Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Book Review: The Darkest Days: The Truth Behind Britain's Rush to War 1914, by Douglas Newton

Newton delivers a solid piece of historical research, exploding the myths of why, how, and importantly when Britain decided on war in 1914. The classic myth is that Britain only decided on war AFTER Germany invaded “plucky little” Belgium on August 4th, declaring war late that evening. Newton shows that the very senior members of Britain's government, acting without Parliament or even the larger Cabinet, decided on war August 2nd, in support of the “Ententes” with Russia and France, themselves designed not to constrain Germany, but to de-conflict the British Empire's colonial holdings in Africa and Asia.

In this account, PM Asquith, Foreign Minister Grey, and First Sea Lord Churchill controlled the descent into war. Only Asquith's motivation is explored in depth, stressing his desire to keep his Liberal government in power. (Ironically, a coalition with the Conservatives was unavoidable in May 1915, resulting from poor management of the war.)

Newton also all too briefly sketches the nascent opposition to war, nipped in the bud by the heavy-handed rush to war.

Newton's writing style is solid but academic, and the book is not a”page-turner.” It is however a useful counter to the “fairy tale” of Britain being forced into war by “dire necessity.” At the least, any reader interested in the origins of World War One should read Newton's last two paragraphs, Radical Recriminations, and Conclusion,where he gives an excellent summary of his arguments.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

The US Supreme Court and Historical Nonsense

There's a lot of blather (particularly from Cruz and Rubio, but also McConnell and other supposed "conservatives") about there being "precedent" and "tradition" on not appointing/confirming Supreme Court justices in a presidential election year. The fact is, a vacancy just doesn't occur very often; most justices retire or resign, and they've chosen to leave when a president they like is in office, and not in a presidential election year.

Let's use the 80 year time frame put forth by Rubio: 1936-2016. Thirty justices chose to step down; ten died in office. Probability says two (and half) should have died in a year evenly divisible by four. In fact, Scalia is the first SC justice to DIE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR IN 80 YEARS.

Ok, Rubio, Cruz, et al.: it's not precedent or tradition if it JUST HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE.