Customer Reviews

The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This documentary looks at the violence of the 20th Century in new light. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson takes a comprehensive look at the totality of conflict from the turn of the century, up through to the end of the Cold War and turns some of the conventional wisdom on its head. Great powers did not just wage war in the two World Wars, but engaged in various hostilities throughout the century, which in hindsight, looks more like a global 100-years war. Economic volatility, ethnic disintegration, and empires in decline were the root causes of these many pitiful wars that persisted in what was otherwise a century of unprecedented human progress. Moreover, the disruptions to the distribution of global power favored the rise of the East, more so than the West, in what turned out to be a 'tainted victory' for the allies at the end of WWII. The "Third World's War" was the ultimate result, as dueling superpowers waged war by proxy in undeveloped nations. These key points make this truly one of the most compelling documentaries ever presented, covering the two World Wars and the events that link them -- definitely a must see for anyone seriously interested in the history of warfare.

Niall Ferguson provides a lively, visual and vivid account of the twentieth century, questioning some well-worn assumptions and offering examples of perhaps a slightly revisionist theory of war and progress in the twentieth century. This is a good classroom companion or alternative to a history textbook and Ferguson's style is warm and provocative without being pedantic or argumentative. Who says history has to be boring?

At the very first,I was most impressed by the Presenters efforts to cover what at 1st is ground that has been covered in great detail by other historians. (The Russo- Japanese War, The 1905 Russian Revolution, WWI, The Balkans problems,The Rise of Gangster States of Lenin, Stalin,Hitler, Imperial Japan & WWII)
But what really grabbed my attention and respect, was his coverage of what he called the "Third World" war. Which was fought by the competing Super Powers of the "Cold" War era in the 3rd world in a series of "Bush Wars". (Which were devastating to the locals) I was only disappointed that no mention of the Korean War was made. What I also really enjoyed was the section on the Fall of the Soviet Empire. I was however surprised on was not mentioned. Like how flat footed the West was by the sudden collaspe of that Empire. But that is only real issue that I take with him. All in all his film is a real "sleeper" but most worthy of your time or coin if this is in your area of interest.

This DVD serves as an excellent cliff-notes style synopsis of the approximately 900 page book it is based on. It covers, in a nutshell, the main theme of the book, that race, tensions between nation states in decline and on the rise, and economic depression were the main causes of the main causes of the largest conflicts (i.e., WWI and WWII) of the century. He also drives home the point that no matter what a nation states ideology, when it comes to fighting war, race has been much more important than it has been "politically corrrect" to say of late. Even states with very different ideologies and belief structures (i.e., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Britain and the U.S.) can engage in warfare, along racial lines, in the most barbaric manners possible. As Ferguson repeatedly points out using the analogy with HG Well's "War of the Worlds", humans can see those of other races and members of other nation states, as little more than "aliens" and dole out the same treatment the Martians did to the humans in the Wells book.

If all one is interested in is a cliff-notes synopsis of the book, lasting 3 hours, this DVD fulfills that function. Naturally however, due to its short length, it does not provide the depth, nuances and tangents that the book does. For readers interested in these the book would be well worth the signficant investment in time required.

History comes to life through his passionate and insightful presence. A great recap of the last 100 years with great new insights in the human nature and the insanity of war.

If you like Ferguson, I'd also recommend "The World Without US", a film with a futuristic outlook about America's role in the world.

The World Without US - With Niall Ferguson

This is a three-part documentary about the many wars that were fought during the 20th century, focusing on the ways they were all, to varying degrees, interconnected. Each episode is an hour long, with only one man -- Niall Ferguson -- talking throughout.

After I had seen the first episode, I thought I would only give the series three stars. It seemed but another rather superficial documentary, covering way too much in too short a time. Moreover, the brisk pace is underscored by some annoyingly hectic music, and by some pretentiously 'artsy' editing with quick cuts and fast motion, all of which seems altogether misplaced. The shots of Ferguson walking around at the various locations where the action took place, at one point screaming to be heard above the noise of a train engine, at another (in episode 3) firing a Kalashnikov, also seemed a bit too trendy and gratuitous, though it would perhaps be difficult to think of a better alternative.

But the second episode, dealing mainly with World War II, changed my conception of this series, and of how one should best approach it. I believe I have a fairly thorough knowledge of this war, and there perhaps wasn't that much that was new to me in Ferguson's treatment of it. However, his retelling of the conflict was really remarkably provocative at times, and it is this, I think, that makes this series so interesting. Just ponder the episode title: "A Tainted Victory." The victory, of course, is that of the allies; and to label it 'tainted' is a very sharp qualification indeed of that otherwise almost universal praise for America's alleged 'greatest generation.' We are shown genuine live footage of American soldiers killing wounded and defenseless Japanese soldiers at close range; and we hear the story of that Japanese skull that a soldier sent home to his sweetheart after his entire platoon had signed it, a photograph of which then ended up in "Life" magazine (if you google for this picture on the internet, there's a significant risk you'll end up on a revisionist website). We also hear of the German concentration camps in the East merely changing owners when the Soviets overtook them, and of Churchill's and Roosevelt's implicit approval of Stalin's dictatorship as he steamrolled across a defeated Germany. The conventional wisdom used to be that one can't 'compare' the Nazi tyranny with anything else in history; but Ferguson does just that, though not for the purpose of any 'apology,' but because a full understanding of its uniqueness can only be attained when it is seen alongside the communist tyranny that held Russia firmly in its grip.

The way to watch this series, then, is to always pay attention to the *choice* Ferguson has made in retelling these events. If you cover the second World War in just a little more than half an hour, there is only so much you can say -- and often it is *what* Ferguson chooses to say that is interesting. And I think he has often chosen wisely. Focusing on the battle at Kursk rather than Stalingrad, for instance, was a good call -- both because we've heard about Stalingrad so often already, and because Kursk -- history's hugest tank battle fought on a salient the size of Wales -- deserves more attention than it is usually given.

The episode dealing with the Cold War is perhaps a bit more conventional, though his emphasis on the dirty wars of the CIA, and the rather subtle portrayal of Kissinger as a womanizer with no conscience (this is suggested by the editing rather than by the words spoken) will probably rub some people the wrong way. He also denies Reagan the credit for having 'won' the Cold War by having driven the Soviet Union into bankruptcy by accelerating the arms race, and instead singles out Gorbachev as the most important individual figure for this development.

The series is also remarkable in that it is very much *Ferguson's* documentary. He wrote the script, and he is the one who reads it. There are no interviews with other learned historians, as there usually are in documentaries of this kind. Ian Kershaw was only the 'historical consultant' for BBC's large production about "The Nazis: A Warning from History." But here Ferguson is in charge from beginning to end, imposing his own vision on the material. And though it is a distinctly individual vision, its originality should also not be overrated. There are a number of one-star reviews of the book on which this series was based here on Amazon, several of which raise rather persuasive objections. Ferguson does come across as a bit showy, as perhaps overplaying his own importance, and I do think there are good grounds for maintaining a healthy skepticism regarding him. He has obviously managed to play his cards right, landing a professorship at Harvard, writing some talked-about books, and creating at least two important documentaries -- but whether he is also, in fact, the greatest historian around on these matters is surely still open to debate.

a fresh look at this bloody century. clash of civilizations. nationalism. the causes of almost all the conflicts of the century.

A insightful look at the twentieth century history of war. Points up the fact that man is basically tribal and without saying it proves man is inherently evil and that technology has only increased the slaughter.

Based on noted historian and commentator Niall Ferguson's book this series on PBS is quite enlightening and fascinating. It breaks apart our preconceived notions about the violent 20th Century, its many conflicts and root causes. How humans treated their earthly enemies as "aliens" or "subhumans" and drawing parallels with the prescient "The War of the Worlds" novel by H.G. Wells. As Niall explains the extreme violence of the 20th century can be explained by ethnic conflict, economic volatility and empires in decline. Let's not forget the lessons of history.

The tidal wave of war, barbarism and anti-western sentiment is again rising in the East, accrding to Ferguson's popular-genre film "The War of the World". What's worse, it is apparently already here -- in the heart of Vienna, Paris, and London! The final moments of the film, which depicted a group of young "oriental-looking" women clad in Islamic scarves with a backdrop of London's double-decker buses were particularly poignant. A picture is worth a thousand words.

In the old days, Dr. Ferguson reminds us, the "Fault Lines" separating the West from the rest were in the God-forsaken semi-oriental places like Sarajevo. But today, he claims, these "fault lines" run through every Western city. Chose your side, he implies. Are you, viewer, on the side of the Western Civilization?

Dr. Ferguson spent quite a bit of time in my native Russia making this film, digging for an interesting (and chilling) footage and stories, even taking the Trans-Siberian railroad voyage. The footage is good at times. But his point is that the barbaric and "Asiatic" Russians are culpable of starting wars, looks to me very much like demonizing. We all need to stem the tide coming from the East, he implies, to save the Western Civilization from the assault of the "Non-West".

The Serbians didn't fare much better - apparently, they started World War One by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 in an act "state-sponsored terrorism", as he calls it. (The real culprit, the Austro-Hungarian Empire who decided to teach Slavs a lesson even though they didn't possess proof that the Serbian State was involved in the plot, has been exonerated by Ferguson)

I didn't expect a well-known figure like Dr. Ferguson to become such an implausible cineaste of the pathetic "Clash of Civilizations". What a strange thing. Did he forget that the West's "civilizational" mission was mixed at best and often dismal? Did he forget that the Nazism was an illegitimate child, but a child of the "Western Civilization" nevertheless? What about Communism? With straight face he tells his viewers that the "large forces" like the decaying empires, economic dislocation and ethnic hatred cause wars. That's a very implausible theory. I argue that these forces don't cause wars; they only increase the international anarchy, which in turn make wars more possible.

An important link in his logic seems to be missing. I cannot agree with him that the "large" impersonal forces start wars. The Great Powers start great wars, specifically -- the Great Britain, Russia, Germany, the US, Japan. They do it, because they rationally choose War. They think that wars advance their political goals, power and prestige. The Great Powers "think" like Clausewitz -- "war is continuation of politics by other means". Incidentally, no Great Power started wars more frequently than the British Empire. Dr. Ferguson was discreet on this topic, no doubt because the Britons were frequently "goodies", at least according to the prevailing version of historical discourse. But it's worth remembering that the Great Britain, rightly or wrongly, chose to declare war on Germany on August 4, 1914 and again on September 3, 1939. It CHOSE to declare war on Russia in 1854 (and invaded Crimea together with France, after some naval bombardment of the Russian cities). These few examples give you the taste, but they are really countless. Perhaps the first war of the 20th century - about which Ferguson was curiously silent -- was the British decision to wrestle control of the South Africa from the Boers.

The British war against the Boers was brutal and modern; complete with trenches, population reprisal and concentrations camps. It was an non-illustrious start, which set the tone for the rest of the terrible XX century. Today, the Great Britain CHOSE to go to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan as an America's junior partner. I would not recommend the film - it is an illustration to implausible theories.