Niall Ferguson

[Lord Baal]

What do people here think of Niall Ferguson? I've only read one of his books; Why the World Went to War, about the reasons behind World War One; as well as excerpts from Empire during a class at university.

I've found that much of the criticism of him seems misplaced, but I haven't read enough of him to know for sure. I distinctly remember coming across references to him saying things about WWI that he just flat-out doesn't say in my book on the subject, though I do know he wrote a much larger one, and may have said controversial things there.

So, thoughts?

 

[Dachs]

Of his works, I've only ever read The Pity of War, having some interest in the period. My overall impression of the work is mixed. I would like to applaud his efforts to dispel some of the myths surrounding the whole thing, like German militarism being more pronounced than that of other European states, and his overall stand against the old Fischer thesis that still seems too popular, that the German state initiated the war deliberately as an act of conquest. But I can't say too much in favor of his take on Britain's role, because he still relies on the old appraisal of Sir Edward Grey's diplomacy, and somewhat unfairly blames his ambiguity for the outbreak of war - the ambiguity was sadly there, but it wasn't Grey's fault, but rather the Cabinet's, and they adopted that position because of the vicissitudes of public opinion...and of course, on 1 August, when Grey attempted to abandon ambiguity in favor of more forceful diplomacy, nothing more than a freak accident of timing doomed his efforts to localize the war. I've got a slightly different personal opinion of Anglo-German prewar diplomacy than he has, but since that particular knot is so difficult to untie that's not particularly surprising.

Naturally as one of the more active (har) alternate historians on CFC, I like his attempts to work counterfactuals into his books, but the one I read in The Pity of War probably needed to be better thought through.

Overall I'd say he's a revisionist that probably went a bit too far.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

Yeah, I've begun reading The Pity of War for my World War one class, and I'm finding it pretty good (admittedly, i'm coming into it knowing only what I've been taught in high school about World War 1, so...)

sorry to Hijack the thread, but is there anything else people here would suggest reading?

 

[Dachs]

About the First World War or by Niall Ferguson?

 

[Lord Baal]

Of his works, I've only ever read The Pity of War, having some interest in the period. My overall impression of the work is mixed. I would like to applaud his efforts to dispel some of the myths surrounding the whole thing, like German militarism being more pronounced than that of other European states, and his overall stand against the old Fischer thesis that still seems too popular, that the German state initiated the war deliberately as an act of conquest. But I can't say too much in favor of his take on Britain's role, because he still relies on the old appraisal of Sir Edward Grey's diplomacy, and somewhat unfairly blames his ambiguity for the outbreak of war - the ambiguity was sadly there, but it wasn't Grey's fault, but rather the Cabinet's, and they adopted that position because of the vicissitudes of public opinion...and of course, on 1 August, when Grey attempted to abandon ambiguity in favor of more forceful diplomacy, nothing more than a freak accident of timing doomed his efforts to localize the war. I've got a slightly different personal opinion of Anglo-German prewar diplomacy than he has, but since that particular knot is so difficult to untie that's not particularly surprising.

(bolding mine)

Odd. In the book I have, which is essentially a long essay - 50 pages - supposedly based upon The Pity of War, he seems to take your view (and mine) rather than the one you mention here from The Pity of War. Perhaps he changed his mind? Or rather, came to his senses.

Naturally as one of the more active (har) alternate historians on CFC, I like his attempts to work counterfactuals into his books, but the one I read in The Pity of War probably needed to be better thought through.

Overall I'd say he's a revisionist that probably went a bit too far.

Oh, his talk of Germany winning the war somehow resulting in a European Union 80 years early I found patently ridiculous as well. It was essentially the only thing I found to criticise in the work I've got sitting in front of me now. That and the lack of referencing, but I put that down to it only being 50 pages long.

I, too, am a fan of counter-factuals, so long as they are well thought out - NOT Harry Turtledove's work; even though I often like his premises, I don't enjoy his poor writing and ridiculous subversion of events to make them fit his interpretations - but Ferguson seemed to jump the shark with that one at least.

 

[Dachs]

(bolding mine)

Odd. In the book I have, which is essentially a long essay - 50 pages - supposedly based upon The Pity of War, he seems to take your view (and mine) rather than the one you mention here from The Pity of War. Perhaps he changed his mind? Or rather, came to his senses.

Maybe. I felt overall in The Pity of War that his emphasis was on the British role in precipitating war both indirectly (by helping construct the entente in the first place) and directly (Grey's actions in the July Crisis or lack thereof). What's the work you've got?

I, too, am a fan of counter-factuals, so long as they are well thought out - NOT Harry Turtledove's work; even though I often like his premises, I don't enjoy his poor writing and ridiculous subversion of events to make them fit his interpretations - but Ferguson seemed to jump the shark with that one at least.

Yeah, agreed on all this.

 

[Lord Baal]

Maybe. I felt overall in The Pity of War that his emphasis was on the British role in precipitating war both indirectly (by helping construct the entente in the first place) and directly (Grey's actions in the July Crisis or lack thereof). What's the work you've got?

Why the World Went to War. As I said, just a longish essay, but quite a good read. He spends much of the last 10 pages discussing Grey's actions in the July Crisis, including his threat to resign if Britain officially declared neutrality, which I didn't know about.

Yeah, agreed on all this.

The first work I ever read by Turtledove was WorldWar, which I liked the idea of. It screamed ALIEN SPACE BATS with such intensity that I was certain it was intended as an in-joke. Sadly, it wasn't.

Terrible writing, worse history. The idea that Germany was the only nation who's entire economy had been geared towards warfare in 1942 was ridiculous, not leastly because Germany's economy didn't fully mobilise for war until mid-1944. Nothing annoys me more than lying about about history. I can handle mistakes, but not bullcrap. And Turtledove's written enough alternate history works that he should at least have a working knowledge of history by now.

That turned into more of a rant about Turtledove than anything on-topic, sorry.

 

[Dachs]

Why the World Went to War. As I said, just a longish essay, but quite a good read. He spends much of the last 10 pages discussing Grey's actions in the July Crisis, including his threat to resign if Britain officially declared neutrality, which I didn't know about.

Of course, this is also the Grey who tried to exchange guarantees of neutrality with von Lichnowsky on August 1. Convoluted diplomacy indeed. If you have access to databases of history journals, Stephen Valone's There Must Be Some Misunderstanding is a good discussion of the relevant events.

The first work I ever read by Turtledove was WorldWar, which I liked the idea of. It screamed ALIEN SPACE BATS with such intensity that I was certain it was intended as an in-joke. Sadly, it wasn't.

Terrible writing, worse history. The idea that Germany was the only nation who's entire economy had been geared towards warfare in 1942 was ridiculous, not leastly because Germany's economy didn't fully mobilise for war until mid-1944. Nothing annoys me more than lying about about history. I can handle mistakes, but not bullcrap. And Turtledove's written enough alternate history works that he should at least have a working knowledge of history by now.

That turned into more of a rant about Turtledove than anything on-topic, sorry.

It's all good. Turtledove's not writing good alternate history, he's writing what sells, and if the Nazis didn't do well people wouldn't care.

 

[Lord Baal]

Of course, this is also the Grey who tried to exchange guarantees of neutrality with von Lichnowsky on August 1. Convoluted diplomacy indeed. If you have access to databases of history journals, Stephen Valone's There Must Be Some Misunderstanding is a good discussion of the relevant events.

Very convoluted diplomacy. Unnecessarily so, even considering the difficult position he was in. Just one more reason why democracy doesn't work.

I will make sure to check out that database once my university holidays finish, thanks.

It's all good. Turtledove's not writing good alternate history, he's writing what sells, and if the Nazis didn't do well people wouldn't care.

Oh yeah, everybody loves Nazis. I don't know why, but it's true. It's always far more fun to play as them in wargames as well. Pure evil = entertainment.

 

[Plotinus]

When I was at school I went to a lecture by Niall Ferguson, which was quite fun. I remember him commenting on how ugly Hitler was, obviously a historically significant point.

 

[Masada]

Empire wasn't that bad, although it was bad. It was light on the facts and figures, his interpretation of events often didn't follow, he patently ignored things contra to his thesis and is at best a mediocre writer with all the focus of a ten year old.

The Ascent of Money was plain awful, its probably the worst attempt at a financial history of the world I've ever read. I'm used to setting my sights low, courtesy of all the businessmen who seem to enjoy writing a history of finance business but can't write. This was worse than that. It might have to do with it being a tie-in to a TV series, but even so, that doesn't excuse bad writing.

 

[RedRalph]

Irritating, tedious imperial apologist.

 

[Lord Baal]

Everything bad I'm hearing now is making me desperately want to read more of him. Especially The Ascent of Money. The only thing better than a really good book is a shockingly bad one.

 

[Quackers]

I've read Empire which was a good book and wasn't a load of crying over Britain's imperial past but more balanced view of good and bad we did. He is like a pop-culture historian in the same vein as Andrew Roberts.

 

[Lord Baal]

I've read Empire which was a good book and wasn't a load of crying over Britain's imperial past but more balanced view of good and bad we did. He is like a pop-culture historian in the same vein as Andrew Roberts.

(bolding mine)

That doesn't sound like a very good thing to be.

 

[Quackers]

(bolding mine)

That doesn't sound like a very good thing to be.

Well he doesn't go for original reseach he just cobbles together what other historians have said.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well he doesn't go for original reseach he just cobbles together when other historians have said.

Ah, definitely not a good thing. Primary sources are always better than secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with using secondary sources, but if you're writing a book you really should go to the original documents.

 

[Plotinus]

You should do both. Secondary sources are still important because you need to know what other people have said - you can't just look at the primary sources alone, because to do that is to ignore all the scholarship and expertise that has been applied to them before.

 

[Lord Baal]

You should do both. Secondary sources are still important because you need to know what other people have said - you can't just look at the primary sources alone, because to do that is to ignore all the scholarship and expertise that has been applied to them before.

True, but I'd rather someone at least verified that the secondary sources weren't full of it before using them. I've come up against that problem myself.

 

[Plotinus]

Of course. Although sometimes there is a practical limit to what you can do. If you're writing the Complete History of Western Europe from the paleolithic to the present day, you can't possibly check primary sources for everything. That doesn't mean you just "cobble together" what other people have said - you must still exercise critical judgement - but it can't involve just referring everything to primary sources or you'd never finish it. Believe me!