Ferguson\'s thesis is an interesting one: as he is trying to describe violence rather than just state on state violence - so he tries to incorporate into his thesis all the ethnic violence as well. He ends up describing the period 1937-1952 as a war against totalitarianism. It ends in Korea as by then nuclear weapons had become the dominant form of any future state on state violence, so that component settled down.
His thesis is that the anglo-saxon world, ie US/UK/Au/Can etc ended up adopting totalitarian methods such as a command economy and dehumanising the opponent which led to state sponsored violence even in the Anglo countries and by Anglo forces.
He has a point, but his thesis doesnt describe ethnic violence outside of that period though. For instance Australian violence against the Aboriginal people which was state sponsored (and dominated in the early 20thC). Unless you see the late 19thC and early 20thC as ethnic nationalist violence which then morphed into totalitarianism and became all manner of racial/ethnic violence within a framework of state on state total war.
Which suggests the step after nationalism is totalitarianism. But I have a hard time accepting that as a natural follow on.
cam
Comments