These are boom times for histories of World War I. Like its sequel, though to a lesser degree, it seems to be the war that never ends. Works keep appearing on issues once considered settled, such as the “Belgian atrocities” and the reputation of commanders like Douglas Haig. Last year, Cambridge published a collection of 500-plus pages on one of the most exhaustively examined subjects in the whole history of historical writing, the origins of the First World War. As for general works, in the past few years at least six have appeared in English, by both academic and popular historians. The Western Front: Battle Ground and Home Front in the First World War (New York: Palgrave, Macmillan, 2003) by Hunt Tooley, who teaches at Austin College, in Texas, falls into the academic category, and for such a short volume (305 pages) it offers a very great deal indeed. [Full Article on LRC]
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3275/the-great-war-retold/
The Great War Retold
Previous post: Memories of Murray
Next post: Bork: Put Back the Berlin Wall
{ 9 comments }
Professor Raico, thank you for the excellent summary of the Tooley book. I will definitely pass it on to family and friends. Although I am familiar with much that is in the summary, I continue to be both amazed and depressed at the militaristic attitude and wanton disregard for the economic and civil liberties of others that animates the actions of all too many individuals. I am further disheartened by the disregard for the wholesale destruction of capital and other productive resources, the economic centralization, and, most importantly, the tremendous loss of life and human suffering, that war entails. Do things ever really change? Will we ever learn?
“Do things ever really change? Will we ever learn?”
Until we understand that War Is the Health of the State (http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/warhealthstate1918.html) and that to end war we must radically downsize and ultimately eradicate the state, no, things will never change.
Excerpt from the article:
“[...] but most of all Social Darwinism – really, just Darwinism – which taught the eternal conflict among the races and tribes of the human as of other species.”
The term Social Darwinism as used by the reviewer implies a total misunderstaning of what is biological evolutionary theory. Interesting the reviewer does not use the term Social Russelism, since Alfred Russel Wallace also arrived at the same conclusions as Charles Darwin, at the same time, on his own.
Social Darwinism is actually bad anthropology covered in a (very) thin veneer of scientific theory, but some people still confuse concepts and think Darwin somehow invented a whole new philosophy out of thin air, when this was not the case. I trust this comment is the reviewer’s acting on his own biases than ignorance on the part of the book’s author.
Francisco Torres
David, your comment is well taken. To “radically downsize” the state (a goal with which I am in complete agreement) there must first be a major and fundamental, radical if you wish, change in the vast majority of individuals’ views towards social interaction and the role of government. The ideology of most people must undergo a major shift. Following a similar line of reasoning regarding monetary reform, Mises once stated: “The belief that a sound monetary system can once again be attained without making substantial changes in economic policy is a serious error. What is needed first and foremost is to renounce all inflationist fallacies. This renunciation cannot last, however, if it is not firmly grounded on a full and complete divorce of ideology from all imperialist, militarist, protectionist, statist, and socialist ideas.” Unfortunately, I do not recall which of his writings contains this quote. Maybe someone else does know.
Dennis, I can’t help you with the Mises quote, but I do not expect a radical “change in the vast majority of individuals’ views towards social interaction and the role of government.” Rather, I expect that the fallacies inherent in the American welfare-warfare state, being ultimately no different from those of the former Soviet Union, will essentially renounce themselves. Furthermore, I expect that individual states, in seeing this coming and realizing that their relationship with Washington is a losing proposition, will opt out (with California, the world’s fifth largest economy, leading the charge).
Granted, this is a shocking thought at first blush, but let us not forget how shocking the collapse of the Soviet Union was, the point being that you can suspend the laws of economics — i.e., of reality — for only so long.
Besides, it’s not as if most states won’t consider forming themselves again into a set of United States once a new Constitution is ready.
Places like Texas, though, might not bother…
David, thanks for the comment. I would not be shocked if a breakup of the U.S. as it is currently constituted did take place. But unless there is a fundamental change in ideology, “the fallacies inherent in the American welfare-warfare state” will just be transferred to the individual states or new configurations of groups of states. You cite California as an example, well it does a great job on its own of promoting the welfare state. I live in New Jersey, and we here also do a great job of trouncing economic and civil liberties. Granted, a breakup of the U.S. would limit its ability to intervene, militarily and otherwise, in the affairs of other countries, and that is certainly a major plus. Hopefully, the new countries formed by the breakup would not then become belligerent towards each other, but given the prevailing interventionist, if not outright socialist, doctrines I do not feel all that confident on this point.
I have a provocative question to ask:
What do you think would have been the best course for British and American politicians on the eve of WWI and WWII?
I’m not just thinking about it in strategic terms, e.g. “Germany has occupied Poland, no doubt it will soon invade the USSR – good, that will weaken both of them”. What if, right now, a war like that in Yugoslavia broke out or an ‘evil’ regime embarked on a massive campaign of genocide (like in Rwanda)? Would you think it’s none of our business or that, as Orwell put it, we should intervene for the sake of “common decency”? Or is there a middle way, such as banning arms sales to the areas involved?
Personally, much as I admire Orwell, I am for isolationism, no matter how bad the situation is. The state shouldn’t stop individuals willing to go and fight for “common decency”, as Orwell did in Spain, but it shouldn’t force them to do so either. Also, I think arms sales abroad should likely be prohibited on security grounds, not just to conflict areas.
Hi Bruno:
I’m with you on this: “The state shouldn’t stop individuals willing to go and fight for “common decency”, as Orwell did in Spain, but it shouldn’t force them to do so either.” It’s perfect. Those willing to risk their own lives and fortunes to help others win what they view to be a just war should be free to do so. More power to them.
On the issue of regulating sales of guns to foreigners, I suspect it wouldn’t be necessary if our state would stop stealing from us to lend and give to aggressive foreign entities, since then there would be a drastically reduced element of profitability in these sales.
Maybe, in this case, what arms were sold would tend to arrive more in the hands of honest individuals intent on protecting themselves, rather than the criminals we’re used to seeing Washington subsidize.
Comments on this entry are closed.