Views on Niall Ferguson's analysis of WW1

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Caesar Australis, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. Caesar Australis Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#World_War_I

    I have some issues with his assertions- 6 and 7 on the one hand and 11 on the other seem to contradict one another. And 1 seems especially dubious.

    But in general his point that a likely Pax Germana in Europe would be preferable to a long drawn out WW1, subsequent WW2, ascendant fascism and then communist domination of half of Europe seems reasonable. Not to mention preventing the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the resultant instability and reactionary tendencies in the Middle East.

    The only especially troubling consequence that I can see is that British capacity to sustain it's empire would not have been crippled- colonialism might even have continued until present day.
     
  2. Grey Wolf Me?

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Deepest Wales
    Things like 5 seem to be subjective

    I imagine there is evidence both ways for 7 and 8 and hard to decide on a "majority" view

    10 is probably a mixture of in some cases one thing, and in some cases the other, whilst the definition of "efficient" is subjective

    Regarding Grey, of course he had no definitive view on the matter before it happened, going to war is reactive and in a parliamentary democracy you can't commit to it definitively ahead of time

    Best Regards
    Grey Wolf
     
  3. TyranicusMaximus Irrational Statist

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    Otto-wank Virginia
    While a longer (and probably surviving) Ottoman Empire and a Pax Germania would indeed be preferable to WW2, Fascism, and Communist Eastern Europe, by no means are the horrors of OTL in any way predetermined in 1918.

    The run up to WW2 isn't inevitable, far from it. I think a scenario that sees a surviving Weimar Republic, with everything else as IOTL up to that point, would at least be as good, if not much better than "Pax Germania".

    But colonialism was mostly a drain on those who practiced it. Although colonialism could last longer than IOTL, at some point I'm sure that people would find it much too expensive.
     
  4. Nassirisimo Angry Arab

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    Im pretty sure Ferguson wouldn't be over the moon about a surviving Ottoman empire. About some of his other points, wasn't the German army a bit better then the Entene armies? If I can remember rightly, if you go off casulty rates alone, there were few battles in which the Germans lost more men then the allies. This may have been down to the heavier armaments and an ability to raise a bigger force then France (and by extention, Britian). However, Tyranicus is right when he says that although OTL world war 2 might not happen, a number of unforseen wars could, and we could be looking at a potentially deadlier conflict in a CP victorious world.
     
  5. I Blame Communism Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Location:
    Class-*khachoo!*
    A lot of his claims are things which are very difficult to prove one way or the other (How willing is willing? What does 'better' mean?), but I regard some of them as a lot of nonsense, for instance the claim that Germany was "the most anti-militarist country in Europe". Militarism means different things, but at any rate Germany was more militaristic than Denmark. :p

    If you're going to use counterfactuals, you're opening a can of worms. If history is mutable, then one can't say that German victory early in WW1 will be better than OTL. And as TM points out, who said OTL was the only outcome from Entente victory in 1918? There's time to avert not only Nazism but Stalinism too.
     
  6. Grey Wolf Me?

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Deepest Wales
    Ah,but my Eleventh Hour timeline "shows" how other worse things could arise, such as world-wide Satanism :cool:

    Best Regards
    Grey Wolf
     
  7. Mikestone8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    Peterborough, UK.

    But was there ever much likelihood of a successful WR?

    By the mid-1930s, in all of Continental Europe there were only two democracies left (Finland and Czechoslovakia) which hadn't already been democracies in 1914. Otherwise, all had become dictatorships of one stripe or another. Was there any particular reason for expecting Germany to buck this trend?

    I don't say a successful WR is 100% impossible, buit I can't see any especial reason to expect one.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011
  8. Kelenas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Well, in some cases he's possibly right, in others possibly wrong, and in a few it's strictly a matter of one's point of view.
    "It would have been for the best if Britain stayed out of the war", for example; best for whom? Britain? Definitely; the war cost them a bloody fortune, and ultimately changed little to their benefit. Germany? Likely as well. France? Without the BEF and british loans for war supplies they'd probably have been beaten in '14/'15, so not really. The US? Definitely not; they could sit back and watch as many of the other great powers beat each other senseless, and made a bloody killing by selling war materials at the same time.

    The same goes for other points. While the British undoubtedly played their part in making the bloodbath that was WW1 possible, so did the French, Germans, Russians, and others.

    - Kelenas
     
  9. Tyr air in space

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    欧州
    1) Eh? Weren't they a highly militarised country with a gigantic army and a large chunk of their men in the reserves?
    2) Isn't this GCSE history? The ententes?
    3) Nobody claims Germany was a direct threat to Britain. Germany however was a threat to the balance of power in Europe and long term that could threaten Britain.
    4) No idea.
    5) Very much doubt it as we see with the way Germany carved up Russia.
    6) I doubt this, unless every other historian is wrong.
    7) No idea.
    8) Like how?
    9) Doesn't everyone know that the Germans had a better army than the French? The British...well the best army in the world but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the German one.
    10) Doesn't everyone know that the Germans generally had the better of things?
    11) Can't really say either way here, too subjective, nobody was 100% for or against I bet, they were all conflicted with points for and against.
    12) I know nought of that.
    13) The truth lies halfway IMO. They were possible to pay but they would be damaging.

    Unlikely.
    The rise of the labour party in Britain predates WW1 and would likely have happened just the same without it. Unless Fabian groups make a sudden take over (unlikely) labour is going to want what is best for the British people before anything else- and that involves cutting loose the empire. Additionally they didn't have the old school imperialist element the tories had so would be more willing to work with independance activists in the empire.
    But a slower, better organised decolonisation would overall have been much better for the world.
     
  10. Lord Douglas Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    I read The Pity of War, which, like most Fergusson books was eminently readable and very well argued even if the points themselves were contentious. I think his argument was that the German populace was far less militaristic than stereotypically portrayed due to pre-war voting patterns for the Reichstag. Which is perhaps fair enough but you could say much the same thing for Britain, where the population showed contempt for men in uniform before 1914.

    With regards to the Labour Party I'm not sure that their rise was inevitable. The First World War ripped the heart out of the Liberal Party and it permitted Labour to cut loose its Lib-Lab ties - without the trauma of the war the party would probably have continued to evolve along 'New Liberal' lines and remained the main centre-left grouping in Parliament, although non-socialist of course.
     
  11. Faeelin Lord of Ten Thousand Years

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    See, this is why I think Ferguson is an awful historian. You have to be incredibly naive and flat out disingenious to read German documents on "mitteleuropa" from the Great War period as envisioning the formation of an EU. A one way common market dominated by German industry for the benefit of Germany? Sure.
     
  12. DValdron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    A Europe under the thumb of German hegemony, even a relatively benign version, would have been unacceptable to Britain, which saw its interests best served by a European 'balance' of Great powers.

    The war was incredibly destructive and destabilizing, and clearly Europe would have been better off if it had never fought it. Alternately, it would have been better off if the war had been short and sharp, as opposed to protracted and grueling, no matter who won.

    Under the circumstances of a long protracted war which bled populations and economies white and destabilized states, the outcome was going to be a mess no matter how things turned out.
     
  13. Mikestone8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    Peterborough, UK.
    And even if Ferguson is right as viewed from 2011 (which is possible but by no means self-evident) it is still just a classic case of "hindsight is always 20/20".

    Britain, in 1914, was simply doing what she had been doing since Elizabeth I's day, namely throwing her weight in on the side of the "balance of power" so that any over-mighty state which looked like bringing all Europe under its sway should be cut down to size and made to reconcile itself to just being one power among several. In the event it didn't work out the way it had done on previous occasions, but it's not at all obvious how any government could have forseen that - or done much about it even if they had. Going to war meant the end of British power in the long run, but standing aside while Germany took over Europe would probably have meant the same thing in the short run.

    Acquiescing in a German victory meant accepting that Britain was through as a great power, which may not sound such a big deal now that we've had half a century to get used to it, but was a very big deal indeed in 1914.
     
  14. Faeelin Lord of Ten Thousand Years

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Really? I can think of German hegemony after a short victorious war only exacerbating German militarism. In the 1930s and 1940s, a far right Germany armed with nuclear devices goes to war with an industrialized Russia...
     
  15. Kelenas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Y'know, I never really understood why Germany was supposed to be so incredibly militaristic compared to the other nations. Was it's attitude in regards to its army all that much different from the attitude the British had in regards to their Royal Navy?

    - Kelenas
     
  16. Julius Vogel All aboard May's Worker Self Management!

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008

    Well, off the top of my head I'd say it was a combination of the following:

    1. The size of the peace time army and the size of the colours/reservists as compared to the neighbouring countries (the UK/France in this case, rather than say Russia, which was much bigger)

    2. The fact that the state was subordinate to the Kaiser, rather than the other way around. So his position of Commander in Chief etc was more real than say the head of state for France or Britain/UK

    3. The fact that Germany had late in the piece decided to develop a large, capable battle fleet in addition to the large, capable army (both sufficient to challenge Britain or France)

    4. The various popular lobby leagues that developed in Germany to support the growth of the Navy and Army. I do understand that there were lobbies in Britain/France for both services, but I do not think that they were anywhere near as widespread as Germany (would need to check this)

    5. The independent nature of the military services in Germany, compared to the UK/Britain. IIRC the services had a huge degree of control over doctrine, purchasing and budget that was independent of the civilian government and largely only answerable to the Kaiser. This is quite distinct from the UK, where despite the power of the RN, it was still clearly under the thumb of Westminster. In the German situation the military was almost a separate branch of the state, rather than say subsidiary to the civilian head of government.
     
  17. Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy Banned

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Patarlagele/Bucharest, Romania
    Grey didn't know what the British response would be. The closest he could guarantee was that Britain would respond to a violation of Belgian neutrality. Something which the Germans refused to believe.

    So Britain had to please the country that it humiliated at Fashoda and the one which got its butt kicked by Japan and almost had its government overthrown?

    It wouldn't have been like the EU, it would have been like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

    Could have been prevented had the Turks stayed out of the war. Besides, disaster need not follow their demise - had the Arabs not been screwed and the Jewish issue been handled better...

    British non-involvement in the world wars would have given them 2 or 3 extra decades at the most. Any more and they'd face a subcontinent-wide uprising they couldn't defeat. With India gone, it's only a matter of time before most of the rest of the Empire followed.

    Yes, thank you! It's exasperating to see all this determinism on an AH board. Get a French bullet through Hitler's skull and have Germany defeated fast enough to avoid a revolution in Russia.

    The choice was not between Weimar and the Nazis. The monarchists and the communists had a better chance to replace it throughout most of its history.

    Labour first came to power in 1924. The Empire didn't end then, did it?
     
  18. Adler Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    I am just reading his book. I am not through. However in most points he may be very right. In the last point, where he may be right, too, the question was never IMO if Germany could pay the sum economically but politically. The burden of Versailles was the main cause for the fall of the WR and the rise of Hitler. Not ww1 was the main catastrophe of the 20th century but Versailles.

    Adler
     
  19. Grey Wolf Me?

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Deepest Wales
    You may be thinking that because you are currently "in" his book. A bit later when you reflect on other evidence, you may temper the belief.

    Just an observation on life - its like that a lot, even with political belief. If you sit through a speech by someone who gets you to believe in what they are saying, you might tweet in support of it. Later, after you get "out" of that atmosphere, you reflect and see the flaws

    Best Regards
    Grey Wolf
     
  20. Faeelin Lord of Ten Thousand Years

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004

    So in other words the Germans could have paid reparations but chose instead to finance a war machine to try conquering Europe once again?