War and the Liberal Conscience

by Michael Eliot Howard

It is said that war is rooted in the vested interests of the ruling class, but haven't democracies proved to be just as bellicose as other states? It is believed that political disputes should be settled by civilized negotiations, but what if the adversary is not, by accepted standards, "civilized"? Should states steer clear of other states' internal conflicts, or should they help liberate oppressed peoples? Which is the better appeasement or launching a war to end another? These questions reflect the complex issues that lie at the heart of the liberal conscience. In his timely book, Michael Howard recounts the centuries-long struggle by liberals to understand the causes of war and prevent its occurrence. From the days of Erasmus to American protestors who hoped to bring an end to the Vietnam war, Howard tracks liberals' shifting attitudes toward war and their attempts to wrestle with its problematic consequences. In conclusion, Howard finds that peacemaking is "a task which has to be tackled afresh every day of our lives."

Genres: History, Nonfiction, War, Politics, Military Fiction, Academic, International Relations

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

About the author

Sir Michael Eliot Howard was an English military historian, formerly Chichele Professor of the History of War, Honorary Fellow of All Souls College, Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford, Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University, and founder of the Department of War Studies, King's College London.

In 1958, he co-founded the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

In 2013, Howard was described in the Financial Times as "Britain's greatest living historian". The Guardian described him as "Britain's foremost expert on conflict".

Reviews

[Sunil · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a shame people do not read military history as much as they should. It teaches us about how we got to our current situation as well as cultural, political or economic history. Michael Howard is one of the greatest historians of the 20th century. His essays are the epitomes of distilled wisdom. In this short book he traces out how Western liberal thought, beginning from the 15th century, has reacted to war. An impressive book.

[H · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5
Bit introductory for me, though still learnt some ideas that the KCL War Studies dept founder has had to say. Overall concise. Now perhaps getting onto the German history which I’m relatively unfamiliar with.

[Arjun Mishra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sir Michael is one of the best historians of the 20th century, especially when it comes to war and British history. It must have been epic to watch these lectures in person.

It is impressive that he fit 500 years of the history of war and war philosophy in such a short book. The 1500-1792 material did not interest me too much. That probably has to do with personal preference, but that chapter is necessary in laying the groundwork for what a 'liberal' is, as defined by belief in human agency, democracy, international cooperation, international relations, etc. When he gets to the French Revolution and Napoleon, the book takes on an entirely new complexion.

The chapters on World War I and World II are enthralling and particularly incisive. WWI and WWII occupy special places in our collective memories, not only because we won both wars, but because they were instrumental in shaping the current world order. As such, the importance of liberalism is shaped through these wars and through their aftermaths. There are the international institutions and cooperation, but Sir Michael tackles an important problem: democracies do not go to war with each other, but they still demonstrate an amazing amount of bellicosity. It was theorized that democracy was the essence for peace. Fascism by definition is war. Democracy, as defined in opposition to Fascism, is peace. However, it has not turned out that way.

The chapters on WWI and WWII are excellent because they explain the psyche of the British public. Obviously, Britain was involved in arms races with Germany and other European nations at the time. That manifested in colonialism in Africa, navy buildups, the militarization of society, and so on. Prussian militarism, however, was not just a focus of the British. Russia's history has been concerned with the same phenomenon. Prussian militarism split the British public in the 1930s with the rise of Chancellor Hitler and Nazism. Some prominent figures in the British government - Labour and Liberal Democrats mostly - seemed to be more okay not just with appeasement but in Germany's right to annex land. The apparition of Versailles animated their beliefs. The insights on the British public and WWI are fascinating, as well, but I knew most of that already. The enthusiasm for that war was so popular that socialist organizations and pacifist groups had to agree to pursue war just to retain support. I believe Italy is the only country in which socialist parties did not support war.

The insights from pursuing an international peace are cursorily mentioned in relation to Korea and Vietnam, as well as American foreign policy. Howard points to Kissinger as reversing traditional liberal foreign policy by playing the power game. The recent material is speculative in a way, but it does show that the liberal idea of peace has probably come to a close (Howard writes after Vietnam).

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Based on a series of lectures, this book analyses the history of liberalism and how it has conceptualized war throughout history. Engages with the idea that liberal states go to war in order that they shouldn't go to war, and contrasts this with earlier concepts of imperialism as well as fascist and communist conceptualizations of ware.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and still insightful three decades later.