Finally, an objective view of 'The Great War'

books:


	• The Pity of War: Explaining World War I Niall Ferguson Basic Books, 2000 - 608 pages average customer review:based on 53 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Deliberate Attempt at Revisionism

This interesting volume is a series of related essays on the First World War (WWI). The author sets forward a number of questions/propositions about WWI and then proceeds to explore them in a series of well written chapters. This book is not based on any original research but is rather an attempt to use the extensive literature on WWI as the substrate for rigorous analysis. Much of the analysis reflects Ferguson's background as an economic historian. This book has structural flaws. While Ferguson intends clearly for this book to read by broad audience, it is best read by someone with a good knowledge of WWI, the preceding events, and optimally some knowledge of the historiography of WWI. Another flaw is that Ferguson describes his questions/propositions in the introductory and concluding chapters but not explicitly in any of the chapters actually discussing the questions. Putting the questions into the chapter headings would improve the continuity of the book. Much of Ferguson's analysis is based largely on the experience of the Western Front. This is not entirely Ferguson's fault; in the large library of the university where I work, there are only a handful of books on the Eastern Front. The literature on the Eastern Front is limited and this imposes some distortions into Ferguson's arguments. This book is written well and Ferguson's arguments, even when flawed, are based on thoughtful analysis and impressive knowledge of the literature. The real test of this book is how well he answers the questions/propositions he sets out in the introduction of the book. This rsults are mixed. One of Ferguson's problems is that some of his analyses are correct but either too narrow or close to being irrelevant. For example, he argues convincingly that WWI was not inevitable. True in the sense that this specific war at this specific time, and perhaps with this specific set of consequences, was avoidable. His own analysis, however, and reading of other histories of the pre-war period leads to the conclusion that some kind of general european conflict was highly likely. The really interesting question is why the European state system came to be so inflammatory. Ferguson expends considerable effort discussing the bases for Axis success in WWI. Despite considerable economic handicaps, the Axis powers came close to winning. Ferguson concludes that the Axis powers were more successful and that the basis for their success was that they were better soldiers than the Allies. These conclusions will surprise none and are an example of crashing through an open door. Ferguson also ignores the fact that the Axis powers held strategic initiative throughout most of the war. Ferguson's 2 most controversial arguments deal with the British decision to enter the war and the financial burdens of war reparations. He argues that Britain did not have to enter the war and that it would have been better to stay out of the war. On the former point, he is undoubtedly correct but the latter point can be argued only with the benefit of hindsight. Ferguson argues that post-war Germany's economic collapse was the result not of the burden of reparations but rather of the efforts of German leaders to avoid payment. His arguments are ingenious but highly technical and may well be incorrect.

for more information click here

Finally, an objective view of 'The Great War'

In my early high school years I took an interest in military history, particulary WW I and II. I foolishly mentioned to my father that as there were some 40 steps to WW I, and both sides had opportunities to step back from the precipice, all were equally culpable for the carnage. I was almost beaten for that, as both my parents lost three uncles and my grandfather was wounded three times fighting the Huns. My parents therefore had a vested interest in propogating the myth that these sacrifices were made to protect freedom and democracy.

Niall Ferguson's book takes aim at several myths about WW I and integrates several ideas in one volume. Several have been addressed before in other forums to better effect, and he has missed, I think some salient points. These include the British desire (under Churchill, no less) to maintain total naval supremacy in the face of the German Navy's dreadnoght buildup. British intelligence also failed to anticipate German chemical research success in fixing nitrates from the atmosphere to produce explosives. This allowed German industry to continue to operate at full capacity despite the blockade.

Ferguson's industrial and economic capabilies are very consistent with those found in Paul Kennedy's 'Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' (1987), but Kennedy says it better.

The perception of war by the public before and during WW I is quite enlightening, as is his conclusion that some men actually enjoyed the killing. There is much anecdotal evidence to support this. For many men war is the only time that they achieve any importance or success, and they fade into obscurity afterwards. Although a different war and front, picture Sgt Steiner from 'Cross of Iron' and you've got the picture.

In sum, Pity of War is an extremely well researched tome that attempts to dispel some of our most cherished myths. I can only give it 4 stars due to its occassional lack of focus. It is required reading for any politician considering sending soldiers, sailors, or airmen into battle.

for more information click here

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, page 9, 10, 11

hot or not? What's your opinion? Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

Books politicians should read before going to war
The Great War in Fiction & Non-Fiction
War and Military History
End of Empire
History 225

search for books
pity of war, explaining, pity, war, world

Impressum / about us