Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Causes of Great War

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by peterhof View Post
    Your opinion is worthless. These are the opinions that matter: The close collaboration between the French and British General Staffs under the auspices of Sir Henry Wilson since 1906 had created what Lord Landsdowne called “an obligation of honour.” Austin Chamberlain referred to “the closest negotiations and arrangements between two Governments,” while Sir Eyre Crowe termed it “an honourable expectation.” Lord Esher bluntly pointed out to the Prime Minister that the military plans worked out by the British and French General Staffs have “certainly committed us to fight, whether the Cabinet likes it or not.”

    Any questions?
    Yes. How about supplying some sources to your quotes?
    It's the least any competent historian who wants to be taken seriously should do.
    You want to be taken seriously, start acting seriously.
    And no, telling people to google it for themselves is not the same.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by peterhof View Post
      Your opinion is worthless. These are the opinions that matter: The close collaboration between the French and British General Staffs under the auspices of Sir Henry Wilson since 1906 had created what Lord Landsdowne called “an obligation of honour.” Austin Chamberlain referred to “the closest negotiations and arrangements between two Governments,” while Sir Eyre Crowe termed it “an honourable expectation.” Lord Esher bluntly pointed out to the Prime Minister that the military plans worked out by the British and French General Staffs have “certainly committed us to fight, whether the Cabinet likes it or not.”

      Any questions?
      Yes. What gives you the idea that an opposition MP, Civil Servants or even individual MP's make state policy? None of these people were cabinet ministers or in a position to define British policy in 1914. The British went to war because Germany attacked in the west, if the Germans had not done so it is far from obvious what Britain would have done.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by peterhof View Post
        So tell me, what is meant by the phrase "Triple Entente?"
        Three way goodwill or understanding. Look it up if in doubt.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by peterhof View Post
          Your opinion is worthless. These are the opinions that matter: The close collaboration between the French and British General Staffs under the auspices of Sir Henry Wilson since 1906 had created what Lord Landsdowne called “an obligation of honour.” Austin Chamberlain referred to “the closest negotiations and arrangements between two Governments,” while Sir Eyre Crowe termed it “an honourable expectation.” Lord Esher bluntly pointed out to the Prime Minister that the military plans worked out by the British and French General Staffs have “certainly committed us to fight, whether the Cabinet likes it or not.”

          Any questions?
          1)Under the auspices of Sir Henry Wilson:has been proved to be wrong,countless times
          2)Lansdowne and Chamberlain were in the opposition,and their opinion was without importance
          3)Crowe was some one working at the FO,executing the orders of the cabinet
          4)Esher has no official position,and his influence in 1914 was meaningless
          5)There is not such thing as obligation of honour in politics
          6)Grey,OTOH,said that the entente never would be an alliance
          7)Entente is a French word derived from the French verbe :s'entendre,which means having good relations,not more,not less.
          8)In 1904 Britain and France were improving their relations,which were becoming better. Entente means good relations,not alliance.There were also good relations between the US and Britain,but,no alliance.
          9)The relations between Britain and Russia were correct,but,there was no entente between Britain and Russia:there still were a lot of disagreements between both countries,as The Straits .

          "It had always been British policy to keep Russia out of Constantinople and the Straits.......and it still was our policy in 1915(Grey:25 years Tome 2,P 180-181

          Source :not Barnes,but :
          Great Britain,Russia and the Straits 1914-1915 (by W.Renzi),published in The Journal of Modern History .

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by peterhof View Post
            Unclog your nostrils? Yuk! Is this what they do in Essex?
            'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'

            Originally posted by Teseren
            What gives you the idea that an opposition MP, Civil Servants or even individual MP's make state policy? None of these people were cabinet ministers or in a position to define British policy in 1914.
            More questions for the hofster! Will he ever respond? Find out in the next exciting episo ..... what am I saying?!! We know he won't.
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #81
              In 1911,Crowe minuted the following:
              "the fundamental fact of course is that the Entente is not an Alliance.For purposes of ultimate emergencies it may be found to have no susstance at all.For the Entente is nothing more than a frame of mind,a view of general policy which is shared by the governments of two countries,but which may be or become so vague as to loose all content ."
              (Hinsley:British Foreign Policy under Sir Edward Grey P 324)

              The French term Entente Cordiale (cordial understanding/agreement) comes from a letter written by Lord Aberdeen to his brother in which he mentioned" a cordial,good understanding " between the UK and France .This was translated in French as Entente Cordiale and used as such by Louis Philippe in the French Chamber .

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                Some on this forum continue to hide behind the strictly technical circumstance that Grey had not officially signed any treaties. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain was committed to support France just as Lord Esher and others have pointed out. The transformation of the Franco-Russian alliance into the Triple Entente was the main accomplishment of King Edward VII and Lord Grey. Without this, France and Russia would not have rolled the dice against the Central Powers.
                Correct. No use denying this.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                  So tell me, what is meant by the phrase "Triple Entente?"
                  Following from the strict dictionary definition, it would mean the Triple Understanding. Considering the emphasis in both the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Entente on colonial issues and lines of demarcation, and the almost non-existent discussion of things military, this would be a reasonable renaming. It just doesn't have the same cachet.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Teseren View Post
                    Yes. What gives you the idea that an opposition MP, Civil Servants or even individual MP's make state policy? None of these people were cabinet ministers or in a position to define British policy in 1914. The British went to war because Germany attacked in the west, if the Germans had not done so it is far from obvious what Britain would have done.
                    In a chapter entitled Anglo-French "Conversations" 1905-1912, Fay expounds in over twelve pages and in great detail, on the close collaboration between the British and French General Staffs. Grey himself admits in his memoirs that in any war involving Germany and France, British neutrality would have obliged him to resign irrespective of the Belgian issue. It takes a special mix of bias and chutzpah to deny that Grey had committed Great Britain to a binding obligation of honor.
                    "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by pasar View Post
                      Correct. No use denying this.
                      Are you agreeing with all or part of peterhof's statement? If part, which parts?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                        In a chapter entitled Anglo-French "Conversations" 1905-1912, Fay expounds in over twelve pages and in great detail, on the close collaboration between the British and French General Staffs.
                        If so Fay is writing complete bllcks. Henry Wilson on a bike does not make close collaboration, especially as he held no official position for deployment planning. In 1914 nobody in the French command had any idea when the British would join up with them or where, and the British were likewise fairly clueless about the French battle plans and where their armies were. The most clear idea was that they would join onto the left flank of the French armies, hardly the result of close collaboration. Maybe you can tell us what was planned in great detail?

                        Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                        Grey himself admits in his memoirs that in any war involving Germany and France, British neutrality would have obliged him to resign irrespective of the Belgian issue. It takes a special mix of bias and chutzpah to deny that Grey had committed Great Britain to a binding obligation of honor.
                        Grey resigns. So what? Do you imagine he would be the first minister to quit? Didnt two resign when war was declared? Does it only count if their name is Grey? You always say Britain acted in self interest, so why would Britain become involved if Germany did not attack in the west and involve her interests?

                        Now you know 'Triple Entente' does not mean 'alliance' are you going to answer the questions people have asked or are you going to ignore them here? You seem to like dodging awkward questions on other forums, surely you dont intend to do it here too?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The amusing thing is that if Grey had resigned, it is possible that Asquith's government may have collapsed, leading to a Conservative government, which would have immediately declared war.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Teseren View Post
                            If so Fay is writing complete bllcks. Henry Wilson on a bike does not make close collaboration, especially as he held no official position for deployment planning. In 1914 nobody in the French command had any idea when the British would join up with them or where, and the British were likewise fairly clueless about the French battle plans and where their armies were. The most clear idea was that they would join onto the left flank of the French armies, hardly the result of close collaboration. Maybe you can tell us what was planned in great detail?
                            It can be (and was on another thread iirc) shown that Joffre's strategy was identical whether the BEF deployed or not. After Wilson became DMO in 1912 Anglo-French staff talks became more formal. However, even after the British DoW in 1914 there was no absolute commitment to sending the BEF to France.

                            Grey resigns. So what?
                            Indeed.

                            Now you know 'Triple Entente' does not mean 'alliance' are you going to answer the questions people have asked or are you going to ignore them here? You seem to like dodging awkward questions on other forums, surely you dont intend to do it here too?
                            The lack of growth suggests otherwise.
                            Signing out.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by pasar View Post
                              Correct. No use denying this.
                              I can- and do.
                              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                              Samuel Johnson.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Teseren View Post
                                If so Fay is writing complete bllcks. Henry Wilson on a bike does not make close collaboration, especially as he held no official position for deployment planning. In 1914 nobody in the French command had any idea when the British would join up with them or where, and the British were likewise fairly clueless about the French battle plans and where their armies were. The most clear idea was that they would join onto the left flank of the French armies, hardly the result of close collaboration. Maybe you can tell us what was planned in great detail?



                                Grey resigns. So what? Do you imagine he would be the first minister to quit? Didnt two resign when war was declared? Does it only count if their name is Grey? You always say Britain acted in self interest, so why would Britain become involved if Germany did not attack in the west and involve her interests?

                                Now you know 'Triple Entente' does not mean 'alliance' are you going to answer the questions people have asked or are you going to ignore them here? You seem to like dodging awkward questions on other forums, surely you dont intend to do it here too?
                                I will quote a report by Metternich which includes margin comments by the Kaiser:

                                Mr. Haldane replied most definitely that a military convention between France and England did not exist, and had not existed, and also that no preparations had been made for the conclusion of one. Whether non-committal conversations between English and French military persons had taken place or not, he did not know. [Kaiser: "Impudence! He, the Minister of a Parliamentary country, not supposed to know that! He lies!"]
                                At any rate, no English officer has been authorized by the English Government [Kaiser: "Indeed! He did it himself!"] to prepare military arrangements with a French military person for the eventuality of war. It was possible that a General Staff Officer of one country might have expressed himself to the General Staff officer of another country as to war-like eventualities. He, the Minister of War, however, knew nothing of this. [Kaiser: "Magnificent lies!"].
                                (Metternich to Bulow, Jan. 31, 1907., G.P., XXI, 469)

                                Please note that perfidious Albion is lying through his teeth, and Kaiser Wilhelm knows it.
                                "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X