When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

1) I never said the two German ships in the Mediterranean were battleships.

2) I said the Brits DOWed Turkey on Nov. 4.

Your post does acknowledge that the siezure of the two dreadnaughts did, in part, cause the Turks to side with the Germans. But you say it was permitted by contract. I didn't know that. Thanks for your info. Link please.

But still, it cannot have escaped the attention of Chruchill that his siezure of the ships would help nudge Turkey into the German camp and that would lay her open for British conquest, primarily directed at oil rich Iraq.

Now, you explain to me just how British army got all the way from India to Iraq to sieze Basra just 10 days (Nov. 14) after the "official" start of the war with Turkey. I don't say it was impossible if the order to move went out on Nov. 4. But it would planning must have been underway quite some time before the British DOW.

Next explain to me why the Brits continued on and conquered Mosul after the war had supposedly ended?

I am not saying the only reason for the Brit entry into the war was ME oil, but it was an important reason and that required the Ottomans to side with the Germans, which they did after the siezure of the two battleships.

[Myrddin]

So the British declared war on Germany, so that they would have an excuse to seize ships being built for Turkey, so that the Ottomans would enter the war, so that Britain could seize Iraqi oil

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
1) I never said the two German ships in the Mediterranean were battleships.

Sorry, my bad.

2) I said the Brits DOWed Turkey on Nov. 4.

Yes, and that Britain was at war with Turkey before that date.

Your post does acknowledge that the siezure of the two dreadnaughts did, in part, cause the Turks to side with the Germans.

Yes, Enver Pasha used it as pretext although it was completely legitimate. He was a traitor, and a liar.

But you say it was permitted by contract. I didn't know that. Thanks for your info. Link please.

You mean another one? OK, here you go:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ship_And_Shipbuilding

"When the World War broke out in Aug. 1914 there were, moreover, four capital ships building in England for foreign Powers - two for Turkey and two for the Chilean Government. The two Turkish ships had just been completed and commissioned, one at Armstrong's and the other at Vickers', and were on the eve of sailing when war was declared. As both vessels were subject to preemption in the event of war, the Government promptly took them over and added them to the British fleet under the names of " Agincourt " and " Erin " respectively."

But still, it cannot have escaped the attention of Chruchill that his siezure of the ships would help nudge Turkey into the German camp and that would lay her open for British conquest, primarily directed at oil rich Iraq.

Sure. But can you prove that this was his only, or the predominant reason for him to seize the 2 ships? If so, Link please.

Now, you explain to me just how British army got all the way from India to Iraq to sieze Basra just 10 days (Nov. 14) after the "official" start of the war with Turkey. I don't say it was impossible if the order to move went out on Nov. 4. But it would planning must have been underway quite some time before the British DOW.

Kuwait?

"Threatened in the 19th century by the Ottoman Turks and various powerful Arabian Peninsula groups, Kuwait sought the same treaty relationship Britain had already signed with the Trucial States (UAE) and Bahrain. In January 1899, the ruler Sheikh Mubarak Al Sabah--"the Great"--signed an agreement with the British Government that pledged himself and his successors neither to cede any territory, nor to receive agents or representatives of any foreign power without the British Government's consent, in exchange for protection and an annual subsidy."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm#history

BTW, 10 days is more than enough for a warship to deliver troops from Karachi/Aden/Bombay to Irak.

Next explain to me why the Brits continued on and conquered Mosul after the war had supposedly ended?

Erm, because the Armistice of Mundos allowed the Allies to occupy "any strategic point which mattered to the security of the Allies"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_Mudros

I am not saying the only reason for the Brit entry into the war was ME oil, but it was an important reason and that required the Ottomans to side with the Germans, which they did after the siezure of the two battleships.

No doubt the Brits were interested in oil. But why does this "require the Ottomans to side with the Germans?" Did it also require to bombard Russian territory in peacetime?

Still looking forward to your reply to the Souchon quote, and the other quotes from the superiorforce website.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

Now, you explain to me just how British army got all the way from India to Iraq to sieze Basra just 10 days (Nov. 14) after the "official" start of the war with Turkey. I don't say it was impossible if the order to move went out on Nov. 4. But it would planning must have been underway quite some time before the British DOW.

Distance Karachi-Basra through the Strait of Hormuz (NOT as the crow flies): 1500 miles.

Speed of a WW1 transport: 15 knots? 10 knots? Lets assume 10 knots.

10 knots per hour = 11,5 mph

11,5 mph x 240 hours = 2760 miles

That's a very wide scope, and we're assuming a speed of 10 knots only.

Also consider that Britain was already at war since the start of August, so the British Army in India had 3 months to mobilize and get ready for action. Perhaps there were already troops embarked for the Suez Canal when the order came to head for Mesopotamia instead?

Don't forget that southern Persia was under British control, and that they already had an oil refinery up and running in Abadan, just a couple of miles away from Basra. Maybe there were British troops in Persia? Even if not, Persia and Kuwait could be used as supply base for food and water.

[Ned]

El-T, I suspect the fine print in the K with Turkey allowed the Brits to sieze the ships in the event of war between Britain and any other power. Agreed?

The ships were siezed on August 1. This was before the German ulitimatum to Belgium.

Britain DOWed Germany on August 4.

So, even if the contracts permitted the siezure in the event of war, they were siezed before the war broke out and before even Britain's pretext for war (Belgium) happened.

Explain that, please.

(And, don't you find it interesting that the history books (online)are replete with comments from the likes of Moltke and Enver Pasche who were the most extreme of the Central Powers hawks, and narry a word from anyone from Britain? One cannot find a quote from Churchill from this timeframe, although I am sure he had much to say.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
So the British declared war on Germany, so that they would have an excuse to seize ships being built for Turkey, so that the Ottomans would enter the war, so that Britain could seize Iraqi oil

Backwards.

The Brits were not at war with Germany when they siezed the ships. The cabinent's "official" position was still one of neutrality. Parliament was still divided with the Liberals strongly anti-war.

Churchill did this on his own, without government authorization.

Churchill was the leading advocate for war. He was also the leading advocate for controlling Iraqi oil.

[Ned]

That "Superior Force" link is fascinating. http://www.superiorforce.co.uk/

Apparently, there remains a get great deal controversy (in Britain) about whether the British Admiralty deliberately allowed the two German warships to escape to Constantinople for the very purpose of getting the Ottoman Empire into war on the side of the Germans. I clearly am not the only one who apparently believes this to be the case. The article also has direct quotes from the French and the Russians that indicate that this was in fact the British plan.

Rather then quote selectively from the critical summary chapter, I will attach the critical chapter for the readers review.

The chapter also reveals that the planning for the Basra operation began on October 3, 1914. The British expeditionary force from India landed in Bahrein on October 14. Orders for the invasion of the Ottoman Empire were issued on November 2, 1914, prior to the British declaration of war on Turkey.

The chapter also reveals that Britain promised Russia Constantinople without prior notice to France in order that Russia not attack the Ottoman Empire through Mesopotamia. The French had long been strongly opposed to Russian control of Constantinople.

"If Britain did have a genuine sphere of interest, which it wanted maintained at all costs, it was in Southern Persia and Mesopotamia: to guarantee this Grey was prepared to sacrifice Constantinople. The Russian plans to attack Turkey through Persia caused immediate alarm when they became known in Whitehall. The day after the British declaration of war against Turkey in November 1914 the Russian Ambassador in London was notified by Sazonov that the launching of his country's offensive would, of necessity, violate Persian neutrality. Grey was concerned on two fronts: the threat of Muslim agitation, and the possibility that the offensive might spread to include British political and oil interests in Mesopotamia. The Foreign Secretary took the initiative on 9 November in suggesting to Sazonov, through Ambassador Benckendorff, that, with the defeat of Germany, the fate of Constantinople and the Straits could not but be decided other than in conformity to Russia's interests.[24] No less a personage than the King then entered the fray by informing Benckendorff on 13 November that, 'In regard to Constantinople, it is clear that it must be yours.' The following day Grey confirmed his message to the Russians with, however, one important rider: while the conduct of the Turkish Government would 'render inevitable the complete solution of the Turkish problem, including the question of the Straits and Constantinople, in agreement with Russia' this solution could only come after the defeat of Germany and 'independently of a prior breakup of the Turkish state, which is possible as a result of march of military operations.'[25] But just such a 'march of military operations' was already under way, as the Foreign Secretary well knew - planning for the dispatch of the Indian Expeditionary Force had begun in September.
On 26 September the Military Secretary of the India Office had warned Lord Crewe that war with Turkey might eventuate in 'a few weeks or even days' but that this was not, in itself, a great concern unless the Turks enlisted the support of the Arabs. 'In that case', argued Sir Edmund Barrow, 'they will probably proclaim a Jehad and endeavour to raise Afghanistan and the Frontier tribes against us, which might be a serious danger to India and would most certainly add enormously to our difficulties and responsibilities.' Barrow suggested sending a signal to the Arabs 'before war breaks out or it may be too late' and proposed that the best way to achieve this was 'to send a force from India to the Shatt-el-Arab at once…On arrival the troops can be landed on Persian soil at Muhammerah or at Abadan Island, ostensibly to protect the oil installations, but in reality to notify the Turks that we meant business and to the Arabs that we were ready to support them…If war breaks out it will be necessary to occupy Basra at once'.[26] Crewe issued the necessary orders on 3 October and the expeditionary force sailed from Bombay and Karachi on 16/17 October to Bahrein, there to await further developments. This last-minute timidity resulted from the Viceroy's misgivings that Britain should not be seen as the aggressor; the Turks had to strike the first blow even if this gave them the opportunity to attack the undefended oil installations.[27] Orders to advance were issued on 30 October, then retracted following renewed hesitation, only to be re-issued on 2 November; landings took place some days later and, within weeks, the key strategic town of Basra had been taken.[28] In his talks with the Russians, Grey had been speaking from a position of strength.
The Straits and Constantinople had become a suitable bait to lure Russia away from interfering in Persia, with the additional bonus of giving the Russians something worthwhile to fight for. This consideration was particularly important to Grey following disturbing rumours from Buchanan that a section of the Russian Foreign Ministry was seeking a negotiated peace with Germany.[29] Sazonov had his own private ideas as to what Russia could hope for at the end of the war - even if his dreams of acquiring further Polish-speaking territory lay as shattered as the Russian armies in the field. Souchon's violent manoeuvre on 29 October changed that. 'Turkish action', Buchanan reported Sazonov as saying that day, 'would unroll the whole Eastern question and entail final settlement of question of Straits. For this reason war is likely to be welcomed by large section of Russian public, who were afraid that Russia would gain no solid advantages from the war with Austria and Germany.'[30]toptop
Grey had neglected to inform the French of his November promise to the Russians, an omission Sazonov was keen to rectify to add further legitimacy to the pledge. Acting under instructions, Ambassador Bertie saw Delcassé, the French Foreign Minister, on 21 November to give him Grey's reasons for communicating with Sazonov on the subject without prior consultation with the French Government. Delcassé also received Grey's assurances, which he considered 'satisfactory', that Grey had 'no wish to precipitate decisions to secure special advantages for England during the war', and that he recognized, 'that all definitive changes must be subject to agreement between the Allies when peace is made.' For what it was worth, Delcassé was of the opinion that Russia did not desire possession of Constantinople, but only free passage in and out of the Black Sea, however:"

I will go into detail here but it also appears that the French and Churchill were conspiring to force Britain to the war against Germany. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Churchill had arranged that the entire French fleet be concentrated in the Mediterranean. He in turn guaranteed to the French that Britain would protect its northern coast. All this was done prior to any British government commitment to actually protect northern France from the German navy and without prior authorization.

When Grey attempted to get the French to agree not to attack Germany in the event of the break out of war between Russia and Germany, saying that the French could not count on British support if they declared war on Germany. The French were outraged citing the prior disposition their fleet to the Mediterranean that would leave northern France open to attack by the German fleet. This resulted in the British decision to enter the war to protect France's northern coast as promised. The decision for war had very, very, very little to do with Belgium.

In all this we see that Churchill not only was an advocate for war in council, but was maneuvering the chess pieces in order to induce war with both Germany and the Ottoman Empire.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Whether Germany would have annexed either Luxembourg or Belgium is something we would never know. It did not happen.

No, but they made plans for it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned



You still don't get it do you? Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Oh right. So wars only begin when people have been polite enough to declare war on each other, not when one side has manufactured an attack by 'Poles' on a German radio post and used this as an excuse to invade Poland.


Only in the Nedaverse, where people are averse to hard facts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I will concede some Germans were thinking of annexing Luxembourg and Belgium for strategic reasons.

It's difficult to deny the existence of the Bethmanm Hollweg's September Programme.

Perhaps you think 'TEH JOOZE' or 'TEH BRITZ' wrote it for him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Oh right. So wars only begin when people have been polite enough to declare war on each other, not when one side has manufactured an attack by 'Poles' on a German radio post and used this as an excuse to invade Poland.


Only in the Nedaverse, where people are averse to hard facts.

In the molly-verse, the Germans declared war on Britain and France. Thus the use by the Brits of the phrase "the Germans started WWII."

To us Americans, the German DOW on the US began our involvement in the European war. To the Germans, it was America's decision to aid the Brits and Russians and FRD's order for US warships to attack German warships on sight.

Where is the truth?

[Arrian]

Actually, in my (American) school, we were taught all about lend-lease and how it American claims of neutrality were rather dubious in light of LL. So again, I call bull**** on your repeated attempts to claim that we are taught Brit propoganda here.

However, the Germans DID start WWII. There was a chain of provocations (violations of the Treaty of Versailles such as remilitarizing the Rhineland) and attacks on neighbors, culminating in the invasion of Poland. That Britain and France finally took a stand does not mean they "started WWII." Such a statement is absurd.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, just because Britain and France were legally and morally justified for declaring war on Germany does not mean that Germany declared war on Britain and France or initiated hostilities against them without a declaration war per molly. Saying that Germany started World War II (a war against Britain and France) is equivalent to saying that Saddam Hussein started the Gulf War against the United States and its coalition when he invaded Kuwait. In fact, he was led to believe that United States would do nothing about the invasion by the US Ambassador to Iraq. Similarly, Hitler believed that Britain and France would do nothing when he invaded Poland. That is the so-called lesson we are supposed to have learned about the perils of the policy of "appeasement."

It is also possible to some degree to say that Austria started World War I when it declared war on Serbia. There had been a number of Balkan wars in the proceeding years that did not escalate into a world war involving the major powers. Austria certainly had no intention of waging war against any of those powers when it made a declaration war on Serbia.

We are told that Germany however bears primary responsibility for World War I because of the blank check the Kaiser gave Austria and because it invaded neutral Belgium. The truth however is a lot more complicated and both sides must share some of the blame. In fact the Germans thought they were fighting a defensive war because they thought the Austrians were in the right and were justified in their position, and despite all their efforts, they could not get the Russian czar to stop his mobilization which directly threatened Germany.

But to hear it told by molly and others here on Apolyton, the Germans advocated World War I from the very beginning for the purpose of expanding their empire at the expense of Britain and France. While this might certainly be true of certain Germans such as, Molke, it was not the policy the German state and amounts to an out and out lie, the very thing that molly is so quick to accuse me of when he refers to the so-called Nediverse.

[fed1943]

Just don't understand why alte Herr Ned has an American flag.

Best regards,

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
El-T, I suspect the fine print in the K with Turkey allowed the Brits to sieze the ships in the event of war between Britain and any other power. Agreed?

The ships were siezed on August 1. This was before the German ulitimatum to Belgium.

Britain DOWed Germany on August 4.

So, even if the contracts permitted the siezure in the event of war, they were siezed before the war broke out and before even Britain's pretext for war (Belgium) happened.

Explain that, please.

No. I'm tired of your stupid little game, where you SUSPECT, ASSUME or simply DECLARE stuff, and I have to find links and sources to refute your claims.

I've posted 2 links that declare the seizure of the 2 ships legal, the Wikipedia-entry for the Agincourt, and the Shipbuilding-site.

It's really simple: back up your "suspicion" with a source that claims the seizure was illegal, then we'll talk. Until then, I couldn't care less about what you really think has happened.

(And, don't you find it interesting that the history books (online)are replete with comments from the likes of Moltke and Enver Pasche who were the most extreme of the Central Powers hawks, and narry a word from anyone from Britain? One cannot find a quote from Churchill from this timeframe, although I am sure he had much to say.)

Here's a telegram form Churchill to the Turkish government from August 19th. Does it sound like he's looking for war?

"I deeply regretted necessity for detaining Turkish ships because I knew the patriotism with which the money had been raised all over Turkey. As a soldier you know what military necessity compels in war. I am willing to propose to His Majesty’s Government the following arrangement:

(1) both ships to be delivered to Turkey at the end of the war after being thoroughly repaired at our expense in British Dockyards;
(2) if either is sunk we will pay the full value to Turkey immediately on the declaration of peace;
(3) we will also pay at once the actual extra expense caused to Turkey by sending out crews and other incidentals as determined by an arbitrator;
(4) as a compensation to Turkey for the delay in getting the ships we will pay £1,000 a day in weekly installments for every day we keep them, dating retrospectively from when we took them over.

This arrangement will come into force on the day when the last German officer and man belonging to the Goeben and Breslau shall have left Turkish territory definitely and finally, and will continue binding so long as Turkey maintains a loyal and impartial neutrality in this war and favours neither one side nor the other.

Do you agree?"

Source is the Superior Force website.