Economic Sanctions

Ian Johnson

Law of Nation Building

Final Paper

May 15, 2009

The Failure of Economic Sanctions

The modern world is one filled with modern weaponry. Modern weaponry has made the cost of conflict prohibitively high for anyone wishing to engage in aggression or defense. The death toll has risen greatly in wars since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Weaponry became more accurate, more efficient, and more effective. Mechanized factories could turn out these weapons at an incredible pace, with the only limit on the amount of weapons on the battlefield the amount of soldiers the warring states could field. During the world wars, entire populations could be decimated; requiring generations to return the population back to pre-war levels. World War II cost millions of lives on both sides.

The economic cost was also incredible high after the Industrial Revolution. Wars in the 18^th century took place on fields away from population centers. Cities were not leveled and property damage was limited. After the Industrial Revolution cities could be leveled from far ranged artillery or from bomber formations. Following World War II Europe needed the American Marshall Plan to rebuild its devastated cities. [1]

With the creation of the atomic bomb, war was no longer simply prohibitively costly in matters of human life and property damage; war had the ability to end human life on the planet.[2] States with the atomic bomb could no longer settle disputes with straight forward armed conflict. Open warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War would have led to nuclear war and unprecedented devastation.[3] Other venues for international conflict had to be found. The threat of nuclear weapons has only increased as more and more states have developed these weapons. The losses suffered to human life and property would be tremendous if nuclear weapons were ever used.

To avoid unnecessary loss to human life and property, most modern states now look to other ways to achieve their international goals without the use of force. The benefits for non-violent means to achieve a state’s are immense. Human life is spared and the economic devastation brought on by armed conflict is prevented. Thus most states now look to diplomatic means to achieve their goals. The most common non-violent diplomatic way to influence the actions of one state for the benefit of another is economic sanctions.[4]

Economic sanctions are meant to apply economic pressure on belligerent state. In theory, causing enough economic pressure and harm to the belligerent state’s economy that the belligerent state will act in a way more in line with the goals of the state imposing the sanctions. Ideally the belligerent state will modify its actions to end the economic pressure and the sanctions will then be lifted.[5] The state imposing the sanctions is able to achieve its goals without the loss of life that would be suffered in an armed conflict.

In the modern world these sanctions are imposed by the United Nations, which gives the sanctions creditability. If the United Nations imposes the sanctions, then in theory the world supports the use of the sanctions, this gives the sanctions creditability because it is the world taking action against the belligerent state.

Yet sanctions have not proven to be a very effective way to influence the actions of belligerent states. The United Nations has imposed sanctions many times in the past with little effect. Human rights abuses continue to take place in states under sanctions from the U.N. Also, U.N. sanctions have failed to prevent conflict and nuclear proliferation.

States across the globe continue to engage in violence, spreading that violence within and outside of its borders. Africa has suffered decades of violence. South Asia has seen several wars between India and Pakistan since the inception of the U.N, and violence continues in today in a Myanmar under an oppressive military junta. Weapons of mass destruction have also spread; despite the actions of the U.N. India and Pakistan have recently built nuclear weapons. Many belligerent states are attempting to build their own nuclear weapons. Sanctions used by the U.N. have not been able to stop the spread of violence and weapons. Belligerent states continue to act in ways that are detrimental to the U.N. and the world in general.

Prime examples of the failure of sanctions can be found with states like Iran, North Korea, and Iraq before the American invasion. The United Nations imposed sanctions on these three states to little effect. Iran and North Korea continued to develop weapons which the U.N. had forbidden them from doing so, and Iraq failed to fully comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Most states that have sanctions imposed upon them are able to resist the economic pressure and continue in their current course of actions, actions opposed to the wishes of the states imposing the sanctions.

The question is why the sanctions fail and what improvements can be made to improve sanctions in the future. The use of economic means to achieve a state’s goals without the use of violence is a noble goal. In a modern world filled with modern weaponry, there is an added incentive to minimize or eliminate the loss of life and property while achieving the state’s goals.

To learn the answer to why sanctions have failed a look should be taken at the use of economic pressure in the past, as well as a look at why sanctions in modern instances have failed. By studying the past and the present use of sanctions, a possible solution can be found to achieve more successful sanctions. If sanctions could be improved they would be very useful in a world that has become much more dangerous as failed states and belligerent states have spread across the globe. A U.N. with improved sanctions would be able to effect change in belligerent states, change that would hopefully bring a better life to the citizens of these belligerent states.

One of the most ambitious uses of economic pressure in history was Napoleon’s Continental System. In the early 19^th century, Napoleon was able to solidify control of Continental Europe through military defeats of Austria, Prussia, and Russia and by a system of alliances with his newly created vassal states.[6] After the defeats of the continental powers in 1806 Napoleon was able to turn his attention to his final enemy, Great Britain.[7]

In 1804 at the Battle of Trafalgar Napoleon matched his combined French and Spanish fleets against the English fleet.[8] Great Britain, being an island, had always put a great amount of effort into the maintenance of a large navy.[9] A large navy was necessary because threats would have to come from overseas to reach the British Isles.[10] The British navy would be needed to protect the country from outside invasion.[11] The British and Napoleon knew this.

Napoleon envisioned a great invasion of Britain with his Grand Armee matching over the English country side on its way to London, enjoying the same amount of success as the French speaking William the Bastard enjoyed in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings.[12] To accomplish this and knock Britain out of the war, Napoleon set about building a French fleet, one he would combine with the Spanish to create a fleet large enough to challenge the British for sea supremacy.[13] Once the British navy was destroyed, a French invasion of the British Isles could be lunched.[14]

The Battle of Trafalgar was the meeting between these two fleets. At the time of this battle, naval strategy dictated that the opposing forces line their ships bow to stern and sail past the opponent firing their cannons.[15] This tactic lead to the name of the type of ships used, Ships of the Line. The purpose for this way of fighting was to face your strongest point, the side of the ship which had the most protection and the most fire power, at the enemy.[16]

Napoleon’s force was defeated when the British Admiral Nelson made a radical departure from traditional naval tactics and charged the French and Spanish line of ships.[17] Nelson’s maneuver exposed one of the weak parts of his ships, the bow, but it allowed him to close the distance between the two opposing forces.[18] Nelson was able to rapidly approach the French and Spanish ships and sail in between their battle formations. This broke the French and Spanish force into two groups of ships, which Nelson circled with his forces and eliminated.[19]

With the French and Spanish fleet destroyed, Napoleon had to find a different way to defeat Great Britain. His solution was to destroy the British economy, which would then force Great Britain out of the war. This idea led to the development of the Continental System. The Continental System was the closing off of European ports to British goods, thus eliminating the importation of British goods.[20]

At this time Britain was rapidly moving forward with industrialization. Early British factories were taking raw materials imported into Britain from the colonies and producing finished products to be exported all over the world.[21] While one of the main purposes for having colonies was to create a market for a state’s finished manufactured goods, the colonies themselves could not provide a market large enough to satisfy the economic needs of a European state in the 19^th century.[22] Thus, Britain, while having many overseas possessions in the early 19^th century, still required the European market for its economic livelihood.[23] Both Great Britain and Napoleon understood this.

To defeat Britain, Napoleon believed he should attack the British economy. After defeating the main continental powers in Europe, Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1806, Napoleon gained almost total control over the European continent.[24] He was able to control the European ecomomy and direct which goods were allowed and which goods were forbidden in the European market.

Napoleon was able to use his control of Europe against the British economy. British goods were forbidden in ports controlled or allied with Napoleon. These ports included most of the European coastline, and therein laid the great threat to Britain. Napoleon controlled a population of millions at this time. The citizens of Europe were needed to buy British products and bring wealth into the British state. Without the European market British goods would remain unsold and the economic lifeblood of Britain at this time, trade, would be shut off.[25]

If Napoleon’s Continental System had worked according to plan, Britain may have been forced to sue for peace, which would have allowed Napoleon to focus on his continental enemies. Yet the Continental System failed. Britain was able to continue the war, eventually defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. The failure of the Continental System can give insight on to the current failures of sanctions.

The purpose of the Continental System was to deny the European market to British goods. The system failed because it was impossible to shut off the entire continent to British imports. Certain nations, like Portugal, remained outside of Napoleon’s control, and thus they remained open to British goods.[26] Portugal wanted the cheap and high quality goods produced in Britain, and thus saw no reason to follow Napoleon’s Continental System, a system that had no benefit to Portugal. Britain was able, throughout the war, to sell its goods in Portuguese ports.[27] From those ports, British goods were able to spread throughout the rest of continental Europe.[28]

The problem of Portugal became so great that Napoleon sent an army to over run the small country, which then provoked the Peninsula War. Portugal was a small and weak country in the early 19^th century.[29] Former glory as a European power and a major colonial power were in the past. For Portugal to be able to resist the French, other forces would have to intervene. For Portugal’s good fortune the British were looking for an opportunity to bring a land war to Napoleon and sending British troops to Portugal would do just that.

Throughout most of its history, Britain focused its attention on building a world class navy. The British army was a small force that was used to prove internal security and protect the colonies.[30] British power was projected by the navy, not the army.[31] It would have been impossible for Britain to meet the French army head on in the open field.

Portugal offered a unique opportunity to the British. The benefits of sending troops to Portugal would be threefold. Britain would be able to fight a defensive war, which would require fewer troops than an offensive campaign. Britain would have the support of Portuguese troops, which, although poorly trained and ill equipped, would help the British counter Napoleon’s numerical superiority. Finally, by aiding the Portuguese, Britain would be able to drain French resources, which would be needed elsewhere.[32]

Intervention for the Portuguese would also come from the Spanish. Spain was originally allied with Napoleon but continual French interference with Spanish political affairs, cumulating with a coup d’etat against the Spanish royal family, after which Napoleon placed his brother Joseph on the throne of Spain.[33] The people of Spain were greatly angered by Napoleon’s actions and they rebelled against the French presence in their country.

With Spain’s involvement in the Peninsula War Napoleon found himself fighting a guerilla war. Spanish partisans were able to strike at French forces throughout the Spanish countryside.[34] The guerilla fighting sapped French morale and drained the French army of soldiers and supplies.

The combination of British, Portuguese, and Spanish troops proved too much for the French forces in Spain, who were already depleted as Napoleon drew more and more of their numbers back to France to rebuild the Grand Armee. The French army was pushed out of Spain, but not before losing much in terms of men, supplies, and wealth.[35]

Portugal was not the only state that did not want to follow Napoleon’s Continental System. Great Britain was the birth place of the Industrial Revolution, which allowed Britain to industrialize before its other European competitors.[36] This led to Britain having more factories than the other European states.[37] Since Britain had more factories, it could mass produce more finished goods.[38] Mass production allowed for products to be made cheaply, which would allow the products to be sold cheaply. These cheap British products were also well made. It is easy to understand why cheap, high quality products were in high demand throughout Europe. Many states chaffed under Napoleon’s imposition of the Continental System.
The smaller states of Europe resented Napoleon’s embargo against British goods, but they lacked the power to oppose the French. Russia, on the other hand, was still a formidable opponent, even after its defeat in 1806. Russia possessed a long coastline and a deep desire for British goods.

Russia fought Napoleon in 1805 and 1806, resulting in a Russian defeat. A peace treaty was signed with France that called for an alliance between the two countries.[39] Russia was required to supply troops to Napoleon for his other wars and to follow the Continental System.

The Russians did little to impose the Continental System on its ports, allowing British goods to flow into Russia.[40] Even though the embargo was not strictly followed, the Russia felt undue French involvement in its domestic affairs. The imposition of the Continental System upon Russia embittered Russia against Napoleon, causing Russia to look for the right time to strike back against the French.[41] It is impossible to say if the alliance between France and Russia, signed in 1806, would have lasted if not for the Continental System, but it is clear that the forced embargo of British goods put a strain on French and Russian relations that ended in war.

Yet even in states with governments that fully complied with Napoleon’s Continental System, British goods still managed to reach the market. Black markets for British goods sprung up all over Europe which provided smugglers with plenty of reasons to run the risk of capture.[42] These markets came to be because people across Europe wanted British goods and smugglers and black marketers were more than willing to give it to them.

The combination of unwilling, uncontrolled states, unwilling allies, and smugglers and black marketers ultimately defeated the Continental System. The people of Europe wanted unfettered access to British goods, which were cheaper and better made than the goods to be found on the continent. Try as he may, Napoleon was unable to stop the flow of British imports into Europe.

It proved impossible to control every state in Europe, so as to impose the Continental System upon their domestic policy; attempts to do so failed, Portugal being a prime example. It was also impossible to ensure that allies followed the system as well, as Russia did little to help Napoleon’s pursuit of economic pressure on Britain. Finally, smugglers and black marketers undermined the embargo by bringing forbidden British goods into French controlled areas. It ultimately proved impossible to close the entire European continent to British goods.

The people of Europe desired British goods, and so ways were found to get those goods to European markets. Whether through opposing forces, uncooperative allies, or enterprising individuals, it proved impossible to limit the flow of goods. The reason the Continental System failed was because it was unfeasible to stop the flow of goods that were greatly desired by the populous. The people wanted the goods and a way was found.

The main flaw in the Continental System was the fact that it was a total embargo. No goods from Britain were allowed into French dominated lands. It is very difficult to limit all goods from flowing into a market, if not impossible. Not only did Napoleon face opposition from a populous that desired British goods, he also had to deal with the geography of the situation.

Europe is a large continent with thousands of miles of coastline. To close off such a large area to British imports proved impossible. To enforce the Continental System along such a large coastline would result in an astronomical coast in terms of manpower. This coupled with the fact the population did not embrace the embargo made the Continental System impossible to fully implement.

It would have been much easier if the embargo on British goods was directed and implemented in a more focused way. A total embargo will not work because it is impossible to shut of the flow of goods entirely. People will find a way to get the goods they want, which will cause the embargo to fail as a result of smuggling, black marketeering, and uncooperative allies who resent the need for the embargo.

A much better way would be to focus the embargo on certain goods that would do the most damage to an enemy’s war economy without causing much harm to the citizens of the opposing state. Of course, such a focused embargo would have done little good against Britain in the early 19^th century. Napoleon knew that the flow of British manufactured goods meant for home consumption must be stopped to cripple the British economy. There was no way to place an embargo on British goods to cripple Britain’s ability to make war without hurting the consumers in Europe. However, in the modern day, the lesson of embargos and their failures can be applied.

A total embargo of all goods coming in or out of a state is impossible. Most states are large areas with borders that would be impossible to shut down entirely. The cost of such an operation would be prohibitive. Also, the ill will engendered by the embargo with the people feeling its effects would be disadvantageous to the state or states imposing the sanctions.

Directed or focused sanctions would achieve the desired effect without the negative consequences that lead to ultimate failure. Focused sanctions would be directed against certain goods or products that would harm the belligerent state’s ability to cause harm to its people or neighbors without harming the belligerent state’s populace. The sanctions must be reviewed based on the individual states and the imports and exports.

For imported goods, certain items must be blocked will other items have unfettered access to the belligerent state’s markets. Weapons and technology used for weapon systems would be the most logical goods for sanctions. Luxury items meant for the belligerent state’s elite could also be targeted for embargo. By targeting these items for sanctions, the belligerent state’s leadership and elites will suffer, not the citizens. Weapons and technology used to make war will not be able to enter the country and luxury items elites favored by the elites will no longer be available. This will cause the leadership and elite classes to feel the depravation of the sanctions.

Yet since this is not a total embargo, other goods will be allowed into the belligerent state. Goods such as food, consumer goods and medicine meant for the people should be given unfettered access. This will allow the people to escape the effects of the sanctions, thus maintaining good will towards the states imposing the embargo. In most cases were sanctions are used the purpose is to effect a change in the actions of the state’s leadership; therefore there is little reason to impact the lives of the populous.

For exported goods, certain items should not be allowed to leave the belligerent state. Natural resources would be the best example of a target for sanctions. Goods like oil, diamonds, and natural gas bring in vast sums of wealth to the leadership of these belligerent states, wealth that rarely reaches the rest of the population. Placing an embargo on these goods would limit the amount of money the leadership classes had access to while not harming the state’s citizens. Of course it would be difficult to convince other states to respect the sanctions when they involve an embargo of valuable commodities like oil, but the benefit for the rest of the world should not be forgotten. If the sanctions can force belligerent states to change their policy, the whole world would gain.

With certain goods exported from the belligerent state would be forbidden, other goods would be allowed free access to the world market. Goods produced by the people of the state, like food goods or manufactured goods such as textiles, would be allowed past the embargo. Ideally this will allow for growth and prosperity for the people of the belligerent state. Jobs possibly lost due to an embargo on natural resources would be replaced by these other sources of production. States imposing the embargo could even make an extra effort to buy goods produced in the belligerent state. Hopefully, by allowing these goods unfettered access to markets around the world, the people of the belligerent state would not feel the ill effects of the sanctions.

By imposing directed and focused sanctions on belligerent states it would be possible to influence policy change. Focused sanctions would forbid the importation of weapons and technology used for weapons system while allowing the importation of food, consumer goods, and medicine. They would also forbid the exportation of natural resources while allowing the export of food goods and consumer products. Belligerent states would witness first hand how interaction with the rest of the world would benefit their economies. The consumer good section of the economy would grow while areas focused on negative aspects of the regime would suffer.

While sanctions similar to this plan have been used in the past, they have not been used with an added focus on allowing certain goods in and out of the country. It is especially import to allow important goods, the goods that impact the day to day lives of the people, in and out of the state. By aiding the belligerent state’s people and hurting the leadership, real change could be achieved.

The idea that certain goods are necessary for a state’s survival is key to understanding why sanctions fail and how they could succeed. If important goods are denied to a state it is possible that state can lash out in harmful ways. Thus it is important that sanctions do not forbid access to goods necessary for the state’s continual growth.

An excellent example of the importance of goods or resources to a states growth can be found in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Japan had a rapidly growing economy in the early 20^th century.[43] Its power in Asia and the Pacific had been increasing greatly ever since steps to modernize had begun.

In 1854, American warships under the command of Commodore Perry opened up an isolationist Japan to trade with the rest of the world. The American force, made up of steel warships, proved to be an unstoppable foe to the Japanese and their wooden ships.[44] Perry found a feudal Japan lacking much of the technology found in the West. After having access its isolation shattered by the technologically superior West, Japan began rapid modernization to allow it to compete with the Western powers that were now taking a larger and larger role in Asian affairs.[45]

The fruits of this rapid modernization were seen during the Russo-Japanese War. In 1905, Japan was able to soundly defeat two Russian fleets. [46] Japan was able to dictate terms to Russia, severally decreasing Russian influence in the Far East and granting Japan large areas of territory in Manchuria. Japan was able to meet one of the world powers at the time and defeat it in war. The rapid modernization of Japan was remarkable.

After the Russo-Japanese War, Japan continued to expand its power and influence. Japan was a powerful nation with a large population in the early 20^th century, but it lacked natural resources. With the modernization and industrialization of Japan after Commodore Perry’s arrival, it became necessary to acquire the natural resources needed for Japan’s continual growth. The factories of Japan needed natural resources and raw materials to continue producing goods. Most importantly were the natural resources used to power the factories. Since Japan was a resource poor state, natural resources had to be found elsewhere.[47] Mainland Asia had many of the resources the Japanese were looking for.

Korea and Manchuria were already under Japanese control, and in the 1930s Japan waged a war of conquest with China.[48] For 9 years, the Japanese army ran over large sections of eastern China. The Japanese saw the success their war machine was having in procuring large sections of mainland Asia, yet for that success to continue, the war machine needed fuel and energy to run on.[49] This meant oil.

The Japanese involvement in China had caught the attention of the United States. The U.S. wished to apply pressure to the Japanese in order to stop their war in China.[50] The decision was made to place an embargo on oil imported to Japan. In theory, the embargo on oil imported into Japan was meant to deprive the Japanese war machine of its fuel.[51] Without fuel, the Japanese would be forced to seek a peaceful end to their war in China. At the very least, an oil embargo would force Japan to temper its ambitions in Asia, which were at odds with the ambitions of the West.

However, the embargo had the opposite result. Japan released that its supply of oil was tenuous at best, able to be cut off by a foreign power. Japan had no interest at this time of ending its aggressive expansion, thus it had to find a new source of oil.[52] A source Japan would control and easily ship to the home islands.

China was a country rich in natural resources but it lacked oil. For its oil needs, Japan had to look to Southeast Asia. Yet, at this time, Southeast Asia was in the hands of the Western powers, namely Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the United States. To grab the oil rich regions of Southeast Asia meant war against all of these powers.[53]

Japan launched a surprise attack against the Americans at Pearl Harbor in late 1941 meant to knock the American Pacific Fleet out of the war.[54] The Pearl Harbor raid was quickly followed by a string of attacks on the Western powers in Southeast Asia.[55] Japan assaulted the British possessions of Hong Kong and Malay in late 1941, culminating with the taking of Singapore, the “Gibraltar of the Far East.”[56] With the fall of Singapore, the Japanese then attacked the Dutch in the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia.[57] During this same time the Americans were defeated in the Philippines.[58]

The quick and decisive Japanese victories were a shock to the world. Japan had now gained open access to the rich oil fields of Indonesia.[59] With this oil, the Japanese army would be able to continue its aggressive expansionist goals. Of course, Japan would be defeated by the allies in 1945 after an extreme loss of manpower and wealth by both sides. While it seems unlikely that the war in the Pacific could have been prevented, it is reasonable to assume that a different approach to the use of sanctions on Japan would have had a different result.

The main lesson from the failure of the oil embargo against the Japanese is that certain resources are necessary for the growth of a nation. Japan knew that the loss of oil would severely weaken it. By cutting off oil imports to Japan, the sanctions placed the Japanese in a position in which they believed war was the only option in order to procure the oil their state needed. Japan did not want to have the states well being tied to the whims of other powers, so it took aggressive measure to ensure that access to oil would not be impeded by other opposing states.

Of course Japan’s aggression can not be condoned or explained away. The lesson here is that by cutting off critical resources, sanctions may provoke more hostility. Sanctions are meant to resolve situations in peaceful ways, thus a way must be found for sanctions to work without provoking a violent response. Thus, it is imperative that goods and resources necessary for a states peaceful growth are not limited by sanctions imposed on belligerent states.

Natural resources used for energy production should be allowed into the belligerent state. The same can be said for raw materials used in the manufacturing or production of consumer goods for the building of infrastructure. Ideally, the lives of the citizens in a belligerent state will not be negatively impacted by the application of sanctions. The peaceful growth of a state must be the cornerstone of any attempt to impose sanctions. A state must be allowed to prosper in a peaceful manner, so it will realize that negative actions taken by the belligerent state will not have any benefit to it.

Sanctions have failed in the past when they have been applied. Today the world faces real threats from belligerent states such as North Korea and Iran. States like Sudan have committed human rights abuses that should be dealt with by the rest of the world. The question remains how to deal with these belligerent states, compelling them to change their policies, without resorting to violence.

Economic sanctions in the past have failed to work for several reasons. Napoleon’s Continental System failed to force Great Britain out of the Napoleonic Wars because it was a total embargo on all British imports into the European continent. Napoleon was attempting to stop much sought after goods from reaching a very large area. Without a clear and direct focus and which items to forbid, Napoleon’s plan was doomed to failure.

American sanctions against the importation of oil by Japan also failed. Oil was a necessary commodity for both the Japanese army and economy. Japan was willing to do anything to ensure the unfettered flow of oil into the home islands. As a result, sanctions that were meant to prevent further war induced Japan to more aggression.

For sanctions to succeed, a close look must be taken at the goods and resources coming in and out of the belligerent state. Necessary goods and resources, meant for the continual growth of the state’s economy, should be allowed. Weapons and technology for weapons systems should be blocked from import. Goods needed by the people of the state should be allowed. As for export, natural resources should be blocked while food and consumer products should be allowed access to world markets.

By focusing the sanctions on the leadership, they will impact those who set policy and will spare the people of the belligerent state. The people will still have jobs and economic growth while the leadership will have to question if there is still a reason to continue their belligerent stance. Ideally the sanctions will have little or no effect on the people of the state, and so the people will have no ill will against those imposing the sanctions.

In this modern world, with modern weapons, violence and aggression are no longer feasible. Economic sanctions have failed in the past, but steps can be taken to improve the effectiveness of sanctions on changing the policy of belligerent states. If sanctions can be improved, they can bring belligerent states in line with the wishes of the rest of the world. Sanctions can be made effective in maintaining a peaceful world.

[1] Niall Ferguson, The War of the World 63 (Penguin Press 2006).

[4] Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union 224 (Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. 1999).

[6] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Todd Fisher, The Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire 134 (Osprey Publishing 2004).

[9] Arthur Herman, To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World 374 (Harper Collins Publishers 2004).

[20] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Todd Fisher, The Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire 134 (Osprey Publishing 2004).

[21] Charles Breuning, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850 158 (W. W. Norton & Company 1977).

[23] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Todd Fisher, The Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire 134 (Osprey Publishing 2004).

[30] Arthur Herman, To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World 112 (Harper Collins Publishers 2004).

[32] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Todd Fisher, The Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire 312 (Osprey Publishing 2004).

[36] Charles Breuning, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850 160 (W. W. Norton & Company 1977).

[39] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Todd Fisher, The Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire 197 (Osprey Publishing 2004).

[43] Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War 1941-1943, Pearl Harbor Through Guadalcanal 35 (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2004).

[53] Felix Gilbert, David Clay Large, The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present 295 (W.W. Norton & Company 2002).

[54] Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War 1941-1943, Pearl Harbor Through Guadalcanal 71 (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2004).

[55]Felix Gilbert, David Clay Large, The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present 296 (W.W. Norton & Company 2002).

[58] Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War 1941-1943, Pearl Harbor Through Guadalcanal 74 (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2004).