When is war justified, part duex?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
That "Superior Force" link is fascinating. http://www.superiorforce.co.uk/

Yes, you can learn a lot if you turn of the TV every now and then and read a book...

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.

If you don't believe this, why did you mention it?

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.

...several days after Turkish warships (the Goeben and Breslau, remember?) had already attacked Russia! Of course they immediately set their machinery after this incident. However, they didn't attack the Ottoman Empire until after the DOW. You seem to have missed the following sentence in the article:

"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]"

No 'first strike' of the Turks would have meant no British attack on Mesopotamia. So who is the aggressor?

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.

They promised Russia Constantinople IN CASE OF A WAR. All the Ottoman Empire had to do was to NOT ATTACK RUSSIA, and Constantinople would have remained Turkish.

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.

Since you don't provide a source, I don't care what you are saying in these paragraphs. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but unless you give me a link or a quote I simply do not care.

[ElTigre]

You keep ignoring this part of my post from yesterday.

3. Why did Turkey really enter the war? Here's some food for thought, Ned:

Admiral Souchon, the German commander of the Goeben and the Breslau, who latter used the two ships to shell Russia while Turkey was still at peace, said this about the Turkish declaration of war:

‘I have thrown the Turks into the powder-keg and kindled war between Russia and Turkey.’ [Souchon to his wife, 29 October 1914, quoted in, Halpern, A Naval History of World War I, p. 64.]

Straight from the horse's mouth, Ned!

‘From very certain information one could definitely say that the entry of Turkey into the war was forced by the guns of Goeben, by Goeben actually arriving there – that the entry of Turkey was by no means a unanimous opinion of the Young Turk party itself.’ [Captain Reginald Hall, the Director of the Intelligence Department at the Admiralty from October 1914]

The two ships that were so kindly "delivered" by the German government to Istanbul used their guns to pressure the Turkish government into WW1.

Here's the Internet source for these two citations:

http://www.superiorforce.co.uk/

Go to Chapter 15, "Letting the Goeben Escape".

Want some more quotes? Here you go:

It has subsequently been argued that the escape of Goeben had ‘no effect on anything very much’ as the Turks had already signed an alliance with Germany.[3] This ignores the developments which occurred in September and October 1914 and which made it feasible that, without the presence of the German ships, Turkey could, if so inclined, have kept out of the war indefinitely. It should be obvious that, despite the fact of the Turco-German alliance on 2 August, little had happened since. On the day after the signing a British Admiral still remained in charge of the Turkish fleet and would continue to do so for another month.

August 1914, and a British Admiral is in charge of the Turkish fleet! Didn't you just tell us that at that time Britain had already declared war on Turkey?

By September, German hopes that Turkey would participate actively in the war rested with Enver Pasha, the Minister for War, whose position was not strong enough to allow for his taking unilateral action. Enver’s first attempt to force the issue – his authorization to Souchon on 14 September to patrol in the Black Sea in an endeavour to manufacture an incident – soon fell foul of the waverers in the Turkish Cabinet.

Enver Pascha, mark that name.

As a direct result of this political defeat Souchon, on 20 September, felt able to send only Breslau into the Black Sea and then for a matter of a few scant hours. This merely succeeded in spurring Enver on; the following day, realizing that Turkish authorization of Souchon’s provocative cruises would be unobtainable in the near future, Enver declared that Souchon had a right to maintain German interests, even if these conflicted with Turkish.

By now, the Goeben and the Breslau were in theory Turkish ships, and Souchon a Turkish commander. And now Enver Pascha, the Turkish minister of war, sends them on a mission that is in blatant violation of Turkish interests?! I think 'traitor' is the appropriate word here...

Further pressure was applied by the Germans early in October when Richard von Kühlmann was dispatched from Berlin with a brief to ensure Turkey’s speedy entry into the war.

Can you explain this to me, Ned? I thought Turkey and Britain were already at war at that time?

Enver therefore had little choice but to force the issue before news was received of a setback to German arms.

To accomplish this task his method of attack was two-pronged: a demand for German gold which, when forthcoming, at least invoked a moral debt for Turkey to enter the lists and second, if all else failed, a direct order to Souchon to attack Russian ships. The Turkish demand for T£2 million on 11 October was quickly met by the Germans: all the gold had arrived in Constantinople by 21 October.

Apparently 2 million pounds is the price for a middle-sized power to declare war on Britain.

This was not as conclusive as it might have seemed however, as previous shipments had been sent to little effect. Mallet, the British Ambassador, had already surmised that the Turks might be playing with the Germans, ‘and having obtained from them soldiers, sailors, cannons, supplies, money and promises they are now showing great and increased reluctance to pay the bill.’[5] Similarly, when on 23 October Mallet became aware of the latest shipment of gold, he maintained that this ‘need not indicate immediate declaration of war’.[6]

Huh? Still no war? By now the Entente had dozens of reasons to declare war on Turkey, not the other way around.

The only sure means by which Enver could force his country into the war rested solely with the command of Admiral Souchon. Enver had little choice — on 25 October 1914 he issued the following order to Souchon:

The entire fleet should manoeuvre in Black Sea. When you find a favourable opportunity, attack the Russian fleet. Before initiating hostilities, open my secret order personally given you this morning. To prevent transport of material to Serbia, act as already agreed upon. Enver Pasha.

[Secret order] The Turkish fleet should gain mastery of Black Sea by force. Seek out the Russian fleet and attack her wherever you find her without declaration of war. Enver Pasha.[7]

As soon as I post some sources you don't like, you ignore them and they disappear from the discussion. On the other hand you want me to disprove all your assumptions and suspicions.

Not anymore. From now on I will repeat my arguments until you comment on them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre

Since you don't provide a source, I don't care what you are saying in these paragraphs. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but unless you give me a link or a quote I simply do not care.

It's that same Superior Force link you gave me. Most of this is also mentioned in the summary chapter attached.

Much of this information comes, it seems, from a "court martial" of the British admiral who let the two German ships get to Constantinople. Their getting through combined with the siezure of the two battleships got the Ottomans in the war on the side of the Germans. But as the evidence unfolded, it appeared that the the Admirality was the real culprit in the escape as Churchill had order the British squadron not to engage "superior force," meaning the two German ships.

As to the positioning of the fleets, that is there too, as well as the summary of the negotiations and cabinet meetings that lead to the decision to go to war. It was the fleet positioning issue that was decisive in Britain's decision to support France.

[Ned]

Regardless of the legality of the seizures, even the article notes how damaging the siezure was to British-Ottoman relations. This could not have been an accident. There were ways to delay delivery of the ships without doing what Churchill did when he did it. The article notes one: damage or faults discovered during sea trials.

The same article notes just how bellicose Churchill was during cabinet meetings, taking up to half their time in his arguing for war -- all this well prior to any Belgian incident.

As for the British expedition to Basra, the initial orders were cut well prior to any German/Turkish attack on Russia. They just waited in Bahrein until the Turks did something first.

A pretext.

[Ned]

As to your quoted materials, I have answered your points.

To embellish:

1) Germany wanted Turkey in the war on the side of Germany. Agreed.

2) British policy wanted Turkey neutral or for Turkey to strike the first blow.

3) Churchill wanted to go to war with Germany and with Turkey regardless of the Belgian pretexts or other pretexts.

4) Churchill deliberately siezed the two Turk battleships to provoke Turkey, arranged for the two German warships to reach Constantinople, and arranged for the French fleet to move, in mass, to the Mediterranean, promising to guard the French coast facing Britain (prior to any British decision to enter the war).

Both Britain and Turkey fell into pre-arranged traps that triggered war. The traps were set by Churchill.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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."

Not at all- they invaded Poland.

Hence the 'excuse' of a fake Polish attack on a German radio installation.

'Operation Canned Goods', Ned.

Been here before.

Apparently you think wars only begin when Great Britain declares a war on someone. Except in World War One, when it suits you to say that the contractually legal seizure of two ships by Great Britain was an 'act of war'.

Which it wasn't.


My, you're nothing if not inconsistent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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

I've never said that and I don't think anyone else has argued that; it's you that keeps droning on interminably about France and Great Britain 'declaring war on Nazi Germany'.

But of course in the instance of the First World War, you're happy to repeat the lie that the British commenced a war with the Ottoman Empire- before the Ottoman Empire began hostilities against Russia.


Your logic escapes me.


Your reasons don't.

Saying that Germany started World War II (a war against Britain and France)

A war against Britain and France ? Who on earth gave that definition for World War II ?

Some itinerant t.v. programme maker from the Nedaverse, where books and documents are shunned in favour of the miracle of the all revealing Military Channel and the all-seeing eye of the Internet ?


Stop, you're making my sides ache with laughing.

It is also possible to some degree to say that Austria started World War I when it declared war on Serbia.

D'ya think ?


What gave it away- the shelling of Belgrade by Austria-Hungary, or the troops crossing into Serbia ?

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

I've been over this before.


I've quoted the Kaiser's notes on a memorandum from the German ambassador to Austria-Hungary, saying the Serbs had satisfied Austrian demands.

Who knows the situation better, Ned, him or you ?

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.

Perhaps instead of inaccurate paraphrases (a specialite of Ned's maison) you could do me the civility of quoting me directly.

I do it with your posts.


It is not what I have said at all.

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

So firstly having printed something I haven't said, you then accuse me of lying about something I haven't said.

Brilliant. You should be a politician- or a lawyer. I hear mendacity pays off in those professions.

But then how would you know about decisions of state of the German Empire ? You show no signs of having read any deliberations of Tirpitz, or Bethmann-Hollweg, or the Kaiser's council.

It's easy to make things up when one inhabits a state of blissful ignorance, is it not Ned ?

the very thing that molly is so quick to accuse me of when he refers to the so-called Nediverse.

I only accuse you of printing lies when I catch you doing so. And I quote or refer to the lie directly.

As I've done with you before Ned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of the legality of the seizures,

Excuse me ?


You were the one asserting (sans proof of any kind) that this was 'an act of war'.

Changed your mind ? (for a better one, we hope)

This could not have been an accident.

Why ? If the German-Turkish alliance was still a secret (as seems likely, since Enver Pasha managed to keep it from members of the Ottoman government) then why is the seizure in a time of approaching war of two ships by the British government anything other than unfortunate ?


Great Britain was not at war with the Ottoman Empire when the ships were impounded; the sequestration was (despite your unfounded accusations) not an act of war, so there was no casus belli. The British had an admiral advising the Turkish navy, and were telling the Ottomans to acquire torpedo boats.

Which would actually prove to be used against the forces of the Entente.

You are very far from showing that the British would have declared war on the Ottoman Empire had the newly acquired German ships in the Ottoman navy not shelled Russian Black Sea ports.

The British were already in Cyprus, Kuwait, southern Iran, Egypt and Aden, Oman, et cetera- along with the French they were heavily invested in the Turkish economy and the British government had pressured British financiers to cooperate with cash-strapped German backers of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway.

Had Turkey not declared war on Russia (having secretly allied with Germany) I see no valid reason for the British to begin a war with the Ottoman Empire- certainly not when those forces could have been better employed on the Western or Eastern Fronts.

The same article notes just how bellicose Churchill was during cabinet meetings, taking up to half their time in his arguing for war

And imagine! He was indeed right to be, for the German military were pressing for a war.

As for the British expedition to Basra, the initial orders were cut well prior to any German/Turkish attack on Russia. They just waited in Bahrein until the Turks did something first.

They were ?

Can we see them ?

If you assert this as a fact, then surely in the Nedaverse, there must be a copy of them, yes ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


2) British policy wanted Turkey neutral

Yes, we know this.

or for Turkey to strike the first blow.

At no point have you shown that the British government wanted a war with Turkey.

In fact, as I've just shown there were several good reasons why the British DID NOT want a war with Turkey.

I hardly think an oil industry in Mosul (which was still in development) was worth an extra year or two on the Western Front and all that lost shipping and capital.

Churchill wanted to go to war with Germany

Could you show this, by quoting Churchill or Cabinet minutes or Hansard ?


There are quite a few biographies of Churchill, autobiography and several rather good histories of the First World War and British history from 1900 onwards.


Please be so good as to find an appropriate quote for the period from Churchill.

Your 'opinion', such as it is, I value at a gnat's fart.

Churchill wanted to go to war with Turkey

From what date ? Please be specific.

Churchill deliberately siezed the two Turk battleships to provoke Turkey

Assertion not supported by the facts.

Churchill arranged for the two German warships to reach Constantinople, and arranged for the French fleet to move, in mass, to the Mediterranean

Amazing. So being in charge of the Admiralty in Great Britain also gives you command over the French fleet too.

When did this happen ?

The traps were set by Churchill.

Yes- he arranged for Bismarck to manoeuvre Louis Napoleon to declare war on Prussia, lose that Franco-Prussian War, for the German Empire to impose a humiliating peace on France and confiscate French territory and inflict an indemnity to pay for the war.

Then he arranged for the Germans to adopt the Schlieffen Plan and adhere to it.

Oh, and don't forget, Churchill also ran the Serb Secret Service, it was Churchill not Gavril Princip who assassinated Franz Ferdinand, he broke the bank at Monte Carlo, he knew the woman who did, and the man who was Thursday, and he made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.

Busy man, Churchill.

[Ecthy]

You two talk about the same stuff in 3 separate threads now. How about merging the 3 discussions into one only?

Molly vs. Ned. The Showdown.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You two talk about the same stuff in 3 separate threads now. How about merging the 3 discussions into one only?

Molly vs. Ned. The Showdown.

It would be a very unfair fight.

Unless of course, facts were outlawed, and delusions were the weapons of choice.

[Ned]

molly, I attached a MS Work document containing the entire summarizing chapter for "Superior Force" and a link to the entire book which is on the web. ElTigre provided me the link in the first place.

I read most of the work before I made my comments. Most of the support for what I said is in the summary. But the whole work is worthy of a good read.

If, after you have read my cited authority you disagree with my summary of it or of my conclusions, we can discuss them in more detail.

[Ned]

Just a few date to help this discussion:

Oct. 3, orders are cut for the British troops to move from India to Persia to confront the Ottoman Empire (i.e., defend the Brit oil fields in Persia) and threaten invasion. Why?

British policy at the time still wanted Turkey neutral, but Churchill wanted Turkey to expel the two German cruisers and/or their crew which the Turks had by now purchased. He sent an August 19 message, quoted above by ElTigre, conditioning the return of the two siezed battleships on expelling the German warships' German crew from Turkey, saying in no unmistakable terms that Turkey's sheltering of the two warships with their German crew still on board was hostile to Britain and was not consistent with being a neutral.

The Brits reconsidered landing the Indian force on the borders of the Ottoman Empire, as they wanted the Turks to make the first hostile act. Held the at Bahrein.

On October 29, Enver Pasha arranged for the German warships to attack the Russians under Ottoman flags.

On November 2, the Brits issued orders for the Bahrein force to move (to Persia) and then to invade and take Basra. The orders arrive on Nov. 6 -- see below for more.

On November 2, the Brit fleet attacks the Ottoman forts on the Dardanelles on Churchill's orders.

On November 2, Russia and Serbia declared war on the Ottoman Empire.

On November 6, the Brits and French declared war on the Ottoman empire, citing the attacks of the Germans warships on Russia.

On November 14, the Indian force takes Basra. See below.

Later, the Brits court-martial one of the admirals who let the two German ships get to Constantinople. But the evidence shows that Churchill ordered the British fleet not to engage the two German warships in the so-called "Superior Force" telegram. Admiral Kerr, then commanding the Greek navy, helped arrange for the two warships to get to Constantinople by keeping their destination from the Admiral in charge of the chase.

"The eventual destination of Goeben and Breslau (a mystery to the British until the ships actually reached the Dardanelles) was common knowledge amongst ruling circles in Athens some hours before Britain declared war on Germany. Privy to this secret was Rear-Admiral Mark Kerr, the British Officer at the head of the Greek Navy. For three vital days Kerr kept the secret to himself; then, when it was almost too late, he fed the Admiralty clues which were, however, not acted upon.

In addition to being the most complete account of the dramatic escape yet published, Superior Force, for the first time, reveals the extent of the Athens conspiracy and the ambivalent rôle played by Mark Kerr who, soon after, would also remove any chance of Greek co-operation in the major offensive planned by Churchill against the Turks at the Dardanelles. Few men can genuinely be said to have changed history; by his actions in Athens in the summer of 1914 Mark Kerr is one of those few."

http://www.manorhouse.clara.net/book3/superior.htm

Now, the Churchill "superior force" order could have been a mistake; but you start adding this up with other facts, such as Kerr's behavior, it does begin to appear that driving Turkey to join the war on Germany's side was intentional on the part of some Brits, including Churchill. Clearly his Nov. 2 order to bombard the Ottoman forts was intended to force the issue. That order was issued prior to the British decision to declare war.

"Where this battle took place
Basra is a city on the River Euphrates, inland from where the river flows into the head of the Persian Gulf. In 1914 it had a population of 60000, of a mixture of Christians and Muslims. The city is an island cut off from the mainland when the rivers flood. Land communications are most difficult, with few roads along the banks of the rivers, and none inland. Today the city is called Al-Basrah.


Battle timeline
16 October 1914
The convoy containing Indian Expeditionary Force 'D' moved from Bombay and sailed straight to the head of the Gulf, without stopping, anchored off Bahrein.
5 November 1914
The orders given to Brig-General W.S.Delamain - commanding the Force - were to protect the oil refineries, tanks and pipeline at Abadan and cover the landing of reinforcements if these should be required. Only if hostilities with Turkey were to become fact should he try to occupy Basra too, and to do this the rest of the 6th (Poona) Division of the Indian Army would arrive. News came through that Turkey had attacked Russia on the Black Sea coast, and war was declared on this day.
6 November 1914
600 British troops including some Royal Marines were landed near the old fort at Fao, which they captured. The rest of the Force sailed on to a place where they could safely disembark, at Sanniyeh. Considerable difficulty was encountered, as there were no barges, tugs or small boats suitable, and land transport was poor. These were factors that remained throughout the Mesopotamia campaign.
11 November 1914
British camp was attacked by 400 Turks. The attack was repulsed with heavy loss, and the Turks withdrew some four miles.
12 November 1914
A reconnaissance in force inflicted further losses on the Turks near Saihan. Conditions were poor, with thick dust, mud and heat mirage. The remainder of the Poona Division now landed.
19 November 1914
Early in the day the 16th and 18th Brigades attacked the Turk fortress at Zain, in a heavy rainstorm which slowed the advance to a walk. After an accurate bombardment the fort fell, leaving over 1000 Turkish casualties; the rest of the enemy streamed away, saved only by a mirage appearing which obscured the fleeing target of the British artillery. Cavalry were unable to pursue due to the heavy mud. British casualties in the advance of 2000 yards of open ground were 353. The Turks tried hurriedly to block the river by towing a string of ships across and sinking them. However, a cable broke and left a gap wide enough for one vessel at a time to pass.
20 November 1914
General Sir Arthur Barrett, commanding the Poona Division, received news from a local Arab Sheikh that the Turks had withdrawn and abandoned Basra. Two battalions (104th Wellesley's Rifles and 117th Mahrattas) embarked immediately and sailed to Basra. After their retreat from Basra, the Turks took up a position where they could make stand against a further British advance. The best position was at Qurna (see below).
21 November 1914
104th Wellesley's Rifles and 117th Mahrattas enter Basra in the evening. The British officially took possession on the 23rd.

Battle summary
In this action the British secured oil supplies in the Middle East: this had immense strategic implications, as this oil field supplied most of the Royal Navy's fuel. To the Turks, the loss of Basra caused more loss of face than strategic damage. British casualties were fewer than 500. Turkish casualties were not less than 1000.

http://www.1914-1918.net/meso_bat1.htm

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

As for the British expedition to Basra, the initial orders were cut well prior to any German/Turkish attack on Russia. They just waited in Bahrein until the Turks did something first.

A pretext.

The Turkish attack was a pretext for the British attack in Mesopotamia?

It would have been a pretext only if the British would have attacked anyway. However the orders in your source clearly state that they were to attack ONLY in case of a war. The war began with the Turkish attack, the British DOW formalized the matter, and the attack happened after the DOW.

No, not a pretext. The Turkish attack was precondition for the British attack.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
As to your quoted materials, I have answered your points.

A flat out lie. You never replied to the quotes which detail the German actions that brought the Ottoman Empire into the war.

To embellish:

1) Germany wanted Turkey in the war on the side of Germany. Agreed.

Let me get this strait: 2 German arrive at Istanbul and pressure the government of the Ottoman Empire into a pro-German stance. Then a German commander used 2 Turkish ships to attack Russia, and summarized his on actions with the following statement: "‘I have thrown the Turks into the powder-keg and kindled war between Russia and Turkey.’ Then Germany "buys" a Turkish entry into the war with 2 Million pounds.

And you summarize the above with "Germany wanted Turkey in the war on the side of Germany"?!



Germany did a little more than just looking longingly in the general direction of Istanbul, right?

We're not talking about what Germany wanted (this is so obvious we don't even have to mention it), we are talking about what Germany did. The above actions are the real reason why Turkey joined the war, and your refusal to even acknowledge these fact makes you look really silly.

2) British policy wanted Turkey neutral or for Turkey to strike the first blow.

I would go even further and say that Britain wanted the Ottoman Empire to join the war on the side of the Entente.

3) Churchill wanted to go to war with Germany and with Turkey regardless of the Belgian pretexts or other pretexts.

You failed to prove this so far. But keep trying.

4) Churchill deliberately siezed the two Turk battleships to provoke Turkey,

He legally seized the 2 ships in order to strengthen the Royal Navy when "the lights went out in Europe".

arranged for the two German warships to reach Constantinople,

Oh really? Lets have a look at superiorforce.com again:

"While it is unlikely in the extreme that there existed an organized conspiracy to allow the German ships to escape involving any or all of the Foreign Office, Admiralty, Milne or Troubridge, there is a strong case for believing that factions in Athens, knowing of the Turco-German alliance and the destination of the ships, actively conspired to ensure their escape"

Admirality = Churchill

and arranged for the French fleet to move, in mass, to the Mediterranean, promising to guard the French coast facing Britain (prior to any British decision to enter the war).

Funny. How can Churchill, the First Sea Lord, arrange for a treaty that alters the entire naval strategy of Britain and France and keep this treaty secret from his own government. Even funnier is the thought that France would expose its entire northern coast because of an illegal treaty, which was not signed by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister. Can you quote some paragraphs from superiorforce.com that would shed some light on this?

Both Britain and Turkey fell into pre-arranged traps that triggered war. The traps were set by Churchill.

Now this is interesting. Apparently you've now changed your basic stance from "evil, evil Britain" to "evil, evil Churchill". So the above discussion managed to convince you that the British people and government are actually not guilty of starting WW1?