War and Power: Phillips Payson O’Brien on Who Wins Wars and Why

For at least two centuries, ideas of international relations and grand strategy have been premised on the notion of “great powers.” These were mighty states uniquely able to exert their influence through overwhelming military force. In the words of friend of the podcast Leopold von Ranke, a great power was one who could “maintain itself against all others, even when they are united”—but my guest, Phillips Payson O’Brien, argues that this definition is ahistorical nonsense.Indeed “great power” he says, has always been a tautology. Nor has it been helpful or accurate to focus who has the biggest armies. And dreaming of decisive battle has blinded us to what truly determines victory: the capacity to mobilize and sustain industrial power, logistics, technology, and global reach.In his new book War and Power: Who Wins Wars and Why, O’Brien dismantles some popular myths of military and diplomatic history and replaces them with a far more dynamic picture—one that redefines how states fight, how they win, and how we should understand power itself in the twenty-first century.For this episode's show notes, and other resources, go to the Historically Thinking SubstackChapters & Timestamps00:28 – Introduction: Challenging the Great Power Myth03:25 – The Persistence of Short War Myths08:22 – The Political Nature of Warfare14:06 – Power Rightly Understood: Economic and Technological Strength20:59 – Society, Structure, and the British-American Power Transition27:36 – Constructing and Regenerating Military Forces46:16 – The Importance of Strong Alliances39:23 – Understanding War: Beyond Battles and Single Weapons45:16 – Human Elements: Leadership, Training, and Morale49:54 – Technological Adaptation: From WWI Aircraft to Modern Drones57:30 – Applied History and the Problem of Transparency57:52 – Outro / Credits

The young King was determined to strike. His throne and power had been taken from him; now he would seize them both back. Now his chosen men entered the castle where he was a virtual prisoner, under the watchful eyes of his mother and her lover. Joining them, he led their rush to the Queen Mother’s apartments. There they seized those who had prevented Edward III from truly ruling as King of England. Those dramatic events–which occurred in Nottingham Castle, of all places–are just one of many that occur in Michael Livingston’s new book, Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Year’s War. From the origins of the great conflict between France and England, to the last bitter acts, Livingston weaves the story of how not just those two powers but all Europe was riven by a war that last not just for a hundred years, but for two full centuries of war from 1292 to 1492.Michael Livingston is Citadel Distinguished Professor at The Citadel and the author of many books on medieval military history. The former secretary-general for the US Commission on Military History, he lives in Charleston, South Carolina.For more information, see the show notes for this episode on Historically Thinking Substack page.Defining the 200 Years War: 1292 to 1492Cantering Through 200 YearsScotland: The Enemy in the RearDoctrine and the Birth of Standing ArmiesThe Forgotten Naval WarAnarchy, Free Companies, and Peasant RevoltsThe Longbow: Myth vs. RealityThe Papacy and Religious SchismThe Myth of the Decisive BattleGenerational Conflict and Modern ParallelsConclusion

During the Second World War Germany’s submarines sank over three thousand Allied ships, that figure amounting to nearly three-quarters of Allied shipping losses in all theaters of the war. What would become a war within a war began in the very first days after September 1, 1939. This war–particularly the contest which has become known as the Battle of the Atlantic–has been the focus of numerous studies and arguments. But until now, little has been said about the undersea war from the perspective of the German submariners.Roger Moorhouse has now remedied that with his new book Wolfpack: Inside Hitler’s U-boat War. It is not simply a story of the undersea war, but a history of those who fought it; who endured the miserable conditions within a German U-Boat, had only a 25% chance of survival, and when they did survive often were psychologically scarred for the remainder of their lives.Roger Moorhouse is a historian of the Second World War. The author of numerous books, his most recent was The Forgers: The Forgotten Story of the Holocaust’s Most Audacious Rescue Operation, which we discussed in a conversation of November 6, 2023. For more information, including to resources mentioned in the conversation, go to our Substack page, at www.historicallythinking.org

At the outbreak of the American Revolution, the British Empire stretched across nearly every corner of the globe. From India to the Caribbean, from Africa to Gibraltar to the Canadian provinces, Britain’s reach was vast. In 1776, the thirteen colonies that chose to rebel represented only half of the empire’s provinces. The other half—places like Quebec, Nova Scotia, Jamaica, and Bermuda—remained loyal to the Crown. But why? Why did some colonists believe their grievances justified independence, while others–who were often similarly aggrieved–chose not to revolt?To answer this, Trevor Burnard and Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy invite us to see the Revolution not just as a national story of the United States, but as part of a larger imperial crisis that spanned the globe. Britain’s challenge was to govern an array of distant, diverse territories during a period of reform and unrest. Turning our attention to colonies that stayed within the empire, we gain a more complex perspective. The Revolution was not only about republicanism, liberty, and democracy; it was also about empire, and the different ways colonial societies and elites responded to imperial governance.For show notes and other material, go to https://www.historicallythinking.org/p/republic-and-empire?r=257pn6; and subscribe to the Historically Thinking Substack at www.historicallythinking.org

In online debates, it’s almost inevitable that sooner or later someone invokes Hitler or the Nazis. That tendency, known as Godwin’s Law, has proven itself on social media thousands of times a day. But the persistence of this comparison points to something deeper than just the cheapening of argument. It reflects how much Hitler and the struggle against Nazism have become the ultimate reference point in our culture’s moral imagination.In this conversation, historian Alec Ryrie explains why we live in what he calls “the Age of Hitler.” For nearly eighty years, he argues, our moral consensus has been defined not by traditional religious frameworks but by the lessons drawn from World War II and the Holocaust. In our stories and our politics, from Star Wars to Harry Potter, the fight against Hitler continues to serve as the archetype of good versus evil. Yet Ryrie warns that this consensus is beginning to erode: both Left and Right are showing signs of moving on. What happens when Hitler no longer defines our common moral language? And what might replace it?For more resources, go to this episode's Substack page: https://www.historicallythinking.org/p/the-age-of-hitler-and-how-we-will?r=257pn6

In this episode of Historically Thinking, host Al Zambone speaks with historian Peter Fritzsche about his book "1942: When World War II Engulfed the Globe." The conversation explores how 1942 marked the transformation of regional conflicts into a truly global war, examining the unprecedented scale and movement of the conflict, the suffering and displacement of millions, and the ideological forces at play in every one of the warring powers. Key topics include the Holocaust, anti-colonial movements, industrial mobilization, and how the memory of World War II has been shaped by the specter of World War III.00:00 — Introduction: 1942 as a Pivotal Year05:16 — Movement and Kinetic Energy in 194207:54 — The Scale of World War II: Numbers Beyond Comprehension08:55 — Pearl Harbor and the Five Decisive Days12:28 — Hitler's Declaration of War on the United States15:09 — American Industrial Mobilization17:42 — Japanese Military Strategy and Pearl Harbor19:29 — Japanese American Internment22:34 — The Global Theater of War and Radio26:31 — The Fall of Singapore and Anti-Colonial Movements31:51 — Cross-Cutting Forces: India's Complex Independence Struggle33:55 — Trotzdem: Hitler's Ideology of Total War35:48 — 1942: The Year of the Holocaust39:52 — Ideological Coherence in World War II Armies43:17 — The Importance of Mail in Maintaining Morale46:11 — Richmond, California: The Second Gold Rush48:08 — The Philippines: Between Two Empires50:32 — Ukraine: Caught Between Empires53:56 — How World War III Obscured World War II

Mount Fuji is at once instantly familiar and seemingly immutable, yet it always remains strange and changeable. Its postcard-perfect peak is known around the world as a wonder of nature and a symbol of Japan. But behind that outline lies a far more complicated history.Over the centuries, Fuji’s eruptions devastated farmland and terrified villagers. Revered as a sacred presence, its divine inhabitants changed with shifts in belief and power. Once locally known, Fuji later became claimed as a national emblem, its slopes inspiring poetry, painting, and pilgrimage—and serving as the stage for political and economic disputes.In Fuji: A Mountain in the Making (Princeton, 2025), Andrew Bernstein traces this layered story from the mountain’s surprisingly recent geological beginnings to its recognition as a World Heritage Site. The result is a portrait of a place both familiar and unsettled: a mountain still in the making, continually remade by the humans who live with it, use it, revere it, and visit it.For show notes and more, go to the Historically Thinking Substack page for this episode.

We reach for the Cold War as if it were a really good pocket tool: compact, familiar, ready to deal with any problem in today’s world. U.S.–China rivalry? “Cold War 2.0.” Russia and the West? “Cold War redux.” The appeal is obvious: the Cold War offers a story we already know how to tell—great-power tension, nuclear standoff, ideological blocs, and finally, a tidy ending.But as Francis J. Gavin argues, analogies always smuggle in assumptions. To label something a “new Cold War” is to commit to a whole strategic script: decades of rivalry, fixed blocs, and an expectation of how the story ends. But what if the conditions that defined the 20th-century Cold War—its nuclear stability, its institutions, even its duration—don’t apply now? And what if these words “Cold War”that you use do not mean what I mean by the words “Cold War”?Francis J. Gavin is the Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director of the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is the author of Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age and Thinking Historically: A Guide for Policymakers.For notes, links, and a vast archive, go to www.historicallythinking.org

IntroductionEach year millions of tourists visit the Czech capital, awed by its blend of architectural styles and dramatic landscape. St. Vitus’s Gothic cathedral towers above the Charles Bridge and the Vltava River, while winding alleys lead to elegant squares lined with Renaissance palaces, Baroque statues, and modern glass structures. Yet this beauty obscures centuries of conflict — ethnic, religious, political, and more typically mundane conflicts— beginning when Prague was just a fort on a hill above a river. Presumably it wasn’t built there for the view.In her new book, Prague: The Heart of Europe, Cynthia Paces traces the city’s history from the late ninth century, when Slavic dukes built the first fortifications and church, through eleven centuries of triumph and tragedy. Prague has been both an imperial center of a great empire and a city on the periphery of empires—several of them. It became a European capital of art, politics, and pilgrimage, endured religious wars and defenestrations, and was nearly destroyed in the Thirty Years’ War. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was celebrated as a beacon of democracy, only for its citizens to endure violent antisemitism, Nazi occupation, and communist repression — before once again becoming a beacon of democracy.Through her story of Prague we come to understand the truth of Franz Kafka’s observation: “Prague does not let go; this little mother has claws.” Our conversation moves across centuries of wars, saints, emperors, rebellions, and revolutions to show why Prague still grips the imagination.About the GuestCynthia Paces is Professor of History at The College of New Jersey. She is the author of Prague Panoramas: National Memory and Sacred Space in the Twentieth Century and co-editor of 1989: The End of the Twentieth Century.For Further InvestigationCynthia Paces, Prague: The Heart of Europe (Oxford University Press, 2025)—Prague Panoramas: National Memory and Sacred Space in the Twentieth Century (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009)Chad Bryant, Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism (Harvard University Press, 2007)Derek Sayer, Prague, Capital of the Twentieth Century: A Surrealist History (Princeton University Press, 2013)Related Episodes“Edges are Interesting: A History of Eastern Europe”“City of Light, City of Darkness”“Madrid”Listen & DiscussHow does Prague’s geography help explain its importance across European history?What does the Prague Spring reveal about the continuing interplay in Prague’s history of freedom, repression, and resilience? Share the podcast with someone who has visited Prague, or who has always meant to.

It might seem obvious that the study of history ought to  improve the crafting of public policy. Surely if we understand the past, we should be able to make better decisions in the present—especially in the high-stakes worlds of statecraft and strategy. But that assumption raises deeper questions: How should history be used? What history should be used? How do we gain the kind of historical knowledge that truly shapes decisions? And why is it that historians and policymakers so rarely speak the same language?In his new book Thinking Historically: A Guide to Statecraft and Strategy, my guest Francis J. Gavin argues that a genuinely historical sensibility can illuminate the complex, often confusing realities of the present. Good historical work, he writes, does not offer easy analogies or tidy morals. Instead, it captures the challenges and uncertainties faced by decision-makers, complicates our assumptions, forces us to see the familiar in new ways, and invites us to understand others on their own terms without abandoning moral judgment. Thinking historically, Gavin shows, is a discipline of discernment, curiosity, and humility—qualities as necessary in statecraft as they are in life.Francis J. Gavin is the Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and director of the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins SAIS. He is also the author of Gold, Dollars, and Power; Nuclear Weapons and American Grand Strategy; and The Taming of Scarcity and the Problems of Plenty.Go to www.historicallythinking.org for more