This rarely happens in a debate because it is polarized between collective myths of national sacrifice and indiscriminate catastrophe. Some say that the war was between empires, which of course, it was however, one must remember to distinguish the difference between the two empires. There is speculation as to what that “something” that the First World War was about. “It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked.” Margaret MacMillian said that people on all sides believed there was a just cause.
On the other hand, there were people who insisted that it was “about something”. On one hand, there are people who believe the war was “an unmitigated catastrophe in a sea of mud”. Currently, there is an argument that the war consisted of two mutually uncomprehending camps. With the 100 th anniversary of the First World War approaching, 2014 is about to witness a lot of debates that dispute the correct forms of commemoration and if the war actually achieved anything. His account of the cabinet debates in 1914 was fascinating because Herbert Asquith’s Liberal government was easily decided to remain neutral-and they almost did. Ferguson was overeager to portray the Kaiser as the godfather of the later European Union. He wrote an essay that considers the possibility that Britain could have stood aside from the European war in 1914.
Niall Ferguson was one of the expectations. The First World War has been a subject of less counterfactual speculation.
