I think its an OK article... but I think a number of them canbe considered "topics for debate".
The one I think needs a lot more work is the
"8. No-one won
Swathes of Europe lay wasted, millions were dead or wounded. Survivors lived on with severe mental trauma. The UK was broke. It is odd to talk about winning.
However, in a narrow military sense, the UK and her allies convincingly won."
Which i think is a very narrow way of seeing things. as an individual you may get into a fight and be happy that you "won" because your opponent is more bloody and beaten than you are... you can decide a broken nose and missing teeth are worth it to you to be able to say you "won".... but as a country... does a simple military victory outweigh all the other losses your country suffered?
Can Belgium say "Hey great, we were on a winning side in a war! Yeah!!!" ... and have it outweigh all the destruction it caused in the country? Was the UK better off in 1919 than it was in 1913? France regained some land... but did that make up for the hundreds of towns and villages destroyed by the war and the lives it cost?
IMHO it is a simple question... for a country to consider itself a winner, it would have to ask itself, "what did we gain? were we better of after the last shot than we were before the first shot? Did we manage to make some political/diplomatic/material gains that are worth more than the lives we lost?" ... if the answer is no, then it is a very hollow victory indeed... it is a pile of medals and a few battle honors gained for the army, at the cost of the country.
Just my humble opinion ... :-)