The piece in the Independent on Niall Ferguson's views on Britain and the First World War - as reported by Ian Johnston.
Now normally I rate Ferguson but on this occasion I would disagree with him and apart from that the piece of course is written with the benefit of 20 X 20 hindsight and ignores some massive elephants present in the room.
1: "Britain should not have gone to war in 1914 and the decision to do so was the "biggest error in modern history", according to the historian Niall Ferguson.
Doesn't state why, making no attempt to address the issues.
2:The Harvard University professor said that Britain was ill-prepared for the First World War and paid too high a price in terms of the lives lost and the vast debts that were run up during the four-year conflict.
Wasn't prepared to fight the war "as it turned out and developed", yet the British proved to be the best innovators among the combatant powers succeeding as they did in introducing new technology to address the problems faced by their troops.
3:"He also said the UK could have "lived with" an initial Germany victory over Russia and France and dealt with Germany's vast new European empire later.
Ah and of course Niall there would have been no costs in terms of dealing with this new European Empire, no lives lost and no debts incurred. And Britain having ran out on its allies and its treaty obligations in 1914 would have been beset by others all keen and eager to join Britain in dealing with this new European Empire of Germany's – An idiotic assumption on the part of the Professor I would say.
4:"The cost, let me emphasise, of the First World War to Britain was catastrophic, and it left the British Empire at the end of it all in a much weakened state.
Dealing with the new German Empire later would have cost us much more. The costs of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in comparable terms were greater than those of the First World War. In addressing the problems later those costs would have been even greater as Britian would have had to have paid for everything – remember this Britain has never fought a major war entirely on its own, it has always fought alongside allies. There would have been no allies if Britain had taken Niall Ferguson's advice.
5:"It had accumulated a vast debt, the cost of which really limited Britain's military capability throughout the inter-war period.
I'm sorry Niall what did Britain need it's massed military capability for throughout the inter-war period? In what way did it limit what Britain wanted to do?
6: Loss of manpower was experienced right across the board in Europe and many suffered more than the British.
7:"Instead of going to the aid of neutral Belgium after Germany invaded, it would have been in "Britain's interests to stay out in 1914,"
Obviously, and fortunately not a view shared by those governing Britain at the time, but there again they were dealing with the actual problem that presented itself at that time and they were more aware of the issues involved.
8:"Britain could indeed have lived with a German victory,"
No it couldn't, as if that indeed was the case then Britain would not have to confront Germany later – so in this Ferguson contradicts himself.
9:"A victorious Germany would have had a "pretty massive challenge on its hands trying to run the new German-dominated Europe and would have remained significantly weaker than the British Empire in naval and financial terms".
Really?? You mean much in the same way that Napoleon was hampered by French domination in Europe in 1808?
10:"Given the resources that Britain had available in 1914, a better strategy would have been to wait and deal with the German challenge later when Britain could respond on its own terms, taking advantage of its much greater naval and financial capability," Professor Ferguson said.
Ah you mean wait until we are totally bereft of any potential allies then instead of sending our troops over on cross channel ferries onto a friendly shore we have to make an opposed landing as had to be done in 1944 (It took us four years working flat out to do that during the Second World War Niall or had you forgotten that). Or perhaps Niall Ferguson meant that Britain should have waited until the entire coast of Europe was under German control along with free and unfettered access to the entire agricultural output of Europe THEN attempted to enforce a naval blockade to bring Germany to it's knees – Utterly ridiculous.
11:"Creating an army more or less from scratch and then sending it into combat against the Germans was a recipe for disastrous losses. And if one asks whether this was the best way for Britain to deal with the challenge posed by imperial Germany, my answer is no.
Well then Professor Ferguson I do not think that you have thought the thing through properly:
a) We would still have had to create a large enough Army from scratch, and then we would have had to have taught that Army all about amphibious warfare before we could ever have thought about being able to use it (No costs associated with that lot then Professor)
b) Now what about the bit that the good Professor has by-passed completely and ignored? What about the colonies of the countries that Germany has swallowed up and defeated, which of course would have become German - their "Place in the Sun"? Had Britain waited as Niall suggests would Germany have been in a position to foment trouble in neighbouring British possessions as they sat, watched and noted our preparations to "address" the problem of Germany's new European Empire? I would reckon that they would have been rather well placed to do precisely that – wouldn't you? - and Britain would have had to have dissipated it's military might taking care of any such trouble - Oh but wait a minute we needed those troops to address our European German problem didn't we Professor?