Thoughts on the Great War

I notice that Ralph Raico over at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute has a short "review of recent literature" on World War One. In this review, he looks at five relatively recent attempts at understanding the war, disparages some, applauds others. Let me throw my two cents into this, since I've been tackling the same literature recently.

Raico loathes Sir Michael Howard's small but ambitious attempt to explain the war , as mistake-ridden and ripe with questionable (or arguable) interpretations. I would pull back a bit on that and, despite some questions on Howard's clear advocacy of the Allies' self-evidently righteous cause, nod approvingly at the book for taking on a very difficult task and doing it tolerably well. I actually read the book in one afternoon, waiting at the airport for a flight and later on the plane, and would certainly advise those who know little or nothing of the war to begin with this book. It seldom breaks new ground or achieves any startling new depth of analysis, but that was never the book's intention. It's essentially World War One for Dummies. To paraphrase Bill Parcells, it is what it is.

He also knocks down Thomas Fleming's Illusion of Victory as unoriginal and marred by bad economic logic, the last hardly surprising since Mises devotees measure the world with a stiff Austrian economic ruler. I haven't read Fleming's effort, but I have read his other recent book on FDR and World War Two called The New Dealer's War, a dreadfully-written thud of a book. If he kept that style in the WWI text, I'll stay clear.

Raico aims particular venom at Niall Ferguson's Pity of War, an ambitious revisionist take on the war, suggesting through a series of counterfactuals (one of Ferguson's favorite methods of analysis) that Britain should not have entered the war and Europe (and the world) would have been better off had Germany won. That's the main thesis, but it goes much deeper, hitting down a number of myths and assumptions on the origins of the war and its impact. Raico finds Ferguson "an up and coming academic hustler" and the book "gimmicky," and his opinions do not improve after reading Ferguson's more recent Empire which suggests the British Empire was a positive development in world history (imperialism and empire are naughty words in Mises' circles). I must register a hearty disagreement, no doubt earning the snickers of my blog compatriots who think me a Ferguson shill. Pity of War is a daringly original book, thoroughly researched (I know, I know, much of that done by subservient grad students), and full of new interpretations that cannot simply be waved off as "gimmicky." If students want to understand where the current scholarship of WWI lies, Ferguson is certainly on the short list of important texts. I don't know how you can avoid him.

Raico finally turns positive on two books, neither of which I have read: Richard Gamble's The War for Righteousness and Hunt Tooley's' The Western Front. I bought Tooley's this winter, but haven't read it yet. To quote Raico on Gamble's thesis: The theme of the book is how the "forward-looking clergy [progressive Protestants] embraced the war as a chance to achieve their broadly defined social gospel objectives." Thus, the situation Gamble describes is, in a sense, the opposite of the one today, when it is the leaders of "fundamentalist" Protestantism that are among the worst warmongers. In both cases, however, the main contribution of the clergy has been to translate a political conflict into apocalyptic spiritual terms. You can see how libertarians would like Gamble.

Tooley comes in for praise for mastering the historiography and clearly explaining the complicated set of events before and during the war, apparently a victory for research and writing. Interesting that Raico also likes Tooley because he uses Murray Rothbard, late libertarian demi-god, as a source on WWI and economics.

Let me add to this list three further books.

First, take a peek at John Mosier's Myth of the Great War, a revisionist attack on the Allied war strategy. It can be quite annoying at times, flipping through desperately searching for maps to help you locate towns and battles, but on the whole it is an interesting and (if you stick it out) rewarding read. He even suggests that First Marne was not an Allied victory, but a carefully planned propanganda campaign to make it appear a victory. Stimulating and well-researched stuff.

Second, if you can afford it (or just get it via ILL), you must read Hamilton and Herwig's Origins of World War I, an edited collection of essays that discuss the years leading up to the war, and the decision to go to war, through the eyes of each country. There are essays on the major participants (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Russia), the smaller players (Japan, Ottoman Turkey, Bulgaria, etc.), and the later comer (USA). In addition, the historiographical introduction is first-rate, laying out where the history has been, where it is now, and where it should be going. In supplying context and nuance, this volume is masterful.

Third, although I haven't read it yet, I've seen two positive reviews of David Fromkin's Europe's Last Summer. I wonder just how original his thesis is, however, considering he is clearly within the "blame Germany" camp. I also have not seen mention of how he answers Ferguson's rather compelling thesis of the legitimacy of the Central Powers' worries and gripes. Still, it's the latest big splash and should be looked into.

That should keep you busy.