Niall Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#World_War_I) argumenta que:
The “myths” of World War I that Ferguson attacked, with his counter-arguments in parentheticals, are:
¿Qué os parece? Para traducciones: translate.google.com
Another controversial aspect of the Pity of War was Ferguson's use of counterfactual history. Ferguson presented a counter-factual version of Europe under Imperial German domination that was peaceful, prosperous, democratic and without ideologies like Communism and fascism.[37] 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 and the world's dominant financial power
The “myths” of World War I that Ferguson attacked, with his counter-arguments in parentheticals, are:
- That Germany was a highly militarist country before 1914 (Ferguson claims Germany was Europe’s most anti-militarist country)[24]
- That naval challenges mounted by Germany drove Britain into informal alliances with France and Russia before 1914 (Ferguson claims the British were driven into 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)[25]
- 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) [26]
- 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)[27]
- 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)[28]
- That most people were happy with the outbreak of war in 1914 (Ferguson claims that most Europeans were saddened by the coming of war) [29]
- That propaganda was successful in making men wish to fight (Ferguson argues the opposite)[30]
- That the Allies made the best use of their economic resources (Ferguson argues that the Allies “squandered” their economic resources) [31]
- That the British and the French had the better armies (Ferguson claims the German Army was superior)[32]
- That the Allies were more efficient at killing Germans (Ferguson argues that the Germans were more efficient at killing the Allies)[33]
- That most soldiers hated fighting in the war (Ferguson argues most soldiers fought more or less willingly)[34]
- That the British treated German prisoners of war well (Ferguson argues the British routinely killed German POWS)[35]
- 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)[36]
¿Qué os parece? Para traducciones: translate.google.com
Another controversial aspect of the Pity of War was Ferguson's use of counterfactual history. Ferguson presented a counter-factual version of Europe under Imperial German domination that was peaceful, prosperous, democratic and without ideologies like Communism and fascism.[37] 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 and the world's dominant financial power
