Critical Review of The Pity of War by Naill Ferguson

 

The Pity of War by Naill Ferguson is a comprehensive collection of research presented from a chronological narrative approach. This historical scholarship is vital due to its stimulating reinterpretation of the causes and nature of World War I. Fergesuon’s emphasis on unexploited diplomatic opportunities is one of its strengths, especially within the scope of the Anglo-German entente. In his presentation of research on the Anglo-German alliance and the accompanying conflict, Ferguson credits Britian’s position of neutrality during the Franco-Prussian conflict for distrust and missed opportunity for shared interests. Ferguson writes, “The possibility of an Anglo-German entente had deep roots. Britain, after all, had stood aside in 1870-71, when Germany had inflicted a humiliating defeat on France. Britain’s difficulties with Russia in the 1880s also had positive implications for relations with Germany. Although Bismarck’s proposal of an Anglo-German alliance in 1887 came to nothing, Salisbury’s secret Triple Entente with Italy and Austria to preserve the status quo in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea created an indirect link to Berlin through the German Triple Alliance, of which Italy and Austria were also members.” (Page 113) He suggests military stances and attitudes of leadership were main contributions to the conditions and morale of soldiers, details the maneuvers of Bismark on the African and Asian continents, and highlights Germany’s use of policy to gain advantage over imperial rivals.

According to Feugesuon, “…the First World War turned out to be a turning point in the long-running conflict between monarchism and republicanism; a conflict which had its roots in eighteenth-century America and France, and indeed further back, in seventeenth-century England.” (Page 634 ) His thorough research includes the analysis of wartime themed literature imparting varied sentiments from different nations, which illustrated the human toll  and emotional toil of the war on citizens of nations involved. Ferguson’s research also offers a glimpse into the imperialistic motives of nations involved on both sides, insisting “The German Chancellor’s map of Africa was, of course, no more than a shadow of his map of Europe; nevertheless, he played up German ambitions there in order to exploit Britain’s vulnerability over Egypt. Beginning in 1884, Bismarck used Egypt as the pretext for a series of audacious German interventions in the region, menacing Britain with a Franco-German ‘League of Neutrals’ in Africa, asserting German control over Angra Pequeña in South West Africa and claiming all the territory between Cape Colony and Portuguese West Africa.” (Page 114 ) He applies geopolitical and economic data to this analysis, which proposes the possibility of economic interdependence that could have encouraged stability throughout the region. Ferguson’s assessment of Germany’s stately interests and diplomatic posture in this work shed light on the performative aspects of imperial policymaking. The incorporation of global imperial interactions adds an analytical perspective to the historiographical contribution of this research, and a more comprehensive account of the catalysts and unfolding of World War I. According to the historian, “British foreign policy between 1900 and 1906, then, was to appease those powers which appeared to pose the greatest threat to her position, even at the expense of good relations with less important powers.” (Page 125 )

This work uncovers the plight of those who survived the war with significant physical wounds and disabilities, who suffered economic hardship, displacement, and persecutions, as well as the ways in which memorials helped shape the postwar sentiment. It also recounts the experiences of nations not typically highlighted in traditional World War I narratives. Though these thematic inclusions offer alternate insight into the Great War, Fergeson’s modernizing approach may not be considered a strength by some. The centering of possibilities for the Anglo-German alliance on the outcome of the war could compromise historical facts with conflicting chronicles of World War I. Although his presentation of economic and strategic aspects as foundations of the research are persuasive, they could divert from martial and social dimensions of nationalism that drove the public support of the war. Moreover, his divergent tone could leave readers in question of the balance in the facets of interconnection.

The Pity of War contributes to scholarship on World War I by accenting the human cost of the war, specifically the nine million lives lost on both sides. It also addresses the fifteen million people who were wounded and permanently disabled in battle, along with the psychological toll of those who experienced war from the memoirs of soldiers and citizens. Furthermore, it suggests that religion provided consolation for soldiers and mourners who experienced tragedy resulting from the war. Fergeson believes “In the light of all this, it is worth re-examining critically the assumption discussed in the introduction to this book that the memory of war in literature and art was one of unmitigated horror.” ( Page 651) However, it contests military and nationalist centered interpretations by highlighting broad dimensions of the soldier and citizen sentiment from the nations involved the Great War, which could trivialize previously presented historiography on this topic. Fergeson’s analysis is a comprehensive account of the cultural scars and economic hardship which resulted from World War I. “The First World War was at once piteous, in the poet’s sense, and ‘a pity’. It was something worse than a tragedy, which is something we are taught by the theatre to regard as ultimately unavoidable. It was nothing less than the greatest error of modern history.” (Page 669 )