Customer Reviews

The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Niall Ferguson's The War of the World has received a fair amount of "buzz." And, indeed, as one reads it, the scholarship, the knowledge of historical nuances, and the command of the sweep of the 20th century are all readily apparent. However, in the end, the book is somewhat unsatisfying.

The book begins with an interesting notion, namely that life was rapidly improving as the twentieth century began. However, the puzzle addressed by Ferguson follows from that: why did the rest of the century become so bloody? The First and Second World Wars were ghastly events in terms of the butchery of human life. And, looking at the subtitle to the book, one result was "the descent of the West."

What factors shaped the currents of this time period? He suggests three major factors: ethnic conflict, economic turbulence, and the decline of empires. The first two are easily understood. However, he also notes the disintegration/decline of the old empires, such as the British Empire.

What next? He suggests that the West is slowly being challenged by rising powers such as China. He also notes that the West, because of slow population growth, is coming increasingly to depend upon foreign labor, including those from the world of Islam (the Near East, as he terms it). Thus, his sense is that the West is facing challenges as we have entered the 21st century.

Obviously, this is an ambitious volume. It is worth reading to get a global, overarching perspective on the 20th century. However, in the end, it is not fully satisfying. The thesis is never crisply stated, the book tends to meander, and the final chapter does not really pull things together as well as it could. In short, the whole is somewhat less than the sum of its parts.

In both relative and absolute terms, the bodycount of the last century was the highest in recorded history. There were 16 conflicts that left more than a million dead, another 6 that claimed from a half million to a million lives, and 14 more that claimed from a quarter to a half million lives; all told, about 167 to 188 million people lost their lives as a result of armed conflict. Harvard historian Niall Fergusson has written a monumental tour-de-force attempting to answer the question: why?

Being Niall Ferguson, author of "Empire" and "Colossus," the reasons are not the conventional ones. Large-scale killing has taken place in previous centuries, and the 20th century, blessed with material progress, should have been a peaceful one, yet the bloodshed was unprecedented.

Ferguson disagrees with the traditional explanation that the scale of killing was a result of more sophisticated military hardware. The killing fields of Rwanda and Cambodia showed that large-scale massacres could be carried out by primitive weapons.

Stalinism, Fascism, and Anti-Semitism have been cited as the sources of the centuries largests mass murders. Ferguson argues that although the nation-states that formed after the disintegration of empires embraced extreme ideologies, these nation-states were not inherently evil; in fact they carried out many positive and peaceful goals.

Ferguson, instead, identifies three elements - the three E's - that were responsible for much of the 20th century's armed conflicts: "ethnic disintegration, economic volitility, and empires in decline." One of the primary examples he uses to illustrate his thesis is the case of Central and Eastern Europe. Prior to World War I, four empires were on the brink of dissolution - the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, the Hapsburgs of Austro-Hungary, the Romanovs of Russia, and the Ottomans in Turkey. The co-existence of these multi-ethnic populations was always tenuous at best, the transformation from empire to nation-state was anything but smooth. The nation-states that emerged after the war - Turkey, Germany, and Russia had their own agendas to cope with the worldwide economic depression that followed the war. The other countries that were located in between from the Baltic to the Balkans experienced some of the bloodiest ethnic cleanings in history. And this was only a foreboding of what was to come.

What makes this "fatal formula" so pertinent today is that all of these elements exist in the Middle East today. According the Ferguson, as he elegantly argued in "Colossus," America is an empire, a liberal empire, but it is also an empire in denial. With economic instablity, which already existed before the invasion of Iraq; ethnic strife between Sunni and Shia; and America's wavering support for the young nation: everything seems to be heading toward full-scale civil war. Making matters worse, the conflict will inevitably spill over into Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom have ethnic and religious interests in the outcome.

Ferguson's analysis seems to be convincing. The brutality that we are witnessing today in Iraq where Sunni and Shia treat each other as "inferior or malignant species" is remarkably reminiscent of some of the 20th century's worst nightmares. We can only hope that the bloodletting can be stopped and that a political solution can be found. Unfortunately, the ranks of the optimists are dwindling.

Niall Ferguson is a remarkably inventive and productive historian, who in the last decade has produced a number of major works including a largely favorable analysis of the British Empire, and one of the reluctant empire of the twentieth century, the American Colossus. Now in his latest book, an expanded version of a British Channel Four Television series, he surveys the history of the twentieth century, which he claims to be the bloodiest century in modern history. This century had `the greatest man- made catastrophe of all time' the Second World War. His thesis is that one major reason for the disasters of the century is the decline of the great multinational Empires which existed before the First World War- and the conflict brought about through `the emergence of new empire- states in Turkey, Russia, Japan and Germany.'

In explaining the violence of this most violent of centuries he also invokes two other major factors. The first is the ethnic conflict in which advanced processes of assimilation (as with the Jews in Germany) broke down. The second is the `economic volatility, the frequency and amplitude of changes in the rate of economic growth, prices, interest rates and employment" which bring with them intense social stresses and strain.

These theoretical elements outlined clearly in the first chapter of the book serve as basis for his panoramic survey of the century's great disasters. But as his masterly narrative of international diplomacy and military history unfolds the theoretical elements somehow fade before the careful massing of evidence, the detailed analysis of what happened in Central and Eastern Europe, in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan, in the vast stretches of the Russian Empire, in Cambodia and East Asia, in conflicts where incredible cruelties are done again and again by empires in demise suffering from ethnic conflict and radical economic change. .

The evidence for the Jewish reader is especially agonizing when it comes to his chronicling events of the Shoah, and too of some of the particularly horrific crimes committed against the Jews which occurred before and after it. These were perpetrated by a variety of Central and Eastern European people, Ukranians, Lithuanians, Croatians, Rumanians, Poles, Hungarians.

A vast human gallery are also victims of most horrible cruelties .Whether it is the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks, or the Japanese wholesale rape of Chinese women,(The Rape of Nanking) , the slaughter of Tutsi by Hutus in Rwanda Ferguson provides a despairing picture of human cruelty and suffering..

In analyzing the perpetrators of the Holocaust he is especially instructive when examines not simply the ordinary `willing executioners' but the intellectual elite of the society then considered the most cultured in the world. Ferguson examines the Nazi appeal to `those with university degrees so vital to the smooth running of a modern state and civil society', and shows how Nazism provided a kind of political religion which came to replace declining traditional faiths. The new faith inspired by the magnetism of the Fuhrer captivated German intellectuals and deprived them of all sense of human decency.

Another theme of Ferguson is his belief that the wars of the twentieth century resulted in a shift in the world balance- of- power towards the East. As he understands it from 1500 to 1900 the West reigned supreme, but new centers of power have emerged which deprive it of its exclusivity.

Ferguson in some of his most recent journalism has addressed the question of which area of the world most likely to set off a new conflagration. He writes of the great Shiite and Sunnite divide. But alarmingly he also makes a parallel between the rise of a charismatic dictator in the thirties, and the rise of the Iranian Ahmadinejad today. He speculates about the rise of a nuclear Iran the West has tried to appease, and speculates about it compelling a nuclear exchange with Israel which brings about the twilight of the West...

Clearly Ferguson would like Western leaders to take responsibility now and by responsible action avert the new Disasters which may already be at our gate.

Niall Ferguson has turned out yet another superb history. The War of the World begins with a reminder that globalization has happened before. In the early twentieth century it was possible (in the West, at least) to enjoy a life made easier and healthier through the benefits of modern communication and transportation systems. The nations and empires were linked in so many ways, culturally and economically, that optimists were beginning to regard widespread protracted conflict as increasingly improbable.

Yet all this progress came to a halt in the summer of 1914. Globalization disappeared, not to return until the very end of the century. Ferguson writes that the two world wars which ended globalization were the result of three problems: ethnic conflict, economic decline, and the crumbling of empires. He provides ample evidence of all three problems, and in doing so he allows us to view the well known histories of the world wars with a new perspective. Much interesting new material comes to light here on ethnic tensions in central Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and much else. Although his focus is primarily on Eurasia, Ferguson does not neglect to point out that the US faced some similar tensions. He also does not hesitate to point out some moral dilemmas which might annoy those who see the world wars as contests between absolute good and absolute evil.

Ferguson made a name for himself partly for his interest in counterfactuals: alternative scenarios which help illuminate what truly occurred, and he provides several more instructive examples here, including an intriguing analysis of why, contrary to popular opinion at the time, the British would have done better to go ahead and fight in 1938.

The book focuses on World Wars I and II, with the Cold War and the remainder of the twentieth century relegated to a long epilogue that inevitably seems a little rushed, though Ferguson does a good job of providing examples of his three problems right up to the present.

Ferguson writes well, and even those unfamiliar with the basic outlines of the world wars should have no difficulty following his narrative and understanding his arguments. At the beginning of another century in which globalization appears to be tying the world together ever more tightly, its good to have this warning of what happened once and could happen again.

Niall Ferguson convincingly demonstrates in "The War of the World" why the 20th century, especially the fifty years from 1904 until 1953, was the bloodiest of all. Ferguson attributes the extreme violence of the 20th century to three factors: 1) ethnic conflict, specifically the breakdown of the assimilation process, 2) economic volatility, and 3) the decline of Empires. Think for example about the organized violence that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union unleashed against anyone who was perceived as "undesirable." Ferguson does not mention technology changes among these three factors. There was no correlation over the 20th century between weapons' destructiveness and the occurrence of violence. Think for example about the genocide in Rwanda which was predominantly a low-tech conflict. Paradoxically, this exceptionally violent century went hand in hand with unparalleled progress in the scientific, economic, political, and social domains.

Perhaps more importantly, "The War of the World" casts a long shadow on the increasingly difficult coexistence of Shia and Sunni populations in the Middle East without mentioning non-Islamic minorities living in their midst. Ethnic conflicts, economic volatility, and the decline of the traditional power structures in the Near East represent some striking similarities to what happened in the first half of the 20th century in Europe. The religious conflict raging in the Middle East, especially in both Lebanon and Iraq, cannot be understood without considering the unbalanced distribution of wealth and power between Shias and Sunnis. Can the main players active in the Near East learn something from the past horrors that Ferguson describes in detail before a major realignment of populations becomes inevitable?

Ferguson's long review of genocide and tribe-on-tribe violence is concentrated on the period 1904-1953, and (despite lip service to the "world" in his title) heavily focused on the unique jumble of nationalities, ethnicities, and religions of Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire's former "Pale of Settlement."

He makes two disparate points: First that this period was unique for the frequency with which tensions in seemingly stable multi-ethnic societies boiled over into uncontrolled violence. Second, that the first half of the 20th century was the beginning of the end of Western domination of other parts of the globe. True, but self-evident and unoriginal. Those not steeped in this history may find this work a useful review of the period; others will find it too long.

Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile book, particularly for raising issues for our future (given the historical record that there are always those willing to ignore that other self-evident truth, that "all men are created equal," will the ethnic/cultural/religious mixing now accelerating in North America and Europe spawn more violence?). In addition, it provides useful reminders (e.g., wartime atrocities and ethnic hatreds were not the exclusive province of the Nazis), and offers occasional corrections to assumed truths (such as the question of whether the U.S. may be considered an "empire").

Side Note: It's unfortunately not unusual to find errors of grammar, syntax, and spelling even in "serious" books these days, but this one is more riddled with them than most. On this score the editors, if not the author, should be ashamed.

Niall Ferguson displays a depth and breadth of knowledge as he examines the conflicts of the twentieth century and how they impact our world today. Such analysis is long overdue as the tired story of good versus evil; democratic capitalism versus totalitarianism; West versus East have played themselves out and not accounted for the violence, killing and rape that marked 20th century conflict. How can "civilized" people sink to such brutality in short order? Ferguson attempts to explain this in his probing volume.

The decline of empires, economic volatility and ethnic differences were at the heart of the War of the World known as the 20th century. Any moral superiority the West may have claimed at the start of the 20th century was shattered by their willingness to side with evil or turn a blind eye to it. Churchill and FDR needed Stalin to defeat Hitler yet in the process wound up surrendering Poland, Czechoslovakia and Eastern Europe from one dictator to another who was equally brutal. How do we account for the demonizing of the Japanese as an enemy in WWII and justify the use of an atomic bomb to killing civilians? Was Allied policy of bombing German cities and civilian populations much different than what Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot did? The collapse of the Eastern Communist Bloc in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991 may have brought an end to the Cold War but not to brutal genocide as witnessed in the Balkans and Central Africa. Blood and guilt are on everyone's hands; there are no white hats only shades of gray and black to go around. The problem lies in the human heart. This transcends ethnicity, geography, race or culture.

Britain, France and Russia have lost their empires. China is on the ascent. The United States is stretched to maintain dominance and influence as a super power. Islam presents new challenges to a declining and morally decaying West. Ferguson deftly defines how declines in empire result in the greatest loss of human life and indeed a dehumanization in the ensuing conflict. The past century shows how the West has been a slow, steady decline with changes and loss of empire. Ferguson notes that it is near the borders of empires that conflict is at its worst. This explains the simmering cauldron of the Middle East today What will we learn from the last century to prepare us for the present? Ferguson's "The War of the World" is a helpful place to start.

The book ultimately leaves unanswered the most pressing questions that it raises. The problem with writing about current history is one of perspective. We cannot see the outcome. One could argue, as Ferguson does, that compromise with Hitler led to a longer and bloodier war in Europe than if the British had defended Czechoslovakia with a military response rather than a diplomatic surrender in 1938. The current United States President wants no compromise with terrorism, but will the war on terror and invasion of Iraq lead to a stable peace or one where conflict merely shifts location? What will happen if the West leaves Iraq? Does history teach us anything?

With nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, an economic powerhouse emerging in China and a billion plus Indians seeking a seat at the world table proportionate with their population, what does the future hold? Over this next century will the power shift from West to East? What will happen to the Western way of life as we have known it for decades in an Oriental world with Islam as a growing influence? Ferguson's book neither directly addresses nor answers these questions but it does lead one to think about them in light of the past century.

The War of the World is a thought provoking look at the conflicts of the 20th century. Ferguson's sweeping analysis penetrates deeper than the snippets from headlines and sound bites that fuel many people's understanding of the world. Niall Ferguson is commended for his thought provoking work.

The War of the World is Nial Ferguson's examination of the half-century of bloody national struggles (1904-1953) based around World War I, World War II, and the conflicts around them. In this sweeping revision of common ideas and causes of the wars, he describes these conflicts as inextricably linked, global phenomena. To Ferguson, the sources of violent upheaval of the century can be reduced to the powerful combination of ethnic hatred and mixed with economic upheaval. Ferguson takes a broad view of what he means by economic upheaval - fierce violence has erupted with rapid (but unequal) economic growth as much as economic contraction. But the crucible of the violence is the power of ethnic hatred.

Ferguson makes a convincing argument for viewing the two world wars and the conflicts that swirled around them as part of a single conflagration - and these conflicts became so horrifyingly bloody and far-reaching precisely because of the "improvements" in the technology and capability of killing.

What is not as well born-out is the subtitle of the book, the so-called "descent of the West." For one thing Ferguson himself seems to not be too concerned with the point, only devoting a small fragment of the book to the issue. But the idea that the conflicts of the first half of the century expressed the inevitable collapse of the power of the West and ascendancy of east Asia (mainly argued around demographic shifts) is simply not born out in the book. It's a minor point, but the book would have been stronger without trying to tackle that theme too.

I give this book 5 stars because I like the writing style of Fergusson so much, his lively mind and his wonderful ability to write engaging narrative with a penetrating insight, though provoking style and ability to make pithy statements on every page. I am not so sure about his general thesis:

The most bloody period of human history was from the beginning of WWI to the end of WWII. The reason for this was because of threefold: 1) the rise and decline of new and older powers regimes -- empires; 2) the advent of scientific racism to buttress regime change, and 3) all of this hieghtened as a result of economic turmoil.

Against this thesis Fergusson ranges free and wide, dragging in a ton of various sources, all of them reputable and show a good understanding of each subject he handles (as a person who has read extensively on the rise and fall of the Japanese Empire, I can do nothing but praise his list of sources for this volume). It has been a long time since I was so profoundly impacted by the descriptions of inhumanity he chronicles. But even here he continues to amaze me -- how did racism, which had always been present in Europe become so virulant and absolute by 1935, when in 1900 they were largely ignored? Pogroms in Eastern Europe were present, but did not acquire the barbarity and numbers they did by the beginning of the war. He chronicles this admirably with particular attention to the pogroms in Russia and the Turkish extermination of the Greeks.

He also makes an interesting analyse of WWII. In Europe the call was for the freedom and universal rights of the humans. The west despised the racial war basis of Nazi Germany. But in the Pacific the war for the western allies eventually became one to exterminate the insect-like Japanese. Fergusson is of course, no relativist. He realises that the Japanese were more profoundly evil, but he does have the guts to indicate a way of looking at this war that is not often interpreted. This what history should do, and he does it well.

I am not so sure that Fergusson is right on his thesis about the end days of the western world. This is the part that he spends the least amount of time on. He does cover the rise of China, India and the traditional malaise of the profligate west... but I think that he should develop this idea in a further book. A book where I shall be the first punter stepping up to buy.

As my other reviews of Professor Ferguson's books will attest, I count myself second to no one in long admiring his innovative scholarship and superb writing skills. But if this latest work were a joke, I wouldn't get it. I read widely in History, and generally all I ask is, tell me something I don't know, or, if I already know something, make me think about it in a new and different way. This latter point may be illustrated with two of the professor's own works, "Colossus" and "Empire". There's little new in either in terms of historical "facts and figures", and yet Ferguson manages in both to paint vivid and compelling portraits of, respectively, the inadvertent, intermittent, and sometimes inept, "American Empire", and the wholly intentional and regularized British Empire, and refreshingly and convincingly demonstrates how both changed (and in America's case, is changing) the world (incidentally, and on balance, for the better).

Since "War", however grand its sweep, and however numerous the conflicts it describes, contains nothing new, that is, unknown to me, in terms of "facts and figures", I was therefore looking for a thoughtful and cohesive theme drawn from them, "lessons to be learned" perhaps, or implications for the future--something. But all I found at the end of the very long read was some generalized musing that added nothing to either my knowledge of the subject matter nor understanding of its significance...a shaggy dog story of the 20th century.

Speaking of long, I was reminded as I turned to page three, or was it four, hundred of this book, that Stephen King once remarked that the advent of word processing had almost ruined him as a writer because it wasn't until a good time thereafter that he realized his works were becoming more prolix and losing or obscuring their narrative threads, all because he was simply writing too much. One wonders whether some careful paring and pruning by Professor Ferguson in this book (along with more concentration on developing a point of view) wouldn't have added greatly to both its enjoyment for the reader and its usefulness in the context of its subject matter.

Ah, well, I'm sure the prolific professor is well along with his next volume, and I, of course, will purchase it upon publication. I hope that with it he returns to his old form.