Book World Live

Niall Ferguson
Author, "The War of the World"
Tuesday, November 7, 2006 3:00 PM

In 'The War of the World,' British historian Niall Ferguson offers a novel analysis of the causes of 20th-century violence. With more than 650 pages of main text and a vast scope, this is obviously a big book. It is also a fascinating read, thanks to Ferguson's gifts as a writer of clear, energetic narrative history. (Review: The Cruelest Century , Post, Nov. 5).

Niall Ferguson , author of "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, " was online to field questions and comments about his latest work, a history of American foreign policy.

A transcript follows.

A professor of history at Harvard University and senior research fellow at Oxford University, Niall Ferguson's columns on politics and economics appear weekly in the Los Angeles Times and the Sunday Telegraph.

Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.

____________________

Niall Ferguson: It's a pleasure to be online and I hope I can answer some, if not all, of your questions. A word of warning. I am currently in England and supposed to be eating dinner with my wife and kids so my replies may not be as rapid as they would be if I were in the States in my office with a cup of coffee!

_______________________

Mclean, Va.: To what extent does the decline of the West that you see simply equal the end of the great colonial empires?

Niall Ferguson: Yes, in large measure that is precisely what I mean. In War of the World, I go back to 1913, a time when the Western/European empires (including the United States) ruled huge tracts of the rest of the world. Their dominance began to wane with the Japanese victory of 1904 over Russia. But I used the term 'descent' rather than 'decline' deliberately. What also happened in the twentieth century was that the West's claims to moral superiority were discredited.

_______________________

Tulsa, Okla.: Do you still believe that China's veto will preclude effective economic sanctions and successful use of international institutions to deter Iran? And, does the war in Lebanon strengthen or weaken your belief that Israel cannot help to deter Iran without Ariel Sharon?

Niall Ferguson: Right now I think it is Russia more than China that is the problem with respect to Iran, though the Chinese don't mind playing the part of Russia's sidekick on the Security Council. As to Sharon, his loss has proved to be an even bigger blow for Israel than I first thought - and that's saying something.

_______________________

Bristol, U.K.: You famously argued that the world would have been better off had Britain let Germany defeat France in World War I. Is it not possible that the world would have been better off had the United States not armed Iraq to counteract Iranian power or had the United States not invaded Iraq?

Niall Ferguson: Well, it would have been quite dangerous if Iran had defeated Iraq outright in that war. The irony is that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 handed Iran a belated victory. I think that - with the benefit of hindsight - the world almost certainly would be better off today if Saddam had not been deposed.

_______________________

Maricopa, Arizona: Walter Russell Mead recently compared the domestic political realignment accompanying the War on Terror (party of elitist Northeasterners considered weak on national security, etc.) to that accompanying the War of 1812. Do you think this analogy has merit and any lessons may be learned from it?

Niall Ferguson: All these parallels with the early 1800s so beloved of Walter Russell Mead - and John Lewis Gaddis - strike me as absurd. The United States then was a peripheral factor in international relations. To understand its predicament today you need to compare it with Britain a century ago. Note also that terrorism of the sort we face today is more like that of c. 1900 than that of c. 1800.

_______________________

Logan Circle, Washington, D.C.: Do you believe that the West must defeat, or at least contain, radical Islam to ensure a relatively peaceful 21st Century? Or can radical Islam be successfully and safely ignored?

Niall Ferguson: Radical Islam(ism) is a revolutionary ideology like extreme Marxism a century ago, but with the Koran rather than Das Kapital as its holy text. We can't underestimate it - and certainly not ignore it. They need to hate the West (and particularly the US and Israel) to maintain their fragile unity.

_______________________

Berlin, Germany: Yale law professor Jack Balkin recently wrote on his blog: "One does wonder, of course, what sorts of deals are being made behind the scenes to keep China happy. Might this help to explain US reluctance to do anything really of substance in Darfur, a major source of oil for China?"

Could you comment on the role China plays in constraining American use of power?

Niall Ferguson: China is responsible for financing a large part of the US trade deficit. That gives it some leverage. How far that explains Darfur I don't know. American administrations have been ignoring genocide in Africa for a long time. Remember Rwanda?

_______________________

Providence, R.I.: In your account of our most bloody century, what role do mass media and propaganda play in the build-up to war?

Niall Ferguson: Perhaps a smaller role than in some earlier accounts. I don't think, for example, that many Germans were eager for war in 1938 or in 1939. The Western democracies were even less keen. And this despite years of preparation by state-controlled media. Propaganda mattered more in keeping the war going, especially after things started to go wrong for the Axis powers.

_______________________

Lincoln, Neb.: Does Iran, India, or China represent the greater strageic threat to the United States over the next 20 years? And why?

Niall Ferguson: Iran will give more trouble in the short run; China will displace American power in East Asia more gradually - and quite possibly without direct conflict. India will become increasingly an American ally, not a rival.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: After watching your interview on Charlie Rose and reading the Book World review, I am tempted to think you wrote a counterfactual history of 'the cruelest century' to serve as a timely metaphor for the present. That said, isn't it a flaw to fail to consider the role of non-state actors on international politics (e.g., the rise of multinationals), to fail to chart the decline of territorial conquest in favor of free trade as a means to acheive national ends, and isn't it wrong to posit international politics as cycles of empires rather than constant anarchy? I was under the impression that the last true empire was the Roman one!

washingtonpost.com: The Cruelest Century: "The War of the World" Review (Post, Book World, Nov. 5)

Niall Ferguson: All history is in some measure present-minded, however hard one tries to avoid it. I don't think I omit non-state actors, as you suggest. In the book, General Motors plays a more important role than Italy (for example). The bond market is as important as any navy. Free trade and empire weren't mutually exclusive (see the nineteenth century). As for the Romans, what did they ever do for us? Apart from roads. Apart from aqueducts ...

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Mr. Ferguson -- Although I have not yet read your book, I did read the Vanity Fair article, "Empire Falls," which I found interesting. However, I do disagree with your analogy of the U.S. to the Roman Empire. It seems to me, with the vast numbers of Muslim immigrants to Europe, who have overrun some parts of it, or so it would appear from news reports, that Europe would be more analogous to the old Roman Empire, which was overrun by barbarians. I think a more appropriate analogy for the U.S. would be the Byzantine Empire, which survived the western Roman Empire by about 1,000 years. Just as the U.S. has been the inheritor of Western European civilization, so the Byzantine rulers felt they were the inheritors of Roman civilization. Hey, if we end up building that wall along the border with Mexico, it would almost be our own version of the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople.

Niall Ferguson: I was trying to say in that article that Europe is in much worse shape than the U.S. - and in that sense Europe is clearly Rome to America's Byzantium, yes. Nor am I worried about Mexicans. These days, walls are only worth building as future tourist attractions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Prof. Ferguson:

If the American people chose to abandon our endeavor in Iraq, what effects do you think this will have on the future of the American Empire? Can we expect to be taken seriously as a superpower after our retreats in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and, possibly, Iraq?

Niall Ferguson: I think your question answers itself. The U.S. has a terrible record of abortive interventions and occupations, going back far earlier than Vietnam (see my earlier book, Colossus). And yet its credibility as a mlitary power is quite easy to re-establish. So no doubt there will be a retreat from Iraq and a terrible civil war there. But anyone who dares confront the U.S. in a conventional war will lose and lose badly. When it comes to destruction, the U.S. rules. Its reconstruction that's the problem.

_______________________

Orlando, Fla.: Joseph Nye just wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he praises the call for sanctions on Iran and calls for a boost in the budget of the IAEA and the establishment of a reservoir of enriched uranium that Iran may draw from in exchange for cancelling its nuclear program. In "War of the World," it appears you badmouth diplomatic process in favor of air bombing campaigns of Iranian nuclear sites. Hasn't the historical record -- for example, that of Germany post-World War I -- taught us that military power is not the only instrument important to international relations? If not, then why did George W. Bush fight so hard for debt-forgiveness for Iraq?

Niall Ferguson: I don't think my book 'badmouths diplomatic process in favor of air bombing campaigns of Iranian nuclear sites'. I do criticize appeasement of Germany in 1938, when military action would have yielded high returns. But the situation today is not the same, and we should be wary of facile parallels with the 1930s. 2006 isn't 1938 and Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: In his new book, "The War for Civilization," Robert Fisk views the conflicts in the Middle East as the residue of the colonialism practiced by the old European powers who started the War of the World, and the U.S. Any thoughts on this and Fisk's book?

Niall Ferguson: I haven't read Robert Fisk's book. It's a bit of a tired cliche that all the world's problems are legacies of wicked Western imperialism. That certainly doesn't explain sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias, does it?

_______________________

Anacostia, Md.: In a piece in the Guardian concerning War of the World, you wrote: "Race mattered, and, alas, may still matter, not because there are biologically distinct races but because people believe in their existence. That belief has repeatedly served to justify acts of organised repression, ranging from discrimination to attempted annihilation. It is therefore of considerable importance to understand why racism persists as a belief system."

From the perspective of this quote, it would appear that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was racist, as it elevated Sunni ethnic pride and targeted Kurds and Shiites despite years of prior intermarriage and coexistence between all three. It would seem that Senator Biden's plan to partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous states would be a bad idea -- not only because partitioning spawned ethnic divisions during the colonization of Africa -- but also because it would reinforce and legitimize the racist legacy of Saddam's regime. In light of the foregoing, do you think that we should abandon the attempt to unify Iraqi's identity, because sexual selection may prevent Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis from respecting each other?

Niall Ferguson: I agree with everything up until your question. The reality of Iraq under Saddam was not that of a segregated society, though Sunnis were politically dominant. The danger is that talk of partition encourages the ethnic cleansing that is already underway in Baghdad and other central areas. When you see how mixed the populations are there, you appreciate how reckless this kind of talk is. I see little evidence from polls of Iraqis that people want partition, incidentally.

_______________________

Mclean, Va.: How would the present look if Wilhelm had advised the Austrians to not overreact to Sarajevo?

Niall Ferguson: Very different, though the Kaiser's real problem was that his entire military establishment were bent on war with Russia before 1916. They would have found another pretext.

_______________________

Mclean, Va.: Would the U.S. go to war with China over Taiwan and how would that affect the image of the U.S. and the balance of power?

Niall Ferguson: I once asked that question of some influential types in Washington and was assured that yes, the U.S. would react if China attacked Taiwan. I still find it hard to believe. The right strategy for the U.S. is to appease China, particularly on this dangerous issue. We don't want Taiwan to be what Belgium became in 1914.

_______________________

Bethlehem, Pa.: To what degree do you think your thesis in the book overlaps with Paul Kennedy's declinist school of thought? What differs?

Niall Ferguson: There are some fairly major differences, I think, though I am a great fan of Paul Kennedy's work. I don't think power was entirely a matter of industrial capability. Financial institutions mattered too. And a lot could be done by sheer military effectiveness to compensate for lack of iron and steel. In the final analysis, it's true, the Allied victory in the Second World War was an inevitable product of U.S. economic capability. The interesting thing, however, is that the U.S. has deindustrialized dramatically since the 1970s - yet its military power has grown. Not what PK predicted back in 1987.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What are your thoughts on China and its deliberations between enlarging its international trade and contact with the outside world and its desire to keep somewhat insular from influences from the outside world? Also, how would you evaluate China's relations with North Korea?

Niall Ferguson: China right now is very cleverly having globalization on its own terms (see its use of capital controls). North Korea is more useful to China as a diplomatic pawn than dead.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: Like yourself, many who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq hoped that a democracy in Iraq would serve as a wellspring for reform and modernity in the region, perhaps causing a "domino effect" of democracy. But Joseph Nye, amongst other foreign policy theorists, has noted that a state will usually not ally with its neighbor; it will fear its neighbor and ally with its neighbor's neighbor instead. Wasn't it reasonably foreseeable in 2003, then, that democratizing Iraq would simply lead to increased militarization and radicalization in some of the following countries that border Iraq: Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran? If so, wasn't the imperial solution you advocated for the wrong one based on what we knew in 2003?

Niall Ferguson: I never bought the neo-cons' idea of democratic domino effect - you can check my published writing. I argued that the U.S. could seize the moment to act imperially in the Middle East, but only if it was prepared to invest manpower, money and time. It wasn't. The rest we all know.

_______________________

Lexington, Ky.: In commenting on your "War of the World," Cambridge historian Priyamvada Gopal wrote: "[t]o make sense of a shared present and look towards a more humane future, we need to start with a little informed honesty about the past."

What do you say to the charge that you are revising imperial history by downplaying its carnage, exaggerating its meager benefits, and promoting xenophobia in the process? And is your project in writing books like "War of the World" to contribute to history (and thus a shared future) or generate controversy (and thus book sales) in the present?

Niall Ferguson: I suggest you read my reply to her defamatory and mendacious rant in the Guardian. Then read the book. The War of the World is about avoiding a repeat of C20th horrors by learning the lessons of history. A more humane future is precisely what it looks towards.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: What is your opinion on Samuel Huntington's divisive essay "The Clash of Civilizations" in which he claims that future conflict will based on cultural/religious issues rather than political issues?

Niall Ferguson: That the biggest clashes in our time will be within his Civilizations not between them.

_______________________

Mclean, Va.: How would bombing raids against Iraqi nuclear research facilities affect the current European alienation from the United States? Is U.S. leadership, if it still exists, threatened?

Niall Ferguson: It would the end for Atlanticism, I think.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Could you explain the cruel century in terms of man's diminished view of his fellow man? In particular, 20th century thinkers have increasingly discarded the 19th century liberal view that appeals to argument and fact motivate human behavior. In its place, we increasingly see him as "irrational," and therefore we much more willingly resort to force to change his behavior. We seem to have had our biggest problems with nations where the 19th century liberal view was weakest (Germany, Eastern Europe) or never caught on at all (Asia, Africa, Middle East).

Niall Ferguson: Unfortunately, liberal conceptions of the individual gained currency roughly at the same time as very illiberal conceptions of racial difference.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I feel like I'm living in 1906 with terrorists replacing anarchists as our bugaboo (Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?). What horrors does this century hold?

Niall Ferguson: Yes, that's absolutely the point. We have been here before, in many ways. That's why The War of the World starts in 9/11/1901.

_______________________

Beware the Ides of March, Niall!: What did the Romans ever do for us? What about their conception of a republican state and their written constitution?

Niall Ferguson: I was alluding to the famous scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. The Romans of course did a very great deal for us. That's why not all empires can be said to be all bad.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: What "surprises" in the course of international events do you see happening in the next 50 years?

Niall Ferguson: Hang on, that's prophecy not history. And if I knew the surprises, they wouldn't be surprises.

_______________________

Mclean, Va.: Is there a danger of a nativist backlash in Europe to Muslim immigration, driven by demographic anxiety or fear of terrorism? Could restrictive legislation be passed there? As in the U.S., in the 20's, and what would the effct be in the Muslim world?

Niall Ferguson: Yes, very definitely. Just look at the polls. I did a piece for the New Republic about this earlier this year.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Sorry, I haven't read your book, but will we be seeing any grand, European/colonial power-style conflicts and wars in the next hundred years, where great big national interests compete and collide? I'm thinking monetary interests, but I suppose we're in the midst of of a cultural and religious clash right now. Thanks very much. Looking forward to reading the book. The short intro. to this chat (in italics) piqued my interest, by the way.

Niall Ferguson: Yes, I do believe the War of the World could replay itself. That was the sobering conclusion I came to as I finished the book.

_______________________

Niall Ferguson: Thanks, one and all, for a stimulating conversation. My fingers hurt and I ate my dinner too fast. But I enjoyed it.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.