The Good War?

Question: Was WWII the last good war?

Niall Ferguson: Well I’m not convinced that you can describe it as a good war in the first place, though we’d love to. And documentary makers in the United States, particularly, like to represent World War II as a kind of morality play, a contest between good and evil, forgetting conveniently that the war was waged principally, in its later phase, by the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany.

That is where the preponderance of the fighting occurred on the eastern front. And the Soviet Union, though it was allied to the western democracies, was really out of, to totalitarian regime as the others that we were fighting against. And it had, of course, begun the war in 1939 before the United States had became involved on the same side as Nazi Germany.

So in the "War of the World," I try to make it clear that this is extremely hard to take seriously as a morality play. It was a horrible event which could only be won by using the worst possible tactics that had been pioneered by the access of power.

For example, it was only possible to win World War II by bombing civilians. This is an extremely efficient way of killing people. It was a way of killing people that had been denounced by western leaders in the 1930s, but it was wholeheartedly embraced by them after the war begun. And it's ultimate product was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic weapons.

It’s hard to see this as a good war in any real meaningful sense except that it had a good outcome compared with the old available alternative outcome of an Axis victory. I’m certain that that would have produced a worst world than the world that we inherited in 1945. That is as much as I think one can say about World War II.

Subsequent wars actually may have better claims. The Cold War was a much better war than World War II in two respects.

Firstly the issues were far more clear cut. The choice between freedom with all its disadvantages and complexities, and totalitarian communist rule, was a clear cut choice. And it is obvious which the right side was, although there is no question that the United States and its allies made many moral compromises in order to win the Cold War, it was nevertheless the right side to be on.

And I felt that passionately in the last decade of the Cold War, when I was coming of age politically. And it must be said that not many of my contemporaries at Oxford, in the early 1980s, saw as clearly as I think I saw which side was the right side in the Cold War.

The other good thing about the Cold War was that relatively few people died compared with World War II. Of course there was violence – and most of it happened in the Third World – it wasn’t quite the long piece that some people call it, but it was certainly preferable to a full blown nuclear war. So I’m, in that sense, a fan of the Cold War.

  

Recorded on: Oct 31 2007

 

Documentary makers in the United States, particularly, like to represent World War II as a kind of morality play.

In 1999, David Bowie knew the internet would change the world

Musican. Actor. Fashion Icon. Internet Visionary?

Technology & Innovation
  • David Bowie was well known as a rock star, but somehow his other interests and accomplishments remain obscure.
  • In this 1999 interview, he explains why he knows the internet is more than just a tool and why it was destined to change the world.
  • He launched his own internet service provider in 1998, BowieNet. It ceased operations in 2006.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer
popular

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less

​Is science synonymous with 'truth'? Game theory says, 'not always.'

Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."

Videos
  • Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
  • This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
  • On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.