The War of the World
8.11
Ratings: 8.11/10 from 65
users.
Controversial historian Professor Niall Ferguson argues that in the last century there were not in fact two World Wars and a Cold War, but a single Hundred Years' War.
It was not nationalism that powered the conflicts of the century, but empires. It was not ideologies of class or the advent of socialism driving the century, but race.
Ultimately, ethnic conflict underpinned 20th-century violence. Finally, it was not the west that triumphed as the century progressed - in fact, power slowly and steadily migrated towards the new empires of the East.
- The Clash of Empires. An alternative perspective to the events of the 20th century, offering different explanations for the two world wars and the shifting balance of power as the 1900s progressed. He begins by studying the origins of World War One, arguing that the conflict sparked racial hatred which was exploited by nation states for their own ends.
- A Tainted Triumph. The last years of World War Two, considering the terrible ethical compromises the Allied nations were forced to make to defeat their German and Japanese enemies, and the long-term consequences for the victors.
- The Icebox. How during the Cold War, World War Three actually took place. With the US and the Soviet Union unable to engage in battle with each other directly for fear of the nuclear consequences, Third World nations ended up serving as proxies for the superpowers, causing carnage to rival World War One.
- The Plan. How the US became the envy of the world in the aftermath of World War One, a state of affairs that was shattered by the Wall Street crash. He also considers the effect of the Great Depression on people’s attitudes to capitalism and democracy, and how it led to the rise of totalitarian states.
- Killing Space. How the rise of the Axis powers led to a fundamental redrawing of the world map. He pinpoints 1942 as a pivotal year, and considers how the 20th century might have unfolded had World War Two ended differently, with totalitarian regimes dividing the globe between them
- The Descent of the West. Controversial historian Professor Niall Ferguson concludes the series by challenging the received wisdom that the fall of the Berlin Wall represented ultimate triumph for Western values, pointing to racial conflict in the last decades of the 20th century. He also considers the possibility of a further global war in the future.
Ferguson has always concocted theories on the basis of peculiar ideology and contrarianism versus fact. He enjoys being the odd man out and getting the resulting public attention. This does not mean that he is a good historian nor a good theorist of history.
I read the book twice, and was told of these documentaries on You Tube. The book left me feeling hopeless and bleak. The documentaries are a little brighter, but Fergusson himself seems almost angry throughout. I would love to talk to him.
Good Ole Wall Street
No no. It was a rasit war. It was aginst to defren system. Stalin was not a russien. He was what we will call a communist.
About to start. Fatalistic WW3 comments very discouraging, like 'bring it on'. Can environment withstand new WW ie depleted uranium ammo, etc? Many comments on banks/Fed so... did NF wish to divert our attention onto something else like a good academic lapdog? Hmm...
I've made it to the beginning of Episode 3 and while I do think it is very well done for what it does - there is absolutely NO MENTION of the bankers, their banks, and corporate entities that made it all happen.
I do find that bizarre - but it is nice to fill in the event gaps left by my censored US 1970's public education. I will watch it to the end.
Maybe Niall Ferguson's efforts were paid for by the Ford Foundation or one of those other evil family foundations...
Interesting...
the world, and particularly europe (for it had been the power center of the world in the most recent centuries) had been in a perpetual state of conflict for hundreds, even thousands of years. the only periods of peace had been during periods of balance in power between ethnic groups and later nations. humans have always been in conflict, and will always be in conflict. one could deduce that the relative period of peace we are currently experiencing in the world is due to pax americana and the american hegemony. this would be the view of the american neo-conservative movement. human nature and adversarial tendencies compounded upon economic interdependence will make the 21st century very interesting.
this seems like such a "no **** Sherlock" thesis...i would postulate that ALL wars, going back to homo sapian extincting the Neanderthals, have a race component to them. its totally natural that humans distrust other races...we have been at war with each other for 4000 years!!
The world has not known peace. We've lived with thousands of years of continuous warfare. Even action today in Afghanistan and Iraq/Iran are merely a continuation of old ideologies. If we want a world of peace, we must move forward, and not cling the the habits and thinking of the past.
There was a tango call "Cambalache" (the translation would be: mess), and describes how the XX century: a cambalache. "If you don't cry, you don't suckle"
ferguson is a cheat
This concept that the 20th century was an anomaly of violence is absurd, it ignores Napolean's conquests, the Crimean Wars, the US Civil, Indian and Spanish wars and many others of the 19th century. It ignores 21st century events like the Russian conflict in Chechnya, the US Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anything can be focused on and singled out if we need to magnify it to prove a point. Look at the way US soldiers were portrayed at Abu Grahib to make them look brutal, ignoring the realities of the way Saddam ran the same facility.
I'm sure one could vilify a bunny rabbit's treatment of a clump of grass as brutal and sadistic if one wanted to forget about the wolf who came along later and ate the rabbit- or someone shooting the wolf and skinning it for a trophy for their wall. Or that hunter dying a painful, protracted death by cancer that ravages their body, suffering far more and longer than the wolf or rabbit ever did.
The point to all this is the existence of everything- be it humans, animals, even plants- is full of adversity. Without pain we don't know pleasure, without hate we don't know love, without hunger we don't know being full.
If man ever ends his desire to wage war, to argue, to prove who is best, he will no longer be human at all.
Mankind's greatest technological leaps also come as a result of those desperate times when self preservation is his motivation, as well some of the greatest artistic works also are born.
This is not to say we should embrace or encourage war, but stoically accept it for what it is, and not pretend we could eliminate it, just because we were born and we wish it to be now that we are alive. War existed in every single one of hundreds of generations of man, how silly are we to think ours might be different?
So apparently "Money Changers" is just code for Jews it seems. Wow. The comments here are riff with references of so-called Money Changers.
Sad The Allies did not keep going and take out Russia but then again USA would have found some one else to attack like they have been doing for the last 70yrs. Much to the joy of the Federal Reserve Bank so the banks can keep making money.
completely disregarded the presence of Muslims and the effect of the wars on the middle east until today!
We are all, as Jesus said, brothers. The Human Genome Project proves this. 200,000 years ago the human race almost died out. We were reduced to nearly 2,000 members. How can we not realize this in light of modern (21st century) knowledge?
Epidode 5: Fighting Dirty. Yes we did. Many people disappeared. Mayan genocide happened. But the United States was not the main perpetrator in this genocide. The governments of Guatemala and Mexico had their own reasons for removing the Native Maya population. The Maya people were caught between modernization (land) and development (more land) and were once again defeated by their spanish conquerors. If you think this is American Propaganda, ask the Maya. They will tell you exactly what is going on, and the oppression of the Espanol.
And he's wrong. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a dereliction of morality. The casuality count for American troops estimated in a coventional invasion were 300,000. The casuality for Japanese (they were arming and training schoolgirls with bamboo staffs) was estimated at more than 1 million. It was most certainly a victory: We rid the world of the Bushido Code. Having been Truman, which would you have chosen?
You youngsters, are any of you even approaching 60?, don't know what the world was like then. Don't know what it's like to fear for your way of life, your life itself, the life of your mother, your father/wife/children. I have sworn, SWORN that if you do not agree with me I will come into your house and KILL you and your entire family with the LAW to back me up. Are you beginning to understand?
We who lived through the twentieth century know the meaning of FEAR. Stalin, Hitler, Yamamoto, Hirohito, Mussolini, people who want to come into your living-room with bayonnets and force you to live according their Fuerher, Emperor, Duce, whatever. The fall of the Soviet Union. You are all so spoiled with complacent peace I guess we won. God help your complacency at home. You WILL have to live with it.
lol ummm anyone else see the alien face on the guys face just above the neck at 1:35 - 1:40? Kinda creepy that it comes right at the time the narrator says "they were not martians, they were human beings".
Just a quick re-review, having watched all six of the episodes. I know his theme is racial conflict explains the 20th century...but the docs don't really play out that way. It seems to be an afterthought. In fact, this just seems to be looking at the 20th century with a different lens and challenging Western commonly held notions about it. For example, WW II as good vs. evil, the fall of the USSR as being a result of American defense policy, the "end of history" idea. He inserts race as a basis...but it really isn't that way. In fact, in episode 5, he basically makes two mentions of that idea.
Still, it's a fine documentary and very worthy of the long time it takes to watch. An interesting recap of the century.
Episode 3 and 4 seem to work ok in the UK...
Tells me that channel 4 wont let me watch it, ok I will spend a week boycotting channel 4, I will do that every time I see that message.