Map on Monday: PRUSSIA

How a Teutonic State in the Baltic Became Protestant and Changed German History

By A. Joseph Lynch

Although Prussia is often associated with the larger German state, the region of Prussia lies far to the east of modern day Germany, originally stretching from border of Pomerania to Lithuania along the Baltic coast.

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the geography of Prussia, partly due to the use of “Prussia” for the emerging unified German state and partly due to the fact that the lands once belonging to the old Duchy of Prussia are now under Russian, Polish, and Lithuanian control. Despite its association with Germany, Prussia was located much further to the east along the Baltic coast, just south of modern day Lithuania. Its peoples – one of many Baltic tribes in the region (see right) – were conquered and Christianized in the Northern Crusades by the Teutonic Knights, a Catholic religious order of monastic warriors seeking to conquer and convert the Baltic. Teutonic Prussia became the center the Teutonic State as it continued to spread northwards into what is today Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

The power of the Teutonic Knights reached its apogee at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Its fortunes changed, however, when Lithuania and Poland united against it in the Thirteen Years War (1454-1466). With the defeat of the Teutonic Knights, western Prussia (now called "Royal Prussia") was ceded to Poland and eastern Prussia was left as Teutonic rump state swearing fealty as a fief (or duchy) of Poland. In 1525, during the rising tide of Protestantism, Teutonic Prussia renounced the Catholicism held by its neighbors to the east and south and cast its lot with Lutheranism. The Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Albert, in a deal partly orchestrated by Martin Luther, was recognized by the King of Poland as the Duke of Prussia. Poland for its part preferred a Lutheran Prussia over a Catholic Teutonic Prussia under the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. Though it remained a fief of Poland, its status as Lutheran made the Duchy of Prussia the first Protestant state.

Albert (left), last Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, was aided by Martin Luther (right) to renounce Catholicism, convert to Lutheranism, and create the Duchy of Prussia as the first Protestant state with the unlikely support of Catholic Poland.

The duchy entered into a succession crisis in 1618 when its duke, Albert Frederick, died without an heir. Succession fell to his son-in-law, John Sigismund of the Hohenzollern family, who at the time was also the ruler of Lutheran Brandenburg with its capital of Berlin, situated in the Holy Roman Empire. Despite the distance between his two realms and the fact that the Duchy of Prussia was still a Polish fief, Sigismund would rule over both Brandenburg and Prussia in a personal union called “Brandenburg-Prussia.” Sigismund, a champion of Calvinism’s spread, soon found himself ruling large numbers of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists.

In 1656, Sweden conquered the Duchy of Prussia during its war with Poland-Lithuania. When the tides of war turned against the Swedes, Charles X Gustav of Sweden offered Prussia’s return to Brandenburg on the condition that Brandenburg entered the war as a Swedish ally. Poland, hearing of the offer, countered with an offer of its own: if Brandenburg remained neutral, the Duchy of Prussia would be returned to Brandenburg fully free of Polish fealty. With the defeat of Sweden, Brandenburg-Prussia became more powerful than ever before – but the Poles were willing to accept that over having a new enemy on a second front. The victorious rulers in Brandenburg’s Berlin, however, had even more in mind. They desired the title of king. For this they would need the support of the Holy Roman Emperor – the one person who wouldn’t stand for an upstart king within his borders. Wars, however, require allies – and soon the emperor would be in need of an ally from the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg-Prussia.

In 1701, Brandenburg-Prussia agreed to support the Hapsburg family in the War of the Spanish Succession in return for the emperor’s recognition of a kingly title for the Hohenzollern rulers. Because there could be no king vying for power within the Holy Roman Empire, the Hohenzollerns could claim kingship over their lands outside the realm of the empire: the territory of Prussia. Thus the title “King in Prussia” was granted, but was soon replaced with the title “King of Prussia” – and in order to show the extent of their kingship, the name Brandenburg-Prussia was discarded for the Kingdom of Prussia. Thus began the association of relatively small Baltic region with the later entirety of the rising German state. By the end of the eighteenth century, Prussian rulers like Frederick the Great would conquer Silesia from the Austrians and old West Prussia (or Royal Prussia) from Poland. With these territories acquired (see this excellent video map of Prussia's expansion), Prussia dramatically increased in size, physically uniting the disparate territories of the former Brandenburg-Prussian state, and becoming an emerging power on the continent – a status it fully achieved in 1806 with the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Kingdom of Prussia, governed in Berlin by the highborn Junker class of the old Brandenburg-Prussian core region, became the center of German unification during the second half of the nineteenth century. By 1871, the Kingdom of Prussia had defeated and taken lands from Poland, Denmark, Austria, and France. It would be governed by the Hohenzollerns until the disastrous defeat of 1918, which led to territorial losses to the French (Alsace-Loraine), Danes (North Schleswig), Poland (Posen, Upper Silesia, West Prussia), Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania. The eastern core of the original Prussian state in the Baltic region remained, but it was once more physically cut off from the larger German state by the loss of West Prussia to Poland.

Nazi Germany’s failed attempt to regain lost German territory – and Europe along with it – led to the loss of Pomerania and Silesia to Poland, and to the end of the original Prussian state in the east. The southern half of old Prussia was incorporated into Poland and the northern half made a part of Russia, which it remains to this day. Konigsberg became Kaliningrad, and the native Prussian population was forcibly evicted and replaced by native Russians. Today the Kaliningrad region is a geostrategically important oblast of the Russian Federation, giving Russia military reach into Europe and providing it with its only Baltic port that does not freeze in the winter. Long gone are the days of the Teutonic Knights, the Junker aristocracy, and German glory. Prussia lives on in our histories, but little is left of it upon ground from which it came.

Map on Monday: America's Unified Combatant Commands

The map above (click to enlarge) explains how the United States military has arranged structures of command and authority for engaging in military conflict throughout the world. Historically forged out of the crucible of the Second World War, each Command is led by a four-star General or Admiral who is given command over the forces operating within his "Area of Responsibility" (AOR). The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), for example, is currently headed by General Lloyd Austin, who effectively commands military units within the Mideast with the exception of Israel (which falls under the boundaries of the United States European Command).

The six regional or geographical Commands, along with some of their primary responsibilities, include:

1. United States Africa Command (all Africa with the exception of Egypt)
2. United States Central Command (Mideast minus Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, central Asia)
3. United States European Command (Europe, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Caucasus region)
4. United States Northern Command (the United States, Canada, Mexico)
5. United States Pacific Command (India but not Pakistan,  China, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Koreas) 
6. United States Southern Command (Cuba, South America, Latin America)

In addition to the six geographically-structured Commands, there are three additional Commands described in functional terms: United States Special Operations Command (responsible for US Special Forces and Special Operations units); United States Strategic Command (responsible for operations in space, missile defense, nuclear weapons, and military intelligence); and United States Transportation Command (responsible for global defense transportation and military logistics).

In future Map on Monday posts, we will return to each of the six geographic Unified Combatant Commands for further examination and analysis.

President Bush meets with the Joint Chiefs and United Combatant Commanders

President-elect Donald Trump selected two former combatant commanders (and Marine Corps generals) to act as his secretaries of defense and homeland security. General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, nominated for defense, was the commander of the Central Command from 2010-2013. Mattis is also known as the "warrior monk" for his dedication to military service and study, and having no family. Great Mattis quotes and stories abound. General John Kelly, nominated for homeland security, commanded the Southern Command from 2012-2016. His former position undoubtedly gave him great insight into America's south and central American allies, the region's drug smuggling problems, and the need to maintain strong American border security. A general like Mattis, Kelly has also experienced the sacrifice of family for military service: his son, First Lieutenant Robert Kelly, was killed in Afghanistan in 2010.

In addition to Generals Mattis and Kelly, President Trump appointed General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Advisor. McMaster, though not a former combatant commander, was one of America's most capable generals in the Iraq war while also spending time in Afghanistan. His refusal to use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" because he sees the terrorists as "un-Islamic" is helpful in clarifying friend and foe in the current religious war. We hope President Trump adopts a similar view in his approach to Islam and terrorism.

Retired Marine Generals and former Combatant Commanders, John Kelly (left) and James Mattis (center), have been nominated to serve President-elect Donald Trump as the new Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense respectively. General McMaster (right) is President Trump's National Security Advisor.

Friday BookReview: the collapse of Saigon in the spring of 1975

[first published May 15, 2015]

Forty years ago, on April 30th, the last Marine -- Juan Valdez -- scrambled aboard the final helicopter lifting off the roof of the American embassy. The nation of South Vietnam had come to an end.

Reading "LAST MEN OUT," about some of the Marine heroics in those closing hours of the American presence in Saigon, is a gripping experience. But the book (written several years ago by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin) is also deeply dispiriting as one ponders why our beloved country so often seems rudderless when it comes to strategy.

In the words of one of our best diplomats, Francis Terry McNamara (consul in Can Tho, in the delta):

"How could a nation with so much strength end a war by abandoning its allies and saving its own citizens in such ignominious circumstances?"

           

I heard about the book at the PBS website of a first-rate documentary which was produced and directed by Bobby Kennedy's youngest child (she was born six months after he was assassinated in 1968). Take time to watch at least a portion of the powerful tale.



Certainly the most puzzling character in the dénouement of our lengthy involvement with the Vietnamese was Graham Martin, the U.S. ambassador to Saigon for the final two years. He was an arrogant patrician, obstinately out of touch with many realities on the ground, holding out bizarre hopes of cutting a deal with the North Vietnamese that would save us from defeat. Somehow, he convinced himself that Saigon would never be attacked.

In a section of the book about Francis Terry McNamara, Last Men Out includes this fascinating comment: "And unlike Graham Martin, McNamara harbored a deep affection for the country and its people."

Mr. Martin, though, has his defenders -- including CIA analyst Frank Snepp: "The ambassador refused to leave until he could get as many Vietnamese on as many choppers as possible. The evacuation of Vietnamese happened because Graham Martin wanted it to happen."

Ambassador Martin

Here is a photo of Juan Valdez at a recent reunion with his plucky comrades.                                  

Take a glance at this obituary of General Dung, and this one of General Giap, to get a sense of the leaders that North Vietnam was able to call upon in their fight.

President Ford wrote in his memoirs about the problem of the Vietnamese refugees: 

"More than 120,000 of them had managed to escape, but they had nowhere to go. Thailand didn't want them. Neither did Malaysia, Indonesia nor the Philippines. The United States, I felt, had a special obligation to them, and on April 30 I asked Congress to approve a bill that would provide $507 million for their transportation and care. The House rejected my request on May 1. Unbelievable!"

When it comes to studying the history of the Vietnam War, a younger scholar not to miss is Mark Moyar. A sample line: "[David Halberstam ended up doing] more harm to the interests of the United States than any other journalist in American history."

                                             

Halberstam (L) with other reporters 1963

UPDATE: Questions for David Pence --

You were a leader of the anti-war movement in Minnesota. What was the biggest thing you and your friends got wrong back then?

   "We were convinced that peace grew from a spread of good will, rather than the organization of protection. And we believed that community, somehow, was the fruit of good individuals and good vibes -- and didn't need the ballast of authority.

   "But our greatest error is that our personalities were schooled in the Christian religion and the duty to love our neighbor -- but we didn't appreciate the source of our good will. We forgot the first tablet: that ordered love starts with loving God. We tried to organize peace and love in human relationships without God." We missed that the war against Communism was a war against armed scientific atheism that would destroy the life of nations. 

Nowadays, how do you sum up your view of the Vietnam War?

   "First, I am ashamed I did not join my countrymen in the battle assigned to our generation. No criticism of others is meant to be more harsh than criticism of my own pride and obstinacy.
   "I think the book by Mr. Moyar you referenced is excellent -- with a good mix of American and Vietnamese sources.
   "The greatest American error of the war was giving a green light for the violent removal of Diem [the first president of South Vietnam]. The principal agents of that betrayal were Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, David Halberstam, and Averell Harriman. The review you linked to Mark Moyar has a good summary. Since then, everyone from Henry Kissinger to LBJ to Ho Chi Minh is on record saying the US sanctioned slaying of our "ally" President Diem in 1963 is when America lost the war.  Diem's Final Failure by Philip Catton is a very good look at a man I consider a hero and martyr. I believe Vietnam will honor him in the not too distant future.  While Lodge, Harriman, and Halberstam should bear the greatest shame, John Kennedy was guilty of allowing that assassination. He was assassinated in the same month. I don't think there was a  conspiracy, but I do believe our president lost his mandate from heaven. In an essential way we should remember  that our men did not die in vain. Their blood and sacrifice won a very important strategic victory.  Our long fight in Vietnam created a space and time  that allowed a host of other Asian countries (especially Malaysia and Indonesia) to develop freely behind the front-lines of the battle. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore made that argument best. He thought our holding action in Southeast Asia is what allowed the Asian tigers to develop and eventually be a model for post Marxist development in China. He condemned the despicable behavior of the self righteous "antiwar"  US congress in the last year of the war.
   "The congressional abandonment of Vietnam and its fleeing refugees was a disgrace that we can only hope will lead to some self-reflection and repentance by those involved. I remember becoming physically ill watching the last helicopters leave.
    "I didn't know who Lee Kuan Yew was in 1975  but I remember in my own apartment in Minneapolis walking around the block after seeing those helicopters leave the top of the embassy -- with a horrible emotional sense of personal shame coupled with physical nausea."

A concise geographic history of Israel from Joshua to the time of Jesus

The map to the left (click to enlarge) displays the division of the Promised Land between the Tribes of Israel. The world map at the bottom right corner locates Israel at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea along the important trade routes connecting historic Mesopotamia with Egypt to Israel's southwest and with Greece and Rome to its west across the seas.

Geographically, Israel was split into east and west by the Jordan River with the Sea of Galilee in the north and the Dead Sea to the south. The area as a whole may be divided into four geographic regions: the coastal plains along the Mediterranean, the central hills (which run from the peaks in the north's Golan, through the hilly Galilee, down to the hill country of Judea in the south), the Jordan Rift Valley connecting the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, and the Negev Desert in the south (which claims more than half of modern Israel's land area).

Recall that the twelve Tribes of Israel are the descendants of the twelve sons of Israel (renamed from Jacob). Of these twelve sons, lands were allotted to the tribes of Reuben and Gad on the east side of the Jordan while Asher, Naphtali, Zebulan, Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin were given lands on the west side of the Jordan and in the northern part of the Promised land. To their south were the lands of Judah and Simeon. Of Israel's other two sons - Joseph and Levi - the Levites became a priestly caste following their zeal for the Lord at Sinai in the punishment of 3,000 idolatrous Israelites. Rather than being given lands, the Levites governed a series of Levitical cities. As for Joseph, his descendants were given a double share in that his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim were adopted as sons in their own right by Israel and given extensive lands and prestige in the Promised Land (indeed, the northern half of the Promised Land would be known as "Israel" or "Ephraim" in later years). The capital of the northern kingdom of Israel? ...  Samaria.

                                                               

Around the year 732 BC, the northern ten tribes were taken into captivity by the Assyrians while the southern Kingdom of Judah was captured by the Babylonians in 586 BC. After the destruction of the Babylonian Empire by the Persians 539 BC, the people were allowed by Cyrus the Great  to return and rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. The area was captured by Alexander the Great in 333 BC and remained under nominal Greek control until the Maccabean Revolt from 166-160 BC. During that time, the Maccabean family forged the Hasmonean dynasty and expanded the kingdom to include Edom - one of Israel's old enemies to its southeast. In 139 BC, the Roman Senate recognized Israel as a Jewish state but later forced it to become a Roman client state in 63 BC. In 37 BC, the Romans overthrew the Hasmonean dynasty and replaced it with the more pro-Roman Herodian dynasty and its founder Herod the Great of Edomite lineage.

Upon the death of Herod the Great in 7 or 8 AD (click here to read Dr. Taylor Marshall's excellent work on dating Christ's birth and Herod's death), the kingdom was divided among his sons Archelaus, Antipas, and Phillip (see map at right). Rome soon decided to unify Samaria (which included much of the old northern kingdom), Judea, and Idumea (Edom) into one province called Iudaea. The capital of this province, however, would not be Jerusalem but Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. Part of this administrative change was Roman rule over the province through its governors or procurators, the fifth of which being Pontius Pilate from 26-36 AD. Not included in this new province was the region of Galilee - an area vastly different from its southern neighbor. Perea, where John the Baptist preached and baptized, and Galilee remained under the rule of Herod Antipas (who beheaded John the Baptist and partook in the trial of Jesus because most of Jesus' ministry occurred within his realm).

The majority of Jesus' public ministry took place in Galilee. Seven centuries after the dispersal of the northern tribes, the Galileans were mostly non-Jewish, though some towns (Nazareth and Capernaum) and all of the "men of Galilee" who were Christ's apostles were Jewish. Only Judas Iscariot of the apostles and Jesus himself were from Judea. To the south and west of Galilee were Samaria and Judea, both places where Jesus spent a great deal of time (He was born in Judea's Bethlehem, 5.5 miles south of Jerusalem). To its southeast was the Decapolis - an area of ten cities deeply influenced by Greco-Roman culture and majority Gentile in population. It was in the Decapolis that Jesus exorcised a possessed man in Mark 5, and from this man that word spread throughout the Decapolis about Christ. In Tyre to the northwest, Jesus worked another exorcism among a heavily Gentile population. Jesus also traveled into the far northeast. It is here that we find Caesarea Philippi, the site where Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, made him the rock upon which the Church would be built, and gave him the keys to the Kingdom.

Map on Monday: NATIONS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND GEOGRAPHY OF NUCLEAR TESTING SITES (1945-2016)

By A. Joseph Lynch

Image of first nuclear explosion

The United States tested its first nuclear warhead - named "Trinity" - on July 16, 1945. It would be the first of 2,000 nuclear detonations on planet Earth, including the two used on Japan in August 1945. Today there are seven nations in addition to the United States that have developed and tested nuclear weapons: Russia (1949, then the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), China (1964), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006). Israel has not tested its own nuclear weapons, but it is a well-known secret that Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons from the United States for self-defense. Although the above map shows Israel as having roughly 80 nuclear weapons, a leaked email written by Colin Powell reveals that the number is really around 200.

While many are familiar with the list of nuclear powers, few know anything about the vast number of nuclear bomb detonations or where they occurred. The map above is a screenshot of a video called "A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945." The video is somewhat lengthy (and it ends before North Korea's testing), but it is a very good representation of the temporal-spatial dimensions of nuclear testing.

If you asked someone where the United States tested its nuclear weapons, most would say the American Southwest. Although this is true, few are familiar with the two underground nuclear detonations that took place in the state of Mississippi in 1964, or that the United Kingdom also tested nuclear weapons in the United States. In fact, the last British nuclear detonation took place in the state of Nevada. French nuclear testing in Algeria and British nuclear testing in Australia make sense given their colonial holdings -- yet it is not well-known that the Sahara and the Australian Outback were home to many nuclear blasts.

Oceanic Testing: Operation Crossroads (July 25, 1946)

The oceans have also hosted nuclear tests. One such example, Operation Crossroads, took place on July 25, 1946, at Bikini Atoll. Nuclear detonations have not only taken place under the Earth's surface, but even high above. An American test called "Starfish Prime" took place in outer space on July 8, 1962. It was the largest nuclear blast to take place in space (the detonation occurred at an altitude of 250 miles). The blast was seen through cloud cover in Honolulu almost 900 miles away.

The blast of Starfish Prime - 250 miles above and almost 900 miles away from Honolulu.

Map on Monday: GEOSTRATEGIC CHOKE POINTS

GEOSTRATEGIC CHOKE POINTS: CRITICAL ZONES OF CONTROL FOR COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY ACTIVITY 

by A. Joseph Lynch

71% of the world's surface is covered by water. The map above depicts seven geostrategic choke points along waterways that are vital links for commerce and military seafaring. Controlling access to waterways in war and peace often involves attacking or defending these chokepoints.

Despite being thousands of miles from Europe, the Strait of Malacca, for example, has been significant for European powers dating back to the Portuguese and British. The Japanese naturally sought control of the strait in December 1941. Russia looks to the Danish Straits in its north and the Bosporus to its south for its fleets from St. Petersburg and Crimea to access the open waters. Fleets from the Crimea still have to pass through either the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb if they wish to reach the Arabian Sea or through the umarked Strait of Gibraltar to enter the Atlantic. About 35% of the world's shipped oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, making it a vital choke point for many nations' energy demands. Any conflicts between Sunni (Saudi Arabia) and Shia (Iran) will have that narrow seaway as a major military concern. Finally, the Panama Canal allows shipping to cross through central America rather than around the southern tip of South America. The canal is a vital point of communication and military sea transport for the United States Navy.

Map on Monday: THE MILITARIES OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

In our Religion and Geopolitics Review on Saturday, May 2, we linked our readers to a Business Insider report on Japan's new defense agreement with the United States. That report also included an excellent  map (at left; click to enlarge but best map is in article) of the sea claim conflicts in the South China Sea. The map includes important information regarding military installations and geostrategic locations just off the map.

We also linked readers to a story about an upcoming strategic partnership between the Philippines and Vietnam - two historically Catholic nations in region. These two nations seek to ease their own border disputes, aid each other in economic and scientific pursuits in the sea, and begin naval drills together.

The combined naval power of Vietnam and the Philippines boasts 10 frigates, 20 corvettes, and 61 patrol ships. Vietnam also has three Russian submarines on order; and the Philippines plans to acquire its first 2-3 submarines in the next five years. Catching up to both nations is the Malaysian Navy with 2 frigates, 6 corvettes, 2 submarines, and 6 stealth frigates (in production).

The Japanese Navy is more muscular at 4 helicopter carriers (with a 5th under construction), 22 destroyers, 11 frigates, 6 corvettes, and 16 attack submarines.

Of course, all these nations are dwarfed by the Chinese Navy in ascendancy with an aircraft carrier (the Liaoning), 60 attack submarines, 5 ballistic missile submarines, 24 destroyers, 47 frigates, and 19 corvettes.

For more information on the region see also: 

-

Map on Monday: CHINA

Map on Monday: PHILIPPINES
Map on Monday: JAPAN
Map on Monday: KOREA
Map on Monday: INDONESIA
Map on Monday: VIETNAM
Map on Monday: MALAYSIA and SINGAPORE

-

Friday BookReview: Matthew Ridgway and the Korean War

How long a period is required to take the measure of a man? Watch and listen for twenty seconds to the sagacity of one of America's finest warriors.

                           

Matthew Ridgway --
West Point class of 1917; died 1993

When Harry Truman relieved Douglas MacArthur of command of the war in Korea, this was the man called to step into those big boots.

"As difficult as the situation in Korea was, it's hard to imagine a commander better suited to handling it than Matthew Bunker Ridgway. Like MacArthur, he had literally spent his entire life in the U.S. Army. The son of an artillery colonel, Ridgway [attended] West Point, where the yearbook described him as, 'Beyond doubt, the busiest man in the place.' 

"Having just missed the fighting in France, Ridgway worked his way through a series of peacetime assignments, including stints in China, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. But in 1942 he was named commander of the 82nd Division, just before it was turned into one of the army's new elite airborne divisions. He made the most of it, leading the 82nd into Normandy on D-Day before moving on to a corps command. 'A kick-ass man,' one subordinate said of Ridgway, who became known as 'Tin-tits' among his men for the hand grenades prominently strapped to his chest at all times."

Excerpts from a reader's reaction to General Ridgway's 1967 book, The Korean War:

I am a retired US Army colonel. During my time on active duty, I was an instructor and department chair at the US Army War College. During that time we used incidents from the Korean War for the purpose of historical case study. So I believe I can comment on this book with some authority. 

At the outset, however, I must confess that I am biased toward the author. I believe that Matthew B. Ridgway was the greatest general between Eisenhower and Creighton Abrams. I say that because he overcame what I believe is the greatest challenge that any commander could possibly face: taking command of a beaten, demoralized army and leading it to victory. In holding this opinion, I find myself in distinguished company. No less a luminary as General Omar Bradley described Ridgway's work turning the tide of the Korean War as "the greatest feat of personal leadership in the history of the Army." 

Ridgway's battlefield achievements are well documented and need no embellishment here. What I find even more interesting is his contribution to the art of high-level joint and multinational command. Matthew B. Ridgway is the only man I know of to have commanded three of the unified commands created as a result of the National Security Act of 1947: the Caribbean Command, the Far East Command, and the European Command. He was single-handedly the man who made the Allied military command structure work during the Cold War, first on the battlefields of Korea and then in Europe. He re-oriented America's strategic thinking to deal with the new kind of threat posed by the Soviet Union and communist China, and contributed materially to the implementation of the resulting strategy. That is an unmatched record of achievement. 

His book on the Korean War is a personal history. Those looking for detailed tactical or operational studies will have to look elsewhere. But the book is well worth reading to appreciate the character that was required to turn the Korean War around in the dark days following Chinese intervention. The best parts of the book deal with that. 

Ridgway's solutions to the problems he faced were first and foremost practical. When he assumed command of the Eighth Army there were no bombastic speeches; no self-promoting public appearances; no laying of blame on his predecessor, his subordinates, or his superior. Ridgway called his corps commanders together and as a team they identified the problems and worked out solutions. For the most part, these solutions were just good soldiering -- better use of the terrain, more disciplined movements, more attention to intelligence analysis. But in two ways Ridgway did more than improve procedure -- he installed a new collective ethos in the entire Eighth Army. He made sure that everyone knew that the Army was going to attack the enemy, not run from him. And he made sure everyone knew what he was fighting for. Ridgway believed that one of the main reasons for poor morale was the fact that the soldiers did not understand this new form of war. So he issued a simply worded circular explaining in straightforward language what was at stake and why it was worth every person's sacrifice. The results were impressive. 

Ridgway's voice in this book assures the reader on every page that he is sharing the thoughts of a man of character -- of self-discipline, loyalty, selfless service, modesty, and the willingness to accept responsibility and admit mistakes -- which Ridgway himself said is the "bedrock on which the whole edifice of leadership rests." His language is direct and lucid, suggesting that he was a man both cultivated and rugged. It is a good American book. 

Another point I found interesting was Ridgway's discussion of African-American soldiers. Contrary to popular belief, President Truman did not desegregate the Army with a stroke of his pen in 1948. Many 'all-black' units deployed to Korea. Ridgway is the man who desegregated them, and as one would expect, he did it for both practical reasons (desegregation facilitated a more efficient use of military manpower) and for moral reasons (it was the right thing to do). He did not do it overnight, but rather in a methodical sequence, battalion by battalion, making sure that military discipline never suffered. [Representative Charles Rangel's 503rd Field Artillery Battalion, for example, was an 'all-black' unit well into 1951.] In the early days of the Korean War there was a lot of controversy over the alleged poor performance of all-black units like the 24th Infantry Regiment. After Ridgway's tour in command there was no more controversy because there were no more segregated units. Each soldier stood on an equal footing regardless of color. 

Ridgway is very mild in his criticism of the poor battlefield decisions and misjudgments made before his arrival in theater, even though those decisions and misjudgments were the proximate cause of the appalling situation he inherited...
His most serious criticism is reserved for MacArthur, who died three years before this book was written. 

Ridgway takes MacArthur to task for one thing and one thing only: insubordination. He very carefully recounts his respect and professional relationship with MacArthur, which began when MacArthur was superintendent of the Military Academy and Ridgway was Director of Athletics. He consciously does not second-guess any of MacArthur's operational decisions, even though some of them were disastrous. He demolishes the criticisms of the most vociferous MacArthur detractors -- especially the ones that portrayed the great general as a war-monger. All those make Ridgway's real critique of MacArthur more persuasive and more worthy of the reader's consideration. Ridgway argues that MacArthur's sin was in thinking that any theater commander, regardless of how well renowned and esteemed, could set strategic policy for the United States as a whole. MacArthur's public pronouncements that the President did not appreciate the true value of Asia in the nation's overall strategy undercut the President's overall authority, and that is what could not be tolerated.

"Ridgway retired from the Army in 1955, but thirteen years later he was part of a group advising President Lyndon B. Johnson to limit U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Greater troop strength and increased bombing could not lead to victory in Vietnam, the group argued, advising Johnson to seek a negotiated peace with North Vietnam.
"Johnson heeded the group's advice and announced in March, 1968, that he would de-escalate the war and begin negotiations. U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not end, however, because Richard Nixon won the presidency later that year with the promise of a 'secret plan' to end the war. The fighting would drag on for five more years before the Nixon Administration negotiated a U.S. withdrawal.
"Author David Halberstam sent Ridgway a copy of The Best and the Brightest, his definitive work on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, in which he had written on the flyleaf: 'For General Matthew Ridgway, the one hero of this book.'"

Here is a brief timeline of the Korean War. This documentary (about 40 minutes) is a good overview, with excellent maps.


                                       

This is a picture taken at the Korean War Veterans Memorial (on the National Mall) which opened in the summer of 1995. Click here for a night-time photo.


Today, South Korea has more than 50 million people; North Korea is about half that number. Archaeologists believe the ancestors of today's Koreans came from Mongolia and Siberia.

                                      

                                                           

                              

Cannon in warfare: a simple introduction

The Tsar Cannon -- 16th century bronze

(note the lion's head of the carriage.)

Cannon, in the same way as fireworks, were invented in China.

On Columbus' First Voyage, the 'Pinta' had a cannon on board. Amid shouts of "Tierra! tierra!", it was fired on that early morning of October 12th when land was finally sighted.

It was during this era of Columbus and the early explorers that "the art of casting greatly improved in Europe," resulting in lighter and more maneuverable artillery. Later in the 16th century the science of ballistics was born.

Was there much difference between cannon of 1600 and those of 1850? The range of shot was quite similar, but what changed in those centuries were the "mobility, organization, and tactics."

King Louis XIV "ordered 'Ultima ratio regum' (the final argument of kings) inscribed on all French cannons."

A description of smooth-bore cannon: 

"No other invention except the wheel was better-suited to its duty, and remained less changed in fundamental nature from its inception in the 15th century, to its final disappearance in the middle of the 19th. The shock power of this instrument, on land as well as on sea, cannot be overestimated. The cannon was first of bronze, then of cast iron as this cheaper material became available. It was simply a smooth bore, closed at one end, with a touch hole [vent] drilled to the surface of the breech. It projected solid shot of cast iron or stone... A shell was a hollow ball filled with powder and provided with a fuze that would be lighted when the shell was fired, sputtering as the shell flew, and finally setting off the powder, shattering the casing. This was purely an antipersonnel load. 

"To fire a cannon, the bore was first swabbed with water to extinguish any sparks that would make loading unsafe. A measured quantity of gunpowder was then poured into the bore, and rammed down behind a wad of some material. A small amount of powder was also poured down the touch hole. The load was then rammed onto the wad. The gun was set to bear, and a match (a glowing stick called a slow-match was popular) touched to the touch-hole. A flash, a boom, a cloud of smoke, and the load was sent on its way at the speed of sound. The gun recoiled, hurling its mass backwards against any restraint provided. A gun rigidly mounted had to be very well mounted indeed, to prevent destruction of its mount. By 1800, the match had been replaced by some kind of lock that ignited the powder in the touch hole (or other kind of fuse) by a spark when a lanyard was pulled. Also, the powder, wad, and load could be pre-measured and packed in bags or cartridges to make loading faster. 

"The phrase 'to spike a cannon' meant to disable it by driving a tapered wrought iron plug, or spike, down the touch hole with a hammer until it was level and firmly embedded. I suppose the spike could eventually be drilled out, but tools to do this were not readily available, and the process would take some time."

Six horses pulled the two-wheeled caisson with its ammunition boxes and the two-wheeled limber supporting the field gun.

"All movement of field artillery was done with limbers. Guns, caissons, battery forges and wagons were all fastened to a limber. None, under ordinary circumstances, moved independently. A limber was an ammunition box mounted on an axle between two wheels, with a forward projecting pole, to which the team was hitched."

Union 12-pounder Napoleon at Gettysburg.

The Napoleon was the standard field gun for both sides during the Civil War. It was a smooth-bore, muzzle-loading [front end of gun barrel] cannon. "By the end of the 19th century, the advent of rifling and breech-loading technologies brought the muzzle-loading era to a close."

[Take a look at this video as the men re-enact how Civil War cannoneers operated.]

The Union bombardment in 1862 of Fort Pulaski (outside of Savannah, Georgia) was a big turning point: "The range and accuracy of the [rifled cannon] startled the world." The seven-and-a-half-foot walls could never have been breached with smoothbores, but it was accomplished with the new weapon in little more than 24 hours.
                                                 

[THIS MINUTE-LONG CLIP explains why rifling was such a big step forward.]

What was one of the few things that could withstand the pounding of a lengthy cannonade? Earthworks -- it afforded far better protection than even the thickest walls.

"Mud or dust seemed to plague every movement of troops. Of the two, mud was the greater problem for the artillery. Dust created great discomfort, but little more. While an artilleryman might find it difficult to breathe and intolerably itchy in the suffocating dust, the guns and caissons could still be moved. Mud, on the other hand, often made movement impossible. Sinking below their axles in holes full of clinging muck, guns and caissons could be moved only with superhuman effort, the men pushing at the wheels and extra horses pulling on the traces. Sometimes guns were simply abandoned to the mud."

Ypres in World War I

Map on Monday: The Roman Empire

The map above (click to enlarge) is of the expansion of the Roman Empire from 44 BC (the death of Julius Caesar) through the reign of Emperor Trajan (d. 117 AD). Although much of the expansion depicted stemmed from military conquest - along with the notable loss of territory in Germania resulting from the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in which Arminius ("Herman the German") annihilated three Roman legions - the era of this map is often considered part of the Pax Roman or Peace of Rome. It was during this period of relative peace within the empire that Christ would be born in the Roman province of Judea.

The Roman genius for political organization and citizenship, however, was just as important as its armies for its expansion. Unlike the Greeks, whose city-states prided themselves on exclusive citizenship laws which placed great limitations on incorporating new members, the Roman system sought to expand the citizenship of Rome across its vast territories. Over time, as new lands were incorporated into the Roman world, peoples inhabiting these lands became Romans even though they may have lived hundreds of miles from the heart of the empire at Rome.

A crisis of imperial succession soon followed the end of the Pax Romana. This period, from 235-284 AD, is known as the third century crisis. In less than fifty years the Roman senate would give the imperial throne to twenty-six men. These men, mostly generals, found that the man with the strongest army could defeat and kill the current emperor in order to make himself emperor. This period ended with the rise of Diocletian in 284 AD. Diocletian returned stability to the empire and sought an administrative division of the empire that would allow for peaceful succession. This division, called the Tetrarchy (or "Rule of Four"), separated the empire into an eastern and western half wherein the senior rulers reigned as Augustus while their eventual successors ruled nearby lands as Caesar (see map below for territorial divisions and their rulers during the time of Diocletian).

The Tetrarchy lasted twenty years until the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in the year 313. With the construction of the new capital of Constantinople (originally entitled "New Rome"), the empire began to take a decidedly eastern shift away from the city of Rome and the empire of old.

Map on Monday: German Invasions of France

Between 1870 and 1940, Germans invaded France three times. Although these three clashes took place in modern times, feuding between the two nations may be traced back to the division of Charlemagne's empire at the Treaty of Verdun in 843. In the division, a strip of territory between what would one day become France and Germany became the area in which many of the battles below were fought. Indeed, the victors of the Franco-Prussian War (1870) and World War I (1914-1918) claimed lands in this very region.  

The map above (click to enlarge) depicts the Prussian (German) invasion of France by way of Alsace and Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. This war came as the third successive war in German unification (the first two were fought with Denmark to secure the German north, and with Austria-Hungary to secure the southeast). From these wars emerged the new German way of war - quick, deadly, and decisive. The rapid maneuvering of the Germans at the outset of the war with the French led quickly to the decisive Battle of Sedan on September 1, 1870. Entrapped by the Germans, the entire French army was forced to surrender along with their commander, Emperor Napoleon III (whose reign that day came to an unceremonious end). With the war's conclusion, Alsace and Lorraine changed hands to the Germans and the German wars of unification were complete.

Germany sought another rapid war with the French in 1914. The map above (click to enlarge) is a map of the Schlieffen Plan - a plan originally drafted in 1905 but largely became the basis for the German strategy in the opening offensive against the French. The plan of attack was a large sweeping action with forces from the north wheeling around to capture Paris from behind. The large forces coming through neutral Belgium, however, brought the British into the war. As the opening German campaign sputtered to a halt, British reinforcements and freshly dug trenches defeated the German plans for a quick and decisive war. With the eventual defeat of Germany, Alsace and Lorraine changed hands once more and returned to the French (who then began building the famed Maginot Line of defenses against future German aggression).

With the rise of Hitler, a German war with France loomed on the horizon once more. The German army drafted two plans of attack (see above) and chose the plan most similar to the rapid offensive of 1870. The larger, mechanized armies of the 1940's led the German war planners to bypass assaulting the Maginot Line for a bold offensive through the lightly protected Ardennes forest, making a drive for the coast while Allied troops were drawn into combat in Belgium and surrounded. The brilliant plan was executed with perfection, and the Allied forces were cut to pieces and forced to withdraw by sea from Dunkirk. Nevertheless, the Germans captured 40,000 men along with 50,000 vehicles. Paris capitulated in under six short weeks of fighting - and the Maginot Line surrendered as part of the brief war's concluding armistice and the rise of Vichy France.

Map on Monday: World War I Redraws European Boundaries

The map above depicts the European map during the years of World War I. Below is a map which looks strikingly different. It is the redrawn map of Europe following the defeat of the Central Powers in 1918.

The most significant changes between the two maps may be found in the Balkans and around the Baltic Sea. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, defeated in war, was broken up and the many nations which were conglomerated within her were given the ability to rule themselves as governing states. In the decades ahead, however, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia would themselves require more separation as the nations within them had yet to achieve statehood. In the northeast, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia appeared out of what was once a part of the Russian Empire - which itself had now fallen to militant atheists under Lenin's communist USSR. Though it had a long history of statehood, Poland re-appeared as yet another new nation on the post Great War map.

Other areas had changed to a lesser degree. Germany was now cut off from East Prussia due to a land corridor of the newly formed Poland which gave it access to the sea. Italy had shifted slightly, gaining further territory to the northeast in Tyrolia. France, victorious in war, regained the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine which it had lost to the Germans following a stunning defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (indeed Germany had hoped its 1914 campaign in France would have been as successful as the one in 1870).

An often overlooked area of the map is the division of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish nation will be the first secular regime emerging from the Ottoman caliphate. Much of today's Mideast map was reconfigured from the Ottoman Empire's dismemberment. The map below demonstrates:

Map on Monday: World War I Edition

The above map (click to enlarge) comes not from a history book of World War I, but rather from a board game designed by Harvard-educated Allan B. Calhamer in 1954. Set in the years leading up to the Great War, the game Diplomacy allows the players to interact with the complicated diplomatic situation that ultimately led to the events of 1914. Unlike a game like Risk, in which players are given dozens of army pieces for combat, Diplomacy players typically begin the game with only three pieces (which represent armies or fleets) and must negotiate with other nations for mutual support. This makes the game as much social as it is strategic and historic. For more on Diplomacy, see section three of the article Strategy Games: The Gateway to Culture and Geopolitics.

An analysis of the map may reveal some geographic reasons for the war's alliances. Germany (gray) and Austria-Hungary (red) are located in between the major powers of Russia (tan), France, (light blue), and England (dark blue). Italy (green) found itself in a similar situation as Germany and Austria-Hungary -- and for this reason Italy was actually allied with both at the war's beginning. Italy, however, saw this alliance as defensive and refused to join the war when Austria-Hungary made the first declaration of war. Italy eventually joined the Allied side as the war turned. The Ottoman Empire (yellow) is isolated in the southeast, but has its eyes set on regaining its position in the Balkans; and its proximity to the Black Sea creates natural tension with its northern neighbor: Russia. Given this situation, the Ottoman Empire's eventual hostilities with the Allies makes a good deal of sense. 

What neither the map nor the game of Diplomacy directly represents is the influence of religion and other civilizational matters that factor into alliance-making. The winning alliance to Diplomacy is the so-called "Juggernaut" -- an alliance between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. It is highly unlikely, due to the bloody history between the Islamic Turks and the Orthodox Russians, that such an alliance could ever have taken place. 

Diplomacy is nevertheless a remarkable means of introducing students to the history leading up to the war, the geography of Europe, and the intricacies of crafting foreign policy and alliance-building.  

Map on Monday: The Spread of Islam to 750 AD

Between the death of Muhammed in 632 and the Battle of Tours in 732, Islam conquered ancient Persia, much of the Byzantine (eastern Roman) Empire, North Africa, Spain, and parts of what is today southern France. Within this area were the ancient Christian Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and the Holy City of Jerusalem itself. After the Islamic conquests, Christianity (a great eastern and African religion) became isolated to Europe and was seen by many historians and Christians as a "western" religion. Christianity would come to the Slavs during the 9th-13th centuries. The division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism would be exacerbated by the Mongol invasions, which began during the 1230's. (More on that map-changing world event at a later date.)

While Islam would continue to spread further eastward -- into what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and even southern Philippines -- valiant Frankish and Visogothic Catholics halted the Islamic advance in western Europe, while Byzantine soldiers fought off an Islamic attack on Constantinople in 717 through use of Greek fire. Although Constantinople eventually fell to the Muslim Turks in 1453, the Catholic military Reconquista of present-day Spain and Portugal began around the year 800 and ended in 1492 -- just 39 years after the fall of Constantinople.

Islamic fleets and armies continued to be a danger in eastern Europe and were only limited by Catholic forces in the Battles of Lepanto (1571) and Vienna (1683). The religious soldiers of the Spanish empire and the missionaries they protected would bring Christianity in 1492 to the new world of the Americas.

Map on Monday: Invasion of Poland

Today marks the 75th anniversary of Nazi Germany's invasion of Catholic Poland in 1939 and the beginning of World War II. Not long after, the Marxist Soviet Union invaded from the east. Here is a map of the twin invasions and ultimate partition of Poland:

As the map shows, Poland was only the most recent nation conquered by the Nazis. They had already taken Austria in March 1938 and began seizing Czechoslovakia later that fall.

The partition of Poland between the Nazis and the Soviets was itself part of a larger non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia. This pact with the Soviets gave the Nazis the opportunity to turn its military westward for the conquest of France. By the autumn of 1940, the Nazis had done in one year what the Germans had failed to do in all the years of World War I.

As one article points out, Poland would suffer a harsh fate during the war and the later Communist occupation. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: "Poland was crucified between two thieves: the Nazis and the Soviets."