The Pity of War and the Lusitania

Illustration by Norman Wilkinson (public domain)

"The first casualty of war is truth." --Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

This is a follow-up to my blog post earlier this month on the sinking of the Lusitania.

While The Pity of War is primarily about the larger strategic and political failures that produced World War I, Niall Ferguson does make mention of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania within the broader context of wartime propaganda and Britain’s effort to bring the United States into the conflict. This prompted me to want to add to what I wrote last Thursday.

The Lusitania episode became one of the defining propaganda triumphs of the Allied war effort. The ship was not simply an innocent passenger liner in the purest sense presented to the public at the time. The vessel was carrying war-related materiel, including rifle cartridges and shell components, a fact long minimized or obscured in wartime narratives.

Though Germany was not morally blameless, the event was immediately transformed into a powerful emotional symbol through British and Allied media. Images of drowned civilians, women, and children were used to shape public opinion—especially in America—toward viewing Germany as uniquely barbaric. Ferguson sees this as part of the modern evolution of mass persuasion during industrial warfare.

At the same time, we should all consider these uncomfortable questions:
--Why was ammunition placed aboard a civilian liner traveling through contested waters.
--Why were passengers insufficiently informed of the risks?
--To what degree did governments exploit tragedy to mobilize public sentiment?

Propaganda usually simplifies complex realities into moral absolutes, and WWI was no different. Ferguson is especially skeptical of the idea that Britain entered the war purely for noble reasons or that Allied information campaigns were straightforwardly truthful. 

Importantly, once the sinking occurred, it became highly effective as a political and psychological weapon. The incident helped prepare American opinion for eventual intervention, even though the U.S. did not formally enter the war until 1917, nearly two years later.

One of Ferguson’s recurring themes is that modern states during this war learned how to harness media, atrocity stories, emotional imagery, and selective truths to sustain large-scale conflict. In that sense, the Lusitania became not merely a maritime disaster, but an early case study in twentieth-century information warfare.

The Pity of War: Niall Ferguson Lays Blame at Britain's Doorstep Regarding WWI, the Great War

World War I reminds us how quickly nationalism, alliances, propaganda, and political miscalculation can pull nations into catastrophe. Leaders expected a short war; instead it became industrialized slaughter. The conflict also showed how media narratives and public emotion can overpower caution, creating momentum toward war before societies fully understand the consequences.

Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War makes a simple and provocative argument: the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England’s fault. According to Ferguson, England entered into war based on naive assumptions of German aims, thereby transforming a Continental conflict into a world war, which it then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement. The war was not inevitable, Ferguson argues, but rather was the result of the mistaken decisions of individuals who would later claim to have been in the grip of huge impersonal forces.  

* * * 

I can't recall when I first began reading Niall Ferguson, the prominent Glasgow-born historian. One of his books, which I wrote about in 2021, was The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die. His book answered one of the questions I have long pondered: How did Western Europe become such a global powerhouse? What were the foundation stones that contributed to the rise of the West? Here's my take on this book: Why Civilizations Fail: Niall Ferguson Sounds A Wake-Up Call.

You can tell from Ferguson's other titles that he's pessimistic about our future unless things change. His most recent title is Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. Another of his books is Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. His aim, however, is not to get us depressed. It's intended to wake us up. We've become complacent.  

* * * * *

THE WAR TO END ALL WARS

That the war was horrific and inhuman is memorialized in part by the poetry of men like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon and others, but also by cold statistics. Indeed, there were more British casualties on the first day of the Battle of the Somme than Americans killed in the Vietnam War over a period of ten years. (That battle alone took between 120,000 and 150,000 lives.) And yet, as Ferguson writes, while the war itself was a disastrous folly, the great majority of men who fought it did so with little reluctance and with some enthusiasm. For anyone wanting to understand why wars are fought, why men are willing to fight them and why the world is as it is today, Niall Ferguson’s The Pity of War is a pretty good guide through all that foul terrain. 

"The First World War was at once piteous, in the poet's sense, and 'a pity'. It was something worse than a tragedy, which is ultimately something we are taught by the theatre to regard as unavoidable. It was nothing less than the greatest error of modern history."
--Niall Ferguson

The Pity of War is a revisionist examination of the causes and consequences of World War I. Ferguson's contrarian position challenges many accepted assumptions, arguing that Britain’s entry into the war transformed what might have remained a continental conflict into a catastrophic global struggle. He contends that Britain may have been better off remaining neutral—an argument that runs against traditional narratives about moral necessity and national duty.

What makes the book compelling is Ferguson’s willingness to question sacred historical assumptions while backing his claims with extensive research, statistics, economic analysis, and firsthand accounts. Even readers who disagree with his conclusions will find the book intellectually stimulating because it forces a reconsideration of how wars begin, how governments justify intervention, and how myths become embedded in national memory.

One of the motivations for the writing of this book (and writing a book is such a massive project that you really do need a large dose of motivation) was that his grandfather was one of the soldiers who fought in that nightmare war, "which remains the worst thing the people of my country have ever had to endure." As a private in the 2nd Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders, part of the 26th Brigade in the 9th Divison of the British Expeditionary Force, Ferguson saw his grandfather's survival as "mysteriously fortunate."

At times the book can feel dense--and in my paperback version the font is too small--especially in its economic and diplomatic detail, but Ferguson's prose is easily digestible if  you keep going. He writes with confidence. The result is not merely a history of World War I, but a meditation on power, propaganda, nationalism, and unintended consequences. 

Was it "the greatest error of modern history" as Ferguson suggests. This book makes his case.

Tomorrow I aim to do a follow-up on the sinking of the Lusitania, from Niall Ferguson's perspective.

Related Links

WWI RELATED BLOG POSTS

Poilu.  https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2021/12/poilu-grisly-wwi-memoir-from-trenches.html

The Great War: So Much Sorrow 

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-great-war-so-much-sorrow-and-for.html

The British Generals 

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-british-generals-heading-into-world.html

Why did this assassination result in total war?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2014/06/100-years-ago-today-why-did-this.html

A Book That Changed History: Guns of August

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2009/10/book-that-changed-history.html

Veteran’s Day and My Boy Jack

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/11/veterans-day-and-my-boy-jack.html

The Unnecessary War

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2009/06/unnecessary-war.html

The Sinking of the Lusitania Has Lessons for Today

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-sinking-of-lusitania-has-lessons.html

And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/12/and-band-played-waltzing-matilda.html

The Sinking of the Lusitania Has Lessons for Today

At a "book exchage" several weeks ago I obtained a copy of Colin Simpson’s The Lusitania (1972), a provocative examination of the 1915 sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which killed 1,198 people — including 94 children — and helped tilt America toward entering World War I.

Simpson’s book peels back the official narrative to reveal a more complex and disturbing picture. Far from a simple case of unprovoked German aggression against a civilian liner, the Lusitania was carrying significant quantities of munitions and other contraband destined for the British war effort. British authorities, Simpson argues, were aware of the risks yet failed to provide adequate protection, while the ship’s rapid sinking was accelerated by both its unstable design and explosive cargo. The result was a human catastrophe which was then exploited with ruthless efficiency by Allied propaganda.

Lifejacket from Lusitania

The parallels to events in our own era--Gaza, Ukraine, Iran--are striking. In 1915, as today, ordinary people struggled to discern truth amid conflicting government statements and sensational media coverage. British and American newspapers amplified heartbreaking images of drowned children and grieving families, framing the disaster as proof of German barbarity. German sources, meanwhile, insisted the ship was a legitimate target. Public trust in institutions eroded as citizens sensed they were being fed selective facts to serve larger geopolitical aims. 

Sound familiar?

The emotional focus on innocent victims — especially children — proved devastatingly effective. Posters showing mothers and babies sinking beneath the waves stirred outrage far more powerfully than dry debates over maritime law or secret cargo manifests. Simpson shows how tragedy was transformed into a potent propaganda weapon, much as civilian casualties and graphic imagery dominate today’s information wars.

In an age of contested narratives and weaponized empathy, Simpson’s account reminds us that the Lusitania was not merely a maritime disaster — it was a masterclass in how governments, media, and public emotion intersect during crisis. Nearly 110 years later, its lessons about skepticism, hidden agendas, and the strategic use of innocent suffering remain painfully relevant.  

What especially sad (or disturbing) is how the truth is buried beneath a sea of noise, and facts about what's really happened don't come to light till decades later.  

After the latest attempt on the president's life someone said to me, "I don't know what to believe any more." I knew what he was referring to. Every action now has a groundswell of conspiracy theories in its wake, propelled by unrestrained social media. Charlie Kirk, Butler, October 7, JFK--and the beat goes on.

The Moral Landscape of Kubrick’s Paths of Glory

Information Conveyed in the First Minutes of Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory Before the Battle Begins 

Against a black background we see the United Artists logo in blue with the name in white in a sans serif font. This fades and then the words Bryna Productions present in a serif font appear. The name Kirk Douglas replaces that, with a very large font, followed then by Paths of Glory, with a fine line of print beneath that reads: 
© COPYRIGHT MCMLVII HARRIS-KUBRICK PICTURES CORPORATION.

Co-stars and other featured stars are listed, followed by other staff, art director, screenwriters and the novel it is based on, "Paths of Glory" by Humphrey Cobb.

The opening shot appears at one minute and nineteen seconds into the film. We see what appears to be a scene on the order of Versailles. There are officers on horseback near the foreground, a man on a bicycle to the left, and a few clusters of persons both in the foreground and further away. The scene is black and white, and the words France 1916 are superimposed over it. 

Voiceover: "War began between Germany and France on August 3, 1914." 

The camera follows the bicycle to the foreground which turns to the left. Soldiers bearing arms are marching by as the narrator states that "the German army, five weeks later, had smashed its way to within 18 miles of Paris. There the battered French miraculously rallied their forces at the Marne River, and then a series of unexpected counter attacks drove the Germans back. The front was stabilized, and shortly developed into a continuous line of heavily fortified trenches zigzagging their way 500 miles from the English Channel to the Swiss frontier." 

During this narration soldiers line up in front of this stately French estate which may be the equivalent of our Capitol. A jeep approaches, the men present arms as a person of importance disembarks and strides into the building, accompanied by his aides.

Narrator: "By 1916, after two grisly years of trench warfare, the battle lines had changed very little. Successful attacks were measured in hundreds of yards and paid for in lives numbering hundreds of thousands."

The person of importance is General George Broulard who has come to call on General Paul Mireau. After a little small talk, Gen. Broulard cuts to the chase. "Paul, I've come to see you about something big." 

General Mireau has already heard rumors of what is coming. The Ant Hill has been the key to the whole sector. The Germans have held it for a year and will hold it for another if they want. 

"Paul, I have formal orders to take the Ant Hill no later than the tenth. That's the day after tomorrow," General Boulard says.

"That comes pretty close to being ridiculous, don't you think?" General Mireau replies. 

"I wouldn't be here if I thought that," Gen. Broulard says. He then begins his pitch. "If there's one man who could do this it would be you."

Mireau expresses frankly, "That's out of the question. Absolutely out of the question. My division has been cut to pieces. What's left of it is in no condition to hold the Ant Hill, let alone take it. I'm sorry, but that's the truth."

Gen. Broulard brings out his carrot, dangles a promotion and another star before him, but Mireau remains realistic. It can't be accomplished and he asserts that for him, "My men come first of all, George, and those men know it." And furthermore, "The life of one of those soldiers means more to me than all the stars and decorations and honors in France."

"So, you think this is absolutely beyond the ability of your men at this time," Broulard replies.

General Mireau, tilting his head and making direct eye contact, says, "I didn't say that, George."

And so it begins. The cat and mouse dialogue ends with a decision to make it happen, not for personal glory, but for France. 

* * * 
SPOILER ALERT

* * * 

At six minutes, eight seconds, we cut to the battlefield. Or rather, we see a desolate view of no man's land with the Ant Hill as a backdrop. The camera pulls back and we see that this is a view from an observation window. There's a bomb crater, naked trees stripped of leaves by artillery fire, a dank mist hovering across the blasted terrain.

The camera pulls back to reveal that we are in a concrete bunker, with a soldier standing there viewing the scene through a horizontal notch. He wears a grim expression as he turns away.

Cut to: General Mireau and his chief aide are walking through the trench, Mireau cheerful and with smug purposefulness as he greets the soldiers he passes. The soldiers bolt to attention as he approaches. At intervals he stops to engage in what he imagines to be an inspirational chat. It's not a real dialogue because he is clueless as to the interior condition of these men In point of fact he cares nothing for their welfare, as will become apparent later.

The first two men he stops to talk with will be unjustly placed before a firing squad by the film's end. The third soldier he stops to exchange banter with is clearly shell-shocked. When another soldier standing at this man's side says he's shell-shocked, the general declares that there is no such thing as shell shock. One more signal indicating how removed and out of touch the generals are.

The general, outraged, slugs the shell-shocked soldier in the face, then orders him removed from the regiment. As they continue on their way his aide says, "General, I'm convinced that these tours of yours have an incalculable effect on morale. In fact, I think the fighting spirit of the 701st derives from it."

That scene is devastating.

* * * 

Kubrick is doing something subtle in these opening scenes. Before the battle even begins, he is already making a visual argument about war.

The first technique is camera movement. When General Mireau walks through the trench, Kubrick places the camera in front of him and tracks backward as he advances. The shot lasts far longer than most directors would allow. As the general strides forward confidently, soldiers snap to attention one after another, the muddy trench walls pressing in on both sides.

What makes the shot powerful is the contrast it creates. The general moves smoothly through space, confident and purposeful. The soldiers cannot move at all. They are wedged into the trench like parts in a broken machine. The camera forces us to look directly into their faces—tired, anxious, hollow. Mireau sees soldiers. We see human beings.

Kubrick used variations of this technique throughout his career. In The Killing, for example, the camera follows characters through corridors and racetrack passageways in long, deliberate movements that quietly build tension and reveal character. The motion of the camera itself becomes part of the storytelling.

The second technique in Paths of Glory is architectural contrast. The film opens in a grand French chateau where generals discuss strategy beneath high ceilings, polished floors, and ornate walls. War here is calm, civilized, almost elegant. Maps are studied, promotions hinted at, decisions made over polite conversation.

Then Kubrick cuts to the trenches.

The world changes instantly. The ceilings disappear. The sky is gray. The ground is muck. The soldiers live like burrowing animals in narrow corridors carved into the earth. The contrast is unmistakable: the war planned in the palace is fought in the mud.

Kubrick doesn’t have to say what he thinks about war. The camera has already told us. But as anyone knows who has seen this film the dialogue is priceless, especially the manner in which the lines are delivered.

Near the film's conclusion, Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax delivers this indictment of what was is and does:

"Gentlemen of the court, there are times when I am ashamed to be part of the human race, and this is one of them... I can't believe that the noblest impulse of man, his compassion for another, can be completely dead here."

At this instant my mind goes immediately to the people of Gaza, and the common people of all the other failed states that have been dismantled by imperialist aggression. 

* * * 

Related Link
Poilu -- A Grisly WWI Memoir from the Trenches

Hegemony and the Tragedy of Great Power Politics

"There are no status quo powers in the international system, save for the occasional hegemon that wants to maintain its dominating position over potential rivals. Great powers are rarely content with the current distribution of power; on the contrary, they face a constant incentive to change it in their favor. They almost always have revisionist intentions, and they will use force to alter the balance of power if they think it can be done at a reasonable price. At times, the costs and risks of trying to shift the balance of power are too great, forcing great powers to wait for more favorable circumstances. But the desire for more power does not go away, unless a state achieves the ultimate goal of hegemony. Since no state is likely to achieve global hegemony, however, the world is condemned to perpetual great-power competition."
--John J. Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics presents his theory of offensive realism, a stark view of international relations. In an anarchic global system—lacking any central authority to enforce order or guarantee security—great powers face constant uncertainty and potential threats from one another.

The book was published in January of 2001, only months before the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, an event that led to a whole series of disturbing events and much suffering.

Mearsheimer builds his argument on five core assumptions: the international system is anarchic; great powers possess offensive military capabilities; states cannot be certain of others' intentions; survival is the primary goal; and states act rationally to achieve it. From these, he concludes that great powers behave aggressively, not out of inherent malice, but because the best way to ensure survival is to maximize relative power and prevent rivals from gaining dominance.

My takeaway, from what I've read thus far, and that the great powers operate from a stance of fear. This seems counterintuitive on one level. You would think the lesser powers were driven by insecurity and thus strive to form alliances with the greater powers much like the remoras that hover around sharks and benefit from the scraps.

What Mearsheimer suggests is that everyone, from weakest to strongest, is fear driven. It makes me think of the manner in which individuals similarly are often driven by an underlying fear in order to protect themselves from being hurt. 

In other words, our natural inclination is self-interest instead of love, compassion, empathy. This is why loving others, truly caring and serving, is a miracle.

Returning to the book, Mearsheimer lays out the case for offensive realism, proposing that there can never be true security without absolute dominance, ideally global, but at minimum regional—to eliminate threats. This relentless pursuit creates a "tragedy": even security-seeking states provoke insecurity, competition, and often war, as cooperation remains limited and trust elusive.

Mearsheimer supports his claims with historical evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries, analyzing great-power behavior across Europe, Asia, and beyond, showing the driving forces behind Napoleon, Bismarck, WWI and WW2. He argues that post-Cold War optimism about enduring peace was misplaced; great-power rivalry persists as an enduring feature of world politics.

The events of these past 25 years only seem to confirm what he proposed in 2001, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and now Venezuela, Gaza, Iran and the Middle East.  

Related Link

Humanity Hanging from a Cross of Iron: Eisenhower's Forgotten Warning on the True Cost of War

Honoring Those Who Served: Today Is Veterans Day

Photo: Gary Firstenberg

It hasn't always been called Veterans Day. It originated as Armistice Day, proclaimed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 to mark the end of World War I, which ceased with an armistice at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. The day commemorated the war’s conclusion and honored the fallen. 

In 1954, after World War II and the Korean War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation renaming it Veterans Day to recognize all veterans, living or deceased, from every conflict.

World War II claimed over 70 million lives, including countless artists, thinkers, and innovators. Many who perished were not soldiers but civilians, resistance fighters, and creators whose work continues to define the human story of courage, suffering, and loss. Benny Goodman, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (author of The Little Prince), and John F. Kennedy's brother Joe Jr. were among the memorable who perished.

* * *

The haunting 24-note bugle call played at military funerals and flag ceremonies is called Taps. This solemn tune was birthed in July 1862 during the Civil War’s Peninsula Campaign. Union Gen. Daniel Butterfield, dissatisfied with the harsh “Extinguish Lights” call, worked with bugler Oliver Norton to revise a softer French signal, “Tattoo.” Butterfield lengthened notes and reshaped the melody for a more mournful tone. First sounded at Harrison’s Landing, Virginia, it quickly spread to both armies. It honors the day’s end, fallen comrades, and the final farewell. Lyrics added later—“Day is done, gone the sun…”—reinforce its meaning: rest in peace.  

* * *

My father-in-law, Wilmer A. "Bud" Wagner, kept a diary throughout his 3+ years in the army during WWII. These diary notes later became the basis for a 500+ page book about those years. This is an excerpt from his book And There Shall Be Wars. 

Portion of the WW2 Memorial in Washington DC
showing some of the cities where Wagner served. 

Had to go to all battalions at midnight with firing orders. Moonlight so I didn't mind too much. Slept through breakfast. Were shelled twice here today. My nerves aren't able to take it anymore as well as they used to. Some shells came close enough.

     151 moved tonight; I moved with them to the other side of San Pietro, a rubbled mess, a battlefield, to be sure. Back here at 10:00, just got nicely to sleep when the guard called, "Wag, get to Message Center," so there was another Firing Order to all battalions. It must have been after 2:00 when I got back.
Friday, January 7, 1944

San Pietro and San Vitorre were two towns literally blown off the face of the earth. There were many trees around that were totally devoid of all branches, and were just sticks left from all the shell fire. The city itself was piles of concrete rubble. I didn't see life of any kind left any time I drove through. About this time the II Corps took Mts. Porchio and Chiaia, two objectives necessary for our Division to have before our ultimate objective of Cassino.

* * *

Veterans Day, observed annually on November 11, honors all U.S. military veterans for their service and sacrifice.  Today, it’s a federal holiday for reflection and gratitude.

Strange Word Game: What is a "Suicide Drone"?

Gemini-generated image

I saw this news story a while back and decided to copy it here as a topic for future consideration. 

BREAKING: 3 American soldier killed and at least 24 wounded after a suicide drone strike on a U.S. base in Jordan right on the border with Syria. Iran and it’s proxy groups are the main suspects. Major escalation!

Now as I understand it, suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life. It is something people do, and maybe lemmings. But does a machine intentionally take its own life? I mean, wouldn't the drone have been programmed to self-destruct? Does the drone have a mind of its own and volition? Does this mean that missiles should be called suicide missiles now? And why not call mines in a mine field suicide mines when they blow up? Should bombs be called suicide bombs?

Yet the phrase suicide drone has become a common part of our current vernacular, as illustrated here in these statements from X.com:

---Watch how HMS Diamond (D34) Type 45 air-defence destroyer of the #RoyalNavy targeted and destroyed one of the Kamikaze/Suicide drones of #Iran's #Houthi rebels.

---JUST IN: Multiple US senators, Including Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and John Cornyn, are now calling for direct strikes on Iranian forces after the deadly suicide drone attack that killed three American service-members and injured dozens more

---China has developed a suicide drone considered the most cost-efficient in the world, with a price not exceeding $10,000. This drone, named Feilong-300D, is the cheapest in its class compared to well-known counterparts, such as the Iranian Shahed-136.

---According to REUTERS, the LUKOIL oil refinery in Volgograd has stopped operating after a Ukrainian suicide drone attack last night.

---An AQ 100 Bayonet suicide drone (called the HF-1 by the Germans) during an attack on Belaya Sloboda in the Kursk region. The AI software is supplied by the German company Helsing, and production is financed by Germany.

Even if inaccurately named, what I find disturbing is seeing how many countries are flooding the world with these small, medium and large military craft. In today's X feed you will see drones being manufactured in Russia, the U.S. and China (in massive quantities) but also in more than 20 other countries including, but not limited to, U.K., Canada, German, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Ukraine, Algeria, Turkey, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Brazil, Nigeria, and Indonesia.

How do you like them apples? What are the implications for future warfare? 

"Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird... It's a plane... It's a Suicide Drone!"