NIALL FERGUSON THE PITY OF WAR PDF
THE PITY OF WAR by Niall Ferguson. New York: Basic Books, pages, $ Reviewed by Lieutenant-Colonel Bernd Horn he simple title of Niall. PDF | Niall Ferguson and others published The Pity of Peace: The Origins of the Second World War Revisited. The pity of war by Niall Ferguson; 8 editions; First published in ; Subjects: World War, , Histoire, Weltkrieg (), Guerre mondiale.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|ePub File Size:||15.60 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.81 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Read The Pity Of War PDF - Explaining World War I by Niall Ferguson Basic Books | From a bestselling historian, a daringly revisionist history. The Pity of War Printer-friendly version · PDF version. Book: The Pity of War Niall Ferguson London, Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, The Pity of War: Explaining World War I. By Niall Ferguson (New York,. Basic Books Germany started World War I but Britain caused it; English intervention.
The pity of war: Ferguson, Niall. Check copyright status Cite this Title The pity of war: Great Britain -- History -- 20th century. World War, -- Causes.
World War, Guerre mondiale, Guerre mondiale, -- Causes. Eerste Wereldoorlog. Weltkrieg Great Britain.
He argues that the fatal conflict between Britain and Germany was far from inevitable. It was Britain's declaration of war that needlessly turned a continental conflict into a world war, and it was Britain's economic mismanagement and military inferiority that necessitated American involvement, forever altering the global balance of power.
Frequently bought together
Ferguson vividly brings back to life one of the seminal catastrophes of the century, not through a dry citation of chronological chapter and verse, but through a series of chapters that answer the key questions: Why did the war start? Why did it continue? And why did it stop? How did the Germans manage to kill more soldiers than they lost but still end up defeated in November ? Above all, why did men fight?
Contents 1. The Myths of Militarism 2. Empires, Ententes and Edwardian Appeasement 3.
The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson (2000)
Britain's War of Illusions 4. Arms and Men 5.
Public Finance and National Security 6. The Last Days of Mankind: The August Days: The Myth of War Enthusiasm 8.
Historian claims Britain wrong to enter WWI
The Press Gang 9. Economic Capability: The Advantage Squandered He overloads causal responsibility on Britain.
He minimizes all evidence of German prewar hostility to Britain, because it reflected just a sense of impotence. He treats Germany's preparations for war as irrelevant because they failed. He reads Lord Grey's foreign policy as did the less measured school of German authors between and , and he has mastered neither the literature nor the archives on prewar diplomacy.
Ferguson also misunderstands the nature of the prewar Triple Entente and of Edward Grey's policy, which was to use the balance of power to support the status quo and avoid European war. He ignores Grey's anti-Russian and pro-German tendencies after His arguments about diplomacy tend toward the incoherent: This nonsense starts from Ferguson's ignorance of the laws of neutrality and blockade.
He reports that in , when considering a possible war with Germany, Whitehall intended to prevent Belgium from passing contraband to Germany, a step it thought proper under international law.
Perhaps this reading was wrong, but it has some validity. Does blockade equal invasion? Then Ferguson indicates that Britain fought in only because Germany violated Belgian neutrality, which contradicts his original statement! Similar problems wreck his argument about "the Kaiser's European Union"--that if Britain had stayed neutral in , Germany would have won the war easily, and everyone would have benefited.
What does he think Germany would have done as master of Europe especially since Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz's program was intended to let Germany [End Page ] start a naval war against Britain between and ? What could British statesmen have expected them to produce?
Journal of Interdisciplinary History
Arguably, had Britain not intervened, Germany would have mastered Europe, renewed naval construction, formed an alliance with Russia, and started a new world war against Britain. In this case, as well as others, Ferguson's attempts to illuminate the past through counterfactuals fail, because he does not understand how to use them.
His suggestion, for example, that in General Erich Ludendorff would have been wise either to negotiate peace by offering to restore French and Belgian territories after the first victories of March, or to hold on grimly after the defeats of July and August, because his men would have fought hard once they realized the scale of their enemy's demands, are impossible.
On the former option, Ludendorff could not have adopted so supple a strategy, especially when military victory seemed in his grasp, and on the latter, his army had broken and could not be restored.
These failings are fundamental, but half of the book is worth reading, particularly the comparative examination of economic and military power. Ferguson holds that the Allies were wealthier than their foes, but failed to make effective use of their advantage spending three times as much to kill one soldier as their enemies because the Germans were better soldiers.
The Pity of War
This is a provocative but problematical argument.Arguably, had Britain not intervened, Germany would have mastered Europe, renewed naval construction, formed an alliance with Russia, and started a new world war against Britain. Ferguson holds that the Allies were wealthier than their foes, but failed to make effective use of their advantage spending three times as much to kill one soldier as their enemies because the Germans were better soldiers.
Britain's War of Illusions. Start reading The Pity of War: It is only when all the variables and factors are arrayed can we say that, yes, keeping the Tories out was the decisive issue.