This is an analytic account of what Ferguson considered to be the ten great myths of the Great War. The book generated much controversy, particularly Ferguson's suggestion that it might have proved more beneficial for Europe if Britain had stayed out of the First World War in 1914, thereby allowing Germany to win.[50] Ferguson has argued that the British decision to intervene was what stopped a German victory in 1914–15.

Furthermore, Ferguson expressed disagreement with the Sonderweg interpretation of German history championed by some German historians such as Fritz Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Hans Mommsen and Wolfgang Mommsen, who argued that the German Empire deliberately started an aggressive war in 1914. Likewise, Ferguson has often attacked the work of the German historian Michael Stürmer, who argued that it was Germany's geographical situation in Central Europe that determined the course of German history.

On the contrary, Ferguson maintained that Germany waged a preventive war in 1914, a war largely forced on the Germans by reckless and irresponsible British diplomacy. In particular, Ferguson accused the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey of maintaining an ambiguous attitude to the question of whether Britain would enter the war or not, and thus confusing Berlin over just what was the British attitude towards the question of intervention in the war.[51] Ferguson accused London of unnecessarily allowing a regional war in Europe to escalate into a world war. Moreover, Ferguson denied that the origins of National Socialism could be traced back to Imperial Germany; instead Ferguson asserted the origins of Nazism could only be traced back to the First World War and its aftermath.

Ferguson attacked a number of ideas that he called "myths" in the book. They are listed here (with his counter-arguments in parentheses):

- That Germany was a highly militarist country before 1914 (Ferguson claims Germany was Europe's most anti-militarist country).[52]

- That naval challenges mounted by Germany drove Britain into informal alliances with France and Russia before 1914 (Ferguson claims the British chose alliances with France and Russia as a form of appeasement due to the strength of those nations, and an Anglo-German alliance failed to materialize due to German weakness).[53]

- That British foreign policy was driven by legitimate fears of Germany (Ferguson claims Germany posed no threat to Britain before 1914, and that all British fears of Germany were due to irrational anti-German prejudices).[54]

- That the pre-1914 arms race was consuming ever larger portions of national budgets at an unsustainable rate (Ferguson claims that the only limitations on more military spending before 1914 were political, not economic).[55]

- That World War I was, as Fritz Fischer claimed, a war of aggression on the part of Germany that necessitated British involvement to stop Germany from conquering Europe (Ferguson claims that if Germany had been victorious, something like the European Union would have been created in 1914, and that it would have been for the best if Britain had chosen to opt out of war in 1914).[56]

- That most people were happy with the outbreak of war in 1914 (Ferguson claims that most Europeans were saddened by the coming of war).[57]

- That propaganda was successful in making men wish to fight (Ferguson argues the opposite).[58]

- That the Allies made the best use of their economic resources (Ferguson argues that the Allies “squandered” their economic resources).[59]

- That the British and the French had the better armies (Ferguson claims the German Army was superior).[60]

- That the Allies were more efficient at killing Germans (Ferguson argues that the Germans were more efficient at killing the Allies).[61]

- That most soldiers hated fighting in the war (Ferguson argues most soldiers fought more or less willingly).[62]

- That the British treated German prisoners of war well (Ferguson argues the British routinely killed German POWs).[63]

- That Germany was faced with reparations after 1921 that could not be paid except at ruinous economic cost (Ferguson argues that Germany could easily have paid reparations had there been the political will).[64]

Another controversial aspect of The Pity of War is Ferguson's use of counterfactual history also known as "speculative" or "hypothetical" history. In the book, Ferguson presents a hypothetical version of Europe being, under Imperial German domination, a peaceful, prosperous, democratic continent, without ideologies like communism or fascism.[65]

In Ferguson's view, had Germany won World War I, then the lives of millions would have been saved, something like the European Union would have been founded in 1914, and Britain would have remained an empire as well as the world's dominant financial power.[65]

but both missing crucial parts of the big picture.

There's a lot more to it than Le Eternal Anglo vs Le ebil Nazi Kraut.

Know who should've stayed out of world war one? EA Dice.

Quote from: clum clum on September 05, 2016, 03:26:52 PM

Know who should've stayed out of world war one? EA Dice.

No

Last thing we needed was another triple A future FPS

Quote from: Antifragile on September 05, 2016, 04:07:08 PM

There's a lot more to it than Le Eternal Anglo vs Le ebil Nazi Kraut.

Which is beside the point.

Had the British not fought in the War, Germany likely would've won.

The question is whether or not Europe would've been better off had Germany won.