Peter Stark's Gallop Toward the Sun (book review)

 Stark, Peter. Gallop Toward the Sun: Tecumseh and William Henry Harrison's Struggle for the Destiny of a Nation. Random House, 2023.

In Gallop Toward the Sun, writer and historian Peter Stark argues the importance of the on-and-off war between Tecumseh's Pan-Indian movement and the aggressive American land drive headed by William Henry Harrison. He believes that this was the critical moment where the Indians, uniting under Tecumseh's strong political and military leadership and his brother Tenskwatawa's revolutionary religion, could have halted America's westward drive. Stark obviously sides with the Indians, understandably so as their lands are invaded and their health and culture eroded by the proximity of American settlements and whiskey. To his great credit Stark, while sympathizing with the Indians, does not shy away from some of their more barbaric attacks on settlers. In a way this makes him admire Tecumseh more, as the great chief abhorred torture and excessive cruelty and actually halted and prevented massacres of captured American soldiers. Tecumseh was also a great traveler, visiting other Indians as far afield as the Deep South and Kansas (the central action in this book takes places in Northwest Territory, or the Midwest).

Toby Wilkinson's Ramesses the Great (book review)

Wilkinson, Toby. Ramesses the Great: Egypt's King of Kings. Yale University Press, 2023.

Though Ancient Egypt is a subject with mass appeal, it is not too often that historians zero in on one figure when writing a book, instead presenting generalized overall histories or broader cultural surveys (usually on religious practices and/or architectural feats). One figure who has gotten singular treatment is the famed pharaoh Ramesses II, also known as Ramesses the Great. Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson has written an easy-to-red biography of this tremendous figure. It runs under 200 pages. As Wilkinson explains in his introduction, it is very difficult to actually determine and present the character of ancient people in the past, especially when they were carefully propagandized as God-kings. Though he confesses that he can accomplish no such character revelation, he does try to provide a few insights on Ramesses II. While he never outright argues it, Wilkinson's monograph suggests an egomaniac who was so determined to be remembered that spent his country's resources on vast, self-aggrandizing construction projects.

Wilkinson argues that Ramesses was not a first-rate military leader nor the most successful backer of artistic achievement. There were other pharaohs who conquered much more territory and led much more prosperous leaps. But thanks to his astonishingly lengthy reign of over sixty years, Ramesses provided Egypt with a period of stability and greatness that sustained its existence for centuries afterwards.

Eric Jay Dolin's Black Flags, Blue Waters (book review)

Dolin, Eric Jay. Black Flags, Blue Waters: The Epic History of America's Most Notorious Pirates. Liveright, 2018.

Black Flags, Blue Waters is a general history of pirates, particularly those who interacted with the British colonies in North America. The author, Eric Dolin, seeks to present an accurate history that is nevertheless incredible and fascinating. He largely succeeds, though some of his mythbusting may produce disappointment when it comes to certain tales. This most of all applies to Edward Thatch, better known as Blackbeard. Blackbeard's method of applying fuses to braided facials hair and his Rasputinian duel to the death were thought up in Charles Johnson's General History of Pyrates, a history which like many of its time did not adhere to a scientific method of inquiry and was a mix of truth and fancies. You might also be surprised to learn that the Jolly Roger is only an approximate guess of what a pirate flag looked like. Reports of the time mentioned a black flag or a flag with death motifs such as skulls, but no physical flags or even drawing of them have been preserved (quite surprising).

On the other hand Dolin humanizes most of the pirates. Leaders like Blackbeard were very minimal in their use of violence. They did it enough to intimidate prey without forcing costly sea battles. The crews themselves included many sailors who escaped tyrannical sea captains and wanted a freer way to conduct business, albeit a way which often involved theft and violence. When boarding ships, they would ask the crews how well their captains treated them. If they had been mean and dictatorial, they could expect to be killed, perhaps after some nasty torture.

Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzfrieg, Idelogy, and Atrocity (Alexander B. Rossino)

 

In Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity, Alexander Rossino argues that the war in Poland was in fact the first shots in a war of ethnic annihilation that resumed against the Soviet Union once Adolf Hitler believed that the western powers were no longer a threat to his ultimate goals. In addition to describing the ethnic cleansing carried out by the SS death squads, the  Einsatzgruppen, he does a good job criticizing the myth that the regular Germany Army, the Wehrmacht, was generally opposed to the atrocities for humane reasons and that the soldiers refused to participate or flat-out resisted the killings. He furthermore argues that many of the soldiers committed them quite willingly, with no repercussions for dissent.

The officer class is often romanticized as reluctant victims of Hitler’s control. This was thanks to their post-war memoirs, where they distanced themselves from the Nazis. They also portrayed themselves as competent victims of the Fuhrer’s regime, forced to do Hitler’s bidding. These men do not escape Rossino’s critical eye. When German and generals lower-ranking officers protested the looting and killings carried out by SS men, they were not shocked by the ideological atrocity, but the manner in which it was carried out. They believed that such actions undermined discipline and distracted the troops from their more purely military goals. Many generals did not appreciate Poles and Jews being killed without their authority and without “the court-martial process and other formal procedures”. In other cases, officers in the Wehrmacht collaborated with the Einsatzgruppen in weeding out and disposing of undesirables and had no qualms doing so.

Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln (Jonathan W. White)

 

In Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln, Jonathan White presents a more cynical but probably more realistic take on the Union Army in regards to the motivations of its soldiers. He challenges the popular historical consensus that the overwhelming army vote for Lincoln in the 1864 election reflected solidarity with Republican war aims of emancipation. While he directly addresses James McPherson’s works, which trumpeted the army as a force of emancipation, he also criticizes Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over, and in doing so challenges her thesis as well. In her book Manning claimed that by looking at hundreds of Union and Confederate letters, the soldiers obviously fought for the issue of slavery. As regards the Federals, she believes they for the most part put Unionism I the background in favor of destroying slavery. White believes that she and other historians inferred too much from a considerable, yet still fractionally small pool of letters and diaries. I add that they also failed to take differing ethnic and regional backgrounds to account (for example, a soldier from southern Illinois would not be as inclined towards abolitionism as a Massachusetts man or radical German immigrant). Furthermore, he believes that soldiers’ views change back and forth in response to events. Historians can fall into the trap of taking a few diaries and letters and making them representative of the whole army. He avoids being representative himself, stating that he only wishes to flesh out those who did not vote against Lincoln and not make any monolithic claims.

He argues several general facts that challenge the popular narrative. Using voting statistics, he shows that 20% of soldiers eligible to vote chose not to do so, showing either disinterest or disgust with both parties. Many who voted for Lincoln did so because they did not approve of the Democrats’ anti-war platform and just wanted to win the war. Finally, in the age of public ballots, there was an atmosphere of intimidation that dissuaded Democrat votes. Some Republican officers rigged pro-emancipation regimental resolutions to appear unanimously in favor. Soldiers who wanted to vote for McClellan could be stopped out of fear of riling up their comrades and being accused of disloyalty. Officers could have their careers stalled or destroyed if they expressed too much criticism of abolitionism.

Through his work White concludes a common historiographical trend. Often there is a prevailing view of a historical event that stays entrenched for decades. Then a revisionist makes a stark counter-argument that becomes the predominant view, only later on for a third “neo-revisionist” work to argue a middle ground. For a long time the Union soldier was presented for fighting primarily for preservation of his republic. Then it became emancipation. White shows that “for many northern soldiers, restoring the Union was the only true goal of the war from beginning to end.” Though his lack of time on it may not reveal it, he argues that many soldiers indeed came to see emancipation as the higher cause, but perhaps just as many prioritized preserving the Union without any concern for blacks. He argues that the Union Army was an army of emancipation not from some popular “bottom-up” movement by the soldiers, but from a top-down implementation of policies by Lincoln, the War Department, and then the generals and other officers.

White’s book does a good job of providing a more nuanced view of the Union army and showing that there was not a strong pro-emancipation majority, but there are a couple flaws. White makes the same mistake as Manning in not differentiating the different types of ethnicities and regions making up the armies. In reading this book I noticed that the soldiers with the strongest anti-emancipation views came from such states as Illinois and Ohio. General Sherman’s 1864 army, which was made up of westerners, refused to accept any black soldiers. Westerners had stronger economic ties with the South, and may have shared more of their racial views as a result. My second issue is that some of the officers and soldiers that were dismissed for disloyalty were directing some very bold criticisms and insults towards Lincoln and abolition. White never suggests that they might have twisted the stories behind their comments when presenting them in court. A pillar of the United States is free speech but one wonders if such blatant attacks on war aims and the commander-in-chief would have been accepted or still are.

Regardless this is a great book from the recent Dark Turn in Civil War historiography. While not pleasant, it is essential for White and others to challenge some of the comforting narratives. White also better accounts for the fact that history is made up of individuals, not collectives. While group pressure can shape an individual, he, especially an American one, is likely to have some degree of difference in views. Federals soldiers’ views on emancipation varied widely from outright abolitionism to pragmatic emancipation to complete disinterest to even anti-emancipation.

The book can be bought here. It's price has gone down significantly since I had to get it for my Master's course.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general

Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject

Recommend: Good for further information or info on a certain topic

Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic

Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history

McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union (Ethan S. Rafuse)

McClellan's War is Ethan Rafuse's 2005 attempt to truly decipher what Union General George B. McClellan, the first commander of the Army of the Potomac, was doing in the early third of the Civil War. For most of Civil War historiography, McClellan has been blamed for the Union's lack of success in Virginia. He was too egotistical in dealing with the President and other political leaders. He was needlessly cautious, displaying a mental handicap that prevented him from dealing several critical blows against Lee's Confederate Army. It does not help that McClellan was often in opposition to the deified Abraham Lincoln, even to the point of running against him for president. Historians and documentarians thus have depicted him as something of an arch-nemesis. Rafuse is one of several historians that have found this view of McClellan to be flawed, perhaps even cartoonish. In his 400 page tome he focuses primarily on McClellan's political and strategic beliefs and how they influenced his conduct of the war from 1861-1862.

The first quarter of the book fleshes out McClellan's background. He grew up in a Whig family. Many within the Whig political party, such as Henry Clay, emphasized compromise and careful rational thinking to solve political problems. When the Whig Party met its demise, McClellan shifted his views over to the Douglas Democrats. Like the Whigs, Stephen Douglas of Illinois stressed compromise to smooth over partisan differences and oppose extremism. He viewed both Secessionists and Republicans, especially Radical Republicans, as extremely dangerous. Though he sided with the Union, he was deeply concerned by the growing influence of abolitionist politics on war policy. He believed that this would stiffen Confederate resistance because of fears of a race war.

Alan Taylor's American Republics

Taylor, Alan. American Republics: A Continental History of the United States, 1783-1850. W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.

American Republics is the third entry in Alan Taylor's ongoing history of the United States (following American Colonies and American Revolutions). He uses the plural form of Republic because he argues that the United States was hardly a united front, with various ideas for what the nation should be. The most obvious divide was between free-soiler Northerners and pro-slavery Southerners. However many reformers, religious outliers, Abolitionists, and others further added to a dazzling array of variants on the American ideal. Many Americans, and Indian Peoples as well, even struck out to create their own independent republics (Mormons, Texans, and Cherokees are among the notable examples), though all eventually fell into the United States anyways. Taylor also shows how shaky the American Republic was in its early years. It struggled economically and was battered by established empires, foremost Britain's. Internal strife frequently led it to the brink of disunion as different geographic and political sections pursued differing agendas. The book ends with the Compromise of 1850, which did ward off Civil War, but also heightened tensions to the point that it caused one anyways ten years later.

Taylor also gets into the history of America's neighbors, such as Canada and Spanish Florida. These are among the strongest parts of the book, contextualizing America within a wider continental history (as the title promises), and providing some inroads into other countries' histories for more curious readers Another strength is the collection of various unique characters, many little known even to history buffs. In addition to well-known monumental figures ranging from Henry Clay to Frederick Douglass to Andrew Jackson, Taylor treats us to would-be republic founder William Bowles (77-80) to humanitarian slaveholder Zephaniah Kingsley, Jr. (150-155) to William and Ellen Craft, a slave couple who posed as male master and valet to escape to the North (374-375). This makes for an expansive and colorful collection of characters and stories within 400 highly readable pages. American Republics serves as a wonderful starting point to find topics to investigate.

 

Hippensteel, Scott. Myths of the Civil War: The Fact, Fiction, and Science behind the Civil War’s Most-Told Stories. Lanham: Stackpole Books, 2021.

Scott Hippensteel is an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of North Carolina. If one wonders why a scientist wrote a book on the Civil War, it should be noted that his specialties include geoarchaeology and micropaleontology. Hippensteel himself is a Civil War buff and has sought to apply his specific field to this historical era. Myths of the Civil War does not deal with social issues like slavery’s importance or strategic ones like who was really responsible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, but primarily with how historians and others who present the Civil War have uncritically accepted soldiers’ metaphors as literal fact or the objectivity of early photojournalism. Injecting his short book with bits of humor, Hippensteel is able to scientifically challenge claims about the Civil War in an engaging and entertaining fashion.

The first myth he challenges is that of the Civil War sniper, that thanks to advances in weapon technology, crack shots were able to hit generals like Sedgwick at Spotsylvania and Reynolds at Gettysburg with pinpoint accuracy. Studying physics and the capabilities of firearms at the time, Hippensteel convincingly argues that Civil War sharpshooters were not the equivalent of snipers and would either target clusters of men or work in teams to fill a general area with bullets.

Donald Frazier's Louisiana Quadrille

  Frazier, Donald. Fire in the Cane Field: The Federal Invasion of Louisiana and Texas, January 1861-January 1863. State House Press, 2009.

-        Thunder Across the Swamp: The Fight for the Lower Mississippi, February 1863-May 1863. State House Press, 2011.
-          Blood on the Bayou: Vicksburg, Port Hudson, and the Trans-Mississippi. State House Press, 2015.
-          Tempest over Texas: The Fall and Winter Campaigns of 1863-1864. State House Press, 2020.

 

Those looking for an extensive history of Civil War Louisiana might be interested to know that there is a highly readable four-volume series on the subject. Donald Frazier’s Louisiana Quadrille (he actually chose to expand it to five books so it’s really a Pendadrille) covers the Trans-Mississippi theatre in East Texas and Louisiana from the secession crisis to right before the more widely known and infamous Red River Campaign of spring 1864. Frazier’s work here comes out of Blood & Treasure, the story of the Sibley Brigade’s attempt to conquer the Far West. Looking further into this unit’s history, he came upon a series of little known battles. As a native Texan, Frazier was inspired to dig deeper. He has brought to light a heavily overlooked part of the Civil War. Frazier covers a wide area of the war, but shows a particular interest in the fields and swamps of western Louisiana.

Taken together the books look like heavy reading (Thunder in the Swamp runs well over 500 pages). However the text is not all that thick and there are plenty of illustrations and maps. The latter shows the author’s exhaustive searches for visual sources to enhance his narrative. The one main gripe has nothing to do with Frazier’s investigation and presentation of information. He displays a surprising amount of grammatical errors, moreso in his first volume. I myself am guilty of having typos and errors in my blog posts (even after reading through what I wrote). Still it’s a bit surprising for a professionally published book. Perhaps he attempted to edit the whole thing himself. This is forgivable, however, in light of the value of his research. He really digs into primary sources and many of the figures, especially the soldiers of the rank-and-file, come alive with extensive quotes and references from their letters and journals.

Christopher Ellet's Gladiators & Beast Hunts: Arena Sports of Ancient Rome

Epplett, Christopher. Gladiators & Beast Hunts: Arena Sports of Ancient Rome. South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2016.

Gladiators & Beast Hunts is one of my many impulse buys while searching through the Half-Price Books store. In it Christopher Epplett, an ancient history teacher who specializes in Ancient Rome’s sporting events, looks at the origins, purpose, and demise of gladiatorial combat and the venationes, the beast hunts. He decides to not cover the chariot races, more interested in the violent sports and why the Romans were so enamored by them. He also has a couple chapters focusing on how the games were supplied and held and how certain gladiators (and even some animals) achieved celebrity status. Gladiators & Beast Hunts is a fairly short book, more along the lines of an extended master’s thesis, and should make for a brisk yet highly informative read.

Epplett traces the origins of the gladiatorial games to Etruscan and early Roman funerary customs. When a wealthy man or woman died, the other rich spectators were treated to a gladiatorial duel. The Venatio (beast hunt) also originated as the sport of the elite. The animals in the games were slaughtered rather than captured. Over time these violent spectacles were introduced to the common Roman masses. By the later republic they became an essential part of Roman life.

Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War: A New History of World War II

McMeekin, Sean. Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II. New York City: Basic Books, 2021.

Sean McMeekin is known for his work early 20^th Century Russian and Ottoman history, with special emphasis on the World War I and Russian Revolution era. In Stalin’s War he takes a deep look into World War II and presents a revisionist narrative that is certain to grab attention. With Stalin’s War, McMeekin seeks to challenge the conventional narrative, that the Second World War was “a heroic struggle between good and evil.” In particular he takes issues with the notion that Hitler was the personal driving force of the worldwide conflict. Instead it should be Stalin, head of the Soviet Union, who encouraged the other great powers to tear each other apart so that his communist nation could swoop in and exert its power over the world. McMeekin points out that Stalin’s influence was felt in both the European and Pacific Wars, while Nazi Germany only had a significant role in the former.

The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact enabled Stalin to make a series of easy conquests in Eastern Europe while the Germans fought a much tougher war against the Western Allies.  The Soviets got into a brief war with the Japanese, but were successful. Instead of using their leverage to drive back the Japanese for good, the Soviets gave them a free hand to continue their war with China. This kept Japan and Chiang’s Nationalists embroiled in the slog of war, while Mao’s Communists were able to sit back in their northern strongholds (McMeekin also points out that after 1945 the Soviets gave ample military resources to Mao with which to conquer China. The Americans by contrast withheld aid from Chiang and demanded that he form a peaceful government with the Communists, a totally unrealistic expectation). Stalin’s goal of making the great powers wear each other down through attrition was thrown off when Hitler struck him and rolled back all his 1939-1941 conquests. Now he had to go to the Western Allies for aid.

Louis Allen's Burma: The Longest War, 1941-1945 (Book Review)

 

Allen, Louis. Burma: The Longest War, 1941-1945. Harry N. Abrams, 2019. London Phoenix Press, 1984.

The Burmese front in World War II is called the “Forgotten War”. In fact it was referred to as this even while it was still being fought. In Southeast Asia, it was the lowest on the Allies’ priorities in supply and strategy. Thus it is often overlooked, though there is sizeable literature on the subject. One of the most valuable sources on this front is Louis Allen’s The Longest War. Allen actually served there as an intelligence officer. With his wartime intelligence work and knowledge of the Japanese language, he not only relied on British sources, but also delved into Japanese ones through archival material and interviews with veterans (there were more survivors from continental than island fronts, as soldiers had somewhere to withdraw if defeated). Thus, unlike many other works on the Burma Campaign, the Japanese side of the story is exhaustively covered.

John Matteson's A Worse Place Than Hell (book review)

 

Matteson, John. A Worse Place Than Hell: How the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg Changed a Nation. W.W. Norton & Company, February 9, 2021.

For this book, English professor John Matteson, who has won a Pulitzer Prize, delves into history by examining the lives of five people who endured the misery of the Battle of Fredericksburg. Through his career is in English, Matteson is well versed in 19^th Century American literature and thus already had good historical context going into his research for this book. In fact three of his five chosen characters are familiar to literature enthusiasts. There is the great American poet Walt Whitman. There is Little Women author Louisa May Alcott. Both served as nurses at the battle, Alcott in an official capacity and Whiteman in an unofficial one. Chaplain Arthur Fuller was the brother of Margaret Fuller, journalist and women’s rights advocate as well as the subject of Matteson’s Pulitzer-winning biography. The most familiar names is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an officer in the 20^th Massachusetts and future Supreme Court Justice. Finally, to represent the Confederate side, Matteson looks at John Pelham, the commander of Jeb Stuart’s horse artillery. Matteson delves into the intimate personal lives of these five figures, each who experienced a critical moment at the Battle of Fredericksburg.

The Second Battle of Winchester: The Confederate Victory that Opened the Door to Gettysburg (book review)

Wittenberg, Eric J. and Scott L Mingus, Sr. The Second Battle of Winchester: The Confederate Victory that Opened the Door to Gettysburg. Savas Beatie, 2016.

Wittenberg and Mingus team up to reveal a battle that has been overlooked even by Civil War enthusiasts. The Second Battle of Winchester occurred on June 13-15, in Virginia’s bountiful Shenandoah Valley. In this event General Richard Ewell’s I Corps of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia successfully entrapped over half of General Robert Milroy’s Union force at Winchester. The battle removed all potential opposition to General Robert E. Lee’s invasion route into the North. The battle has usually received scarce attention, a pit stop on the way to the much larger Battle of Gettysburg.

            Wittenberg and Mingus seek to argue that this battle had significant impact, though are careful not to over exaggerate. After his disastrous defeat, Milroy tried to clear his name by arguing that the battle delayed the Confederate forces and gave the Union Army of the Potomac time to concentrate and meet the enemy at Gettysburg. Citing a similar argument by a Confederate veteran who saw the battle as a serious delay, the authors agree that if not for the Battle of Winchester Gettysburg would very likely not have happened, at least as it did, but do not dare to say if the Confederates would have been the victors instead. The battle also raised alarm levels in the North and hopes in the South. People across American and even in Britain seriously viewed as the prelude to a successful Confederate invasion. The Union victory at Gettysburg soon washed away the hysteria and exultation respectively.

            Otherwise the book describes the background and details of the battle. For a small battle this is a lengthy book, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your personal preferences. The first chapter details the Union occupation of Winchester, which was rife with tensions between the occupiers and occupied. Milroy was involved in the theft of civilian property, making him particularly unpopular to residents of the Valley.  The authors further go into General Ewell, who headed the Confederate invasion. They restore some of his reputation, showing that he and his subordinates pulled off the battle spectacularly and any failed measure of success can be attributed to the unpredictability of war. Milroy, remembered as a bungler, also receives a (not full) revival of his reputation. While the authors agree that he could have conducted the battle better and likely should have just retreated before engaging, he was left to dry by his superiors, who failed to either send reinforcements or to firmly order a withdrawal.

          The battle itself is described in great detail, easier to do for a smaller engagement. The battle is described so vividly and through the eyes of so many men on the ground that it might be surprising to observe the light numbers of killed and wounded. I would recommend this book more to somebody already well versed in Civil War history, or perhaps to someone who wants to do a video or book project on the Gettysburg Campaign that pays more attention to the lead-up. One who is just getting into Civil War history might find it overwhelming to read such an in-depth work on a small battle which, despite the authors’ hard work, still has questionable impact on the overall war. Then again, small events often have great ramifications that are hard to see.

The book can be bought here.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general
Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject
Recommend: Good for further information or into on a certain topic
Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic
Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history

Joseph T. Glatthaar's The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman’s Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign

Glatthaar, Joseph T. The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman’s Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign. Los Angeles: New York: New York University Press, 1985.

Glatthaar is a Civil War historian who specializes at looking into the lives or the everyday rank-and-file, though he has done work on major generals. He’s a bit of a social historian with a military focus. He’s more well-known for Forged in Battle, which looked at the relationship between black Union soldiers and their white officers. Before that he wrote this overview of Sherman’s force after the fall of Atlanta and up to May 1865. He attempts to show the reader that the various Union armies were unique in their own way. Sherman’s army, which was actually a combination of the Army of Tennessee and the Army of Georgia (actually two corps of the Army of the Cumberland) was primarily made up of westerners who had a more egalitarian view of the army. While there was discipline, officers and men spoke more freely. Officers, up to generals, would sometimes pitch in manually when a wagon or artillery piece needed to be freed from mud or quickly placed. Compared to the Army of the Potomac, they had much less concern for proper drill and proper attire. Two corps from the Army of the Potomac in fact helped make up Sherman’s force and they had trouble adjusting to this new army, which “at first glance… looked more like a mob than an army. They were an unkempt, boisterous, seemingly unruly lot, in no way resembling the stereotypical professional army of the min-nineteenth century...”

John Broich's Blood, Oil, and Axis (book review)

Broich, John. Blood, Oil, and the Axis: The Allied Resistance Against a Fascist State in Iraq and the Levant, 1941. Harry N. Abrams, 2019.

World War II was a massive war and many fronts and battles remain unknown by the general public. John Broich tells the story of a forgotten campaign in which British Commonwealth forces faced off against Vichy France and several indigenous foes in the Middle East. Broich believes that this was a campaign that, if had gone the other way, could have spelled doom for the British Empire.  If the Axis Powers had gained control of the region, it would have access to plenty of oil, as well as the means to transport it back to Europe via Syria. It would also be closer to taking the Suez Canal, thus hamstring British supply, and to India, which might feel inspired to rebel against Britain. Iraq at the time was nominally independent, but heavily controlled via British influence. Thus it was not a stretch for Iraqi or other Mid-Eastern groups, most notably the pro-Nazi Golden Square, to side with the Axis Powers out of nationalist aspirations. Bordering Iraq to the west was Syria. Its current ruler, Vichy France, was under immense pressure from Germany to supply aid if requested.

Broich’s work is more narrative than argumentative. He chooses a cast of characters to focus on, from Francophile American Jack Hasey to Palestinian interpreter code-named Reading to traveling writer Freya Stark to Nazi liaison in Vichy Syria Rudolf Rahn. Regardless of whether or not they were officially in the military or a member of the belligerent nations, they all felt a need to defy or assist the Axis. The book is thus full of personal stories to help connect with events of the ground. It also is infused with a great deal of tragedy. Perhaps one reason this front is often overlooked is the make-up of the two sides, which does not gel with the favored good vs. evil narrative. The Axis forces consisted of few Germans, mainly Luftwaffe planes coming in from Greece and the Mediterranean. Instead it was primarily made of Iraqis, French, and French colonial troops. Most tragic of all was that Free French with the British fought with Vichy French. Also, at the beginning of most chapters, Broich provides quotes related to America’s recent and ongoing war in Iraq. He seems to suggest a comparison, but aside from the geographic locations and western interventionism he doesn’t elaborate.

While Broich’s book reveals an oft-ignored aspect of World War II, it fails to be truly great thanks to a couple minor flaws. One is that Broich too broadly employs the “fascist” and “anti-fascist” label for characters and factions in the Middle East. Some were undoubtedly attracted to fascism and some were opposed to it. But Broich shows within his own text that most Arabs, Palestinians, Jews, and others were not primarily concerned with growing or fighting fascism, if at all, but with nationalist aspirations or personal honor (for example, many of the Indian troops volunteered to gain prestige in their village, not to battle fascism or serve the British Empire). A second nitpick is Broich’s failure to follow up on his argument, even within a narrative style. He argues that if Hitler had focused his energies on the Middle East rather than the Soviet Union, he could have knocked out Britain. It would have helped if he set some time aside to examine Hitler’s ideology and motivations in regard to coming after the Soviet Union in 1941, and why he possibly would not have considered prioritizing the Middle East.

Overall, Blood, Oil, and Axis is full of information and stories rarely told. Whoever wants to broaden his or her knowledge of World War II should give this a look. It also provides material for those who like to imagine alternate scenarios.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Broich, John. Blood, Oil, and the Axis: The Allied Resistance Against a Fascist State in Iraq and the Levant, 1941. Harry N. Abrams, 2019. Buy the book here.

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general

Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject

Recommend: Good for further information or into on a certain topic

Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic

Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history