Do We Really Need More Military History?
Studying the history of warfare is not about glorifying bloodshed. It is about better understanding the extremes of human experience.
Photo: Józef Wenskowicz
There is no doubt that military history makes for popular entertainment. The history sections of bookstores groan under the weight of coffee-table tomes. Streaming services like Netflix offer documentaries on the Russian Revolution, World War II, even the wars of feudal Japan. Should we really be concerned about military history diminishing as an academic subject area? Tens of thousands of books have been written on World War II alone. Do we really need more? What about World War I or the American Civil War?
History is shrinking as a scholarly discipline, especially in North America. Fewer undergraduate students major in history each year. Much of the history that continues to be popular among academic historians is cultural and social. Women's history, labour history, the history of traditionally marginalized people—these topics have value in today's social and economic climate. In contrast, studying war may be construed as glorifying it, which is a sentiment out of favour in our culture of pacifism. Is it reasonable to suppose that we have banked quite enough research on military history and need to move on to other topics?
No, the fact that military history is becoming less popular among professional historians means simply that it is undervalued. We need, therefore, to be explicit about why the study of war remains enduringly relevant.
To state the obvious, understanding war is integral to grasping key events that relate to other historical developments. For example, one must understand the impact of World War I to comprehend the rise of the women's suffrage movement. Likewise, one cannot explain how Protestantism survived in Europe without some understanding of the Thirty Years' War. The study of war has even informed our understanding of psychology and the sciences. Our understanding of the butchery that passed for Nazi medical “experimentation,” for instance, directly influenced our conversations about research ethics and informed consent.
More than this, war is not a thing of the past, as we now well know. For citizens as for governments, the current crisis in Ukraine can be read as a painful reminder of the perils of ignoring military history. An extended period of relative peace in Europe and North America has lulled governments into a false sense of security. Strategic alliances have languished, as has military preparedness. Who can doubt that the absence of armed conflict on European and American soil has led Westerners to imagine that war is no longer a danger, and that military spending is a waste?
Such lackadaisical attitudes mirror Western thought leading up to World War II. Many Western leaders were so adamant that the horrors of World War I not be repeated that they ignored or tolerated belligerent actions by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Multilateral organizations like the League of Nations were rendered impotent, even in the face of clear aggression.
The current conflict in Ukraine has shown that, despite the existence of political unions such as the EU and strategic alliances such as NATO, there are still belligerent governments and actors that see warfare as a valuable tool. We are rediscovering that NATO member states cannot assume leaders such as President Putin will act reasonably. Critics of Western indifference to military preparedness today invoke the example of British PM Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement of Hitler in 1938, as well they should.
An example: European states such as Germany are now seeing the consequences of decades of dependence on Russian energy supplies. The invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 was an opportunity for Europe to rethink its dependence on Russian resources. Instead, European foreign ministers blithely shied away from imposing tough sanctions. The lesson to be drawn from history is that dependence on one’s adversaries seldom works out well. Leading up to and even during World War II, Japan was reliant on American oil. It’s inability to fuel its war against the Allies contributed directly to its eventual downfall.
It is easy to view military history as a lugubrious discipline in which historians pointlessly tally the number of artillery guns at a certain battle or compare the specifications of two different models of tanks. Why should we care how many helicopters were used in Vietnam or what model of machine guns were used in the Gulf War? Indeed, these statistics and specifications may seem useless and arcane outside of the circles of military historians or amateur history buffs.
But as we can see today, this information is invaluable to governments and armies for a better understanding of contemporary conflicts. Historians such as R. A. C. Parker championed the idea that superior resources won World War II.
The significance of drawing on the history of war to prepare for future conflict does not stop at statistics but can also include insight into technology and strategy. If military observers from Germany, France, and Britain during the Russo-Japanese War had taken more seriously innovations like machine guns, barbed wire, and trench warfare, many lives might have been spared during World War I.
We must therefore find ways to promote military history, not as a form of entertainment, but as a valuable discipline that can help us better understand social and cultural history and also prepare us for armed conflicts that are sure to come. Studying military history is not about glorifying bloodshed. It is about better understanding the extremes of human experience and the effects that such earth-shattering conflicts can have on populations, governments, and economies.
Military conflict is not going away. The current war in Ukraine is evidence of this. Therefore, we need to turn to military history for the valuable lessons it has to offer.