Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War" gets part of its title from a quote by Winston Churchill. Buchanan has brought the term up in several interviews a statement made by Winston Churchill.

In his memoirs, Churchill, who led Britain to victory in World War II, wrote:

One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, "The Unnecessary War." There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.

(Buchanan, p. xviii)

Buchanan is quoting Churchill's preface to The Gathering Storm, the first part of a 6-volume series about World War II (Churchill, p. iv). When bringing up this quote, Buchanan typically follows it up with reversing the term back on Churchill.

The war was unnecessary, Churchill said, because of the constant blunders before the war that got us into it. It was the easiest war to avoid in all of history. That's what Churchill told Franklin Roosevelt and he was right. What he didn't say was a number of those blunders had been committed by Winston Churchill himself. (Interview with Stephen Colbert, June 2008. video)

What were the blunders that Churchill was referring?

After the preface to The Gathering Storm, Churchill states that the theme of the book is "How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm." (Churchill, p. ix)

The book is a narrative of events after World War I to the point of Churchill becoming Prime Minister in 1940. Churchill himself best sums up the reason for labeling World War II the "Unnecessary War".

In a speech Churchill gave as he was working on he first chapters of the book (Gilbert, p. 862). Churchill brought up the anecdote about his conversation with Roosevelt while giving a speech to the Belgian Senate and Chamber. On November 16, 1945, Churchill stated:

President Roosevelt one day asked what this War should be called. My answer was, "The Unnecessary War." If the United Stated States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling.

Do not forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance, that each of Hitler's encroachments became a triumph for him over all moderate and restraining forces until, finally, we resigned ourselves without further protest to the vast process of German re-armament and war preparation which ended in a renewed outbreak of destructive war. Let us profit at least by this terrible lesson. In vain did I attempt to teach it before the war.

(James, p. 7251)

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Churchill, Winston. The Second World War: The Gathering Storm. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1948

Gilbert, Martin. Churchill: A Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991.

James, Robert Rhodes, ed. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963. Vol. 7, 1943-1949. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

This is a follow-up article to Buchanan is Wrong. Churchill Had No "Starvation Blockade" published last month. In that article, we showed how in Patrick J. Buchanan's new book Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", he incorrectly portrayed the blockade of Germany during World War I as something devised and executed entirely by Winston Churchill.

Buchanan also incorrectly portrayed Churchill as celebrating the starvation of the German people after the 1918 armistice as a success of "his" blockade. In reality, Churchill was imploring the House of Commons to bring an end to the blockade as soon as possible.

The Churchill Legend by Francis Neilson

Buchanan's source for the information is The Churchill Legend written by Francis Neilson. The book's overall points are very similar to those of Buchanan's book: The world wars could have been avoided and Churchill was not as great as history leads us to believe.

It's interesting to see Neilson make the same mistakes in 1954 that Buchanan makes in 2008. A prime example can be seen in Neilson's analysis of the blockade of Germany after the 1918 armistice.

During Mr. Churchill's period at the War Office, appeal after appeal had been sent to him about the conditions produced by the blockade. These were ignored. On March 3, 1919, Mr. Churchill told the House of Commons:

We are enforcing the blockade with rigour, and Germany is very near starvation. All the evidence I have received from officers sent by the War Office all over Germany show: firstly, the great privation which the German people are suffering; and, secondly, the danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition.

(Neilson, p. 250)

We now see where Buchanan got his inspiration to label it "Churchill's Starvation Blockade."

Neilson makes several mistakes.

The first is that he claims Churchill received "appeal after appeal about the conditions produced by the blockade," yet he offers no evidence or source.

Second, Neilson leaves the reader to believe that Churchill had some sort of authority to end the blockade. This is a little more subliminal than Buchanan who flatly claims Churchill was the blockade's "chief architect and advocate."

Finally, Neilson makes the same mistake as Buchanan by leaving out key portions of the speech. This is clearly intentional so as to leave the reader with the impression that Churchill was doing nothing more on March 3, 1919 than telling the House of Commons of the success of the blockade. In reality, Churchill was imploring them to bring an end to the blockade as soon as possible.

Neilson's claim that Churchill "ignored" appeals that were sent to his office is debunked when you look at the full text of the very speech quoted by Neilson.

This scene painted by Neilson and Buchanan is the true "legend."

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Neilson, Francis. The Churchill Legend. Appleton, WI: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

In Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", Patrick J. Buchanan argues that Hitler did not want to conquer France, Great Britain, or the world, because he did not have the troop strength for a "total war" in 1939. Buchanan aims to debunk this contention to prove his larger point which is World War II was an unnecessary war.

To close out his world conquest argument, Buchanan quotes a report from 1948 which states that Germany's military capacity in 1939 showed that it was not ready for a long war.

If Hitler was out to conquer the world, the proof cannot be found in the armed forces with which he began the war. As U.S. Maj. Gen. C. F. Robinson wrote in a 1947 report he produced for the U.S. War Department,

Germany was not prepared in 1939 - contrary to democratic assumption - for a long war or for total war; her economic and industrial effort was by no means fully harnessed: her factories were not producing war materiel at anything like full capacity.

(Buchanan, p. 336)

U.S. Maj. Gen. C. F. Robinson did not actually write these words.

Buchanan's source is Francis Neilson's The Churchill Legend. Neilson's source is a 1948 New York Times article written by Hanson W. Baldwin. The text quoted by Buchanan is the New York Times reporter's assessment of the report; it's not part of the actual report. Buchanan quotes the text as though it came directly from the report, because his source, The Churchill Legend, does the same thing (Neilson, p. 284).

Reading the Full Article Does Not Help Buchanan's Point

The New York Times article gives numbers that contrast Churchill's concerns throughout the 1930's concerning Germany's rearmament. The majority of the article states that fears concerning the size of Germany's military were exaggerated. Nazi Germany wasn't producing to it's full capacity until 1942.

However, the author goes on to state these numbers do not invalidate Churchill's efforts leading up to World War II.

This revealing study - while it stands in sharp comparison to some of Mr. Churchill's estimates and to other estimates - does not invalidate the Churchillian contention that Britain should have started to prepare long before she did, and that Munich cost the Allies Czech divisions, strategical position and other assets more important than the time gained.

But it also shows that military strength is considerably more than production figures; in fact Germany won her initial great victories with a production output smaller than the combined production output of her opponents. Organization for war, concepts of war, sound strategy and tactics, good training and administrations are all import ingredients of military strength and Germany had developed these. Germany was, on the whole, quite well prepared in 1939 for Blitzkrieg war against individual opponents, but certainly not for total war against a great coalition, which is the kind of war she got. (Baldwin, 1948)

Buchanan contends that Hitler's military strength in 1939 shows that Hitler was not out to conquer the world. The truth is that Hitler's army was the right size for what he was planning - quick, one-month campaigns against single countries.

The problem was Hitler never planned on being confronted by a group of countries.

References

Baldwin, Hanson W. "Hitler's Power in 1939: U. S. Army's Study of His Military Production Conflicts With Churchill's." New York Times, May 9, 1948.

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Neilson, Francis. The Churchill Legend. Appleton, WI: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke was released this year and aimed to be a provocative book containing a series of little-known quotes and events between World War I and World War II. The structure of the book is interesting in the sense that there is no real cohesion from page to page except that it's all running in chronological order. Each snippet of information is rarely longer than half a page.

Early in the book, Baker highlights Winston Churchill's public statements on the blockade of Germany. He makes some of the same mistakes made by Patrick J. Buchanan in Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War".

• Baker picks out 3 sentences from a larger statement and reorders them to give the appearance that Churchill supported the blockade. Baker gives the impression that Churchill saw Germany's current desperation as something to be taken advantage of while the Allies forced a treaty. The truth is that Churchill wanted to end the blockade out of concern that Germany would permanently fall a part.
  
  
• Baker gives a little more information than Buchanan on Churchill's role at this point in history by stating he was the Secretary of State for War and Air (not the First Lord of Admiralty). However, Baker quotes a secondary source that gives the full text of everything Churchill said on the blockade in this particular speech. Yet, he chooses to hack out quotes and reorder them to make Churchill appear the most sinister.

Churchill: They're in collapse! Now let's sign the treaty!

In the early pages of Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke, he paints the picture of Winston Churchill in parliament in March of 1919 addressing the naval blockade of Germany.

Winston Churchill, now England's secretary of state for war and air, rose in Parliament to talk about the success of the naval blockade. It was March 3, 1919, four months after the signing of the armistice that ended the Great War.

"We are enforcing the blockade with rigour," Churchill said. "It is repugnant to the British nation to use this weapon of starvation, which falls mainly on the women and children, upon the old and the weak and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped, one moment longer than is necessary to secure the just terms for which we have fought." Hunger and malnutrition, the secretary of war and air observed, had brought German national life to a state of near collapse. "Now is therefore the time to settle," he said. (Baker, pp. 5-6)

This is the complete context provided in Human Smoke. As I stated earlier, the book only gives little snippets of information.

Correcting Baker's Analysis

Baker is correct that Churchill did address the House of Commons on March 3, 1919. And part of that address did contain the statements listed above. However, Churchill's purpose was not to address the "success" of the blockade as Baker puts it; Churchill's purpose was to call for an end to the blockade.

Churchill's statement was at the end of a one of many reports about army estimates and the progress of demobilization (James, pp. 2674-2692). The lengthy report was followed-up by a Q&A session containing several references to the unknowns in the current situation. While there had been an armistice in place since November 11, 1918, it was nearly 4 months later and there was still no official treaty signed. Germany had no foreign troops on her soil; the armies had simply cease-fired.

At one point in the report, Churchill argued for never reaching the "slender scale of 1914" in terms of military power.

We do not know what other Powers are going to do, or what will be the military system in force in France, the United States, Italy, or Japan. Nobody knows what is going to happen to Germany, Austria, or Russia, or how long the world will be kept in a state of great disorder and anxiety. On every ground, therefore, it will be better to defer the final decision upon our Army system until after the War - until some, at least, of the cardinal facts on which everything turns are more clearly apparent than they are just now. (James, p. 2681)

This line of thinking is common throughout this report and others given by Churchill at the time. At this point in history with nothing more than a cease-fire in place and with Lenin rising to power in Russia, there was great concern expressed by Churchill about making sure that Great Britain's military power was not downsized too quickly.

The three sentences that Baker claims were delivered to talk about the "success of the naval blockade" are near the end of the report before the Q&A session. After a lengthy presentation on the current status of demobilization, Churchill took a moment to address the blockade.

There is another matter which calls for very prompt settlement. It is the last to which I shall refer before I sit down. I mean the speedy enforcing of the Peace Terms upon Germany. At the present moment we are bringing everything to a head with Germany. We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation, or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with rigour. We have strong Armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows, first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the danger of collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition.

Now is, therefore, the moment to settle. To delay indefinitely would be to run a grave risk of having nobody with whom to settle, and of having another great area of the world sink into Boshevik anarchy. That would be a very grave event. I dare say honorable.

Members recall the sinking of the "Titanic." The state of Europe seems to me to have many points of sinister comparison with that event. That great vessel had compartment after compartment invaded by the sea. She remained almost motionless upon the water as each new bulkhead filled, or as each new compartment was flooded. She gradually took a more pronounced list.

Finally, when the decisive compartments which regulated the flotation in the ocean, leaving all those on board, friend or foe, rich or poor, passengers or stokers, people of both sexes and of every age, swimming in the icy waters of the sea, with no help in sight, and no prospect of succour.

We must never forget that the ship of Europe carries with it all the glories and advantages which we have gained by the prodigies achieved by our soldiers in this war, and it is, therefore, very important to us to bring it safely to land, so that its previous injuries may be repaired.

Now is the time for action. Once Germany has accepted the terms to be imposed upon her - and until that moment all our forces must be held in the strongest condition of readiness - the revictualling of that country and the supplying of it with the necessary raw material can be begun and pushed forward with energy.

It is repugnant to the British nation to use this weapon of starvation - which falls mainly upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped - one moment longer than is necessary to secure the just terms for which we have fought. A good army is a far better weapon at the present time to exert pressure than any other that could be in your hands. (James, p. 2684)

Baker left out Churchill's direct concern for the people and Germany itself and painted Churchill as an opportunist wanting to use the starvation as playing card to sign a treaty. In reality, Churchill wanted the treaty signed immediately in order to end the starvation and prevent Germany from falling a part.

Baker's Source

Baker source is the 1942 book, The Blockade of Germany After the Armistice, 1918-1919. The book is series of documents, articles, and speeches published by various councils, political leaders, and newspapers discussing the blockade during that time period.

The portion referenced by Baker from the book is under the heading SPEEDY ENFORCEMENT OF PEACE (Bane and Lutz, pp. 720). While the 1942 book does not state the full purpose of Churchill's address to the House of Commons, it does provide all the text concerning the blockade list above.

References

Bane, Suda Lorena, ed. and Lutz, Ralph Haswell, ed. The Blockade of Germany After the Armistice, 1918-1919. California: Stanford University Press, 1942.

Baker, Nicholson. Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.

James, Robert Rhodes, ed. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963. Vol. 3, 1914-1922. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.

In Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", he uses a map (Buchanan, p. 82) to show how Germany was carved up after the Treaty of Versailles. There is another map (Gilbert, p. 144) in a book by Martin Gilbert that appears very similar.

Similarities

• Similar topic: "Germany After Versailles" and "Germany in Defeat" both showing how Germany was carved up after World War I
  
  
• Same region focus
  
  
• Same key in the mid-left region to show "Principal German Losses". Wording and terminology is the same.
  
  
• Same key on the lower right-hand side. Buchanan even uses the same coloring method. Solid color for territory lost, stripes for territory retained, and territory retained with no fortifications.
  
  
• The same cities and regions all have sub-text. In some cases, it's the exact same text.
  

Buchanan's map is first. Gilbert's map is second. Click the pictures for a larger size.

Something that should be considered when looking at these two maps is the Introduction and Preface to Martin Gilbert's book.

The Introduction was written by Field-Marshal Montgomery when the book was first published in 1970.

The idea of teaching history by a series of maps was new to me until Martin Gilbert's historical atlas of British history had come my way. I was at once intensely interested and later studied those of other countries and nations which he published. Such historical facts cannot fail to be of real value to students in schools and universities; they would look through a window, as it were, at the subject before getting down to a details study-which is, of course, essential. (Gilbert, p. vi)

The Preface is written by Martin Gilbert in which he states the following.

The principal books upon which I have drawn for both facts and ideas are listed in the bibliography at the end of the volume. (Gilbert, p. vii)

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Gilbert, Martin. The Routledge Atlas of the First World War, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1994.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

In Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", he uses a map (Buchanan, p. 78) to show the food riots in Germany during World War I of which he incorrectly blames Winston Churchill as the cause. There is another map (Gilbert, p. 77) in a book by Martin Gilbert that appears very similar.

Similarities

• Similar topic: "Starvation Blockade" and "Food Riots"
  
  
• Exact same region focus
  
  
• Same keys on the lower right-hand side: Number of deaths and dots representing food riots
  

Buchanan's map is first. Gilbert's map is second.

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Gilbert, Martin. The Routledge Atlas of the First World War, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1994.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

In Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", Patrick J. Buchanan uses part of a correspondence between Churchill and his cousin, Lord Londonderry, to give the impression that Churchill's efforts to confront Germany during the 1930's were nothing more than a 400 year old policy Great Britain had maintained in order to oppose those stronger than her.

Buchanan also gets the date of the correspondence wrong by 2 years.

Great Britain's "carcass of dead policies"

In the first chapter titled "The End of 'Splendid Isolation,'" Buchanan walks the reader through the arms race leading up to World War I. Buchanan portrays Germany as a country innocently trying to build up a navy for itself and Great Britain undermining Germany at every step in order to maintain her supremacy in the seas (A future article will cover the issues with this angle).

Buchanan portrays Great Britain's efforts to stay superior as nothing more than out-dated, political dogma. To drive home his point and to somehow tie Churchill to the situation, he gives a portion of a correspondence between Lord Londonderry and Churchill from 1936 (more than 3 decades later). While the correspondence does not directly address the arms race leading up to World War I, Buchanan offers it as an example of an Englishman blindly supporting what Buchanan sees as an out-dated policy.

It is important to note upfront that Buchanan says the correspondence took place in 1938, but it actually took place in 1936.

To British statesmen, maintaining a balance of power was dogma. In 1938, Lord Londonderry, back from a meeting with Hitler, wrote Churchill, "I should like to get out of your mind what appears to be a strong anti-German obsession." Churchill replied that Londonderry was "mistaken in supposing that I have an anti-German obsession," and went on to explain:

British policy for four hundred years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes Germany. I have no doubt about who it is now. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I should equally endeavour to oppose them. It is thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.

Twice this policy would bring Britain into war with Germany until, by 1945, Britain was too weak to play the role any longer. She would lose her empire because of what Lord Salisbury had said in 1877 was the "commonest error in politics . . . sticking to the carcass of dead policies." (Buchanan, pp. 20-21)

I would attribute the date issue as a mere mix-up on Buchanan's part. However, this does demonstrate that his book includes sloppiness as well as distortion of events. Yet, when you couple the date mix-up with the excerpt of Churchill's reply to Lord Londonderry, it gives the impression that Churchill's warnings over Hitler were nothing more than political dogma as late as 1938. The threat of Hitler in 1938 was more real to the public than in 1936.

Churchill's Warnings Were Not Based on Nationality

The truth is that the correspondence took place on May 4, 1936 (Gilbert, p. 555). Less than 2 months prior, Hitler had sent troops into the Rhineland breaking yet another clause of the Treaty of Versailles (Gilbert, p. 551). Churchill brought up the 400 year old policy to Lord Londonderry to explain that confronting bullies is nothing new for Great Britain, but then he followed up with a caution concerning Hitler in the same letter.

I hope you will not become too prominently identified with the pro-German view. If I read the future aright Hitler's government will confront Europe with a series of outrageous events and ever-growing military might. It is events which will show our dangers, though for some the lesson will come too late. (Gilbert, p. 555)

In 1936, this type of talk is what set Churchill apart from other politicians who believed a road of appeasement would prevent war. Churchill saw otherwise and was not silent about it. His point to Lord Londonderry was that Hitler was going to bring war to Europe and that Churchill would have the same concern regardless of Hitler's nationality.

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Gilbert, Martin. Churchill: A Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

In Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", Patrick J. Buchanan identifies the Entente Cordiale of 1904 as one of Great Britain's avoidable milestones on the road leading to World War I.

The Entente Cordiale (translated as "cordial agreement") was a series of agreements signed by Great Britain and France. While these agreements were seen as non-binding (Manchester, 467), they did bring Great Britain into disputes between France and Germany.

• Buchanan insinuates that Churchill agrees with his analysis that these cordial agreements were a mistake. In reality, Churchill thanked God for them.
  
  
• Buchanan leads the reader to believe that Churchill not only saw the agreements as unnecessary, but that he had zero regrets for their role in leading to war. The truth is that Churchill looked back on World War I as an event that was destined to happen regardless of the Entente Cordiale.

One Man Opposed the Entente Cordiale

After discussing the Entente Cordiale, Buchanan describes its early effects when Great Britain backed France during a 1905 conference over African territorial disputes with Germany. Great Britain was becoming less isolated and becoming more involved with the affairs of other empires.

Buchanan then brings up Churchill, who was not involved whatsoever with the Entente Cordiale.

As Churchill wrote decades later, only Lord Rosebery read the real meaning of the Anglo-French entente. "Only one voice - Rosebery's - was raised in discord: in public 'Far more likely to lead to War than Peace'; in private 'Straight to War.'" While praising Rosebery's foresight, Churchill never repudiated his own support of the entente or secret understandings: "It must not be thought that I regret the decisions which were in fact taken." (Buchanan, p. 7)

Buchanan is quoting Churchill's 1937 book Great Contemporaries in which he gives brief biographies of prominent leaders that had lived during Churchill's lifetime. These people include Emperor William II (the Kaiser of Germany during World War I), Lawrence of Arabia, Hitler, and Lord Rosebery.

Lord Rosebery was the Prime Minister of England for just over a year (1894-1895). Even though he was not in the cabinet when the Entente Cordiale was signed, Lord Rosebery was still in politics. Churchill spent time with him over the years and remembered him fondly.

"Praising Rosebery's foresight" as Buchanan puts it is a strong sentiment. A more accurate description was that he admired it. Above all, Churchill was admiring Lord Rosebery's courage as the only man to speak about his concerns in public. At the time the book was published (1937), Churchill had spent a considerable amount of effort expressing concern over Hitler when the ruling politicians did not want to hear about it.

Even though he admired Lord Rosebery's courage to speak out against the Entente Cordiale, Churchill did not agree with him. From the same book that Buchanan quotes, Churchill said:

It must not be thought that I regret the decisions which were in fact taken. I did not think that any movements on the European chessboard could have prevented the challenge to world peace sooner or later of the ever-growing overweening military power and temper of Germany. The occasion would have been different, the hour might have been delayed, the grouping of Powers might not have been the same; but given the world as it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, I doubt if anything could have averted the hideous collision. And if it had to come, we must thank God it came in such a way that the world was with us through the conflict. (Churchill, p. 16)

Churchill was saying that although Lord Rosebery was right about the coming of war, war was destined to come. Churchill thanked God that such an agreement as the Entente Cordiale of 1904 was in place, no matter how non-binding it was, because it helped unify countries like Great Britain and France to fight Central Powers.

Again, when you consider the context of the quote provided by Buchanan and remove the analysis, a completely different picture is revealed.

Lord Rosebery the Patriot for War

It should also be noted that Lord Rosebery's sentiments towards a coming war did not remain when the war finally arrived. Rosebery had stated that Great Britain was "backing the wrong horse" in the signing of the Entente Cordiale, but when the war started, he joined the recruiting movement. (Raymond. p. 228)

While trying to rally the nation, he stated in a speech given on September 5, 1914 that "If we were beaten, if we were to sink to be a third-rate power, I for one would from my heart and soul rather that all our people were to pass into exile or into death and leave this island vacant for some superior race." (Raymond, p. 228)

With Lord Rosebery's foresight, he still supported his country when the war arrived.

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Churchill, Winston S. Great Contemporaries. New York: G.P. Putnam's sons, 1937.

Manchester, William. The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory, 1874-1932. New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 1983.

Raymond, E. T. The Life Of Lord Rosebery. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

While reading Patrick J. Buchanan's new book Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", I realized that a better title would have been Twisted Highlights from the World Wars that Make Churchill Look the Most Incompetent and Sadistic. While not all of Buchanan's highlights are twisted, he tends to leave out just enough information to force the reader to draw the most negative conclusion about Churchill's intentions.

A prime example of this manipulation at work can be seen in Buchanan's analysis of the blockade of Germany during World War I.

• Buchanan portrays the blockade of Germany as something devised and executed entirely by Winston Churchill. The truth is that Churchill was only part of the first year of the blockade. The following 4 years, Churchill had nothing to do with the blockade.
  
  
• Buchanan portrays Churchill as celebrating the starvation of the German people after the 1918 armistice as a success of "his" blockade. In reality, Churchill was imploring the House of Commons to bring an end to the blockade as soon as possible.

Churchill's "Starvation Blockade"

In chapter 3 of Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War", the creation and signing of the Treaty of Versailles is covered. The chapter is appropriately named "A Poisonous Spirit of Revenge" as the treaty did leave a bitter taste in the mouths of Germans.

As with most of the book, Buchanan attempts to associate all negative events to Churchill. Since Churchill had nothing to do with the contents or signing of Versailles, Buchanan discusses the reason why Germany would agree to such harsh terms in order to bring up Churchill's name. Germany agreed to an armistice and eventually signed the treaty because the country was starving to death through a blockade of the North Sea.

Here's Buchanan's analysis.

The blockade was responsible for the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children after the Germans laid down their weapons and surrendered their warships. Its architect and chief advocate had been the First Lord of Admiralty. His aim, said Churchill, was to "starve the whole population - men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission." On March 3, 1919, four months after Germany accepted an armistice and laid down her arms, Churchill rose exultant in the Commons to declare, "We are enforcing the blockade with rigour, and Germany is very near starvation." (Buchanan, p. 79)

To drive home his point that Churchill starved people to death, Buchanan includes a map titled "THE SUCCESS OF CHURCHILL'S STARVATION BLOCKADE." (Buchanan, p. 78).

Correcting Buchanan's Analysis

Buchanan is correct on several things. Yes, Churchill was the First Lord of Admiralty in 1914 and implemented a blockade as soon as the war started. The Germans eventually signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 18, 1919, because they needed to eat. He is also correct that the Germans were dying by the thousands. Martin Gilbert provides an estimate of 762,106 total civilian deaths resulting from the blockade (Gilbert 1994, p. 256). R. J. Rummel provides what he identifies as a high estimate of 1,000,000 civilian deaths (Rummel, p. 230).

However, the rest of the statement and the title of the map are completely inaccurate.

The first thing people should realize is that Churchill resigned as the First Lord of Admiralty on May 16, 1915 (Gilbert 1991, p. 320) less than a year after the war started. Churchill's advocacy and execution of the blockade stopped then and there. Through the rest of the war, Churchill found himself holding several different offices for the government and even spending several months in the trenches of France fighting the Germans.

On January 9, 1919, Churchill accepted the offices of Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air in charge of the army and air force (Gilbert 1991, p. 405). Churchill's primary task when he accepted these jobs was the demobilization of the British forces. There were 3.5 million British troops of which only a third would be needed for occupation purposes (Manchester, p. 671). Churchill was to sort through determining who went home and when, as well as who stayed at their current post or was transferred elsewhere. All of this was to be done while there was nothing more than an armistice in place between the Allies and the Central Powers.

Since May of 1915, nearly 4 years after Churchill was no longer a part of the British Navy, Churchill had zero authority on executing a blockade on Germany.

Buchanan paints an extraordinary picture of Churchill almost rejoicing at Germany's starvation when he states "..four months after Germany accepted an armistice and laid down her arms, Churchill rose exultant in the Comment to declare..." (Buchanan, p. 79)

This is far from the real scene in the House of Commons. Churchill was delivering one of many reports about army estimates and the progress of demobilization (James, pp. 2674-2692). The lengthy report was followed-up by a Q&A session containing several references to the unknowns in the current situation. While there had been an armistice in place since November 11, 1918, it was nearly 4 months later and there was still no official treaty signed. Germany had no foreign troops on her soil; the armies had simply cease-fired.

At one point in the report, Churchill argued for never reaching the "slender scale of 1914" in terms of military power.

We do not know what other Powers are going to do, or what will be the military system in force in France, the United States, Italy, or Japan. Nobody knows what is going to happen to Germany, Austria, or Russia, or how long the world will be kept in a state of great disorder and anxiety. On every ground, therefore, it will be better to defer the final decision upon our Army system until after the War - until some, at least, of the cardinal facts on which everything turns are more clearly apparent than they are just now. (James, p. 2681)

This line of thinking is common throughout this report and others given by Churchill at the time. At this point in history with nothing more than a cease-fire in place and with Lenin rising to power in Russia, there was great concern expressed by Churchill about making sure that Great Britain's military power was not downsized too quickly.

The two sentences delivered on March 3, 1919 that Buchanan claims were delivered exultantly, are near the end of the report before the Q&A session. After a lengthy presentation on the current status of demobilization, Churchill took a moment to address the blockade.

There is another matter which calls for very prompt settlement. It is the last to which I shall refer before I sit down. I mean the speedy enforcing of the Peace Terms upon Germany. At the present moment we are bringing everything to a head with Germany. We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation, or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with rigour. We have strong Armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows, first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the danger of collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition.

Now is, therefore, the moment to settle. To delay indefinitely would be to run a grave risk of having nobody with whom to settle, and of having another great area of the world sink into Boshevik anarchy. That would be a very grave event. I dare say honorable.

Members recall the sinking of the "Titanic." The state of Europe seems to me to have many points of sinister comparison with that event. That great vessel had compartment after compartment invaded by the sea. She remained almost motionless upon the water as each new bulkhead filled, or as each new compartment was flooded. She gradually took a more pronounced list.

Finally, when the decisive compartments which regulated the flotation in the ocean, leaving all those on board, friend or foe, rich or poor, passengers or stokers, people of both sexes and of every age, swimming in the icy waters of the sea, with no help in sight, and no prospect of succour.

We must never forget that the ship of Europe carries with it all the glories and advantages which we have gained by the prodigies achieved by our soldiers in this war, and it is, therefore, very important to us to bring it safely to land, so that its previous injuries may be repaired.

Now is the time for action. Once Germany has accepted the terms to be imposed upon her - and until that moment all our forces must be held in the strongest condition of readiness - the revictualling of that country and the supplying of it with the necessary raw material can be begun and pushed forward with energy.

It is repugnant to the British nation to use this weapon of starvation - which falls mainly upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped - one moment longer than is necessary to secure the just terms for which we have fought. (James, p. 2684)

What Buchanan has attempted to do is paint Churchill as an incompassionate monster who was excited about starving men, women, and children to death. In reality, he was appalled by the starvation and wanted to see it ended as quickly as possible.

Buchanan's Sources

As with most of Buchanan's sources, he is relying purely on the analysis of those before him. Instead of presenting his own conclusions based off of reading original sources, he regurgitates statements and perspectives of those who also looked to present Churchill in a negative light.

Future articles will examine these sources and attempt to get to the root of some of these misconceptions that Buchanan presents in his book.

References

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Gilbert, Martin. Churchill: A Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991.

Gilbert, Martin. The First World War: A Complete History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994.

James, Robert Rhodes, ed. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963. Vol. 3, 1914-1922. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.

Manchester, William. The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory, 1874-1932. New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 1983.

Rummel, Rudolph J. Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1997.

More on the "Unnecessary War"

The commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's book doesn't stop here. We've discovered more questionable historical analysis, hacked quotes, copied maps, and flat-out mistakes in the book. Read more here.

Any book about Hitler, Churchill, or the World Wars will grab the attention this history junkie. Taking a radical view on either one will certainly peak my interest. That's why calling the world wars unnecessary and treating Churchill as the real war-monger (instead of Hitler) is a sure way to sell me a book.

After reading Buchanan's article to help sell Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, I knew there had to be more. What is the purpose of writing this book? After digging through the first few introductions, I believe I have found it.

Understanding Buchanan's Isolationism

Patrick J. Buchanan is an isolationist. Anytime someone listens to this political commentator, they should keep that in the forefront of their mind.

In the 1996 Republican primaries, Buchanan was ahead of his time by proclaiming he'd build a wall between the United States and Mexico to curb illegal aliens from entering the country. I remember this fondly as I debated this topic in High School with other students while we prepared for our mock elections.

At the time, the wall was a radical idea, but today, there is legislation that has been passed to build portions of Buchanan's '96 campaign promise.

Buchanan's State of Emergency gave loads of data that showed the disturbing rate at which illegal aliens were entering the United States, committing crimes, and staying in the country to commit more crimes.

In 2005, Buchanan proclaimed that George W. Bush should be impeached for failure to protect the country from illegal immigration.

As for globalization, Buchanan opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He has also opposed many other military operations throughout the past few decades that involved the U.S. getting involved in "other peoples' issues".

Before anyone picks up this book, they should keep these views of the author in mind to understand what filter he is using the write the book.

The Real Purpose of the Book

The publicized purpose of the book is to explain how the "West" lost its prominence in the world. Buchanan says he aims to explain that through the course of the world wars there were 5 Western Empires that were decimated and it all could have been avoided.

However, there's more beneath the surface.

Buchanan has found himself in many debates concerning war in which the names of Churchill and Hitler were invoked by the opposing side to defend military action. The common perception is that Hitler was evil incarnate and would have conquered the world if it weren't for Winston Churchill leading the English people to stand up against him until America entered the war.

The respect and admiration for Churchill is so overwhelming in England and America that Buchanan can't stand it. The hate for Hitler is just as overwhelming. Whenever there is a dictator bullying a group of people around, Buchanan hears the dictator labeled as the next "Hitler" which leads others to ask "Who will be the Churchill to stand up to this dictator?" This is of course followed up by people proclaiming that tough decisions need to be made that require the courage of someone like Churchill.

Buchanan refers to this group of people as a cult that worships the legendary Prime Minister and he blames this cult for dragging America into the current Iraq conflict.

Buchanan does agree that Churchill did something great for the world by standing up to Hitler while he was Prime Minister and Hitler was a monster who committed atrocities. However, he believes that the reason the world even had to stand up to such a monster is due to bad politics and war-mongering by people like Churchill dating all the way back to 1906. The situation in which Churchill stood up to the greatest evil seen in our lifetime was created by Churchill and in a word "unnecessary".

By pushing this angle and helping to dispel the infallibility of Churchill, Buchanan hopes to find it easier to push isolationism along with politics instead of war.

Dissecting Buchanan's Book

I've already begun reading through Buchanan's book. Over the next few months, there will be more articles published that review and analyze the arguments and rationality.

I offer this as a service to those who may not have time to read the book and for those who are history junkies like me.

Not enough. Or at least not as much as we were getting before the war.

Those who claim the Iraq War is only about oil make it sound like U.S. troops are extracting oil directly from the veins of Iraqi babies and pumping it into my car. If it were that simple, then why have gas prices risen so steadily? I just paid $38.85 to fill up my Honda Civic.

The response you hear is something about the oil companies gouging everyone at the gas pump. The oil companies defend themselves with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo concerning supply, demand, lack of refineries, and less sources for oil.

Here are the facts:

• The U.S. gets less oil today from Iraq than before 9/11
• The largest source of crude oil for the United States is the United States
• Iraq has never represented more than 4.5% of crude oil used in the United States
• The United States' dependence on foreign oil has increased, but the amount of oil from the Persian Gulf has decreased

The U.S. gets less oil today from Iraq than before 9/11

In 2001, the U.S. imported 298 million barrels of oil from Iraq. This was the peak year over the past 10 years. Compare that peak to every year since 2001. The amount of oil imported has gone down and fluctuated, but has averaged at around 190 million barrels a year.

Source: U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq published by Energy Information Association

Conspiracy theorists will point out that the amount of crude oil imported from Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003, thus pushing the U.S. government to invade Iraq to get more oil. But Iraq was not holding oil from the U.S. In fact, all oil production in Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003.

Source: Iraq Energy Profile: 10 Year Energy Data Series published by Energy Information Association. Crude Oil Production is compared to Total Oil Exports to U.S.

Conspiracy theorists should also consider 2001 being such a big year for importing oil from Iraq. This high import rate carried through the end of January 2002.

The largest source for crude oil for the United States is the United States

Most reports will cover the amount of oil being imported into the United States, but few include the amount of crude oil produced in the country. The United States is the source of more than 1/4th of all crude oil used in the country.

Source: U.S. Imports by Country of Origin and U.S. Crude Oil Field Production published by Energy Information Association. This chart includes a recent 6-month period (August 2007 through January 2008).

The chart above shows all oil imported and oil produced in the U.S.. The biggest contributors of crude oil to the United States are:

1. United States - 27.40%
2. Canada - 13.48%
3. Saudi Arabia - 8.44%
4. Mexico - 7.78%
5. Venezuela - 7.38%
6. Nigeria - 6.74%
7. Algeria - 3.30%
8. Iraq - 2.77%
9. Angola - 2.53%

Iraq has never represented more than 4.5% of crude oil used in the United States

In the chart above, Iraq represents only 2.77% of crude oil used in the United States. This level is lower than the 1999-2001 levels.

At the peak of imports from Iraq, the oil from the country only represented 4.5%.

Source: U.S. Crude Oil Field Production, U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq, and U.S. Imports by Country of Origin published by Energy Information Association. The amount of barrels imported from Iraq for each year is divided by the sum of all imported oil and oil produce in the U.S.

Consider that when someone tells you that the Bush Administration plotted to invade Iraq for oil as early as 2001. Iraq was at its peak of producing and sending it to the United States. After toppling the Saddam regime, Iraq can't break the 3% mark in the U.S. crude oil market.

The United States' dependence on foreign oil has increased, but the amount of oil from the Persian Gulf has decreased

When politicians talk about decreasing the United States' reliance on foreign oil, the common perception is that they are referring to places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The truth is that places like Canada and Mexico are the ones that are continuing to increase their exports to the U.S. while the Persian Gulf has decreased exports to the U.S.

Running an ad about how we need to decrease our dependence on "Canadian Oil" doesn't quite have the ring to it that "foreign oil" does.

Source: U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Persian Gulf Countries, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, and U.S. Crude Oil Field Production published by Energy Information Association.

The chart above shows a steady increase of foreign oil. The amount of oil produced in the U.S. has steadily decreased. In 1993, the U.S. produced 2.5 billion barrels of oil. In 2007, the U.S. produced 1.8 billion barrels.

Crude oil imported from the Persian Gulf rose during the 90's, but have steadily decreased since 2003.

Source: U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Persian Gulf Countries, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, and U.S. Crude Oil Field Production published by Energy Information Association. The amount of barrels imported from the Persian Gulf for each year is divided by the sum of all imported oil and oil produce in the U.S. The Persian Gulf includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

References

Energy Information Administration. U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq (Thousand Barrels). http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1A.htm.

____. U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Persian Gulf Countries (Thousand Barrels). http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimuspg1A.htm.

____. U.S. Crude Oil Field Production (Thousand Barrels). http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1m.htm.

____. U.S. Imports by Country of Origin. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm.

____. Iraq Energy Profile: 10 Year Energy Data Series. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_time_series.cfm?fips=IZ.

Discuss this film in our forums.

As a reward for seeing Atonement with my wife, I got to see There Will Be Blood.

The amount of hype there has been for Daniel Day Lewis' performance in this movie is overwhelming. He's already won a Golden Globe at this point and he has been nominated for an Oscar as well.

The hype is well deserved. I haven't seen a performance that has impacted me this much since Robert Duvall in The Apostle.

The story is of Daniel Plainview who was mining for silver when he discovered oil. He switches his mining focus to drilling for oil and slowly builds up success. Early in the film, one of Plainview's workers is killed leaving behind a young baby boy. Plainview takes the boy and raises him as his own.

The majority of the story takes place in Little Boston, California. After getting tipped to the prospect of oil, Plainview buys up the land and begins drilling. The story is follows Plainview and his son over the next few years as they work the oil. The complications of how to drill, how to transport the oil, and dealing with competitors are all dealt with as Plainview's daily routines are filled with trying to make this oil prospect successful.

One of the central plots are Plainview's dealings with a local group of faith healers from the Church of the Third Revelation, which is a great name for a cult.

Plainview is a frugal man with little use for God. When he finds himself confronted by the church for donations, he does not respond kindly. The interactions between Plainview and the church build throughout the film. It starts with small slights here and there, but continues to build into open conflicts. Plainview sees them as just another competitor in this world. And he aims to completely defeat and humiliate all competitors. But the church owns land that Plainview needs.

The movie is slow, yet not boring. Watching Plainview interact with people is fascinating. This movie could have been another 3 hours long and I don't think I would have been bored.

As for interesting techniques, the music is mainly made up violent violins. These are the kind you hear in a horror film that is attempt to grip you with suspense and terror. Throwing this kind of music into such a slow moving film definitely helped keep the pace seemingly fast.

But ultimately, it was Lewis who made this film. His speeches and rantings are superb to say the least. I've had lines he gave running through my head since I saw the film. His character evolves. At times, he shows emotion and weakness, but over time, he becomes less and less compassionate towards anything or anyone.

Contrary to the title, the film is not too violent. Atonement had much more graphic scenes throughout.

The ending is a great twist that was fitting to Lewis' character and the story as a whole.

Catch There Will Be Blood. You'll be floored by Lewis and the story as well.

Discuss this movie in our forums.

As part of a double feature compromise between my wife and me, I took her to see Atonement before we went to see There Will Be Blood.

The title "Atonement" makes me think it's some sort of drama, but seeing the previews of a couple struggling to stay in touch during World War II made me realize it was a flat-out chick flick.

My instincts were correct!

The majority of this movie is set in England over the course of the late 1930's to early 1940's. A rich British family is doing what rich families did back then during the threat of war - Have dinner parties, frolic through their giants gardens, and flirt with the help.

Briony Tallis is a wannabe writer at the estate. She writes books and even plays. At the young age of 13, she's had a crush on Robbie Turner for several years, but Robbie is above the age of consent and he isn't interested in Briony. One day, Briony sees her older sister with Robbie and does what any 13-year-old would do, she flips.

The rest of the movie shows the consequences of the lies that can be told at such a young age. Briony spends the rest of her life attempting to atone for what she did.

Now I'll admit that the movie is actually decent. It keeps an good pace and has some interesting filming techniques.

One technique is to incorporate the pounding of the old-school typewriter that Briony is using into the music. A few times, I didn't realize it was a typewriter at first as it just seemed to flow with the melody.

Another technique is to show a sequence of events from the perspective of someone watching them. You see their reactions and are led to believe their interpretation of the events. The next seen is the same sequence of events, but from the perspective of someone who was closer to the action. It was used 3 or 4 times and each time, it was interesting to see the different angles of what transpired.

Finally, there is a fantastic seen that should have gotten this film nominated for the Academy Award for Cinematography. Towards the end of the Battle of France in 1940, more than 300,000 British and French troops made their way to Dunkirk, France to get out of there. The evacuations lasted for about a week.

As several of the characters make it to the scene on the beach, there is a complete recreation of the scene. A continuous camera flow moves through the beach to show the troops resting, singing, destroying supplies that could be used by the Germans, and doing whatever they could to keep occupied while they wait for ships to arrive. The scene lasts for about 10 minutes with never a single cut-away. It is breathtaking and definitely one of the best recreations of the Dunkirk situation I've seen.

The ending of the movie gives an interesting twist with a bit of a moral view.

Atonement may be a chick-flick, but I survived it alive. If you're smart like me, you'll take your girl to see it and then use it as collateral to see a guy movie.

There are numerous world population estimates out there. These estimates can differ greatly from one to the next and some are more thorough than others.

Finding estimates for the world's population in the past 50 years is easy. Moving further back in time, it becomes more difficult. Determining population estimates is the science of educated guessing and there are few people willing to stick their neck out on those guesses when talking about thousands of years ago.

The most "complete" set of estimates is provided by Atlas of World Population History (McEvedy and Jones 1978). The authors have broken the number down by region/country and provided estimates from 200 B.C. to 1975 A.D. They do the same for the overall world population and also provide estimates dating back to 10,000 B.C.

Another good set of estimates comes from Population Growth and Land Use (Clark 1968). The book doesn't get as detailed for each region/country of the world, but it does provide world population estimates for the years between 14 A.D. and 1900 A.D.

The League of NationsThe League of Nations provide estimates for the years 1925-1939 throughout 15 of their published yearbooks. Refer to Appendix: World Population Estimate Sets for complete listing., the UNPopulation Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp (accessed April 06, 2007)., and the US Census BureauU.S. Census Bureau, "Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050," U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html. provide nearly complete estimates for each year in the 20th Century.

Certain years in the estimates vary greatly between the different sets. The best example is the 1 A.D. time period. Estimates vary from 170,000,000Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History (Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1978), 342. to 300,000,000J. Durand, "A Long-Range View of World Population Growth," The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science: World Population 369 (1967), 2..

Again, being accurate about population estimates from 2,000 years ago is impossible, but by taking all sets of estimates, creating an interpolation to fill in the gaps, and averaging all the estimates, we can get a more complete picture provided by the professionals.

The following chart is comprised of 12 sets of estimates. The complete sets along with sources can be found in Appendix: World Population Estimate Sets.

Filling in the Gaps

Finding estimates for milestone years such as 200 B.C., 1 A.D., or 1,000 A.D. is not difficult; it's acquiring an estimate for a random year like 760 A.D. that can drive a researcher to madness.

To fill in the gaps between these estimates, a spreadsheet has been created that lists all available estimates from 10,000 B.C. to 2007 A.D. With each set of estimates starting with the first number available, the missing years have been filled in with an interpolation. For example, if an estimate set gives us estimates for 100 A.D. and 200 A.D., the years 101-199 have been filled in using a growth trend to give a more complete estimate (To see the full list of averaged estimates, see Appendix: World Population Estimates Interpolated and Averaged ).

The simplest example can be seen using Microsoft Excel. In the example below, there are 2 numbers that span across 7 years. The first number is 5 and the final number is 29.

By right-clicking the first cell, dragging the mouse straight down to the final cell, and release the right-click button, a menu is presented. The final menu item "Series" is selected.

This presents the Series pop-up. Under Type, "Growth" is selected. The Trend check box is clicked. After that, click the OK button.

The missing numbers are filled in automatically using a Growth Trend. The numbers provided are then 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 22, and 29. This is useful when determining the interpolation between two population estimates, because these number increase exponentially (2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) which imitates the typical growth in population.

This same method can be used to determine the interpolation between two numbers that are decreasing (e.g. 29 through 5 instead of 5 through 29) to help determine a population decrease.

The Caveats

This method is not without its issues.

First, the obvious: The numbers used are purely estimates. Even though these numbers come from historians, scholars, and departments focused on population studies, they are still simply best guesses. The author of A Concise History of World Population described his estimates as being "largely based on conjectures and inferences drawn from non-quantitative information,"Massimo Livi-Bacci, A Concise History of World Population, 2nd Ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), 30. which is a fancy way of saying they are educated guesses.

The other caveat is the interpolation will never properly simulate the changes in population. For example, if a population estimate for 100 A.D. is 100,000,000 and for 200 A.D. it is 150,000,000, there is no way to determine what events could have taken place for the population to increase as fast or slow as it did. The population could have reached 160,000,000 in 180 A.D., but due to wars, famine, or plagues, the death rate increased while the birth rate decreased.

We may never have exact estimates for populations in the past, but by using these numbers, we have a more complete consensus from the professionals.

Notes

References

Clark, Colin. Population Growth and Land Use. New York, NY: St Martin's Press, 1968.

Durand, J. "A Long-Range View of World Population Growth." The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science: World Population 369 (1967).

McEvedy, Colin and Jones, Richard. Atlas of World Population History. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1978.

Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp (accessed April 06, 2007).

U.S. Census Bureau. "Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050." U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html (accessed January 10, 2008).

Here's my predictions. Let's see if I can do as well as I did in the Iowa Predictions.

Think you've got it figured out? Post your New Hamshire Predictions.

Republicans

Winner.) McCain - For some reason, the good people of New Hampshire are in love with John McCain. Generally the idea is that they like an independent, and McCain has the reputation for being a maverick. He's leading the polls and his focus has been on NH. He is also out of money. If he doesn't win here, he'll never be President.

2.) Romney - Romney is in critical meltdown mode right now. He should have won Iowa - he lead there for most of the last year. And, similarly, he should win New Hampshire. But he won't. He's been very negative, willing to attack all of the other candidates and that hasn't played well here. He's now #2 in the polls despite spending an obscene amount of money. While he has enough cash to continue on to the convention, his second place finish here will effectively end his chances. He can only keep going if he wins.

3.) Giuliani - Whoever comes in 3rd here will be the real winner of New Hampshire. My money is on Rudy. Huckabee doesn't appeal to New Hampshire voters, and he's broke. Thompson has never polled out of the single digits. Paul may be able to sneak in here and capture 3rd, but I think Rudy will take 3rd. And when I say 3rd, I mean a distant 3rd, as in barely over 10%.

Just as a side note, nothing would be better for Rudy than if McCain wins here. Romney was his biggest threat, and Romney just got his knees cut out from him by two of the other candidates. Rudy has the money to go for the long haul, and McCain and Huckabee don't.

Democrats

Winner.) Obama - People are starting to recognize that Obama's win in Iowa was a big deal. Not because he won, but because he demonstrated to the Democratic party and to independents that he could win. A lot of folks didn't think he'd be a viable candidate, and he's proven them wrong. So, unlike Huckabee, his win in Iowa gave him a major boost going into today, and I think it will be enough for him to win. The four days of free media from winning Iowa, coupled with Clinton's missteps the last few days, make him the favorite here.

2.) Clinton - Someone needs to send Clinton a memo and remind her that there's no crying in baseball, and certainly no crying in politics. Ask Ed Muskie. DCGal told me "She just set back women in the workplace twenty years with that crying nonsense yesterday." Clinton's campaign is imploding. Everyone is second guessing, and she looks tired and miserable. She should be happy - she's doing well, the pressure is off her now as everyone is calling Obama the frontrunner, so she can just run her campaign and do what she needs to do. She's got enough money to ride this thing 'til the convention, so second place here won't kill her, but as I said when I wrote up my statement on Iowa, she's lost her rep for being invincible.

3.) Edwards - Edwards brand of whiny populism, as evidenced by his hideously bad, near-Howard-Dean worthy screech of a speech at Iowa, where not only did he spend the entire time telling us everything wrong with America, he wouldn't have even thanked everyone for coming out if his wife hadn't grabbed him and reminded him to do so. NH voters have heard his song and dance before and they aren't buying. With a 3rd place win here, he's effectively done.