: an account of the American Revolutionary War from the British perspective.

Long version: the war for American Independence was a global, difficult, frustrating, maddening conflict. Complicated beyond belief for the British due to the difficulties of communication — with her far-flung outposts in America, the Carribbean, Gibraltar and India.

Surprise insight: The details of a navy dependent on winds and sails must be grasped if one is to understand how the events of the American Revolution unfolded. The British Army in the colonies (as well as elsewhere around the world) was totally dependent for supplies, transport and artillery support upon the British Navy’s command of the seas. Which is why the intervention of the French fleet in the conflict in 1781 was decisive. When the British Navy lost supremacy in the Caribbean and then in the Atlantic off Chesapeake Bay, disaster ensued.

Given the impossible burden of communcation and supply by sailing ships, it is a wonder that the British were able to hold out at all. Intervention by the French in the conflict was foreseeable, perhaps inevitable. When the Spanish Bourbons joined the French Bourbons, England was in trouble. When domestic unrest, first in Ireland, then in England itself broke out, the position of the crown became almost desperate. When the Dutch went from ally to enemy and a credible threat to invade England developed in the summer of 1779, it suddenly dawned on me why we were able to trap the small detachment of British army regulars at Yorktown in 1781 and force their surrender. The British were more than a little distracted. And all this time, I thought Washington and the continental army had out-generaled the entire British army – with just a little bit of help from some French volunteers.

That, of course, is an excellent illustration of the problem of bias in historical accounts. American textbook accounts of the American Revolution keep the spotlight exclusively on the Americans.

The reasons for the French intervention require some understanding of both the Seven Years War (known to us as the French and Indian War) 1756-1763 and of the longer Second Hundred Years War which involved global conflict between French and British colonial empires around the world (see my earlier post on all the world wars).

Final, intriguing lesson from Professor Mackesy: The extreme difficulty experienced by the British Army in restoring civil authority in the rebellious colonies. They could almost always defeat the Continental Army (and always defeated the Colonial Militia), but they could never establish control of the colonies they conquered and re-conquered. As an example, here is Mackesy’s description of the Continental commander in the South, Nathaniel Greene:

As long as Green’s army survived, a seeminly inexhaustible supply of militia rallied to it on the battlefield, while irregulars roamed the British foraging areas and terrorised the loyalists. Decisive vicyory could have broken the cycle. So might the weariness and exhaustion of the rebel militia, if the British army remained in being. But from indecisive victories, the British regiments could never recover. Nearly six years earlier [British General[ Murray had prophesied the danger: ‘if the business is to be decided by numbers, the enemy’s plan should be to lose a battle with you every week, until you are reduced to nothing.’

In the end, this is largely what happened.

Rob Shearer
    director, Schaeffer Study Center

postscript: for another recent, intriguing review, see Tom Donnelly’s review of Mackesy in the September 2006 Armed Forces Journal.

The gods must be angry

A group of humans experience natural disasters. They conclude that “the gods must be angry.” They also conclude that regaining the favor of the gods requires a sacrifice.

This logic is as old as recorded human history. It is a recurring and defining pattern of human behavior. It does not offer any conclusive proof about the existence of the gods, but there seems to be overwhelming proof of man’s need for the explanatory story of the gods behavior.

To put it another way, man (on overwhelming evidence across many places and many times) appears to be wired for a belief in the gods. I’m at a bit of a loss to conceive of an evolutionary advantage for this belief, but then, since I’m not a “believer” in the gods of evolution, this is not personally troubling.

But most moderns are quite proud of their “sophisticated” accomplishments and view with some disdain the “primitive” ideas of ancient (and not so ancient) cultures. Especially their quick resort to supernatural explanations for natural disasters and their rush to propitiate the gods.

I would submit to you, however, that most moderns are wired the same way as all other humans, and though they may dress up their underlying fear that, “the gods must be angry” with moden vocabularly and sophistication, they are living the functional equivalent of the egyptians babylonians canaanites, mayas, aztecs, and others.

For moderns, the “angry god” is gaia, mother earth. Our sins are as black as carbon and must be paid for. Mother Earth demands a sacrifice or she will destroy us all.

Torrential rains in NYC? Humans are at fault.

Earthquake in Utah? again, its us evil humans (of course those in the SUV’s are the most guilty)

Bridge collapse in Minneapolis? Again, forgive us gaia, we have sinned.

C.S.Lewis once observed that, “every age gets the science that it wants.”

The 20th century wants to believe that the evils that befall us are the fault of the capitalist sinners of advanced western economies.

The truth is, we really DO feel guilty. Because we really ARE guilty. But its not our carbon footprint that is the problem. It is our rebellion against the one true GOD. Our selfish hearts have chosen rebellion and disobedience. And we know we have sinned. We feel guilty because we ARE guilty. But buying carbon credits will not fix the problem.

God does not want a mechanical transaction to clear up the ledger books. God wants us to lay down our arms, turn around, and enter into a relationship with him. He does not call us to keep a set of rules. He wants a relationship with us.

And that relationship begins with an acknowledgement of the man, Christ Jesus. Fully God and fully man. The incarnation of God, who makes it possible to have that restored relationship with God.

Don’t trade your birthright for a mess of carbon credits. It is not gaia who needs to be propitiated. It is not gaia who will save us.

It is God himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who calls us to come to Him.

 – Rob Shearer
    Director, Schaeffer Study Center

How many world wars have there been?

 Was it World War One and World War Two? .  .  .  or WW6 and WW7?

First, a bit of a rant. I’m currently reading three books, one each on the American Revolution, World War One, and World War Two. I started this post thinking I would do a book review of at least one of them. But instead, I’ve produced a longer excursion in “setting the context.” I think its a useful piece all by itself. Let me know what you think. Book reviews to follow in later posts.

Calling the conflict that occurred in Europe between 1914 and 1919 the “First World War” is completely illogical. From 1689 to 1815 there were a series of five global conflicts – all fought between England and her allies and France and hers.

1689 – 1697 King Williams War / War of the League of Augsburg
1702 – 1713 Queen Anne’s War / War of the Spanish Succession
1744 – 1748 King George’s War / War of the Austrian Succession
1754 – 1763 French and Indian War / Seven Years War
1805 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars

Each of these wars was fought in both hemispheres, on multiple continents and involved global alliance systems. In some ways, this series of conflicts could be called the Second Hundred Years War between England and France. There’s a wikipedia article on precisely that topic which is worth reading. So are the articles on the French and Indian Wars and on the Napoleonic Wars.

After a century of global warfare, the destruction of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance (between Russia, Prussia, and Austria) led to a century of relative peace – in Europe to be sure, and for the rest of the world, mostly. At least, from 1815 to 1914, there were no further global conflicts.

Of course there were a few regional conflicts. The Chinese civil war (aka, the Taiping Rebellion) from 1850 to 1864 caused 20 million deaths. The American civil war (aka, the War for Southern Independence) from 1861 to 1865 caused 600,000 deaths. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 was a relatively short conflict that inflicted a humiliating defeat on the French (the Germans occupied Paris) and was the occasion for the unification of dozens of small German principalities with the kingdom of Prussia – the resulting state calling itself the Second German Empire.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 (with about 3,000 US casualties) was pronounced a “splendid little war” by the US Secretary of State. It featured the improbable six-month odyssey of the US assistant secretary of the Navy resigning, forming a volunteer cavalry unit, fighting in Cuba in the summer, and then returning home to be elected Governor of TeddyNew York in the fall. After serving two years as governor, the local party bosses persuaded President McKinley to put him on the national ticket as vice-president in his 1900 re-election campaign. Six months after being sworn in for his second term as president, McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, and Teddy Roosevelt, six weeks before his 43rd birthday, became the youngest man ever to be president of the united states.

The Russians and the Japanese fought a nineteen month war between February of 1904 and September of 1905. Japan won an overwhelming victory, and Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating the treaty that ended the conflict.

So… there were five global conflicts in the second hundred years war between 1689 and 1815, which by my reckoning would make 1914-1919 World War Six. And then 1939 to 1945 would be World War Seven. Unless you want to recognize the linkage between the two and call them collectively the Thirty Years War of the 20th century.

[sigh] That would make more SENSE, but I think at this point there’s very little chance that the names WW6 and WW7 will catch on. But now you know – and can amuse your friend by asking, “How many world wars have there been?”

-Rob Shearer
Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Going to a wedding is the making of another

MacIvor Wedding

There’s a wonderful celtic saying that “going to a wedding is the making of another.” Its true.

We attended the wedding last night – one of four daughters of a family we’ve been great friends with for many years to a fine young man. The Shearer clan took up a whole row of seats. During the service, I looked over and was struck by how intensely interested our four youngest daughters (currently 9, 10, 10, and 11) were in the ceremony.

One of the purposes of a public wedding before friends and families is to make a public covenant between husband and wife. But surely another purpose is to set an example for younger friends and siblings. It sets a standard and gives them something to aim for. It teaches, without intentionally doing so but inescapably doing so, a number of profound things about what marriage is.

Publically exchanging vows makes the vows more solemn, more binding, more official. I know my generation has an instinctive reaction that this should not be so… but it is so. Publically exchanging vows also elevates the idea of marriage. It shows us an ideal picture of two people declaring their intention to forsake all others and commit themselves to each other, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer so long as they both shall live.

And that’s the ideal that our children need to be aiming for. Its one thing to talk about it, or even to preach about it. Good things to do by the way. But showing two people actually doing it is very powerful.

Our friends did a great service for my daughters – and for all the other young people in the audience. They showed them a picture of what marriage and love should be like. They gave them something to aim for.

A special blessing for Jared and Annie. Thank you for inviting us to be witnesses to your faithful act of obedience.

-Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

The arrogance of Canute

Canute 2 (web)

Most people’s garbled version of the story of Canute is that he was the English king who’s sense of power and entitlement went to his head – leading to the arrogant attempt to command the tide not to come in. As if the tide were at all concerned with the wishes of a puny king.

There’s more than a little parallel with the demands that all of humankind join together to increase our use of bicylces and reduce our purchase of toilet paper in order to stop the earth from warming up. As if the earth and the sun were likely to pay attention to the likes of us.

Weather patterns do change over time. We have had centuries where it appears it was warmer (allowing Greenland to live up to its name) and when wine grapes were grown in Canada (hence the Vikings having called it Vinland). And we’ve had centures when it was colder.

We’ve had some winters / years which were exceptionally & unusually cold. In 1816, the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia caused the “Year Without a Summer.”

What has any of this to do with Christianity? A lot actually.

We are charged to be stewards of all that God has given us charge of. And fallen men have often behaved irresponsibly and marred the physical beauty and usefulness of God’s creation. But it is not difficult to detect in the modern environmental movement a scapegoating of mankind – especially western european, and american societies. There is a repeated and thinly veiled theme that treats man’s mere presence on the planet as evil and corrupting. The implied environmental solution seems quite often to logically require the killing off of most if not all of the human race. And we know who’s ultimate goal THAT is.

Environmentalism has rapidly acquired all of the characteristics of a religion. The development of a mechanism to purchase forgiveness in the form of “carbon credits” makes one want to look around for the 20th century Luther who will denounce the practice of selling indulgences and condemn Pope Algore as the anti-christ. BTW, for a great bit of comedic relief, check out this website, which offers carbon DEBITS for sale – to offset the carbon credits your friends may be buying.

There is an arrogance in the environmental movement. They arrogantly proclaim that the science is settled. The best resource I know of for an overview of the scientific community’s views is an ongoing series of articles being written by Lawrence Solomon of the Canadian Financial Post called, “The Deniers.” He started in November of 2006. The 27th article in the series was published in June of 2007. See especially the 25th article, entitled, “They call this a consensus?” There was no consensus in 1992, when Algore first began announcing that there was. And there’s not one now.

There is an even deeper arrogance in the environmental movement. It is the arrogance that attributes all unexplained climatic change on planet earth to the actions of humans. Skeptics used to laughingly accuse theists of being simple-minded when they attributed to God anything that could not be understood or explained by science. But modern man is rapidly projecting “global warming” as the cause for all that is going wrong on the planet.

The tide came in, despite what Canute commanded. And the climate will continue to change, despite whatever practices Al Gore can demagogue the gullible into adopting. Less toilet paper and more bicycles are not the answer. 

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

And before anyone starts on the issue of overpopulation, please read the following article which decisively debunks the myths of overpopulation: Too Many People? By Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun

Reagan and Sharansky

The Reagan DiariesFor Father’s Day, my wife gave me a copy of The Reagan Diaries.

In the introduction, editor David Brinkley mentions that Reagan is one of only five presidents who kept consistent personal diaries. The other four were Washington, John Quincy Adams, Polk, & Hayes. That observation alone is remarkable, although understandable. Keeping a diary is a discipline – and presidents have way too many distractions. Keeping a  diary is also a way of refining one’s own thoughts. Putting your ideas into words forces you to clarify and articulate what you mean. Keeping a diary also requires one to develop a certain facility with words – which Reagan had, but rarely gets credit for.

But I’ve digressed. I’ve only started the book, but I was immediately struck by an entry from April of 1981. By that point, Reagan had been in office for just over 90 days. He’d also been shot and spent several weeks recuperating from emergency surgery. There is a remarkable diary entry on April 23.

On April 23, Reagan sent a private note to the Soviet President, Leonid Brezhnev – and recorded the text in his diary. In the note, after agreeing with an observation Brezhnev made to him in an earlier note that substantive issues were best discussed face to face, Reagan raises only one issue. It is the height of the cold war. And he devotes 3/4 of his hand-written note to a plea to Brezhnev to release “the man Scharansky an inmate in one of your prisons.”

Reagan tells Brezhnev that, “I can assure you he was never involved in any way with any agency of the U.S. govt.”

The most remarkable part of the letter is Reagan’s offer to forgo any political benefit from securing Sharansky’s release: “. . . this is between the two of us and I will not reveal that I made any such request.”

Two years later, in July of 1983, there is a follow-up entry: “The Soviets are being devious about their promise to let Scharansky go. We’re going to hold them to it.”

Three years later, February 3 1986: “We have a deal to get him out of Russia. Last nite & this morning it was all over the news. I feared the publicity might queer the deal. Turns out the leak was from Moscow.

Finally, eight days later, on February 11, 1986: “1st news of the day ‘Scharansky freed by the Soviets.’ After years of imprisonment he was made part of a spy swap & allowed to rejoin his wife. We flew him to our base at Frankfort & an Israeli plane few to Tel Aviv. Later in day I received a call from P.M. Peres & Scharansky thanking us. I told them Kohl of W. Germany played a big part in putting this together.”

Even in his diary, Reagan refrains from claiming credit for what was accomplished. He does not write “Sharansky thanked me.” He writes “Sharansky thanked us.” And then he further shares the credit with the German Chancellor.

The point of all this: Sharansky is an important (but overlooked) figure in the course of the Cold War. He became a symbol of the Soviet Union’s intolerance of dissent and its denial of human rights. But he was also a person. His personal story inspires as an example of a courageous individual who doggedly refuses to compromise in spite of overwhelming odds.

Another point: Ronald Reagan was hardly an unsophisticated neophyte when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union. The story reveals his skills, but also the personal interest that Reagan took in Sharansky the individual. Reagan’s compassion for Sharansky is a revealing note on his character.

Final part of the story: A month after Sharansky’s release, he visited President Reagan in the White House. Here’s Reagan’s diary entry for that day, May 13, 1986 – about three months after Sharansky’s release:

Met with Anatoly Scharansky. It was fascinating to hear the story of his imprisonment  by the Soviets. I learned that I’m a hero in the Soviet Gulag. The prisoners read the attacks on me in Tass & Pravda & learn what I’m saying about the Soviets and they like me.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Evan Almighty is mightier than it knows

Noah & GodWe went to see Evan Almighty last night – and I had an emotional reaction to the film way out of proportion to the films purported content.

I’ve been trying to figure out why, and I think its because of the inherent power of the story of Noah. The film is true to the biblical account in all the important aspects. The film’s power has absolutely nothing to do with the CGI disaster at the end. It has to do with the inherent charm of Morgan Freeman portraying a loving laughing God. Key line: “Remember, everything I do, I do because I love you.” It also has to do with the dynamic of the relunctant prophet, chosen by God and finding he can’t do anything in the end except obey and eventually becomes flint-like in his determination. There’s as much of Jonah in this story as there is of Noah.

Finally, there’s the sub-plot of Noah’s family taking on the building of the ark as a family project. Again, Morgan Freeman delivers the homily that is anything but trite: “If someone prays for patience, do you think God gives them patience, or opportunities to be patient? If they pray for courage, does he give them courage, or opportunities to be courageous? and if someone prays for their family to grow closer together…” Watch for it. This little gem is worth the price of admission.

Also keep your eyes open for the line from Evan that makes God laugh.

Noah’s ArkBut back to my disproportionate emotional response. Perhaps its because I’ve spent a lot of time with the Rien Poortvliet book, “Noah’s Ark.” The images of Noah building the ark, of the animals gathering and waiting patiently, of Noah and his family caring for them in the ark, and especially of Noah exercising his adamic dominion over the natural world are VERY powerful.

This isn’t just a nursery tale. This really happened. And the character of God really is very well portrayed by the writers and Morgan Freeman’s presence.

I did not find the environmental preaching at the end that so many reviewers have referred to. The bad guys are guilty of corruption, cutting corners, and scheming to do commercial development on national park land. You don’t have to be a follower of Al Gore to know that all of that is just plain wrong.

I think those who did this film know something about the power of the story elements that they are dealing with here. They never divert for a cheap laugh. I think the critics are almost all wrong. This may not be one of the great films of all times – but its a very worthwhile way to spend a couple of hours. And ought to provoke some very thoughtful conversations afterwards. Take your friends… and talk about the film afterwards.

Take your kids. The film is rated PG.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

What do Paris Hilton, Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, and OJ . . .

 have in common?

paris peterson michael oj 

They all functioned, serially, as the objects of the obsessive compulsive focus of the popular, ravenous, continuous-coverage, media circus that is CNN-MSNBC-FOX.

For a while, I joked that their real purpose was to be (each in turn), the canary in the coal mine. For those not familiar with the concept, in the days before there was sensitive safety equipment to monitor the safety of the air in a coal mine, miners would keep a canary at key locations. Canaries are very sensitive to changes in the oxygen level and to the presence of methane. A canary will succumb to the presence of methane (a reduction in the oxygen content) long before it becomes dangerous to the minors. So, the canary in the coal mine was a safety device. If the canary was still sitting on his perch, the air was still safe.

While the Hilton-Peterson-Jackson-OJ dramas were going on, they were the canaries in the coal mine. If you got off of an airplane, or wandered into a restaurant or hotel lobby, a glance at the TV screen would tell you instantly whether anything really newsworthy had happened anywere in the world. If Hilton-Peterson-Jackson-OJ were on the screen, you were safe. Nothing bad or significant had happened anywhere.

However, if Hilton-Peterson-Jackson-OJ were NOT on the screen, then they’d been pre-empted by something that really was important.

There’s an old wry, cynical observation that runs thus: “Isn’t it amazing, how every day, just enough stuff happens to fill up the newspaper?”

Now you know just how much attention to pay to the obsessions of CNN-MSNBC-FOX.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

The Director's Blog – Rob Shearer, Francis Schaeffer Study Center, Mt. Juliet, TN