Washington’s Marines is a fantastic book about the history of the United States Marine Corps, and how the Marines helped Washington’s army win crucial battles during the American Revolution. In the book, author Jason Bohm (Maj. Gen., USMC) provides a comprehensive overview of the Marine Corps’ establishment in 1775. General Bohm expertly weaves the Marines’ origins into the first two years of America’s fight for independence. Thus, Washington’s Marines incorporates the context that shows how and why the Marine Corps developed. It explains the strategic purpose behind the Marine Corps. Additionally, General Bohm demonstrates the Marines’ tactical aptitude during the “Ten Crucial Days” from December 25, 1776 until January 3, 1777.

Why a Marine Corps

When the Battle of Lexington and Concord occurred on April 19, 1775, the American colonies had no formal army and no navy. Even though colonial militias drove British forces back into Boston and placed the city under siege, the British still controlled the sea. This allowed them to maintain external lines of communication and conduct easy resupplies. The American colonies had vast ocean access through port cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. At the same time, lakes and rivers inside colonies like New York, the Carolinas, and Virginia were critical networks for both British and American armies to control and maintain. Thus, the Continental Congress recognized the importance of a navy. On October 13, 1775, Congress authorized arming and outfitting two vessels for the new American Navy. After authorizing a Navy, the Marines were also needed.

In Washington’s Marines, General Bohm explains that marines were not a new concept. Marine forces have existed as long as naval warfare has been around. Furthermore, the British professionalized their own force of marines that served in conjunction with the Royal Navy. Marines have historically been soldiers of the sea used for providing ship security, acting as raiding parties, and charging ashore to seize key terrain. Due to a lack of supplies, the Continental Army needed a Navy-Marine combined force to conduct raids and seize food, uniforms, arms, and ammunition. Thus, General Bohm’s book is an important reminder of the Marine Corps’ naval roots and joint design with the Navy.

Creating the Marine Corps

The United States Marine Corps’ creation is a topic of great fascination among military scholars, veterans, Marines, and all-around patriotic Americans. Most Marines learn at bootcamp that the Corps was founded on November 10, 1775 at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its birthplace in a tavern is a detail not lost on hard charging Marines, who relish the mystique of a culture of fierce fighters and heavy drinkers (not necessarily in that order).

In popular imagination, we might think of the early force as drunken revelers, who wanted to fight some British redcoats. However, the inspiration for the Marine Corps was not conceived over too much rum and beer. Recruitment took place in a tavern or public meeting houses (i.e. “pubs”) because that is where colonial Americans met to socialize, conduct business, and receive news. In light of today’s recruiting challenges, it is interesting to read how it happened in 1775. Robert Mullan, who owned Tun Tavern, used fife and drum players to attract men to his tavern where they could be recruited. General Bohm also points out the different professional backgrounds of the early Marines. As barbers, bakers, and cabinet makers, they brought a range of skills into the service. Furthermore, their motivations for joining were wide-ranging. They included reasons that we would recognize today such as adventure, career opportunities, and patriotism.

Overall, the naval forces were not as free wheeling as we might think. General Bohm makes clear that rules and regulations were baked into the DNA of the force. Perhaps today’s Marine officers can take solace in the fact that piles of paperwork have been part of the Marine Corps bureaucracy since 1775. General Bohm writes, “The new regulations also directed commanders to maintain copious notes. They were to record enlistments, service, pay, prizes taken and distributed, and deaths.” Thus, the popular saying that the “most dangerous weapon in the Marine Corps is an officer and his pen” appears to have been part and parcel of the Corps’ origins.

Washington and the Marines

Washington’s Marines dedicates a lot of attention to the start of the war. In doing so, General Bohm demonstrates how quickly events moved. The colonists had to create an army from scratch. In June 1775, the Second Continental Congress selected George Washington to be commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. Washington was one of the few men with substantial military experience. His selection was also a political necessity since Washington was from Virginia. Having a Virginian as commander was seen by Massachusetts representatives like John Adams as being important to unite the southern and northern colonies in a common cause.

George Washington showed up to the Second Continental Congress wearing the same uniform that he had worn as a Colonel in the Virginia militia. After assuming command of troops outside of Boston on July 3, 1775, Washington got to work trying to build a professional and disciplined army. This was no easy feat.

General Bohm makes clear that Washington did not initially favor the Marines. His reasons made sense. Washington worried that the new Continental Marines would hinder recruitment of his army in the field. It is interesting how these issues continue in the military today. Different branches of the service still fight with one another for money and resources. Even the Marine Corps and Navy still argue over which ships to build. The battle over scarce resources continues. Washington seemed to anticipate this in his own objections.

Overall, Washington wanted a professional military. As a professional fighting force, the Marines provided Washington with a solution. Thus, Washington turned to the Marines to support his army during one of the lowest points of the war.

The Ten Crucial Days

What will resonate with readers is how the current Marine Corps deals with the same issues as the early Marines.  In the first two decades of the 21st century, the Marine Corps fought primarily as ground forces in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the last several years, top Marine leaders have tried to get the Corps back to its amphibious roots by strengthening its integration with the Navy.

General Bohm’s book is a critical reminder of the Marine Corps’ naval roots. But, it also shows that from the beginning of American history, Marines have been pulled from their maritime mission to support ground campaigns. This is exactly what happened from December 25, 1776 through January 3, 1777 i.e. the Ten Crucial Days. Samuel Nicholas was the commander of the Continental Marines. He and his Marines fell under the command of General John Cadwalader. Their mission was to establish a blocking position south of Trenton. However, as Cadwalader and the Continental Marines moved across the Delaware River, a nor’easter turned them back. Nevertheless, Washington and his troops crossed further north and were able to defeat a garrison of Hessians on December 26, 1776 in the famous Battle of Trenton.

Eventually Cadwalader and the Marines made it across the Delaware River. But, after they crossed, they learned that Washington had re-crossed the Delaware back into Pennsylvania! Despite the miscommunication, Cadwalader and the Marines stayed in New Jersey. This was a wise decision. Washington was eager to capitalize on the success of Trenton with another operation into New Jersey. On January 2, 1776, Cadwalader and the Marines finally linked up with Washington’s forces during a critical battle at Assunpink Creek. After successfully defending their position along the creek, Washington’s army along with the Marines slipped away in the night and launched an attack at Princeton the following day.

The Battle of Princeton

On January 3, 1777, British and American forces fought at Princeton. Initially the battle did not go well for the Americans. British forces wounded one of the most gifted American commanders, General Hugh Mercer. Mercer later died from his wounds. After Mercer was bayoneted seven times, his brigade began to retreat. However, Cadwalader and the Marines advanced. In doing so, they were able to halt the British attack. This action bought Washington’s army time to organize a counterattack.

When Washington arrived, he personally led a charge against the British. In this famous incident, Washington’s aide John Fitzgerald supposedly thought that his commander had been shot in a volley of musket fire. But, when the smoke cleared, Washington was still on his white horse rallying the army to assault the British. Washington then said to Fitzgerald, “Away my dear Colonel, and bring up the troops!” As the troops were brought up and the battle turned in American favor, Washington shouted, “It is a fine fox chase my boys.”

Later in the battle, British forces retreated to Nassau Hall on the campus of Princeton University (then known as the College of New Jersey). In the subsequent action, Colonel Alexander Hamilton directed his artillery to fire on Nassau Hall. The story is that cannon fire decapitated a portrait of King George III. Overall, the Battles of Trenton and Princeton were a turning point for the American cause. The victories helped recruitment and re-enlistments. Winning the battles also helped shore up domestic support for the cause especially in New Jersey.

A Book for the Commandant’s Reading List

I see a future spot on the Commandant’s Reading List for Washington’s Marines. General Bohm has done a great service to the history of the United States Marine Corps. He has drawn on multiple primary sources to build a narrative account of the Marines’ important role in the battles that led to American independence. When Washington’s Continental Army was at its lowest point, the Marines were deployed as a land force. Furthermore, because of their skill with cannons on ship, the Marines were then tasked to help General Henry Knox as artillerymen.

As General Bohm shows in his book, the Marines were a force established to serve with the Navy as “soldiers of the sea.” However, the nature of this responsibility enabled them to be tasked in ways that were identical to soldiers on land. By the 20th Century, the Marines’ abilities to serve by air, land, and sea was codified into law with the passage of the Douglas-Mansfield Bill in 1952. This bill includes a critical provision that states the Marines shall perform “other duties as the president may direct.” Thus, what America’s first commander-in-chief did with the Marines was formally written into law in 1952. In subsequent wars from Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Marines would indeed be used as ground forces.

General Bohm’s brilliant history let’s readers draw their own conclusions about how the past may impact the Marine Corps’ future. While the force continues to focus on its maritime responsibilities, it must also be ready for “other duties.” Nevertheless, today’s Marine leadership believes that the Corps’ primary duties will be in the maritime domain specifically in the Indo-Pacific theater. As a result, the Marines will not have other duties. Their future fight will be consistent with their primary mission as Congress envisioned it on November 10, 1775. To win a great power conflict, America needs a powerful Navy. To achieve a strong Navy, there must be a well-trained force ready to deploy alongside them. In short, there must be a Marine Corps.

Get the book!

Washington’s Marines: The Origins of the Corps and the American Revolution, 1775-1777 

Further Resources

• George Washington’s Leadership at Valley Forge podcast episode
• Washington’s Immortals interview with Patrick K O’Donnell
• “How Would George Washington Approach the Russia-Ukraine War” article

Three Great Military History Novels

There are many great military history novels to recommend. This list provides three. I believe these are must-read history novels for students of military history. These are the types of novels that people re-read many times. What makes these three unique? I will explain below.

1. Gates of Fire

Steven Pressfield has written many great books. Gates of Fire was published in 1998, and is arguably one of his best. Set around the Greco-Persian Wars that took place in 480 BC, Gates of Fire tells the epic story of the Battle of Thermopylae. During the battle, 300 Spartan warriors fought valiantly against a much larger Persian army. Under the leadership of King Leonidas I, the brave Spartans made their last stand against the Persian forces commanded by King Xerxes I. Gates of Fire illustrates the events leading up to the battle. This includes the brutal training and harsh discipline of the Spartan warriors.

The novel primarily follows a captured Greek soldier named Xeones. Xeones recounts his experience in the Battle of Thermopylae. Through Xeones’s narrative, the reader learns about the sense of duty, honor, and sacrifice that was prevalent in Spartan society. The novel also explores the “human factors” of soldiers including fear and uncertainty.

The novel is well-researched and contains a lot of rich historical detail. As a result, Pressfield is able to thrust the reader into Spartan society. He creates strong emotional connections with the characters. This is one of the reasons that readers continue to come back to the novel.

Gates of Fire has always been a favorite among Marines. The book’s themes resonate with the Marine Corps values of honor, courage, and commitment. The novel portrays heroism and esprit de corps in the face of overwhelming odds. As a result, readers are hooked from start to finish.

2. The Killer Angels

The Killer Angels is an outstanding military history novel by Michael Shaara. The novel was published in 1974. The book’s action centers on the Battle of Gettysburg from July 1 to July 3, 1863. The novel provides a detailed and vivid account of the battle. It brings to life the experiences and perspectives of several key military leaders from both the Confederate and Union armies.

The central characters include General Robert E. Lee, General James Longstreet, and Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Through the perspectives of these characters and others, Shaara explores the complexities of leadership and decision-making. Each commander is faced with moral dilemmas and life or death decisions. The Killer Angels is also well-researched and able to make the reader imagine the battlefield’s sights and sounds.

The novel is an ambitious work for tackling one of the most critical battles in American history. But, Shaara was able to accomplish an amazing feat. Moreover, Shaara’s work brought renewed attention and focus to the Battle of Gettysburg. Visitation to Gettysburg National Military Park skyrocketed. The novel also inspired the movie Gettysburg.

Finally, The Killer Angels is also a prequel to the novel, Gods and Generals. Jeff Shaara, who is Michael Shaara’s son, wrote Gods and Generals. The prequel is based on the events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg.  Thus, it offers insight and further exploration of the characters and key leaders in The Killer Angels.

Overall, The Killer Angels is an excellent leadership study. It is a fantastic account of one of the most significant battles in American history.

3. All Quiet on the Western Front

Erich Maria Remarque’s classic military history novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, was published in 1929. It has become known as an anti-war novel because of its graphic portrayal of trench warfare during World War I. The novel focuses on the experiences of German soldiers fighting on the Western Front. A movie adaptation of the novel appeared on Netflix in 2022. The movie also contains visceral scenes of war’s brutality.

In the novel Paul Bäumer is a young soldier, who enlists in the German army along with his classmates. Driven by patriotic fervor, the young men enthusiastically head to war. But, as the war continues, the brutal realities of armed conflict and the futility of trench warfare wear away at the psyche of Paul and his comrades.

Remarque’s novel portrays the psychological toll of war. The “human factors” of life in the trenches seem hard to imagine in the 21st Century. But, the novel puts us there in vivid detail. Throughout the novel, we follow the characters arc from idealism to despair and loss of innocence. But, we also witness camaraderie among the soldiers. The novel shows young men working together to survive in the face of adversity. In doing so, the book shows how war and hardship can unify the participants.

All Quiet on the Western Front is considered a classic today. However, when it was published, its anti-war position aroused some controversy. Nevertheless, the novel has attained a global appeal and has been translated into many languages. Overall, the book offers a profound critique of war’s impact on individuals and society. It is a powerful reminder of war’s costs. Furthermore, the battlefield is not the only place that contains the costs. They resonate across all areas of society. Moreover, the participants will always carry their experiences with them.

Get the Books!

Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque

The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara

For more awesome military history, check out the latest American Guerillas podcast series starting with Part One: War in the Carolinas and then Part Two: The Sword of the Lord and Gideon.

What would John Quincy Adams do?

In September 2021, America lost a great mind. In a world of conformity on both the left and right, Angelo Codevilla’s life and work stands out. Codevilla’s mastery of history, politics, religion, and foreign policy appears in every paragraph on every page of his posthumously published book, America’s Rise and Fall among Nations Lessons in Statecraft from John Quincy Adams.

Codevilla’s book asks “what would John Quincy Adams do” to create an America first foreign policy. John Quincy Adams was the sixth U.S. president and son of the second president, John Adams. He was president after America had been involved in a war for independence as well as the War of 1812.

In the early nineteenth century, there was an abundance of challenges to America’s national security. European colonial powers remained throughout the western hemisphere. These powers persistently threatened the safety of America as well as its neighbors. Thus, the foreign policy doctrine that developed under Adams was the Monroe Doctrine, which was named after America’s fifth president James Monroe. This doctrine established principles of non-interference in the western hemisphere principally Latin America. It applied to extra-hemispheric powers but was also self-applied by America to its affairs with Latin American countries too.

As a result, the foundations of the Monroe Doctrine established a foreign policy in which America minded its own business and would encourage other nations to do the same. This was the bedrock of “America first.” Codevilla asserts that Adams and the founding fathers would not even understand such a label. Of course, they would put America first. What serious country wouldn’t put their own nation’s interests first? Standby…

Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives Take Charge

After exploring the history of American foreign policy from Washington through Theodore Roosevelt, Codevilla offers an answer. He sharpens his pen to take aim at Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement, which radically changed America’s entire geopolitical framework. Codevilla makes clear that America’s entry into World War I began a sharp departure from Adams and his successors through Theodore Roosevelt. Furthermore, the Progressives began to formulate policy in terms of global interest. This amounted to spreading democracy to other nation’s whether they wanted it or not. Democracy became the catch-all for whatever Progressives thought was good. If people refused or voted against it, this was a threat to democracy. Sound familiar? Now we see where the incoherence of American foreign policy began to take shape.

While Codevilla’s criticism of Progressives was fun reading, it was also light on details. He touches the surface on Wilson’s push to establish the League of Nations, which became the precursor to the U.N. Nevertheless, perhaps others can pick up where Codevilla left off. The Wilsonian break with Adams could become a book on its own.

Describing the Progressive movement, Codevilla’s writing style is scathing. He has no remorse for the subsequent generations that have adopted the Wilsonian model. The Progressive establishment morphed into what he describes as America’s “ruling class.” Except for World War II, this ruling class has not won a war. At the same time, while World War II defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, it did not account for the rise of the U.S.S.R. that quickly followed. As a result, Codevilla tears into this group. Clearly, he never worried about missing invitations to cocktail parties in Georgetown.

The “Ruling Class”

The quick definition of the ruling class is basically the college educated population clustered mostly on the two coasts. The ruling class is typically white-collar professionals i.e. lawyers, bankers, consultants, journalists, and what is commonly called “the laptop class.” We can also add people in academia. The ruling class considers itself elite due to its credentials from colleges and universities.

Additionally, the ruling class has also grown up around the nation’s capital and staffs the ranks of bureaucrats, lobbyists, think tankers, foundation workers, military servicemembers, intelligence personnel, contractors, and many other government functionaries. These members of the ruling class comprise what Codevilla calls the “administrative state.” The two overlap and the one thing that defines them is the uniformity of their education, which is typically Ivy League or Ivy League adjacent. Again, the credentials matter because it gets into the elites conception of themselves as being experts.

Codevilla’s contempt is rooted in the fact that the members of the ruling class believe that they have the expertise to run the country, yet they consistently fail in doing so. Instead, he sees them as self-serving. They are interested in perpetuating their own power and not acting in the best interest of the American people.

While Codevilla is broad in his denunciation of the ruling class, his depth of knowledge and sweeping analysis makes the reader think that he must know what he is talking about. To the frustration of his critics, he has the added benefit of being right. He has been the first to point out and even predict the myriad of foreign policy failures over several decades. Ironically, he also has a lot of credentials himself and an impressive resume in the military, foreign service, government and academia. Perhaps he can be critical of the ruling class because he is, after all, coming from it.

Consistent Failure

Look no further than the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, America’s inability to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the rise of China, and North Korea’s capability to threaten America with nuclear weapons. Add in the failed wars from Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War (tactical success, strategic failure), Iraq, and Afghanistan, and one starts to see the pattern. There is also the rise of Iran, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

America has lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars over the last two decades in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was once on the CIA payroll. America supported him in his war against Iran then proceeded to wage two separate wars against him. If U.S. policy seems to be sporadic and lacking in direction, that’s because it stopped being grounded in reason, practicability, and a relentless focus on America’s national interests. With all of these issues, Codevilla continually points the finger at American elites for their poor statecraft. Adams would not be pleased.

In a League of His own

Reading Codevilla is exhilarating. It also leaves the reader with a sense of melancholy. This feeling comes from the fact that it is hard to see things getting better. The ruling class is very much empowered and arrogant. One senses that Codevilla is probably a supporter of President Trump. If he did vote for Trump, he doesn’t fawn over him or withhold points of criticism. Codevilla is not wedded to any one party or politician. At least not any living politician. In this book, he calls balls and strikes. Furthermore, he always returns to the question of how Adams would handle current issues.

Adams on Ukraine and Russia

So how would Adams handle the war on terror, Russia-Ukraine, the People’s Republic of China, and other issues of the day. Codevilla offers his thoughts on all of these and more.

Looking specifically at Russia and Ukraine, Codevilla believes that Adams would say that America has no business being involved in the manner that the U.S. is currently involved. He writes, “Russia is no more willing to conquer Europe than it is able.” Seems true after their inability to conquer just Ukraine.

On Ukraine, he says, “Its independence is very much a U.S. interest, but it is beyond our capacity to secure.” Also proven to be true. However, critics would say that our financial support and imposition of sanctions on Russia has shown (at least for now) that the U.S. can help preserve Ukraine’s independence.

On Russia, he writes that John Quincy Adams “would know and sincerely convey to Russia that [Ukraine’s] independence depends on themselves, and that he regard it as counterproductive to try making them into American pawns or even to give the impression that they may be.” American statesmen clearly missed the boat on that latter part.

Finally, Codevilla concludes, “Nothing would be geopolitically clearer to Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.” Reading this analysis is much more satisfying than the mainstream hysterics of “Putin is Hitler!” It all seems too reasonable and almost scary in its simplicity.

Moreover, Codevilla wrote this prior to Russia’s invasion. If U.S. politicians had been familiar with Adams, perhaps they could have used practical diplomacy to prevent war. They certainly are not using any diplomacy in an effort to end it.

America First statecraft

What are the principles of America first statecraft?

Codevilla believes that these principles were used by presidents from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt. He writes, “There is nothing new or sophisticated about them. They are on the homey level of ‘early to bed, early to rise,’ ‘don’t get into debt,’ ‘eat your veggies,’ and so forth. They boil down to minding our own business and minding it well.”

Can it be that simple? Don’t we need a degree from the Harvard Kennedy School or Georgetown School of Foreign Service? Hardly. In fact, Codevilla would probably say the opposite is true.

Codevilla also thinks that reliance on intelligence from the CIA has been a consistent mistake. He is extremely critical of the CIA overall. His blunt assessment is the unquestioned belief that the CIA possesses some unique insight that overrides common sense and prudential judgment. After all, the CIA has taken a lot of actions independent of the will of the American people and against good statecraft. These actions have frequently come back to hurt America.

Experts without expertise

His disdain for the the CIA is also part of his ruling class critique. It boils down to having a plethora of experts with no expertise. It’s not just in foreign policy, intelligence or the military either. We can see this everywhere in our society.

How is it that we have more mental health experts and therapists, yet the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide continue to rise? Could it be that mental health like foreign policy has been complicated by over credentialed elites? Once upon a time the diagnosis for a kid’s “mental health issues” would also be “on the homey level”: Go outside, play with your friends, do physical activity, go to church, and listen to your parents. Now a mental health expert with a PhD will fill out a prescription drug and listen to the kid mope while the parents pony up a couple hundred bucks an hour. After all, the parents aren’t mental health experts!

Whether it is a mental health “professional” or a CIA analyst, they are probably smart and went to a lot of fancy schools. Just because they are smart doesn’t mean they are wise. Furthermore, their cures are usually worse than the disease. However, you can’t question them because you are not an expert like they are. So you and your kids can take happy pills and let the CIA figure out new ways to funnel money to third world dictators. You didn’t vote on that policy, but experts say its in our best interest.

Conclusion

We have lost Angelo Codevilla too soon. Thankfully, we have his writing to continue injecting sanity into the madness. America’s Rise and Fall among Nations will be relevant for many years.

To the enduring question of can foreign policy be as simple as John Quincy Adams makes it appear? Yes and no. Issues are very complicated with multiple second and third order considerations. Foreign policy will always be messy and difficult to figure out. It will take a lot of work. No, foreign policy is not simple.

But, yes, in that John Quincy Adams and the founders followed a remarkably simple set of principles. The model doesn’t require AI-powered software. So here is the algorithm. Start with minding one’s own business and minding it well as the general operating system. Within the code, determine the nation’s interests and what issues do and don’t affect those interests. Then consider how practically these interests can be enforced and defended. Run the code with an enduring sense of honor and also prudence. This is how John Quincy Adams would approach statecraft in the 21st Century. American leaders should wisely follow Adams’ lead. Codevilla’s book will help them start.

 

Find the Book at Encounter Books here or at Amazon America’s Rise and Fall among Nations Lessons in Statecraft from John Quincy Adams

 

Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II

By Sean McMeekin

Great history books are revelatory. This characteristic makes them hard to put down. Often the revelation comes from new facts and historical data that the author discovers through lengthy research. It is becoming harder to find such works. This is not because there is a lack of history to discover. The job takes hard work and years of dedication. Too much of the current historical literature is not revealing anything new. It is rather a reinterpretation of what is already known in narrative form. This tells the reader less about the history and more about how the historian wants us to understand the history. None of this is the case in Stalin’s War.

Dr. Sean McMeekin’s book, Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II, is an ambitious and provocative historical account. The author’s attention to detail and in-depth research provides a trove of new information about Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. As a result, it is the rediscovery of forgotten historical events that drives the core of Dr. McMeekin’s thesis. In the case of the Soviet Union, the fact that historians like Dr. McMeekin are unearthing new facts nearly 70 years after the death of Stalin reinforces the central premise of the book. That is the Soviet Union under Stalin was a duplicitous and immoral regime that played geopolitical chess in pursuit of worldwide communist revolution. Furthermore, they were as depraved as the Nazis and equally culpable in the start and perpetuation of World War II.

The tragedy of this history is that Churchill and Roosevelt never grasped that the Soviets were as morally corrupt as the Nazis. This fact appears most notably in the personal meetings between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. Stalin’s War sheds light on the ineptitude of Roosevelt in dealing with his Soviet counterpart. Dr. McMeekin illustrates that Roosevelt had a deep desire to be liked if not loved by the communist dictator. If we take a schoolyard analogy, think of a bully on the playground. Stalin would be that bully. Then consider another weaker kid that wants the bully to like him. Unfortunately, this kid would be Roosevelt. Typically, the schoolyard bully would want to beat up the weaker kid. But the weaker kid has an ace to play. His parents are rich and every day he brings shiny new toys to school. To get the bully to like him, the weaker rich kid lets the bully “borrow” his shiny new toys. But the bully doesn’t like him. In fact, the bully has contempt for the rich kid with the shiny new toys. The only reason the bully doesn’t beat him up is because he might lose access to the shiny new toys.

What were the shiny new toys that Roosevelt had to offer? They came in the form of Lend-Lease aid, and they were much more destructive and expensive than the typical Hot Wheels. Dr. McMeekin runs through the numbers in terms of tanks, planes, weapons, oil, steel, aluminum, and even butter. All of these were offered to the Stalin to “borrow.” The purpose behind the aid was to help the Soviet Union on the eastern front after Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa. Thus, Roosevelt’s intentions were noble. But the size and scope of the aid was incredible costing the United States over $1 trillion in today’s dollars. Even more telling is that the aid was delivered with no strings attached. There was never any guarantee that the USSR would pay it back. And, of course, they never did. Meanwhile, Britain paid off its debt over the course of 61 years with a final payment in December 2006.

Dr. McMeekin goes into great detail about the conferences at Tehran, Potsdam, and Yalta when Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met. One would think that Roosevelt and Churchill would have presented a united front against Stalin. But it wasn’t so. In fact, there were many times in which Churchill was on his own. In one case, Stalin felt brazen enough to make fun of Churchill to his face. Churchill was like the cool, athletic kid in the schoolyard. The bully would like to beat him up, but knows that its going to be a tough, bloody fight. Besides there are plenty of weaker kids to pick on and a rival bully to worry about. Of course, the rival bully was Nazi Germany.

Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 would not have happened without Stalin. The two bullies in the European schoolyard, the Nazis and the Soviets, colluded together. They signed a non-aggression pact called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. That pact was signed on August 23, 1939. It is named after each country’s foreign affairs minister, Ribbentrop for the Nazis, and Molotov for the Soviets. Dr. McMeekin explains that this pact should give Stalin as much culpability for starting World War II as Hitler. While the Nazis fired the first shot, the Soviets were not far behind them. Indeed, Soviet forces invaded Poland on September 17, 1939. Poland was the dividing line in the European sandbox. One bully struck from the west (Nazi Germany) and the other bully struck from the east (the USSR). They both decided to respect each other’s half of the sandbox initially.

The Soviet invasion of Poland was the opening salvo in Stalin’s war. It was quickly followed by the invasion and subjugation of the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The USSR also invaded Finland and part of Romania. The invasion of Finland was less successful than the others. Dr. McMeekin points out that the USSR invaded six countries after collaborating with the Nazis. But the western powers did not see Stalin’s belligerence in the same way that they saw Hitler’s. Dr. McMeekin explores the many reasons why this was the case. One of the primary reasons is that the USSR was less public about their intentions than the Nazis.

The Soviets and the Nazis were equally immoral, but ideologically opposed. Long-term they were foes and likely to go to war. So, what was Stalin’s purpose in collaborating with Hitler? First, he was gambling that the western Allied powers would enter the war and fight against Nazi Germany. That gamble paid off. From Stalin’s point of view the Anglo-American allies and the Nazis were no different. They were all part of a global capitalist system and were, therefore, enemies of communism. The USSR was committed to destroying them for the sake of communist revolution. However, Stalin wagered that it was better if they destroyed each other first and then the USSR could mop up the pieces. What Stalin miscalculated was how quickly Nazi Germany would be able to conquer western Europe through their infamous blitzkrieg. Unlike World War I, there was no western front. Hitler’s war machine was much more formidable and had learned from the tactical and operational failures of the first world war. As a result, Stalin faced the prospect of a stronger and more aggressive Germany that could soon turn its sights on the USSR, which, eventually, it did.

What Britain and the United States never seemed to understand was that Stalin was not simply a nationalist committed to defending the borders of Mother Russia from Nazi aggression. On the contrary, Stalin was a true ideologue and as committed to communist revolution as Hitler was to German lebensraum. The Allies never took seriously Stalin’s global ambitions. Soviet conquest and Nazi conquest were equally brutal. Millions of people of different races and nationalities suffered the same harsh fate under the Soviets that Jews suffered under the Nazis. The Soviets executed political prisoners and sent many to gulags. In Poland, the Soviets were the perpetrators of the infamous Katyn massacre. Despite the USSR’s consistent denial (until 1990), Stalin personally approved the massacre of over 20,000 Polish officers and POWs in the spring of 1940. When the Soviets invaded Germany in 1945, they raped, pillaged, and engaged in random acts of violence. Stalin sanctioned rape. Additionally, Soviet soldiers killed refugee women and children and, in some cases, ran over by tanks. They looted and burned homes. In fact, Soviet brutality extended to their own people. Dr. McMeekin explains that Soviet POWs in American custody often attempted suicide to avoid involuntary repatriation to the USSR. The monstrosity that was Stalin’s Soviet Union was more than apparent by the time V-E Day arrived on May 9, 1945.

The treatment of conquered people illustrates the stark moral contrast between the western powers and the Soviet Union. There is a reason that refugees fled west and continued to do so until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, he was not wrong. The Soviet Union was rotten to the core just like the Nazis. It is a shame that the western powers either did not realize this fact, ignored it, or perhaps were duped by the many Soviet infiltrators that populated high ranking positions in the U.S. government. If the western powers had realized this fact, then perhaps the only aid they would have offered Stalin would have been indirect by pouring American money and resources into the liberation of western Europe. If American military power had been solely dedicated to freeing France and defeating Germany than the western Allies could have done the latter without the Red Army storming into Berlin. Furthermore, Stalin would not have received the military equipment, supplies, and technology that would enable the Soviet regime to subjugate the eastern European nations that fell behind the Iron Curtain. History is full of unknowns. Stalin’s War uncovers a lot of previous unknowns. In doing so, it raises a lot more “what ifs.”

 

Additional Reading and Resources:

Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II

Britain pays off World War II debt in 2006: Link

The Katyn Massacre 1940: A History of Crime

Ronald Reagan’s great speeches:

“Evil Empire” speech 3/8/1983 and the famous speech at the Brandenburg gate in West Berlin 6/12/1987

How Wars End Podcast interview

Name the only European country that has formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan? That is a good nugget of trivia. Perhaps when bars re-open and people socialize again, it will be a good one to keep in reserves. Answer: The Vatican.

How do I know this? I picked up a fascinating, yet sometimes scary book by Ian Easton on the topic of Taiwan. More specifically, the capability of Taiwan to defend itself against a Chinese invasion. The book is appropriately named The Chinese Invasion Threat.

The level of detail is remarkable. Mr. Easton has done his homework. He has a strong grasp of history and current events. He draws on countless hours of research and thousands of pages of sources. He has studied the People’s Liberation Army doctrine to the extent of its availability to gain insight into what he declares is the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) long-term objective to invade, control, dominate, and rule Taiwan.

The history begins with the Chinese Civil War between the Communists under Mao Zedong and and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek. The Nationalists lost and were forced from the mainland to a string of islands off the coast with the largest one being the island of current day Taiwan (then Formosa). Over the years, the Chinese Communists sought to conquer Taiwan. However, they were consistently deterred by the difficulty of the mission, and America’s willingness to intervene. 

It should be noted that Taiwan and the Taiwanese consider themselves the Republic of China aka “ROC.” They believe that they are the rightful Chinese government. Although they have abandoned their claim to the Chinese mainland.

Over the years, Taiwan has built up defenses and lived with the constant threat of an invasion. What we learn from Mr. Easton’s book is how difficult an invasion would be for the PRC. Indeed, the conditions would have to be just right. Furthermore, the mobilization and logistics would be hard for the Chinese to conceal. Mr. Easton spells out these complexities in careful detail.

Additionally, the weather would have to cooperate as the Taiwan Straight is perilous for ships to cross. It is often impassable for amphibious operations. The Taiwanese terrain and beaches present many other difficulties. Taiwan is mostly mountainous, and the mountain ranges are extremely tall and treacherous for any military movement. Finally, the manmade features built on Taiwan are all heavily reinforced with steel and concrete. Taiwan often gets hit with typhoons and the structures have been built to withstand the onslaught of nature. Thus, the island is well defended with natural and manmade obstacles.

In the big picture, it is ironic and sad that Taiwan does not have diplomatic recognition by the rest of the world. It is a democracy with a free society. It is also the United States’ 10th largest trading partner. Its economy is highly technical as it makes many electronic components including chips for Apple iPhones. Nevertheless, U.S. relations with Taiwan evolved and were solidified in the 1978 Taiwan Relations Act under President Jimmy Carter. In this relationship, America supports Taiwan with military equipment and expertise. It also supports Taiwan with an implicit guarantee of military protection. However, there are no formal diplomatic relations.

Mr. Easton’s book is a must read especially for U.S. Marines. As the Marines look to the Indo-Pacific region for current and future operations, this book is worth studying. Mr. Easton describes the flashpoint between China and Taiwan as one of the most consequential national security issues that America faces. The strategic importance of Taiwan cannot be understated. It is true that while China is militarily aggressive, they are waging war on many fronts. These fronts include cyber, political disinformation, economic pressure, and espionage.

Finally, while Mr. Easton published his book in 2017, it is even more relevant in 2021. The year 2020 saw an increased amount of PLA aggression against Taiwan. The PLA continues to push the boundaries and test the Taiwanese. Thus, it is crucial to study and know what is coming. Mr. Easton’s book is a strong warning. The question is will America’s national security decision makers heed this warning in time to stop the Chinese invasion?

Check out the book-

The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia

Also check out the podcast interview.