Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Causes of Great War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Nickuru View Post
    4º The order for general mobilization of 29th of July was cancelled by order of the Nicholas II himself durng the afternoon. Questions were placed to the Czar on the morrow of 30th July by Maurice Paleologue and General Dobrorolsky explaining their agreement (personal aside: why is an ambassador making foreign policy for a country?).

    After the recital of Maurice Paleologue, the Czar spoke as follows "Think of the responsibility which you are demanding. It involves sending thousand and thousands of men to their deaths.

    Sadly Paleologue had the Russian establishment at his grasp.
    Maurice Paleologue was far more than an ambassador. He accepted the post only after Poincare's repeated urging and emotional appeals to his patriotism. Longtime friends, he fully shared Poincare's passion for Alsace/Lorraine and acted as Poincare's personal confidante. We may therefore be certain that Paleologue's encouragement - for which Sasonov thanked him solemnly - came directly from Poincare.
    "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

    Comment


    • The usual unproved claims,thus:Indian tales.

      Proofs for the claim that both were longtime friends ? They had been at the same school,what's totally different.

      Proofs that Paléologue shared the passion for the Alsace-Lorraine?

      Proofs that Paléologue acted as Poincaré's personal confidante?

      Proofs that Paléologue accepted the post in St Perersburg only after urging and appeal of Poincaré?

      BTW:if you don't know (of course you don't):in 1917,Paléologue was fired by the PM of the day,and,what was the reaction of his longtime friend ? Crocodile tears probably .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nickuru View Post
        4º The order for general mobilization of 29th of July was cancelled by order of the Nicholas II himself durng the afternoon. Questions were placed to the Czar on the morrow of 30th July by Maurice Paleologue and General Dobrorolsky explaining their agreement (personal aside: why is an ambassador making foreign policy for a country?).

        After the recital of Maurice Paleologue, the Czar spoke as follows "Think of the responsibility which you are demanding. It involves sending thousand and thousands of men to their deaths.

        Sadly Paleologue had the Russian establishment at his grasp.

        I like to see the proof for the claim that Paléologue was placing questions to the Czar .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
          I like to see the proof for the claim that Paléologue was placing questions to the Czar .
          A votre service:
          http://www.archive.org/stream/lespre.../xxiv/mode/2up

          William Jannen supports this view also from his documentation in The Lions of July, as well as Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August.
          When looking for the reason why things go wrong, never rule out stupidity, Murphy's Law Nº 8
          Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana
          "Ach du schwein" a German parrot captured at Bukoba GEA the only prisoner taken

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nickuru View Post
            A votre service:
            http://www.archive.org/stream/lespre.../xxiv/mode/2up

            William Jannen supports this view also from his documentation in The Lions of July, as well as Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August.
            I thought that Morhardt was still under the bulldozer,where,IMHO,also Tuchman belongs .

            A proof would be :a witness (not Paléologue) who affirms that on day X,hour Y,at place Z,the French ambassador was asking the following questions to the Czar,questions as
            a)......
            b)........
            etc

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

              The point that I was labouring over regarding the invasion of Belgium is that it raised the entire situation up to another level. Prior to the German attack the whole July crises could have been written off by most people as just another Great Power spat- yet another obscure Balkan squabble. But the invasion was a total game-changer. It could be vividly portrayed as a bullying power picking on an small, innocent nation. (Yes- Peter will tell it differently but, in essence, that's what it was ).
              Given that Brittain and France occupied a large part of the world, this is seriously naive.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
                If you're thinking that Versailles was worse than what would have happened to Germany if it lost the war in 1915, I'm assuming you're either new to the subject or have no grasp of it.
                Don't assume because you'll make an ass out of u and me. Well, u anyway.
                Signing out.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  I like to see the proof for the claim that Paléologue was placing questions to the Czar .
                  Most history quotes, including those provided by that unfortunate soul who resides across the pond, have those words spoken by the Czar in response to Sasonov.
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                    Don't assume because you'll make an ass out of u and me. Well, u anyway.
                    a good one

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                      The point that I was labouring over regarding the invasion of Belgium is that it raised the entire situation up to another level.
                      No, that 'raising of level' exists only in your mind, and is based on a number of assumptions, none of which I think are true, in the situation as it existed 31 July-4 August, 1914.

                      Prior to the German attack the whole July crises could have been written off by most people as just another Great Power spat- yet another obscure Balkan squabble. But the invasion was a total game-changer.
                      No, it was not a 'game changer'. Your assessment to the possibility localisation is, again, a distinction that exists in your mind. You have created a reality that did not exist, with this idea of 'Russia alone'. It was not going to happen.

                      Of course WW1 was a near-run thing- as, indeed was WW2- but how can you possibly say that the entry of the British Empire was irrelevant to the result ? Was Britain defeated- or are you in denial ?
                      A 'straw man' is when participant to a debate alters an argument to something that is not, and then rebuts the fictious argument. This usually occurs when the participant realises that he cannot rebut the actual argument.

                      I did not say that British participation was 'irrelevant'. I said that BELGIUM was irrelevant to the question of British participation.

                      I did not say that Britain was defeated. I said that Britain could have been defeated.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
                        I did not say that British participation was 'irrelevant'. I said that BELGIUM was irrelevant to the question of British participation.
                        This is confirmed by Grey himself who wrote in his memoirs that he would have resigned if Great Britain remained neutral irrespective of the Belgian issue.

                        I did not say that Britain was defeated. I said that Britain could have been defeated.
                        Britain was in fact defeated during the Battle of the Frontiers as confirmed by British commander John French.
                        "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                        Comment


                        • Britain was defeated :a good one.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
                            No, that 'raising of level' exists only in your mind, and is based on a number of assumptions, none of which I think are true, in the situation as it existed 31 July-4 August, 1914.



                            No, it was not a 'game changer'. Your assessment to the possibility localisation is, again, a distinction that exists in your mind. You have created a reality that did not exist, with this idea of 'Russia alone'. It was not going to happen.



                            A 'straw man' is when participant to a debate alters an argument to something that is not, and then rebuts the fictious argument. This usually occurs when the participant realises that he cannot rebut the actual argument.

                            I did not say that British participation was 'irrelevant'. I said that BELGIUM was irrelevant to the question of British participation.

                            I did not say that Britain was defeated. I said that Britain could have been defeated.
                            Wherever did I mention, imply, infer or hint that anything was "Russia alone" ? Where was Russia even mentioned ? What was that about straw men ?

                            There is no doubt whatever that the German invasion of Belgium changed the popular perception of the events occurring in 1914. That's what I stated, let's see you rebut it.

                            Britain could have been defeated: well yes- just as German troops could have entered Paris- but
                            it didn't happen so what's the point in stating the obvious ?
                            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                            Samuel Johnson.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                              This is confirmed by Grey himself who wrote in his memoirs that he would have resigned if Great Britain remained neutral irrespective of the Belgian issue.
                              Yet again for those who find the English language and political system difficult to fathom, Grey was Foreign Secretary, his resignation would not cause a crisis, bring down the government or cause those who disagreed with him to change their minds.

                              Next

                              Britain was in fact defeated during the Battle of the Frontiers as confirmed by British commander John French.
                              For those who find the English language difficult to grasp and the nomenclature applied to the British Army a little to arcane Sir John French commanded the British Expeditionary Force, a small, if totally professional, portion of the Regular Army. It fought several battles against German armies that were considerably larger than itself narrowly avoiding a disaster at Le Cateau. Even if it had been decimated (as it eventually was during the campaign in Flanders 1914-15) it would not have had a great effect on the British war effort, at least not physically anyway.
                              Signing out.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                                This is confirmed by Grey himself who wrote in his memoirs that he would have resigned if Great Britain remained neutral irrespective of the Belgian issue.
                                Wouldn't you think this statement alone proves that Grey had a lot less influence on the government than you have continually tried to insinuate?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X