WW1 history buffs: Good book for the library

quote:

---

WWI fascinates me.

---

Ditto. No other event since perhaps the discovery of the New World has done more to mold the world in which we live today than WWI. I've spent over 30 years studying this war and I'm still fascinated any time I find any new material on it. I must check this out.

quote:

---

No other event since perhaps the discovery of the New World has done more to mold the world in which we live today than WWI

---

British historian Niall Ferguson makes a compelling argument in The Pity of War: Explaining World War One about how the world would be a better place today if Imperial Germany had won the war.

quote:

---

In The Pity of War, Niall Ferguson makes a simple and provocative argument: that the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England’s fault. Britain, according to Ferguson, entered into war based on naïve assumptions of German aims—and England’s entry into the war transformed a Continental conflict into a world war, which they then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement.

---

He argues that Germany had no global war aims, that she would have certainly won the war without first British, then American intervention, but would have done little more than establish the same type of European trade union that modern Germany is rapidly creating. And given what Britain gave up, in terms of Empire, lives, and economic retardation, the war must therefore be seen as a complete waste in British terms.

quote:

---

He argues that Germany had no global war aims, that she would have certainly won the war without first British, then American intervention, but would have done little more than establish the same type of European trade union that modern Germany is rapidly creating. And given what Britain gave up, in terms of Empire, lives, and economic retardation, the war must therefore be seen as a complete waste in British terms.

---

Here's my problem with Ferguson's argument. Say Britain stays out of the war, there is no guarantee that Britain and Germany don't ultimately clash at some point in the future. Contrary to what Ferguson argues, Germany did have global ambitions. Bismarck worked to craft an overseas empire in the late 1800s and Kaiser Wilhelm II launched Germany's ambitious naval arms build-up that the British rightfully saw as a challenge to their long-held naval supremacy. In many ways, the British-German naval arms race was one of the most important sources of tension in pre-1914 Europe and that tension would not have gone away if Britain had stayed out of the war. If anything, it would have gotten worse because Britain would have been isolated from the continent. That situation would almost make an Anglo-German war inevitable. Never mind the fact that although British democracy was still limited, Germany was essentially an autocratic state. Living in a Europe dominated by an autocratic and militaristic Germany, no matter the level of prosperity, would be unpleasant. That's the big difference between 1914 Germany and 2000 Germany, as well. In modern Europe nobody has to worry about the possibility of German armies marching down the highways of the continent.

Ferguson looks at the war largely in terms of economic costs and they are immense. But he doesn't fully understand the nature of international competition in the early 20th century, the importance of prestige, or the Kaiser's near obsession with blatantly challenging the British naval supremacy. And most importantly, he completely ignores the likelihood that a German victory would have simply produced another world war down the road; one that would probably have rivaled what we got from 1939-1945.

quote:

---

Living in a Europe dominated by an autocratic and militaristic Germany, no matter the level of prosperity, would be unpleasant.

---

Except the Kaiser was a joke to most Germans, and the Crown Prince an even bigger joke. Even had Imperial Germany won the war, or been allowed to win, there's NO guarantee that the monarchy would have survived.

The Germans had a lot less patience with their monarchy than the British did. It's just not in the German psyche to tolerate the kind of profligate waste and dissolute living that's an essential part of any monarchy long term. The Germans have always been concerned about their pocketbooks.

I really don't think the German monarchy would have continued for very long after a German victory. The German High Command, and the average German subject as well, were all well aware that any success was in spite of Kaiser Wilhelm, not because of him.

quote:

---

Except the Kaiser was a joke to most Germans, and the Crown Prince an even bigger joke. Even had Imperial Germany won the war, or been allowed to win, there's guarantee that the monarchy would have survived.

The Germans had a lot less patience with their monarchy than the British did. It's just not in the German psyche to tolerate the kind of profligate waste and dissolute living that's an essential part of any monarchy long term. The Germans have always been concerned about their pocketbooks.

I really don't think the German monarchy would have continued for very long after a German victory. The German High Command, and the average German subject as well, were all well aware that any success was in spite of Kaiser Wilhelm, not because of him.

---

Fair points, but I would say that you don't have to have a monarchy to be autocratic. Germany could have gotten rid of the Hohenzollerns and still been a militaristic, autocratic state. After a successful war against France the General Staff could have easily consolidated most of the power in their hands with the Reichstag to given credence to the pretext that Germany was a democracy.

Basically, my problem with Ferguson is him equating what's happening in modern Europe economically under Germany is somehow comparable to what may have happened after a German victory in 1914. It ignores much of the larger context and fails to take into consideration the significant differences between the Germany of 1914 and the Germany of 2000 (which was about the time he wrote his book).

Pick up the Balfour Declaration.

quote:

---

Interesting. One wonders how America would have matured without the void created by a weakened Europe.

---

I think America would have almost certainly remained a neutral country. Which meant we would be free to sell arms and materiel to any potential combatant.

Remember, prior to WWI, America had followed George Washington's parting advice to avoid foreign entanglements.

quote:

---

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

---

Washington's
FAREWELL ADDRESS
1796