SOURCE: A review of The Pity of War, in The English Historical Review, Vol. 114, No. 459, November, 1999, p. 1360.

In the following review, Bond offers a favorable assessment of The Pity of War, but finds Ferguson's counterfactual approach problematic.

At the outset of his provocative and immensely readable study, The Pity of War, Niall Ferguson poses ten bold, revisionist questions. These include: was the war (of 1914–18) inevitable; why did Germany’s leaders gamble on war; why did Britain’s leaders decide to intervene on the Continent; why did not the huge economic superiority of the British Empire cause the defeat of the Central Powers without American intervention; why did not German military superiority secure victory on the Western Front; and why did soldiers keep fighting despite the hellish conditions—and why did they stop? In general Dr. Ferguson is more persuasive in dealing with economic and financial than military issues...