Monarch Profile: Emperor Claudius II

The Roman emperor known as “Claudius the Goth” was born on May 10, 214 AD in the province of Illyricum (roughly modern Croatia) and he would be the first of several accomplished Illyrian emperors. Although he has been widely praised, at least by many secular historians, his actual record would leave more than a few wondering why. Which, of course, is not to say that he was a disaster but simply that his achievements may have been a bit exaggerated due to other motives by those penning the history books. He had a distinguished record as a soldier and earned steady promotion to major military commands during the reigns of Emperor Valerian and Emperor Gallienus. When Gallienus was assassinated near Milan in September of 268, the army considered Claudius to be the obvious choice to succeed him. There was certainly public support for such a move and the Roman senate found nothing objectionable about him. He was not far away at the time, commanding the reserves at what is now Pavia, Italy and he immediately took charge and seized Milan and executed Aureolus, commander of the Dalmatian cavalry who had defected to the enemy in the Gothic War that was being fought and who had killed Gallienus. However, as no other conspirators were punished, some have always suspected that Claudius himself may have been party to it.

In any event, measures were taken to ensure unity rather than a spirit of retribution. The newly declared Emperor Claudius II successfully petitioned the senate to deify the late Emperor Gallienus and ordered that there be no persecution of his loyalists. Emperor Claudius II remained at the front to continue the war against the Goths, though having taken Milan he had to first move north to confront another barbarian invasion, this time the Alemanni, (southern Germans) who were pouring across the Alps into northern Italy. After a decisive victory at Lake Garda, and wintering in Rome, Claudius II returned to the front and led a successful campaign against the Gothic invaders, earning the title “Gothicus Maximus”. However, there were Roman defeats as well, particularly in Thrace where the Goths won a considerable victory. However, the Roman legions were placed in a commanding position for victory due to the outbreak of a terrible plague that devastated the Gothic forces. Unfortunately for Emperor Claudius II, the spread of disease knew no preference between Roman and barbarian and the same plague claimed his life as well. Emperor Claudius II died in camp in August of 270.

During his reign, much of the Roman Empire that had fallen away was reclaimed but about as much was also lost. As Roman fortunes rose in the west, they fell in the east. Gaul had broken away previously and tried to set up a rival power under its own line of Gallic emperors and Claudius II sent Roman forces to reclaim at least southern Gaul east of the Rhone River. Hispania (Spain) had fallen to the Goths but had finally shaken off their rule and pledged loyalty to Rome once again, which was certainly a great benefit and left Claudius II well placed to launch a more ambitious campaign to restore Roman rule to the whole of Gaul. However, he was then preoccupied by the Gothic invasion and even more alarming was the news from the east where the famous Queen Zenobia had come to power (in what is now Syria) and advanced as far as Ankara in Turkey. The following year her forces conquered Egypt, cutting Rome off from its most vital source of grain. Obviously, that was a situation that left little time for dreams of Gallic conquest. The first priority of the Emperor was to secure Italy and defeat Zenobia so as to prevent food shortages in Rome that would be ruinous. However, before any of that could be done, Claudius II had departed this life.

Having no children of his own, Claudius II was succeeded by his brother who became Emperor Quintillus. According to the official history of the Roman emperors, the two also had another brother named Crispus whose daughter, Claudia, was the mother of Emperor Constantius Chlorus who was the father of Emperor Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman Emperor. If so, this would be somewhat ironic given that one of the things Claudius II was praised for by some of the senatorial class was in being a more strictly pagan Roman emperor who began enforcing religious laws with more vigor than had previously been the case. Of course, some have also argued that this genealogical connection was a forgery, something invented by the partisans of Emperor Constantine to give him a more illustrious imperial family history. In such cases, it is virtually impossible to prove with absolute certainty which side is correct in its assertions.

One other incident occurred that makes Emperor Claudius II rather noteworthy and that concerned some trouble of a religious sort. Persecution of Christians was rather intermittent in the Roman Empire, with periods of fierce persecution being followed by long periods when anti-Christian laws were relaxed or left un-enforced. Some of these laws were being enforced in the reign of Claudius II and there was a certain Roman priest who came to the attention of the authorities. He had become well known for administering the sacraments in violation of the law, particularly it seems for secretly marrying Christian couples. He was arrested but still carried on converting people to Christianity. Severely beaten and stoned, the priest did not die and was brought before Emperor Claudius II. Rather than beg for his life, he tried to convert the Emperor to Christianity! That did not happen and due to his persistence he was ordered to be beheaded. While awaiting execution he converted the blind daughter of the governor of his prison to Christianity and while praying for her, her blindness was healed. The grateful girl would remain faithful to his memory for the rest of her life, long after the priest was martyred on February 14, 269, cherishing a last, small note he had written to her, which the healing power of Christ enabled her to read, which ended with the words, “from your Valentine”.

A happy St Valentine’s Day to all from The Mad Monarchist

Monarchist Profile: General Julius Jacob von Haynau

The story of General Julius Jacob von Haynau is somewhat illustrative of the problems which caused a steady decline in the fortunes of the Austrian Empire. A very controversial figure in his own time, loved by some, hated by others, his case is also indicative of the monarchist position in Europe today. During the Revolutions of 1848 he played an instrumental role in the preservation of the Hapsburg monarchy when the Austrian Empire teetered on the brink of destruction. Some regarded him distastefully as an unpleasant but necessary tool in the Austrian arsenal while others in Austria openly hailed him as a war hero and a savior of the monarchy, his troops dubbing him “the Hapsburg Tiger”. On the other hand, to others, particularly the Italians and Hungarians, he was known as the instrument of ruthless oppression and given more than one very unflattering nicknames by those he opposed. Yet, today, while Austria has forgotten him, there are those in Hungary who have not and so it is the critical view of the man that has lingered. Such criticism is, it must be said, not unfounded. He was a ruthless individual whose actions demonstrate why the Hapsburg monarchy was so hated by certain subject peoples. Yet, those ruthless actions were undertaken against internal enemies, people who von Haynau viewed as traitors pure and simple and thus not to be spared or pitied.

Strictly speaking, Julius Jacob von Haynau was a Hessian rather than an Austrian. He was born on October 14, 1786 in Hessen-Kassel, birthplace of Grimm’s Fairy Tales and source of some of the most prized German mercenary soldiers. Like many professional soldiers of history, von Haynau was of lofty though illegitimate birth being the natural son of the Hessian Prince-Elector Wilhelm I by Rosa Dorothea Ritter. It was the child’s paternal grandfather, Friedrich II, who supplied the famous Hessian troops to Britain’s King George III to fight in America. Wilhelm I recognized his son and made provision for his care and education. Like his grandfather (who had served with Frederick the Great), little Julius planned on a career in the army and because of his father was assured a place in the military as an officer-cadet. So, at the age of 15 von Haynau joined the Austrian Imperial Army in 1801. He proved a quick study and a capable soldier. With the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars it was a particularly dangerous but essential profession. Still, he found time, on October 11, 1808 to start a family of his own, marrying Therese von Weber, appropriately the daughter of a high-ranking officer. The couple had a very successful marriage of over forty years before Therese died in 1850.

In 1809, only a year after his wedding, Haynau fought at the Battle of Wagram, where he was wounded in a crushing Austrian defeat at the hands of Napoleon. His father-in-law died the same year at the Battle of Aspern-Essling. It was a difficult period for Austria but von Haynau gained valuable experience in the art of war and continued to distinguish himself in numerous battles. His military star continued to rise as the Napoleonic Wars threw into sharp contrast where the talent and the incompetence was in the Austrian army. Even as a young officer von Haynau was known for being rather volatile and ill-tempered but very effective against the enemy. When he had an army of Frenchmen in front of him, his personality was a strength, his fury an asset but when battles were not raging he tended to clash with his superiors. Nonetheless, his violent tendencies on and off the battlefield were not an impediment to his career and he earned numerous promotions, rising to the rank of field marshal lieutenant during extensive and meritorious service from 1815 to 1847. He reached the pinnacle of his career with a reputation for fiery aggression and also with a deep-seated hatred of rebels, republicans and revolutionaries, no doubt due to experiences in the wars with France.

The Austrian Emperor had no more ardent servant and no more merciless guard dog that von Haynau. When revolutions began to break out and spread all across Europe in 1848, both his military talent and loyal ferocity became urgent necessities as the venerable Hapsburg monarchy stood in very real danger of total collapse. One of the first areas where rebellion broke out was in northern Italy, that region conquered by France but placed under Austrian rule after the Napoleonic Wars. Haynau arrived on the scene and set to work methodically suppressing the revolutionary outbreak. Austrian troops had withdrawn to their fortress and shelled the town of Brescia, causing considerable damage and then went on a rampage when the rebels surrendered. Haynau was unbothered by such actions. His was no ‘soft hand’ and brutal floggings were quite common in the period of Austrian rule but the most notorious actions he took, it should be remembered, were in reprisal to an atrocity by the rebels who massacred a group of wounded Austrian soldiers at a hospital in Brescia. Understandably outraged by such an infamy, von Haynau ordered immediate retribution, his Austrian execution squads working over time. This was, obviously, not cruelty simply for the sake of cruelty but was a natural reaction to a ghastly crime, something which is not always remembered. However, the violent temper of von Haynau meant that, while most of those who were executed were justly guilty, there were many innocent Italians who died as well.

Because so many were killed, and not just the guilty, von Haynau became a hated figure known to the Italians as “the Hyena of Brescia”. This was the image that became best known, while the atrocity of the rebels was often conveniently omitted of course. Still, it must be said that von Haynau was not terribly bothered by such name-calling and believed that such ruthlessness would instill fear and obedience. As such, being called horrific names was simply proof, to his mind, that he was succeeding in eliminating the enemies of his emperor. And there were certainly plenty of enemies to choose from, even as 1848 turned to 1849. One of the most serious rebellions to shake the Austrian Empire was in the Kingdom of Hungary and with so much trouble to quell in so many areas, defeating the Hungarian rebels was proving to be despairingly difficult. General von Haynau was recalled to Vienna from Italy and given orders to go to Hungary and put down the revolutionary forces there. So perilous was the situation that Emperor Francis Joseph had accepted the offer of assistance from Tsar Nicholas I of Russia who sent his reliable army in to aid in crushing the Hungarians.

This gave von Haynau an added incentive. Not only was there his usual zeal to strike down harshly all those who opposed the Hapsburg monarchy, he also had to make sure that the laurels of victory were not taken by the Russians so that the locals would remember who it was who had brought them to heel. Haynau was convinced that the Russian army was not needed anyway and that, with his own troops who were veterans of suppressing revolt in Italy, the Hungarians could be easily dealt with by Austria alone. 1848 had been sufficiently disastrous that not everyone agreed and the helping hand of the “Iron Tsar” was not going to be refused. So, General von Haynau charged into Hungary with more zeal to succeed than ever before and, as usual, he was brilliantly effective at defeating the rebels and ruthlessly harsh in punishing their supporters. As in Italy, any Hungarian man or woman who was believed to have sympathized with the rebels were publicly flogged and all active participants were of course killed. The most famous (or infamous for most of Hungary) of these mass executions was the hanging of thirteen rebel Hungarian generals at Arad on October 6, 1849. For his success in suppressing rebellion, von Haynau was honored in Vienna and for leading them to victory his soldiers adored him. However, in Hungary he gained another nickname, “the Hangman of Arad”.

General von Haynau was appointed to a garrison command in Hungary when the trouble was over but, again, his temperament was not made for peacetime and he soon resigned after feuding with the local civilian officials. General von Haynau retired from the army and traveled around Europe, though his unsavory reputation reached across the continent and even to America. While visiting London he was assaulted by two laborers and more than once had to endure ugly scenes on his travels. He died on March 14, 1853 and was buried with all due honors for a man who had been a loyal soldier and defender of his Emperor and the Hapsburg monarchy. To much of the rest of the world, he was remembered as an almost storybook villain, his name being resurrected during the First World War even in Britain to stoke hatred of the Austrian enemy who most Brits were not sure why they were even fighting.

Was he harsh? Certainly, but his cruelty was cruelty with a purpose rather than simply being for its own sake and he was also a very effective soldier, a man who faced death and not just dealt it out. Today, when he is remembered at all, it is usually as simply an executioner or someone who had women beaten in public. This must be accepted as part of the reason why some were never going to be reconciled to Hapsburg rule, that is a price that comes with such measures. Yet, it should also not be forgotten that this was a man who had first faced death, seen battle and been wounded fighting in a gruesome world war spawned by a revolution and for him there were only two sides; the loyal and the disloyal. Today most tend to take for granted that anything and everything subversive must be tolerated but, in those days, treason was not taken so lightly and for very good reason. It is a judgment call as to whether the harsh methods of Haynau had an ultimately positive or negative effect but what is not disputable is that he was an excellent soldier, a loyal subject and an uncompromising defender of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Monarch Profile: King Louis XIV of France

King Louis XIV of France, despite reigning more than 370 years ago, remains an iconic figure. For most he was the quintessential absolute monarch, everyone remembering his famous quote, “The State? I AM the State!” His words were certainly accurate, whether one likes it or not. King Louis XIV was ambitious, extravagant, glamorous, immoral and powerful just as the Kingdom of France was under his rule. He was grandeur personified and yet, beyond that, it is hard to generalize him. He was supremely arrogant and yet would receive the poorest of his subjects in audience. He was a flagrant adulterer and often at odds with the Church yet was always a staunchly loyal Catholic even if not a devout one. He was not always successful in his undertakings and yet he never seemed to be out of his depth. Nothing seemed to be beyond him and during his rule France was the envy of the world. Certainly other monarchs were likely to be jealous of his position, his rule was absolute, his word was law and he seemed immune from any internal opposition or bickering. Of course, appearances can be misleading in that regard. He seemed to have a natural talent for exercising and holding on to power.

The good and bad points of King Louis XIV can be debated but what certainly stands above all doubt is that he was a colossus in world history. He gave his name to an era and was known by various names alluding to his powerful and grandiose status such as “Louis the Great” or “the Grand Monarch” but perhaps none were so illustrative or accurate as “the Sun King”. The name reveals quite fittingly the pomposity of King Louis XIV and yet, to the frustration of his enemies, it was also almost eerily accurate. Like the sun, he seemed an eternal fixture in the firmament; he was King of France for an astounding 72 years. He was certainly as radiant as the sun, nothing standing out more than the lavish, monumental and breath-taking palace of Versailles (which was even laid out in such a way that his daily routine would follow the course of the sun). Like the sun, he could give vital warmth but could also burn and devastate. Finally, like the sun in the sky, Louis XIV was the monarch that all others revolved around. Almost everything that happened in all the world around him happened because of some action he initiated or was a response to him. Few national leaders in the history of the world have achieved a status similar to Louis XIV. He was, as I have often said, a monarch who was hard to like but hard not to admire at the same time.

From the day he came into this world, Louis was upheld as being Heaven-sent. He was born to King Louis XIII of France and Queen Anne of Austria September 5, 1638. His parents had been married for 23 years and had had no luck producing an heir to the throne. When little Louis was finally born, it is not then surprising that he was immediately called “Louis the God-given”. Literally from the day he was born the future King Louis XIV was being told that he was God’s gift to the world which is certainly revealing for those amazed at the heights of arrogance he was to achieve. Yet, what may be most frustrating for his enemies and critics is that the arrogance of Louis XIV was not unjustified; he had achievements to back it up. He learned early in life and learned quickly how to play the game of power politics. In 1643 his father died and the young child became officially King Louis XIV of France with his beloved mother Queen Anne as regent and the Italian Cardinal Jules Mazarin as the power behind the throne. No doubt Cardinal Mazarin expected to occupy the same position with Louis XIV that Cardinal Richelieu had occupied under King Louis XIII. At first, that was true, in fact, Mazarin probably had even more power than his predecessor but it was not to endure.

The French nobility immediately rose in revolt against the centralizing policies of the Cardinal but Mazarin was successful in suppressing them. The Thirty Years War was ended on terms quite beneficial to France with the Hapsburgs ceding Alsace along with other concessions and the lesser German states followed the shift in the wind and began to align with France rather than Austria. A second revolt by the nobility achieved even less than the first and after the death of Cardinal Mazarin in 1661 the 23-year old Louis XIV became sole master of his kingdom in fact as well as name. He would have no chief minister but would rule as well as reign himself and the policy of centralization of power under the monarch would continue. Under King Louis XIV the nobility of France would become, effectively, courtiers while his appointees saw that his edicts were put into effect throughout the kingdom. It is almost unfortunate that it tended to work so well because it gave many people a false impression about the efficacy of centralized power. It worked because King Louis XIV was such a remarkable man, strong enough and shrewd enough to carry it off rather than because it was wise policy on its own. Other monarchs who lacked the qualities of Louis XIV, good and bad alike, would not be so successful with it.

For his part, King Louis XIV proved a remarkably capable ruler. He reformed the tax system, bringing in more revenue and putting France back on stable economic ground, improved the army and greatly streamlined the legal system, making it more uniform compared to the myriad of laws that varied from area to area that had existed before. The refurbishment he brought to the economy was necessary but probably still wasn’t enough considering how free-spending Louis was in both his domestic and foreign policies. One thing that would characterize his reign was his lavish building programs and almost constant succession of wars. He was a great patron of the arts on a fantastic scale, covering painters, musical composers and literary authors. The great works of art, music and literature as well as the magnificent buildings that emerged in the reign of Louis XIV made the Kingdom of France the center of the artistic and intellectual world. There were advances in medical science, urban beautification and design, military and civil engineering and architecture. The Kingdom of France flourished and became the envy of the world. Like its larger-than-life monarch, France was also a combination of terrible sin and great piety. A demonic fascination with the occult as well as often degenerate personal behavior spread throughout much of high society while at the same time great saints emerged spreading fervent religious devotion, founding new orders, new symbols of popular piety and doing immense works of charity.

There was also plenty of conflict to capture the attention of Louis XIV and one of his first adversaries was the Dutch Republic, at the time certainly no military weakling but which was also troubled by the division between the republicans and the royalists of the Orange party. War with France was prompted in part by the marriage of King Louis to Infanta Maria Theresa, daughter of King Felipe IV of Spain. A war between France and Spain quickly came to include the Dutch and many other powers allied against France as King Louis XIV pursued the long-established French dream of expansion to the Rhine. French troops were able to overrun Belgium without undue difficulty and were aided for a time by England under King Charles II (a cousin of King Louis) in return for French financial support. Yet, they were not steadfast allies (the Protestant ruling class being very opposed to any alliance with France) and as more countries joined in opposition to France, the war had to be ended with King Louis giving back the Dutch territory he had conquered. Still, he certainly came out ahead with France gaining territory and a position to gain more which was of even greater strategic value.

While his foremost focus was always on Europe, King Louis XIV expanded French control or at least influence in America, Africa and Asia. French frontiersmen and missionaries made advances in Canada, Louisiana and the Mississippi basin and, after a shipwreck, the French explorer LaSalle laid claim to Texas for Louis XIV. The first significant footholds for France in India were established and the French presence in south Asia would allow for further moves into southeast Asia. French missionary activity in China was increased, breaking into what had previously been almost the exclusive domain of Portugal. The extension of diplomatic relations with Morocco increased French influence in North Africa, the renewal of the Franco-Turkish alliance with the Ottoman Sultan against Hapsburg Austria strengthened the hand of France in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East and diplomatic exchanges with the King of Siam (Thailand) ultimately resulted in the granting of a Siamese port to France though this was later revoked. Still, under King Louis XIV the reach of France was extending in western Europe as well as around the world. It was thanks to these beginnings that, despite significant setbacks to come, France would emerge as master of the second largest colonial empire on earth.

In Europe itself, French foreign policy often intersected with religious struggles. At home, King Louis XIV worked to strengthen royal authority over the Church and gave support to the suppressed Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland. He also began to crack down on Protestantism in France, ultimately taking the step of revoking the Edict of Nantes which had granted religious freedom to Protestants. King Louis wanted unity and stability at home and no more religious wars. For the King, to be a loyal Frenchman was to be a Catholic. However, while French clerics praised the King for this, he received no support from the Pope who objected to using coercion against the Protestants. Even most Catholics have since agreed that the suppression of Protestantism was wrong as many simply fled the country or became religious skeptics rather than embrace Catholicism. However, the Catholic Church remained something of a problem for King Louis XIV as well as a major support within France itself. Local bishops upheld the “Divine Right” of the King and royal absolutism but the Pope was constantly at odds with King Louis because of his efforts to make the Church in France subordinate to royal control. The Pope also opposed Louis XIV for political reasons. To maintain papal political power over Rome and central Italy, the popes had a long history of playing off the French and Germans against each other. As French power was on the rise, the Pope shifted to supporting the Austrians, just as others had supported the French when the Holy Roman (German) Emperor became more powerful.

Because of this, Europe was treated to the odd spectacle of the Pope supporting zealously Protestant powers such as the Dutch against the Catholic King of France and his efforts to restore a Catholic monarchy to the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. King Louis was tied by blood, religion and royalist sentiment to the Catholic Stuarts of Great Britain. He secretly pledged to send French troops to England if the Protestants tried to depose King Charles II (a deathbed convert to Catholicism) and it was the financial support of Louis XIV that enabled Charles II to rule without Parliament for the final years of his reign. When the openly Catholic King James II came to the throne after the death of Charles, trouble seemed unavoidable. King Louis XIV and King James II were alike in many ways; lustful, pious and proud but Louis was much more willing to put political self-interest first. When King James II was overthrown in 1688 by his Protestant daughter and son-in-law (the Dutch Prince of Orange), King Louis XIV was not to deliver as much support as he promised. Still, he was about the only sovereign willing to give tangible support to the Catholic Stuarts. The result was an unsuccessful effort at a Stuart restoration in Ireland which set the stage for centuries of sectarian conflict, though, again, it was an odd sort of religious struggle which saw the Pope supporting the Protestant Prince of Orange against the Catholic King James II, and that mostly because he was so closely allied to the staunchly if not devoutly Catholic King Louis XIV of France.

As adamantly Catholic as King Louis was, his private life was nothing short of scandalous. His wife was Queen Maria Theresa of Spain by whom he had six children, though only one of which survived to adulthood. Although he seemed to have a genuine sort of affection for his queen, Louis XIV soon took on a very long succession of mistresses by whom he had a small horde of illegitimate children, all of which he tried to do right by. His court chaplain, Bishop Bossuet, renowned as a Biblical scholar and the greatest orator since Cicero, was just as often chiding the “Sun King” for his irregular private life as he was defending and extolling the absolute power of kings (that is “absolute” and not “arbitrary” as Bossuet was careful to explain). Some of his mistresses had official recognition and many came to be quite well-known in the pages of history such as Catherine Charlotte de Gramont, the wife of Prince Louis I of Monaco, the famous Madame de Montespan who bore him seven children and was accused of sorcery and probably the most famous of all, Madame de Maintenon whom the King ended up privately marrying toward the end of his life. Louis XIV seemed to go through a regular routine of taking up with a mistress, being scolded by Churchmen like Bossuet, expelling them from court but finally, usually after growing tired of that particular mistress, breaking off the relationship, reconciling with the Church and staying on the ‘straight and narrow’ until some other pretty thing caught his eye and the process began again. It was a constant struggle for him but despite his weakness for the ladies and his efforts to assert royal control over the Church, the idea of following the example of King Henry VIII and breaking with Rome would have been unthinkable to Louis XIV as it would have undermined one of the primary foundations of his authority and would have been a repudiation of the faith of his ancestors which is something he was not prepared to do no matter how exasperated he became with the political opposition of the Pope or the disapproving lectures from his chaplains.

Back on the world stage, the death of the Elector Palatine Charles II caused turmoil as Louis XIV struggled to ensure that France continued to have prevailing influence in the Rhineland. This was not so remarkable but given how successful the “Sun King” had been in the past, the other monarchs of Europe were rather nervous about how powerful France was becoming. So, in response, the Holy Roman (German/Austrian) Emperor, Elector of Bavaria, Elector of Saxony, the King of Sweden and the King of Spain all joined together to oppose Louis XIV in the League of Augsburg. With the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 in England the Prince of Orange joined in as well and the War of the Grand Alliance began. There were setbacks for France such as the aforementioned defeat in Ireland of King James II, the Dutch seizure of the main French outpost in India but, on the whole, it was King Louis XIV who won victory after victory, many of which were thanks to his chief commander the Duke of Luxembourg. In the north, Mons and Namur fell, in the south, Savoy was conquered and by 1694, when the opportunity presented itself, French forces invaded Spain and captured Barcelona. The Allies were pressed to the limit and finally the Duke of Savoy agreed to defect to Louis XIV with the Treaty of Turin, after which the dominos fell quickly as one country after another abandoned the Grand Alliance to seek better terms from the King of France. King Louis XIV had succeeded brilliantly at the age old tactic of “divide and conquer”.

One war was over but another was already taking shape and Louis XIV shrewdly kept his demands for peace moderate, particularly in regards to the Spanish. King Carlos II of Spain was tragically handicapped (the horrifying result of generations of inbreeding) and was not expected to live long, though he did live longer than anyone would have thought possible. Everyone knew that when the childless Carlos II died there would be trouble over the succession and King Louis XIV was planning ahead so as to help further the cause of his grandson, the Duke of Anjou, who he hoped to make the next King of Spain. Naturally, the Austrians expected another Hapsburg to be King of Spain while the British and Dutch were worried about either possibility; if a Bourbon or a Hapsburg became King of Spain it would in any case mean that one of the two most powerful Catholic dynasties would become more powerful still. There was nothing Louis XIV could do about Austria but he did try to alleviate the fears of Britain and Holland by taking Italy off the table, dividing it ahead of time between France and Austria. However, the Spanish did not appreciate having their hold on Italy signed away without them and an embittered Carlos II named the Bavarian Prince Joseph Ferdinand (grandson of the Austrian [HRE] Emperor Leopold I) as his heir. King Louis XIV paid little mind to this and instead concluded a new agreement with the Dutch King William III of England for a division of Spanish lands that was more beneficial to them.

This finally brought home to the Spanish the fact that their empire could only be preserved intact if the candidate of the King of France would be the next King of Spain. In other words, Louis XIV had so arranged things that Spain could either name the Duke of Anjou heir to the throne and see the French brought on side to fight to preserve the Spanish Empire or name some other candidate and see the empire divided no matter who emerged victorious. It was a masterful arrangement for King Louis XIV though it would mean that the War of Spanish Succession (or Queen Anne’s War in America) was inevitable and the struggle began in 1701 with almost the whole of Europe aligned against Louis XIV of France. The Spanish themselves, however, sided with Louis XIV. The Duke of Anjou, finally King Felipe V of Spain, seemed a capable enough fellow and the Spanish public felt more comfortable with the more Latin Gallic candidate than a German Hapsburg. So, on one side was the “Grand Alliance” consisting of Austria (HRE/Germany), Britain, Holland, Savoy, Prussia, Portugal and those Spaniards who were pro-Hapsburg all opposed to the “Party of the Two Crowns” namely the Kingdoms of France and Spain (along with support from minor powers such as the Electorates of Bavaria and Cologne and the Duchy of Mantua).

The war would be the climax of the reign of King Louis XIV and with such an array of countries allied against him, the odds were certainly not in his favor and yet, given that, it is amazing that the Franco-Spanish forces managed to do as well as they did. The decisive factor proved to be the superior military leadership of the Allies compared to the Franco-Spanish forces. The Allies boasted two of the greatest captains in military history; the Duke of Marlborough for Great Britain and Prince Eugene of Savoy who was fighting for the Hapsburgs. King Louis XIV simply had no commander who proved capable of matching these exceptional leaders. France had the larger armies but ultimately this was not enough to overcome British naval dominance and the skill of Marlborough and Savoy on the land. Still, the French forces put up a good fight early on and King Louis XIV adeptly managed the political situation in his favor many times, taking advantage of anti-Hapsburg revolts in Hungary and parts of Germany. Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria was one of the more able commanders on the French side, but he was ultimately defeated by Marlborough. Prince Eugene checked the French in Italy and his previous victories over the Turks meant the Austrians could focus on the western front. At the Battle of Blenheim the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy came together to win a decisive victory over a larger Franco-Bavarian army, effectively putting Bavaria out of the war, ending any French threat to the Hapsburg heartland as well as ending the mentality that France under Louis XIV was unbeatable.

Nonetheless, King Louis XIV, through determination if nothing else, was able to preserve the Spanish Empire and efforts to see Spain divided by the Allies all came to nothing. Despite many lost battles, the persistence of Louis XIV and French forces began to take a toll on the Allies whose political unity began to crack. When the war finally ended in 1714 King Louis XIV came out of it quite well. The Spanish Empire lost some territory but the Duke of Anjou was confirmed as King Felipe V of Spain by the Allied powers so long as it was agreed that one Bourbon monarch would never rule both countries. France even gained some territory in the final agreement. Despite losing the war on the battlefield, King Louis XIV had essentially succeeded in what the whole conflict had ultimately been about which was who the next King of Spain would be. Because of his determination and shrewd political moves, Spain would have a Bourbon monarch and, as everyone knows, while the French monarchy ultimately fell victim to republicanism, it is a Bourbon monarch who still reigns over the Kingdom of Spain to this day in the person of Felipe VI. Against very long odds, King Louis XIV had managed the seemingly impossible; being victorious in a war that his armies lost. Still, it was a close call by any measure and Louis XIV was adept enough to recognize this and advised his great-grandson, who would succeed him as Louis XV, to be, “a peaceful prince”.

Of course, King Louis XIV remained involved in various enterprises to advance the interests of France right up to the very end of his life such as another effort to restore the Stuarts to the British throne with the Jacobite rising of 1715 though the King of France did not leave to see it defeated. “His Most Christian Majesty Louis XIV, by the Grace of God, King of France and of Navarre” died on September 1, 1715 at the Palace of Versailles at the age of 76. He had always appeared more robust than he actually was and finally succumbed, painfully, to gangrene. He had reigned over France for 72 years, 110 days and ruled it for the vast majority of those years as well, coming to the throne as a child, coming to power as a teenager and gaining full power as a young man with the passing of Mazarin. He had known victories and defeats but even his losses seemed rather inconsequential. France had risen quickly under King Louis XIV but though he left the country stronger than he found it, in some ways his very success worked against him. His reign marked the zenith of power and prestige for the Kingdom of France and things would never be quite the same again. For such a larger-than-life figure, the whole of Europe seemed somehow emptier after his passing, and somewhat less glamorous.

Looking back, the reign of King Louis XIV was a glorious success and yet, though hard to see, there were very serious cracks in the façade as well. His centralization of power and enforcement of Catholic uniformity led to internal peace and stability but it also created a bureaucratic monster that only a man as exceptional as Louis XIV could master. His successors would have a much more difficult time. Likewise, while ending the threat of aristocratic rebellion, his policies turned much of the nobility of France into listless, debauched courtiers who stopped taking care of their people and devoted themselves to court gossip, court scandal and licentious escapades. His military and foreign policy had stalled his enemies, expanded French power around the world and put a Bourbon on the throne of Spain. All of these grand achievements had also made France plenty of enemies and left the government in dire financial straits. Again, it was a situation not beyond the abilities of someone like King Louis XIV to overcome but the great-grandson who succeeded him would not inherit all of the best qualities of his predecessor. It has been said that Caesar Augustus ‘found Rome brick and left it marble’ and something similar could be said for Louis XIV. However, while the great Augustus had left behind a system which managed to carry on functioning even with the occasional Caligula at the top of it, Louis XIV had left a state that was molded to his own hands, his own unique set of talents and vices which did not endure in the hands of others.

Whether Louis XIV was a “good” or “bad” king can, I suppose, be debated. He was, on the whole, a successful king, making France more powerful, more prosperous, the leader in every field from art, literature and science  to trade, diplomacy and war and putting France at the center of world affairs. One can argue whether he was “good” or “bad”, whether his faults were greater than his talents or his vices more serious than his virtues but no one can deny that he was a “great” King. More than anything else, King Louis XIV exuded greatness, grandeur and glory. One cannot think of him without thinking of huge, lavish palaces, glamorous and elaborate fashions, finery and meticulous etiquette (in fact, the rules of behavior for the court at Versailles is where most of what the western world considers ‘good manners’ came from). While there was always a dark side, Louis plastered over it with layers of beauty. He wore beautiful clothes, admired beautiful art, lived in beautiful buildings, listened to beautiful music and loved plenty of beautiful women. His court chaplain, Bossuet, wrote that the outward glory of kings was a reflection of the glory of God and one could say that the outward glory of France was a reflection of the glory of Louis XIV. He made France the country everyone looked to as the most fashionable, the most ornate and beautiful, truly the envy of the world. In terms of sheer magnificence, even King Solomon in all his glory would have had to be impressed by the France of Louis XIV.

The Example of Jordan

It was on this day in 1999 that Abdullah II succeeded to the throne of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon the death of his father King Hussein. The King of Jordan has been in the news a great deal lately with the horrific burning alive of a Jordanian fighter pilot by ISIS terrorists. King Abdullah, a trained combat pilot himself, put on his battle gear and called for swift retaliation against the barbaric criminals, inspiring people all over the world, from the United States to Japan, whose leaders could not or would not do the same in showing such a level of determination against the vicious enemy. With all of this in mind, it should be obvious to the viewing public that Jordan represents something of a ‘framework’ to solving many of the problems in the modern Middle East. Saying that it “should” be obvious, however, does not mean that it will be since no one seems willing to make the monarchist argument on the world stage. At a time when so many are praising the courage and leadership of King Abdullah II, this is the perfect time to point out that the Jordanian model should stand as an example to others of a monarchist solution.

The Kingdom of Jordan stands out in the Middle East as a country which, while having its share of problems and shortcomings as any country does, has a great record of strength and stability compared to those around it. Jordan is a small country, a little larger than the state of Indiana, a population of around six million with very little water and practically no natural resources to speak of. Its chief products has traditionally been barley, fruit and goats. It has nothing like the vast oil reserves of Iraq or even Saudi Arabia and there have been tensions between the native people and the very large number of Palestinians who make up a large part of the population. Yet, while neighbors like Syria and Iraq have had many more advantages, they have known numerous civil wars and spent many decades living under the heel of brutal socialist dictators while Jordan has carried on in internal peace and stability with a strong constitutional monarchy.

The King, like most in the region, has a great deal of power and is expected to actually rule his country and yet it bears almost no resemblance at all to its neighbor Saudi Arabia which is much more restrictive and where power is much more centralized. Likewise, while it is a Muslim country and the Hashemite Royal Family claims descent from the prophet Mohammed, it is not at all as harshly strict as Saudi Arabia is. Starting in the 1950’s women in Jordan gained much more freedom and it has a representative government with a bicameral legislature with the lower body being democratically elected and the upper body appointed by the King. If this sounds somewhat familiar, it should. After British and Allied forces drove out the Ottoman Turks in World War I the country of Transjordan (as it was originally called) was established with the Hashemite prince Abdullah ibn Hussein as Emir. From 1920 Transjordan was a British mandate that made steady progress toward independence so that by the 1940’s only a few British advisors remained. Total independence was recognized in 1946 but if any should doubt that the country was not practically independent before that, it is worth remembering that Jordan was neutral in World War II which, of course, it would not have been if it had been simply a British dependency.

There were many problems, as with every other country in the region, concerning the independence of the State of Israel, Palestinian refugees and lingering ties with Great Britain, particularly as Arab nationalism became trendy in the 1950’s. However, Jordan and Iraq, which was also a Hashemite monarchy at the time, joined together in the Arab Federation or Arab Federal State in 1958 to counter the Egyptian-Syrian union (which was really Egyptian domination of Syria) known as the United Arab Republic. Neither lasted very long and the Iraqi monarchy sadly fell to a republican coup that ushered in an era of instability broken only by the stability of a brutal dictatorship. So, while Syria and Iraq have mostly been known for their wars and torture and tyranny, Jordan has gained a much better reputation around the world. Jordan is known as the country that made peace with Israel (though naturally tensions remain), the country with widely admired and respected leaders, male and female like King Hussein, Queen Alia, Queen Noor or King Abdullah II and Queen Rania today.

Everyone, in light of recent events, who is praising King Abdullah II for his bold stand against ISIS, should ask themselves why it is that Jordan is so often the home for refugees from places like Palestine, Iraq and Syria. They should ask why Syria and Iraq cannot have a ‘King Abdullah’ of their own, because the answer is that they easily could have! Iraq, in fact, did have and Syria had previously -even what is now Saudi Arabia had a Hashemite monarchy in the aftermath of the First World War. The Hashemites had led the Arab revolt against the Turks and were set to rule the newly independent countries that emerged from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Sharif Hussein was to rule Arabia as King of the Hejaz but he was later overthrown by the Wahhabi-backed House of Saud who established Saudi Arabia as it is today. One son of his, Faisal I, became King of Syria with Prince Zeid (another son) as regent of Iraq and a third son, Abdullah, was made King of Transjordan. However, only the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has endured. The Hejaz fell to the Saudis, the Kingdom of Syria was overthrown by the French Republic and its monarch, King Faisal, instead became King of Iraq. The monarchy there endured somewhat longer but, as mentioned, was lost in a coup in 1958 when King Faisal II and the Royal Family were brutally massacred. None have benefited from such changes, I think any honest observer would agree.

There are, of course, unique distinctions about the Middle East that make it a particularly difficult region to thrive in these days. However, as people today applaud King Abdullah II and call for greater unity and some sort of Arab coalition to wipe out the terrorist element, we should call attention to the fact that such a thing did exist, albeit very briefly, in the past and that it could, conceivably, come about again if only people and governments would follow the example of the formula that has proven the most successful. If things continue as they are, no one will suffer more than the Arabs. Already rebels backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran have brought down the government of Yemen, the elected government in Iraq is heavily influenced by Iran and the dictator of Syria and the powerful Hezbollah faction in Lebanon are practically Iranian owned. Someone is being encircled here and it isn’t Europe or the United States. This is not ’someone else’s fight’ but an Arab fight that the Arabs must take in hand themselves, as the King of Jordan has been doing. Other powers can give assistance but if we want real lasting peace and stability in the region some things have to change or, to be more precise, change back.

Could World War II in Asia Have Been Avoided?

The European theater of World War II seems positively simplistic when compared to the conflict in the Pacific and East Asia. In Europe, the essential reason for the start of hostilities was straightforward; Britain and France had given a war guarantee to Poland, Germany invaded Poland and so Britain and France declared war and “The Great War, Take Two” was underway. However, in Asia, the war had much more complicated origins. The start was simple enough; the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, followed up in quick order by attacks on British, American and Dutch forces or territory throughout Southeast Asia. Thus, whereas even Hitler could claim that he had wanted no trouble with Britain and France but was obliged to go to war as they had attacked him over German actions which did not threaten them in the least (and while not declaring war on the Soviet Union which invaded Poland as well), Japan can not escape being the aggressor. The Allies, at least starting with America, Britain and Holland, had every justification for going to war since, after all, it was the Empire of Japan which had attacked them. And yet, while the war in Europe started abruptly, the war in Asia was merely the expansion of hostilities that had been underway for the better part of a decade. The Empire of Japan was already at war in December of 1941, their attacks simply widened that war to add Britain, America, the Netherlands and eventually many more along with China to their list of enemies.

IJA forces in Manchuria

In Europe, there had been a clear escalation as Nazi Germany expanded. The Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Hitler had moved to reclaim German-populated areas step by step and the Allies grumbled and grumbled more until finally the line was drawn at Poland. Hitler crossed that line and the war was on. Yet, in Asia, no one seemed to want to draw a line. Where would it be drawn? Japan had occupied Manchuria and while the Allies grumbled, no one was prepared to do anything about it. Chinese and Japanese forces clashed in China, and yet no one did anything about it. Such a thing was rather hard to complain about honestly. Japan had not exactly invaded China in the way Germany invaded Poland, the Japanese troops were already there as were the military forces of many other countries, including Britain and America. Then Japan occupied French Indochina and the Allies became more seriously alarmed, enough to put sanctions on Japan in an effort to coerce the Japanese into doing what they thought best. Yet, while Japan was prepared to use force if necessary, the occupation had been done with the consent of the French government at Vichy, a government which, at the time, was still recognized by the United States as the legal government of France. So, there was the rather bizarre situation of countries which Japan had not molested in any way, placing sanctions on Japan for occupying a French colony with the consent of the French government.

When war did break out, while Japan was certainly the aggressor, no one can honestly say that they became so completely out of the blue. For American President Roosevelt to call the attack on Pearl Harbor “unprovoked”, as he did, was totally untrue. The United States, followed by Great Britain and the Netherlands, did plenty to provoke Japan to action. For the British and Dutch, joining in the American sanctions on Japan was practically a necessity as they desperately needed American goodwill and American support in their war against Germany with the Germans having conquered and occupied the Netherlands and the Germans bombing Britain relentlessly while maintaining a tightening counter-blockade against Britain with their submarine fleet. Where we begin to see how avoidable or unavoidable the war in Asia was is in the response of the Roosevelt administration to two regimes they did not like, Germany and Japan, but lacked the support of the American people in actively going to war against. The United States was neutral from 1939 to December 8, 1941 but the USA was far from impartial. In fact, American “neutrality” approached the level of farce.

German U-Boat in the Atlantic

In Europe, all American business was with Great Britain rather than Germany and likewise, to a much lesser extent, with China rather than Japan. Roosevelt had a family history and personal ties that prejudiced him to favor the Chinese and while he was no great fan of Britain, there had long been a very powerful Anglophile clique in the American government. After the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Roosevelt became even more determined to do all he could short of war to defeat Germany and Italy. His focus really was more on Europe than Asia while the American public wanted no war with either. His actions made it seem that war with Germany would be the least avoidable. Abandoning neutrality in all but name practically, American warships were actually attacking German warships in the Atlantic on orders from Roosevelt while still claiming America to be neutral. However, Hitler, quite wisely, decided to endure this provocation because the damage incurred on his submarines was miniscule compared to the almost certain defeat he would face if he retaliated and brought the United States into World War II, particularly before Russia was conquered and Britain was still defiant. Thus, oddly enough, FDR’s more overt provocations against Germany did not result in war but his non-violent provocation against Japan did.

After the Japanese occupied French Indochina (Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) the United States froze all Japanese assets, banned Japanese shipping from the Panama Canal and put an embargo on vital resources to Japan. America was Japan’s primary source of these materials and when America persuaded Britain and Holland (ruler of the Dutch East Indies -now Indonesia) to do the same, it backed Japan into a corner. From that moment, Japan was fighting against time, growing weaker every day and so was forced to either give in to American demands or go to war while they still had the strength to do so. The radical militarists were, of course, in favor of war and (rightly) wanted it to come as soon as possible. However, most leaders in Tokyo were intelligent enough to realize that a war with America would be as near to totally impossible to win as one could get. So, there were feverish negotiations to try to restore friendly relations with the United States but those Japanese pushing for peace were met with two formidable obstacles; the radicals of their own country whose pride was such that they fought backing down on anything and the person of U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull who displayed a consistently bigoted attitude toward the Japanese and who was perfectly happy to delay any resolution as long as possible while American forces grew stronger and Japan grew weaker.

Cordell Hull -one of the guilty parties

What makes the whole situation ultimately frustrating was that a clock was ticking away toward the start of a war that the vast majority in both countries did not want to fight, two countries who had no territorial disputes and no conflicting interests of national security. It is horrifically tragic that there were numerous avenues and opportunities to have prevented the outbreak of hostilities which were squandered. Some were realistic and some were not. The Japanese got behind a peace effort made by two intrepid Catholic priests who had missionary experience in China and were convinced that the communists would eventually threaten all of East Asia. They put forward a plan for the USA to effectively just back down and leave Japan alone so that the Japanese could establish a sort of Japanese version of the Monroe Doctrine for East Asia as Japan was the only regional power capable of dealing with the communist threat. Such a notion would never get beyond someone like Hull, nevertheless, the talks did produce a real chance for peace if both sides had been more amenable and ultimately if the United States had simply been more clear.

The Roosevelt administration wanted the Japanese out of Indochina and out of China plain and simple. Obviously, Japan could have simply abandoned their undeclared war in China, withdrawn to their own territory and would likely still be the top regional power of East Asia to this day. The militarists would never let that happen but there was still an avenue to peace as most Japanese leaders did not really want to be fighting the Chinese nationalists anyway. They had been drawn into the conflict since the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and were too proud to back down afterwards. They already had a dominant position to begin with and there was nothing that Japan really wanted or needed from Chiang Kai-shek other than peace. The problem was that the militarists stubbornly insisted that the Chinese be the ones to back down and come to them for peace rather than the reverse. The undeclared war was a quagmire for Japan. Victory after victory had been won and yet, nearly a decade after it began, Japan was no closer to success, again, partly because Japan had no goal in mind other than Chiang Kai-shek suing for peace. Such a peace should have been possible, especially after the sanctions on Japan made Tokyo more desperate for some way out of their perilous situation. Things were so serious and the prospects of war were so gloomy that, ultimately, Japanese leaders did agree to the idea of the United States being called upon to negotiate an end to the hostilities in China.

China, Manchuria, Japan Co-Prosperity

What an opportunity this represented! Today, not many people may be aware just how agreeable the Japanese had, eventually, become to American demands. In the course of their negotiations the Japanese finally agreed to a timetable for the evacuation of their forces from Indochina as well as from China once hostilities were concluded. There was a provision, which should not have been much of an impediment, for Japan to retain a sufficient token force in the north to deal with any communist threat but, on the whole, Japan was prepared to agree to American demands provided the undeclared war with China could have been ended and there was even support in Tokyo for America to broker such a peace. It was a golden opportunity which China would scarcely have had reason to object to and which would have allowed both sides to save face by avoiding having to approach their opposite directly to ask for peace. Such an agreement would have lifted the sanctions against Japan, ended the war in China and still have seen Japan retain her dominant position in northeast Asia. The problem was that this idea came too late with Japan never firmly committing itself and with the USA, particularly Hull, being unwilling to believe Japan was sincere. Yet, it was a possibility, it could have happened.

There was only one real impediment to this “on the ground” as it were and that was the “Reorganized National Government” of the Republic of China led by Wang Jingwei. This was the regime established in 1940 under the sponsorship of Japan and which was quickly recognized by the Empire of Japan as the “legitimate” government of China after they decided that it was hopeless trying to deal with Chiang Kai-shek. This was a major political blunder on the part of Japan as it made it all but impossible to ever come to a negotiated peace with Chiang Kai-shek who, naturally, was not about to ever give such a regime any recognition at all. However, once it was done and Japan had recognized it, the Japanese did not want to back down and disavow it. Subsequent peace talks then involved Japan demanding that a prerequisite of peace with Chiang Kai-shek was his accepting some sort of power-sharing government with Wang Jingwei which he would never agree to as Wang Jingwei had immediately assumed a status equivalent to Benedict Arnold in the United States or Vidkun Quisling in Norway, in other words, the perfect traitor. If Japan had been prepared to abandon Wang Jingwei, an untrustworthy fellow in any event, it would have made peace much more possible.

Wang Jingwei

Finally, and perhaps most tragically, much of the growing tensions between the United States and Japan in the negotiations to avoid the outbreak of war might have been avoided but for a simple misunderstanding. The final word which caused Japan to give up trying to come to terms with the United States was the note given by Hull to the Japanese ambassadors Nomura and Kurusu on November 26, 1941. It demanded that Japan withdraw all military forces from China and Indochina, support no other regime in China save Chiang Kai-shek (in other words, tossing out Wang Jingwei) and to dissolve the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy in exchange for which the United States would lift the sanctions, unfreeze Japanese assets, grant a new trade agreement and “Most Favored Nation” trading status with Japan, stabilize the dollar-yen rate as well as other economic concessions. It was the most blunt and harsh proposal America had made to Japan and both Nomura and Kurusu knew as soon as they read it that it would be ’dead on arrival’ in Tokyo. Yet, even that, might not have been the last word but for a misunderstanding.

All the Japanese who read the note assumed that by ordering all Japanese forces to withdraw from “China” that Hull was referring to Manchuria as well which would have left the Empire of Manchukuo easy prey for Chiang Kai-shek. It was a natural assumption given that the United States had objected to the restoration of the Manchurian monarchy and had never recognized the client empire. It was the one point that infuriated the Japanese the most. The tragic thing is that even Hull had never intended to go that far, he never intended “China” to include Manchuria which he had earlier implied at the very least was not a major concern to the United States. Only many years after the war did the associates of General Hideki Tojo (Prime Minister of Japan in 1941) learn of this. One said that if they had known that the United States would have recognized Manchukuo that the Hull proposal would have been accepted. The others would not go that far but agreed that it would have made a significant difference, perhaps leading to a different proposal that would have been agreed to or brought about a change in government that would have prevented the attack on Pearl Harbor and thus the outbreak of hostilities. If the United States had been clear on this point, the war as it happened could well have been avoided.

The march to war

The bottom line is that the war in Asia did not have to happen and were it not for needless mistrust, arrogant pride and simple misunderstanding it could have easily been prevented. Japan clearly made the decision to initiate hostilities but both sides were guilty of helping bring it about. The United States was intervening in things that did not concern American vital interests and was holding Japan to a standard it did not hold other countries to. American officials, particularly Hull, treated the Japanese contemptuously, reacting angrily when Japan was disagreeable and then doubting their sincerity when Japan was agreeable. That U.S. policy ‘boxed in’ Japan and forced the Japanese to choose between war or humiliation is undeniable. Yet, it is also undeniable that the Japanese made taking them at their word difficult as they lacked a coherent policy and a single voice in foreign affairs with so many different factions pursuing different agendas at the same time. Likewise, faced with the prospect of a hopeless war and total ruin, the Japanese militarists could have, at any time, swallowed their pride and withdrawn from an undeclared war in China many did not want to be fighting anyway and could have restored good relations while retaining for the Empire of Japan their mastery of Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, south Sakhalin, all of the Kuriles and the South Pacific mandate. The war could have been avoided and should have been as it brought nothing but misery and left ruin in its wake for almost everyone involved.

Whether the different courses of action detailed above would have prevented further warfare entirely is a debatable point. All depended on the actions of Japan and it was almost impossible for Japan to have a clear foreign policy given that the military could bring down any government by withholding their support and the military was divided into numerous factions, each advocating a different vision for the empire. The navy, for example, tended to favor the “strike south” policy which would have inevitably led to world war (as happened) as it called for expansion into Southeast Asia and the conquest of British, French & Dutch colonies by Japan. The army tended to favor the “strike north” policy of focusing on the threat of Soviet Russia and looked to expand control or at least dominant influence over Mongolia and parts of Siberia. If this policy had been chosen, while the Allied democracies may have grumbled, it is hard to imagine any of them taking action in defense of Stalin and the Soviet Union.

26 February flag

One major benefit to the “strike north” policy, however, was that it was a long-term strategy. Advocates of this policy wanted to finish up the war in China, consolidate in Manchuria, build up the industrial and economic strength of Japan and then go to war with Russia when there was a more realistic chance of success. However, the army itself was divided between various factions such as the “Control Faction” and the “Imperial Way Faction”. The more conservative “Control Faction” looked to the cautious, slow, long-term strengthening of Japan whereas the more radical “Imperial Way Faction” wanted effectively a military dictatorship and a more aggressive policy towards Russia. However, the “Imperial Way Faction” met with a series of setbacks, the first being the February 26 Incident, practically an attempted coup, which was defeated and saw a considerable backlash against the “Imperial Way” in 1936. Then, in 1939, the Japanese Sixth Army was defeated by the Russians in the Nomonhan Incident on the Manchu-Mongol border, the same year the Nazi-Soviet Pact went into effect and a nervous Japan quickly agreed to its own non-aggression pact with Stalin. This left the “strike south faction” in a dominant position and that was a course that would inevitably lead to war with the US, France, Holland and the British Empire. Obviously, one may note that all of these discussions and plans were going on long before America and Britain placed any sanctions or other pressure at all on Japan.

Because of all of this, we can see that some sort of conflict would have been harder to avoid than the actual war that did break out at the end of 1941. The conflict that happened then was clearly avoidable and had the United States been more clear and even-handed, it could have been. If the militarists in Japan had put the long-term interests of their country ahead of their own pride, that certainly would have helped too. However, the prospect of some future clash of arms would have been more difficult to avoid and that due almost entirely to the aggressive and anti-western sentiment in Japan that fueled antagonism with the other major powers as did Japanese adherence to the Tripartite Pact with Hitler and Mussolini. There was a slogan, then widespread in Japan, that could be translated as “don’t miss the bus”, meaning the opportunity for military expansion caused by the fact that all of the focus of the great powers was on Nazi Germany and Hitler’s conquests in Europe. In light of subsequent events, everyone should be able to agree that Japan and the rest of the countries involved in the war in East Asia would have been much the better off if that bus had been allowed to speed on down the road.

Tripartite Pact personified

So, we can see that there were multiple occasions on which the war, as it happened, could have and should have been easily avoided. If communications between Tokyo and the Japanese forces in China had been faster, it might have been avoided. If the Chinese had not escalated the conflict, if the United States had simply minded its own business and likewise if the United States had been truly impartial in the Sino-Japanese conflict, it might have been avoided. Failing that, if the Japanese military had been willing to swallow its pride and withdraw from a war in China that nobody wanted and served only the interests of the communists, it might have been avoided and Japan would have still been master of an extensive empire. It is all the more tragic that it wasn’t avoided because the war in China served no real interest of Japan since the communists were hanging back and letting the nationalists do the fighting and because Japanese actions in northeast China and Manchuria did not impact the vital national interests of America, Britain, France or any other western country. Nor was the Tripartite Pact ultimately very helpful to either Japan on one side or Germany and Italy on the other considering that Japan did not join the war against Soviet Russia, no significant aid or assistance was able to pass between the two sides and considering that the Allies were able to overpower all of them more or less at the same time. The fact that it wasn’t avoided ultimately served only the interests of the communists who emerged larger, stronger and more threatening as a result of the whole sad affair.

Beheading ISIS

The terrorist organization ISIS is now claiming to have beheaded the second of their Japanese hostages, Kenji Goto (a Christian and father of three) who they had been offering to exchange for a female suicide bomber being held by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. While most of the focus has been on the major republics involved in this conflict or those which are able to do something about it, monarchies like the United Kingdom and Japan have lost people to these barbaric criminals. Jordan has also been touched by it and other Arab monarchies have also participated in the campaign against ISIS, though not to the extent that most in the west would like to see. What, if anything, can the monarchies of the world do about this situation? Should they do anything at all?

The key question really is; what can they do? Unfortunately, things like the current social-welfare state that is so popular around the world has meant that there is not a single monarchy on earth at this point that is capable of any sort of extensive, independent, military operation. Even the most militarily powerful monarchy in the world (and the only one with nuclear weapons), the United Kingdom, has admitted that the British military has been reduced to the point that they can only take action in conjunction with another power, and the United States is "the only game in town" in that regard. It would be extremely difficult for the British to undertake any sort of rescue operation aimed at freeing ISIS hostages because British military resources are so scarce. As for Japan, such an operation is currently out of the question as it would be illegal because of the pacifist constitution the country has had since the end of World War II (and most American leaders would now like to see it amended and for Japan to strengthen its armed forces). And, in any event, such an operation would be likely to fail in any event as any hostages would likely be killed at the last minute. Even the United States, with all of its military resources and expertise, has failed at such missions.

So, is there nothing that can be done? To rescue current or future hostages, I would sadly have to say so. These people, and God bless them, have willingly gone to areas where they know that terrorists operate freely and where they are beyond the protection of their own governments. Some have gone for humanitarian reasons, some simply for business, but whatever the reason, my advice would be that it just isn't worth it -avoid the area entirely. However, as far as the overall situation with ISIS, no monarchy may be able to do much, but they are able to do something. Britain could send weapons to Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and Japan could send them some Toyota trucks that could be easily modified for military use. Beyond that, however, the situation becomes very, very difficult to navigate. For instance, in Syria, there are, broadly speaking, three factions: the dictator Assad, ISIS and the anti-Assad rebels such as the Free Syrian Army. Assad is on closest terms with powers like Iran and Russia, neither of which are friendly toward Britain. Russia is likewise hostile toward Japan and while Iran may not be, they are on very friendly terms with China and North Korea which are. So anything that helped Assad would not serve the national interests of Britain or Japan. The problem is, the anti-Assad rebels are often no better, in fact Kenji Goto first went to the area to rescue Haruna Yukawa who had been kidnapped by the Free Syrian Army. Both have since been be-headed by ISIS after returning to Syria. It is not uncommon for Syrian rebels to sell hostages to ISIS.

The local monarchies are in a similarly difficult position, though to some extent one of their own making. For years they promoted or at least allowed the spread of the sort of radical Islam that is now posing a threat to their regimes. They want to stop insurrection wherever it breaks out but it is also not good for their domestic popularity to align with non-Muslim states for any reason. This is something many, many people fail to understand when they look at the monarchies of the Middle East and are so quick to condemn them; they have their own dissidents to worry about and those dissidents are not opposed to them for upholding shariah law but rather for being insufficiently devoted to it. Even in Jordan, which is fairly moderate for the neighborhood, the elements that oppose the monarchy are more likely to have a problem with the King being friendly with the west or the Queen for hanging out with Oprah and Hillary Clinton than for the regime being too Islamic or authoritarian. It is because of this situation that I have said the best course of action would be to view the whole region as a minefield -mark it and stay out. Once things become more settled so that there is some power or faction it would not be detrimental to support, other decisions can be made.

If, however, that is not satisfactory, I would fall back on imperialism, no matter how distasteful modern popular opinion holds it. Be open and honest about it, but go in, choose someone to support, making it clear that he will be dropped in an instant if he doesn't stay friendly, and then give him all that is necessary to clean house on the terrorists. It would involve military intervention and one that would have to be sustained for some time. Personally, I'd like for the British to take a leading role in such an enterprise and insist that restored Hashemite monarchies be part of the end-game. But, Britain doesn't have the military muscle for that, nor would most of the British public be in favor of such a policy these days. Which, again, is why my most realistic advice would be to just stay far, far away from this troubled neighborhood, at least for the time being. There can be punitive strikes or covert operations as needed but for anything more, I couldn't see asking anyone's armed forces to do more until there is a viable goal that would be beneficial.

Additional Note: I should also add that when it comes to any confrontation with this enemy, I am firmly of the opinion that the "gloves should come off". They should be given no quarter and shown no pity. They are not common criminals and they are not legitimate soldiers or prisoners of war when captured. They are barbarians who should be wiped out. There is a reason why civilized countries, even before the Geneva conventions, adhered to certain standards of warfare; because if one side didn't, the other side wouldn't either. Playing by the rules with these types of animals does not uphold any moral superiority, it simply encourages people to be as ruthless as possible knowing that we won't respond in kind. They kill civilians, they are not acting under orders, they do not wear uniforms -they should not be treated with any degree of mercy at all. -MM