Did you ever get the feeling these Europeans have been at this war thing for a hell of a long time. Too long. It’s almost as if they like war…
— Dialogue between Generals Eisenhower and Bradley in ‘Ike: Countdown to D-Day’
Twice before I’ve written in this forum of my objection to United States involvement in the war in Ukraine. At the beginning of the war I expressed my apprehension about the dangerous rationale for us supporting Ukraine.
Then I replied to responses I received to that column, questioning my patriotism.
Subsequently, during a series on the unraveling of the US economy, I explained how our sanctions against Russia, following the invasion of Ukraine, have endangered our own economic stability.
Now it seems that President Donald Trump is trying to end the war, while Ukrainian President Zelensky merely wants our assistance to keep on fighting. The dialogue in the “Ike” movie may have been accurate… it’s almost as if Europeans do like war.
European nations apparently have no problem supporting Russia economically, while giving voice to support for Ukraine.
Let’s take a brief journey through Europe’s collective history.
What is now known as the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) was the second war fought between the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta in that century. What began as a Spartan invasion of Athenian territory, followed by a reciprocal invasion of Spartan lands by the Athenians, resulted in 27 years of almost continuous conflict between them and their respective allies.
During that war, there was a four-year siege by the Spartans of Plataea, a city loosely allied to Athens. The city was of no real value militarily to either side — but neither would give up because of fearing to appear weak. That idea of fighting over cities for what amounts to ego would repeat itself at Verdun in WWI, and Stalingrad in WWII (as I will describe below).
Among the many causes of that ancient Greek war was an attempt by Athens at a variation of “nation building” within a region controlled by Sparta — an unfortunate side-effect of Athenian democracy… as was their “radical democracy” a factor in prolongation of the war. But the dangerous effects of democracy will be the subject of another column.
Two millennia later the Europeans engaged in another prolonged war because none of the belligerents would quit.
What historians call the “Hundred Years War” between England and France lasted off and on from 1337 to 1453. They were fighting over territory in France which was claimed by both — and kept fighting until mutually worn out. Or, some historians believe, they forgot why they were fighting. By the end of that century of warfare, the respective Kings of the two belligerents who had started the war — and two descendant generations — were dead and gone.
Two hundred years later, the “Thirty Years War” (1618-1648) was started by the Holy Roman emperor over (you guessed it) territory — and that was just the “German phase” of an eighty year war between Spain and Holland. That multi-generational war was resolved by the Treaty of Westphalia, which re-drew the map of Europe and eventually contributed to both world wars in the 20th century.
A little over a century after that Treaty — which was supposed to avoid future European conflicts — England, France and Spain got into the “Seven Years War” (1756-1763) over disputes about colonies in the Americas (fighting over land, again).
Historian Winston Churchill called it “the first world war” because it was fought on multiple continents.
Part of the war, known as the “French and Indian War”, was fought on the western edges of the English colonies that later became the United States. During that war George Washington got the military experience (fighting for England) that lead to his becoming commander of the Continental Army during our revolution — and made him skeptical of European conflicts.
While France and England were going at it, the Prussians (Germans) got into it with Austria, France, Russia and Sweden. The multiple treaties that ended the various theaters of the Seven Years War resulted in (again) some re-drawing the map of Europe, which also eventually contributed to World War I.
Do we detect a pattern? Europeans just can’t seem to get along — particularly when it comes to who gets what territory. A study of their history reveals tribal conflict over land seems ingrained in their cultural DNA.
Like the siege of Plataea by the Spartans two millennia before, WWI illustrated that Europeans don’t know when to give up once the fighting starts. Their seeming inability, or unwillingness, to quit was horrifically apparent between February and November 1916 at the Battle of Verdun… the longest battle of that bloody war.
By February 1916, the conflict had reached a trench-warfare stalemate from Belgium to the Swiss border. Verdun was a fortified French town on the front facing the Germans — of historic significance to France, but of only nominal strategic importance to either side.
The Germans originally attacked at Verdun with the intention of capturing the historic town, then “bleeding white” the French army that was sure to want to retake it as a matter of national pride. The Germans planned to cause as many French casualties as possible. They succeeded — but not as they had hoped. Unfortunately, for both sides, the 1871 words of German Field Marshal Helmuth Von Moltke, that “No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces,” were proven true.
There were an estimated 100,000-plus total dead on the German side in the battle — and the Germans never captured the town of Verdun. Add to that the estimated 162,000-plus dead French (plus the wounded and missing from both sides) and the total casualties in the Verdun battle exceed 700,000.
With that number of casualties, one must ask how the hell that battle went on for so long without one side or the other — or both — saying “Enough is enough!” Particularly since nothing of any real military value was accomplished by either side.
The answer is that (just like in the Peloponnesian War) neither side would give up, even though midway through the nine-month battle, both realized the town of Verdun had no military value. Their respective ‘national honor’ prevented them from stopping the carnage. The battle finally wound down in November because the focus of the war had shifted to the north of France.
Unfortunately, Verdun was not unique. Other battles illustrate a seeming utter disregard for massive war casualties in European wars.
In 1812, Europe was in the latter stages of the “Napoleonic Wars” — yet another couple decades of more or less continuous warfare. Napoleon lead the French army in an invasion of Russia that included the Battle of Borodino, considered the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic era. In one day there were over 75,000 casualties total from both sides.
One-hundred-thirty years later, at Stalingrad in the Soviet Union, nearly two million German and Russian troops went at each other for six months. The objective of both sides was to occupy the city. Hitler wanted it because it was named for Soviet leader Josef Stalin, and Stalin of course wanted to keep it for the same militarily irrelevant reason.
An estimated 1 million died in that battle, including perhaps 400,000 Russian civilians trapped in the city. But, by god, neither side would quit.
Which brings us to the current war between Ukraine and Russia. That will be the subject of Part Two.