Nonfiction Boot Camp discussion
November 2008
>
Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Mod
First of all, it was way more about the years before 1945 than I expected—I know Sheehan had to lay the groundwork, but it’s a brief book (less that 300 pages—just the way I like them!) and the post-WWII discussion is kind of limited. But given that he’s saying that Western Europe has become politically and socially demilitarized primarily because the first half of the century was so bloody and violent, it makes sense. Europe was exhausted and ashamed in 1945, and there seemed to be a real desire never to see real war again. They abandoned their empires en masse, liberal democracy took hold (with plenty of lovely social programs), and they started pulling the European Union together—which now seems to have kind of stalled.
So what’s up with this for the rest of the world? In the last chapter Sheehan explains “Why Europe Will Not Become a Superpower”—saying basically that the EU is already a superstate economically, but its failure to develop a common foreign and defense policy will keep them from superpower status. Are the U.S. and Europe drifting apart—and is this good? Bad? Irrelevant? Is the notion of European soft power as scary as American hard power? I’ve heard the EU spoken about (by Europeans) as leading the world by being a “moral example,” which sounds vaguely….American, and a little dangerous.
Mod
I read once from a chapter of ?"How to Read a Book" that one should look at the contents, jacket, back, and foreward to get a sense of what the author's intent is before diving in. As Laurie writes, the book is about how Europe is generally less invested socially/ financially/ politically in building a military superpower(s) now than in previous decades.
Before I read the book, I guessed it was because European nations were weary of war in their houses, backyards, and streets whereas the U.S. has not had the same happen for a long time (Civil War). Not discounting 9/11 attacks/ Pearl Harbor here but scale is different. My family abhors war because we have experienced living and escaping from two war zones and my guess was Europeans felt the same.
I too was expecting more contemporary commentary as only the last 1/3 of the book talked about post-1945 Europe. And other than the thesis above, I felt the book lacking in terms of depth - Sheehan skims along the surface rather than diving in. Ok, it was only about 300 pages but perhaps more detail, smaller focus would have served me better.
As a non-historian (whose U.S. history teachers always emphasized pre-20th century events to my dismay), I plead ignorance to much of the time covered by the book but the term "isolationism" comes to mind in how Sheehan describes Europe's current military stance. (Feel free to comment, better informed folks.)
To Laurie's question, while no war would be best, I don't think it's possible and I was left with the impression that Europe is only able to maintain its stance because the U.S. is willing to carry a big (too big!) stick at times. More cooperation between the EU and the US military would be helpful, especially in regards to current Muslim extremist terrorism, which unfortunately has affected many countries on different continents the last couple years.
Looking at the opposite end, U.S. interference in foreign affairs also reminds me of Manifest Destiny in the history books. Interesting how history seems to repeat itself.
Each tree in this picture (pulled off the web)represents one student killed in WWI from my alma mater, the University of Washington. The picture doesn't quite do it justice but when I read this book, I remembered one of my favorite places on campus.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1371...
*Putting on the parka and strapping on the snowshoes* On to Anarctica circa 1910 for me..............
Hope everyone is having a good November!